News

Kill the Lights

The City's New LED Streetlights Could Drive You Crazy and Make You Fat—Seriously

Kill the Lights

Kelly O

THIS IS A TEST One of the “zombie blue” lights on 22nd Avenue East. More test lights 
will go up in South Park next month.

During the day, the block of bungalows and houses at 22nd Avenue East and East Mercer Street looks like most of Capitol Hill. But at night, it looks crazy. This is one of seven test areas in the neighborhood where Seattle City Light swapped the high-pressure sodium streetlights, which emit a warm orange hue, with glaring LEDs. City officials want to replace all 40,000 residential streetlamps in Seattle with the new light-emitting diodes by next year to save energy and money. But the lights cast a sickening hue. "It is a very cold color—zombie blue," says Dan Travers, who lives on the block. "My first thought was that people are going to look scary under these lights."

"It looks like you are in a supermarket aisle," says Andie deRoux, who lives in an apartment building seven blocks west of Travers. Abby Katzman, who has lived on the eastern slope of Capitol Hill for 20 years, says, "I like the energy it saves, but it does seem very cool and wintery."

On the shortest night of the year, just after dark at 11:00 p.m., I walked to each of Seattle City Light's test areas to see what's sparking revulsion from Travers and others who live under the lights. The beams from the high-intensity, light-emitting diodes are striking. The rays turned my skin the color of white taffy and cast crisp shadows on the pavement. "Zombie blue" is exactly right: Like a day-for-night special effect in a vampire movie, the test streetlights create the sort of atmosphere where you almost expect the undead to emerge from the flower beds and begin eating your face. Everyone I spoke to enthusiastically supported the idea of the LEDs—which require 50 to 60 percent less electricity for the same lumens—but most resented the quality of the light itself.

The problem with the new lights isn't just aesthetic. According to Dr. David Avery—a professor of behavioral sciences and light therapy at the University of Washington and the region's leading researcher on the impact of light on human chemistry—the LED lights could interfere with human biorhythms. Certain photoreceptors in the eye's retina react to cooler colors of the light spectrum, sending a signal to the brain that the sun is up. When humans see the blue light, our bodies think it's daytime. "The sensitivity to these cells for the blue and greenish color makes perfect sense, because the sky is blue. So for millions of years, life has evolved with this 24-hour rhythm of blue light being very prominent for part of the day and then darkness," he says. "This is kind of a conductor of a circadian symphony in the brain and body."

According to Avery, "Theoretically, if someone has one of these LEDs or a blue light outside their window, it could fool the eyes and the brain into thinking that the sun is still up, so the melatonin hormone might not rise normally and sleep might be disrupted." Incandescent lights, the standard bulb in homes, are on the red end of the spectrum. (You may think of them as being white, but they're not.) Shifting the city's primary outdoor lighting to blue-hued LEDS, Avery adds, "would be a major change in terms of our environment." Studies suggest that people exposed to daylight at the wrong hours, like those who work night shift, have more health problems such as high blood pressure and obesity, Avery says.

Mayor Greg Nickels wants most Seattle residents to be living under new streetlights by 2015. Seattle City Light intends to install the lights specifically in residential areas—not commercial arterials or industrial zones, which require more illumination than LEDs can affordably provide.

"They would save about nine million kilowatt hours and about $408,000 a year," says Seattle City Light spokesman Scott Thomsen. An LED lamp uses only 50 watts, while traditional high-pressure sodium bulbs require 130 watts and waste electricity on heat. The conserved power roughly equates to the energy used by 750 single-family houses a year, Thomsen says. Moreover, the LED lamps last three to four times longer—up to 18 years—which drastically reduces maintenance costs to the city. (The city currently pays about $100 in labor costs to replace each dead bulb.)

But LED fixtures cost much more. Whereas the bulbs in the existing fixtures (awesomely dubbed "cobra heads") cost about $15, the LED lamps are part and parcel with their fixtures and each costs $300 to replace, says Edward Smalley, Seattle City Light's streetlight engineering manager. "The real payout for the city, to the customer, is not having to go out to change the light." Funding to kick-start the program comes from a $6.1 million federal stimulus grant to reduce energy use. Of that, $1 million will go toward installing the first 2,500 streetlamps next year, assuming the Department of Energy approves the expenditure this summer. If the city council expands the program, new streetlamps citywide will cost about $20 million.

City officials acknowledge the test lights aren't great. (A different brand of LED is being tested at each site, or in some cases the same brand at different levels of brightness.) Although some people like the lights, other people in the test areas have been complaining—in one area, the reaction from residents has been so intense that Seattle City Light is canceling that test site. And it is continuing to look for better technologies. There's a relationship between a light's warmth and how much energy it saves. High-pressure sodium lights, which give off that night orange glow, emit light at about 2200 degrees Kelvin. But the pilot LEDs are between 5000 and 6000 Kelvin. While Smalley acknowledges the new lights are "a lot bluer, for sure, than what we have now," LEDs as warm as the old lights aren't energy efficient enough to be practical. Seattle City Light will begin testing slightly warmer-hued streetlamps in Seattle's South Park neighborhood in late July. "We are looking at 4000 degrees Kelvin and above, so that way we can provide the best comfort for the city and the energy savings that we are looking for."

Anchorage has begun installing 16,000 LEDs streetlamps, San Francisco has announced it will convert 30,000 streetlamps, and Los Angeles has announced plans to convert 140,000 lamps. Smalley says that technology to produce energy-efficient LEDs with a more palatable hue is evolving, with new generations of lights emerging as quickly as every six months.

Considering the bulbs live longer than most pets, the city should take as much time as necessary to pick a light we can live with for a while. "For those folks who dislike the lights, I say stay tuned and look to our next test sites like South Park. We have not locked into what you see out on the street now," says Smalley. If you want to complain about (or—if you're a zombie—praise) the LEDs, you can call Mike Eagan at his desk: 615-1691. You can even request a 10-question survey to express your opinions about them. recommended

Share via

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Email
 

Comments (45) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Kill the lights before they kill us. Blood in the streets. Great headline.
I am glad Dr. Avery was given the soap box, here. Is there any areas of our grid that could benefit from the cost saving yet 'ugly/unhealthy' lighting? I'll leave it to more expert hands, but, this is something worth following. Saving on energy and maintanence seems like a good idea to me. As long as it is safe and effective, sign me up.
Posted by Nuclear Marc on June 24, 2009 at 1:18 PM · Report
Violet_DaGrinder 2
Geezus christ. I say this as a native, ok, so spare me the steaming plate of hater tots:

SEATTLE RESIDENTS ARE THE WHINIEST BUNCH OF BITCHES ON THE FACE OF THE MUTHERFUCKING PLANET!

If it is theoretically possible to complain about something, no matter how ridiculous, WE WILL DO IT.

Efficient, environmentally-friendly streetlights? That's awesome! We should totally have some of those. Test sites? Fuck test sites. Stupid, stupid city-running people, don't you know better than to give us a chance to form an opinion? JUST DO IT.
Posted by Violet_DaGrinder http://www.imeem.com/jukeboxmusic51/music/y1malqpG/prince-the-new-power-generation-featuring-eric-leeds-on-f/ on June 24, 2009 at 5:23 PM · Report
3
Eh. They're LED's. They can plug in some different colors if they want to, to tweak the hue.
Posted by fdlds on June 24, 2009 at 11:15 PM · Report
4
Why don't they just create a filter or a shield that makes the light less glaring?
Posted by thelovingwarrior on June 24, 2009 at 11:41 PM · Report
5
I like the sodium-vapor orange hue.
Posted by Joe Schmoe on June 25, 2009 at 7:24 AM · Report
Dominic Holden 6
@ 3) Reread the third-to-last paragraph.

@ 4) Good question; we didn't have room in the article to answer that. Filters and gels decrease the amount of light emitted by the LEDs, Seattle City Light officials say. So covering the light would require increasing the wattage--increasing the electricity required--and thereby negating the energy savings.
Posted by Dominic Holden on June 25, 2009 at 8:50 AM · Report
7
1. There are filters, or diffusers. If you go to the University Bridge at the south corner you can see a diffuser on an LED fixture in practice. It is a wall pack sconce on the bascule portion being tested side-by-side with an HPS (high pressure sodium, not sodium vapor) fixture. You can really see the difference.

2. LEDs have a higher Color Rendering Index that allows a driver to better recognize color differences and therefore better recognize objects in or along the roadway.

3. Before HPS, the City used mercury vapor fixtures that were much closer in color to LEDs than HPS.
Posted by John Doe on June 25, 2009 at 1:02 PM · Report
8
Maybe it would decrease the rates of depression in the winter.
Posted by Raynhawk on June 25, 2009 at 4:47 PM · Report
9
Your article did not mention alternative lighting technologies that the city is also testing. In Pioneer Square and adjacent to Magnolia Park in Magnolia, the city is testing Fluorescent Induction street lights. Fluorescent induction technology does not utilize an internal cathode (the filament that provides the electrical arc that energies the lamp - also the part that usually fails after time in a fluorescent bulb). Consequently, induction lamps last for 50,000 hour or more - equivalent to current LED technologies. Induction fixtures generally cost less than LED fixtures and can be more energy-efficient as well.

Your article also failed to mention the benefits of higher CRI and higher color temperature light. As humans age, it is quite common for our corneas to begin to yellow. This yellowing of the corneas can begin to filter out light at the lower (more yellow) end of the visual spectrum. Hence, older people tend to see more clearly under high color temperature (more blue) light.

Finally, there is a growing school of lighting researchers and professionals, who believe that the human eye actually sees better in higher CRI and higher color temperature light. The equivalent of our eye's 'sweet spot', there are certain ranges within the visual spectrum, where we actually see better. Known as scotopically enhanced light, this is light that measured scotopically, light seen by the rods (not cones)in your eyes. Traditionally, we have only measured light photopically (light seen by the cones in the eye), but modern research suggests that rods and cones function together more than previously believed. This mesopic range where rods and cones function together is where our eyes reach their peak sensitivity. The net result is that we perceive brightness better under scotopically enhanced light. This ties back to the street lighting issue in that, with high CRI/high color temperature light, the light appears brighter to the eye than to conventional light meters. Since the light appears brighter, we don't need as much light to see with the same visual acuity. So by changing the quality of the light, we can actually reduce the amount of light needed and reduce the amount of energy needed to produce the light, with out reducing our ability to 'see' in the space.
More...
Posted by Lighting Dork on June 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM · Report
Rev.Smith 10
Perhaps the issue lies in rethinking streetlights entirely: we're here only discussing the changing of lamps/bulbs. On an antiquated system. That's like putting the latest bridgestone tire technology on a model T: you still have limitations in the original design.

Perhaps the 3 to 4-story tall streetlight posts meant to light things (cars, people, animals) on a human scale could be part of the problem????

I know this crazy talk, but let's not rule out redesigning roads entirely? Design them with drainage, lighting, snowremoval, etc baked right in...?

At bare minimum, we should look at lowering the lighting position: a huge part of the waste is trying to light the entire street from one post high up in the air - you end up paying a premium to light a whole lot of bugs and air, and much of the light-level at the source is lost travelling the distance to the ground. It's wasteful - like trying to light the soprano on stage from the lobby.
Brainstorm options off the top of my head:
1. Street lights that focus exactly where you need the light (rather than random flood), say, with thin plastic fresnel lenses.
2. Street lights lowered to 10-15' height - smaller lamps needed for shorter throw distance. 12' should be fine to light up most sidewalks, streets, parking spots. Yes, it might mean more light sources needed, but look into the real long-term cost of the current system versus the cheap alternative of LED lamps & fixtures.
3. LED Footlights built into the side of the sidewalk curb: hell, take it a step further and have a few sections of sidewalk double as solar cell for power.
4. color correction media or color filters to warm up LED color temperature. You don't need to make it orange, you just need to warm it enough to get the NIMBYs to shut up.
5. Small urban neighborhoods (Little Italy comes to mind)have known this trick for about 100 years now: string lights aka party lights hung above the street itself light the block better and with much less wattage than streetlights. Cheap materials with some arguably higher labor -[ I'd rather the city money go to pay local electricians' work than into GE's pocket (or korean and chinese lamp manufacturers' pockets)]. Use the newer warm-white LED string lights ($5-$9 @ target), which will last 5 years or so. Drawback is light pollution, but I'd like to see the cost difference on paper before considering light pollution's impact: I bet the financial difference would be astounding.
6. Internal lighting imbedded in the roadway. Imagine little dots/dashes of light rather than paint . Taking it further; Set up fields of them in intersections that serve as crude jumbotrons, and sell ad space/time to sponsers - you get an ad for the Sounders as you wait at the red light - ad goes dark as light changes.
7. Transparent roads lit from underneath by fiberoptics / telecom utility lines.
8. Motion sensor / heat sensor activated lights: much like restrooms and stairwells, the lights do not need to be on all night long - only when in use . LED's can do this best, since they have no overlong & stupid power-up/warmup time like typical street lights. Huge savings AND a cut in light pollution!! (AND a de facto security system for your neighborhood block)
9. Glow-in-dark 'technology': paint roads in light-absorbing glow-in-the-dark paint?
10. Moving lights: LED floods are being used in architectural and artistic applications (ex: Outside Seattle Opera, and those are circa 2002 technology) - save power and need fewer fixtures by setting moving lights to slowly sweep the street. Better yet, combine motion-detection and targeting, to have the lights focus on people, bikes and cars moving through its zone.

Be glad we're not using zombie green gaslight.
More...
Posted by Rev.Smith on June 25, 2009 at 10:35 PM · Report
Rev.Smith 11
oh, I forgot another :
11. On cloudy nights (200+ of them, no?) - point focused lighting into the clouds and use the bounce light as street light.

=)
Posted by Rev.Smith on June 25, 2009 at 10:41 PM · Report
Karlheinz Arschbomber 12
Rev-Smith: Astronomers everywhere will 'love' you for this suggestion. Love you to the point where you become one of the zombies mentioned in this story....
Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arschbombe on June 26, 2009 at 8:11 AM · Report
13
very simple:with one do you want:streetlights with let us see at night in a car or walking,OR no streetlights with we cant see the road and we crash into what we dont see at night{be it a deer a telphone pole or a person}and crime increases{rape,robbery,murder,ETC}because we can't see it???think about it..i know my choice,what's yours?
Posted by the legend of zelda on June 26, 2009 at 2:25 PM · Report
Catalina Vel-DuRay 14
Rev Smith, streetlights are placed at 25-35 feet from grade, depending the type of street it's on (unless it's a highway interchange, and that's WashDOT's call)

I have to say, streetlights are the most thorniest issue I face in my work. The very few people who care about them are passionate about them. Just the other day I had a lengthy exchange with a guy who thinks they should be eliminated on side streets on Capitol Hill. I pointed out that there are quite a few people who want more of them because of safety, and he told me the streets would be safer with no streetlights because nobody could see to commit crimes.

Me, I'm firmly in Violet's camp. I'm all for conservation, and I think if we had just changed them, no one would notice. Now it will become a big drama. Or, as Divine so famously said "Now what? More soiled laundry for mommy, l suppose...."

Get me a bromide. And put some gin in it.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://post.thestranger.com/seattle/MyProfile?oid=1500457 on June 26, 2009 at 7:05 PM · Report
15
I remember when Seattle changed from mercury vapor (@ 7) to sodium lights and the complaints of the unnatural orange glow.

I wonder if any studies noticed health changes such as lower blood pressure, better sleep habits or weight loss when the sodium lights were introduced.
Posted by lou402 on June 26, 2009 at 10:14 PM · Report
Rev.Smith 16
Karlheinz arschtroller: are you referring to brainstorm suggestion #11?
In which case: a) it was a list to prove there are over ten OTHER ways to do this, (and 11 is not at all my first choice suggestion). b) is it possible for astronomers to get any star-voyeur action on overcast nights anyway...? Seattle's not known for much in the way of astronomer /observation stations.

Catalina: thanks for the specifics. My driving question remains: WHY are they at that height? And why use that position with LED lamps? The model T anaology remains...

And no lights on cap hill side streets guy has taken a few too many trips to bat country. Yikes! NO lights on side streets? W T F.

Posted by Rev.Smith on June 27, 2009 at 2:16 AM · Report
Catalina Vel-DuRay 17
Rev.Smith, why, I don't know. I do know that some of it has to do with issues of safety for the various line workers (you have to be a journey level lineworker to be able to work with secondary or primary voltages. Cable and phone people don't have that training, so their lines are lower on the poles)

It seems like I was told at one time that lighting is dictated by S-DOT, using some sort of national standard that is undoubtedly car-centric. Since everything in utility work tends to be standardized, that would make sense.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://post.thestranger.com/seattle/MyProfile?oid=1500457 on June 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM · Report
18
I use Blue LED technology during the winter to treat my seasonal affect disorder. 15 - 20 minutes a day of this light is all I need to re-set my rhythms. Blue light is very, very effective. If they convert the light outside my bedroom window to LED, my insomnia will be year round if I let the light live... so in an effort to sleep I will likely shoot the light out with a sling shot or bb gun. We used to do this during my childhood for fun. Now it seems a matter of survival.
Posted by SAD on June 27, 2009 at 1:13 PM · Report
19
....Or you could just buy some fucking drapes, SAD. But no - just go the selfish asshole way and shoot the light out.

Actually, why don't you just kill yourself as a protest over how awful and unjust this is? We need less self-absorbed drama queens with their hypochondria in this stupid town.
Posted by Whaa Whaa Whaa on June 27, 2009 at 5:36 PM · Report
Reverse Polarity 20
Christ what a bunch of whiny bitches.

If the only complaint is the unsightly blueish cast, that is easily fixed.

(A) Use a gold reflector behind the bulb, rather than silver. The bulb itself will still have a blue cast, but the reflected light will be warmer, and will partially compensate. This will cause ZERO loss of light and will not use any more energy.

(B) Tint the glass dome cover. Yes, this will dim the light, but only a tiny amount. Colored gels are used to cover lights in photography, film, and theater. It wouldn't take a huge thick yellow cover, or you'd get light that looks like urine. Just a slight warming tint will change the color of the light, particularly if used in conjunction with a gold reflector. It won't absorb much light. It probably wouldn't even be noticeable.

If switching to LEDs will save energy AND money, then it is stupid as fuck not to do it just because you don't like the color tint. Especially when it is easily remedied. Do it, and do it now.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on June 28, 2009 at 12:00 AM · Report
21
Someday I'd like to be able to see the stars again. I think that is within reach by using enough light pointed to the right places --- not straight up into the air!

Anyway, astronomers and lighting engineers are working on that. Seems having the experiments is getting the results needed.
Posted by Just Saying on June 28, 2009 at 3:07 AM · Report
22
@20: Uh, how do you think a tinted reflector works? It dims the reflection, in the same way that a gel would, by absorbing some parts of the spectrum more that others. Trying to get warm light out of a cool LED with a reflector or gel involves blocking a lot of the output, due to the uneven spectral output. Check out "Phosphor based LEDs" on wikipedia.
Posted by RL is too lazy to log in on June 28, 2009 at 8:25 PM · Report
Will in Seattle 23
I just think you calling them Zombie Lights is a way of saying you want to be part of the thousands of Zombies that will be in Fremont this Friday night.

Zombies prefer halogens actually.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 29, 2009 at 1:19 PM · Report
spoiler alert 24
rather small scale, this, but we changed the lights in our showroom at work to compact flourescents. everyone freaked out because it looked freakin BLUE in there. now, six months later, i never ever notice it. yes, it takes time to adjust to something new (especially when people are flipping out and making a huge fuss over it), but you do adjust.
Posted by spoiler alert on June 29, 2009 at 1:27 PM · Report
25
"a near-universal sentiment of people living in the seven areas where the city is testing the LEDs is that the lights are unsettling"

So.... you conducted a survey of every resident, did you? Or are you just pulling that out your ass because it suits your agenda?
Posted by Try reporting, not advocating... on June 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM · Report
Will in Seattle 26
Heaven forbid they actually test different ones to see which ones are best to use.

They should have just imposed red LED lights and then let everyone complain about them, with no testing period.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on June 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM · Report
27
I gotta agree with # 2 on this one. What our city planners have yet to learn is that municipal programs need swift and sweeping implementation in order to keep the complainers at bay. Be like Mike, just do it.
Posted by presently out on June 29, 2009 at 4:15 PM · Report
28
Catalina: We have them on our block and, literally, the day after the first night with them all the neighbors got together and called the city to let them know how horrible the lights were. I live directly across the street from one and it comes through the curtain, under a door and still manages to light my bedroom on the other side of a hallway completely, just through a crack in the door.

They are HORRIBLE lights. WAY to bright and give way too much light polution.

It will actually be more expensive for the city in the end when we all start taking sling shots to them....
Posted by hate 'em on June 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM · Report
Gomez 29
Um, shut the blinds/drapes?
Posted by Gomez http://gomezticator.livejournal.com on June 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM · Report
BombasticMO 30
This piece came across as a smear campaign. If the neighbors you interviewed were that upset about the lights, you should have grabbed some stronger quotes. It sounds like they're pretty much on the fence.

I'm not convinced that this couldn't be a story, but this one comes across pretty one sided.
Posted by BombasticMO http://www.BombasticMo.com on June 30, 2009 at 7:23 AM · Report
31
Give every citizen in Seattle a pair of night vision goggles. Turn off all the street lights. Problem solved.
Posted by Aidan Hadley on June 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM · Report
32
Blue lights help you get a better night of rest:
http://sleep.med.harvard.edu/news/28/Blu…
Posted by John Doe on June 30, 2009 at 1:21 PM · Report
ajdl 33
@32, did you even read the article? It says it increases alertness during night, not helps you get a better night's sleep. "Subjects exposed to blue light were able to sustain a high level of alertness during the night when people usually feel most sleepy, and these results suggest that light may be a powerful countermeasure for the negative effects of fatigue for people who work at night.” It doesn't counteract fatigue by helping people sleep; it counteracts fatigue by making them less tired when they normally would be.
Posted by ajdl http:// on July 1, 2009 at 7:34 AM · Report
34
#2: "SEATTLE RESIDENTS ARE THE WHINIEST BUNCH OF BITCHES ON THE FACE OF THE MUTHERFUCKING PLANET!"
A-fucking-men. Let's all make sure to compost our pizza boxes while bitching about a change that might actually make a real difference.

I lived in one of the test sites until recently (in north Capitol Hill). For sure, the new lights looked weird, especially as this blue-ish island in the middle of a sea of orange glow; I was skeptical and ready to hate it. But, I have to say, I liked the new lights. Colors seemed truer, and it was easier to see. If it's going to save energy and maintenance costs while increasing safety by making the streets more visible at night, it seems like a good idea to me.
Posted by maps on July 1, 2009 at 9:53 AM · Report
Gomez 35
This piece came across as a smear campaign. If the neighbors you interviewed were that upset about the lights, you should have grabbed some stronger quotes. It sounds like they're pretty much on the fence.

I'm not convinced that this couldn't be a story, but this one comes across pretty one sided.


Dominic is an activist posing as an objective journalist. In other words, he fits in perfectly with the rest of the staff on this paper.
Posted by Gomez http://gomezticator.livejournal.com on July 1, 2009 at 9:24 PM · Report
turingcub 36
You mean an 'article' titled "Kill the Lights, They Make You Teh Fatty" is an op-ed piece, not objective journ-lolwut-ism? Noted!
Posted by turingcub http://transuranic.blogspot.com on July 2, 2009 at 11:21 AM · Report
37
interesting. i'm studying the effects of light pollution on ecosystems, so i've been talking to a lot of medical researchers and light technicians about what are the best lights for safety, and human and environmental health. any light that is visible to the human eye will have some detrimental influence on human health. even the (apparently beloved) high pressure sodium vapor lamps will do this--light exposure suppresses melatonin levels, making it more difficult to sleep and increasing risks for cancer and other diseases. while light reflecting off clouds isn't a big concern for astronomers since they typically can't see in overcast skies anyway (and professional astronomers generally work at observatories far from cities), it does have a large and negative impact on humans and other living things. we know very little about how artificial lighting can mess with ecosystems, that's why i'm doing research on it. interestingly, the lighting experts i've talked to say there is little evidence that increases in street lighting decrease crime. studies that have found a decrease in crime when newer/better lights were installed in pedestrian areas found commensurate decreases in day-time crime, suggesting that the lights were not responsible for the drop in crime. regardless, i would just like to remind people to think about fish, birds, amphibians, and insects (all animals that have demonstrated biologically significant alterations in their behavior in response to artificial light) besides just how we feel about the color.
Posted by ephemeroptera on July 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM · Report
38
mabye we will be carrying lanterns like back in the middle ages?{just kidding}:}
Posted by the legend of zelda on July 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM · Report
39
Amen, #37! But no one will listen.
Posted by beergarden on July 5, 2009 at 10:00 PM · Report
40
With better technology like LED's and halogens, officials should limit the quality of lumens (light output) rather that going by a rough energy wattage equivalency.
Bright bluish-white light can kill you - in a traffic accident. Reddish lights preserve your night vision better.
Studies also show that highly-lit areas have MORE crime, due to the uninhabited look (like a parking lot) and the contrasting darkness of the shadows (easy to hide in).
Higher rates of cancer have been found in areas without true darkness, and invasive wildlife and disrupted songbird activity.
And finally, areas without visible stars show a 20-40% drop in real estate value as street and house lighting increases.

Posted by izzy on July 6, 2009 at 3:27 AM · Report
41
I like the lights. It makes me feel like we're finally living in the future.
Posted by my_taxidermist on July 6, 2009 at 10:00 AM · Report
42
I like the lights. They make me feel like we're finally living in the future.
Posted by my_taxidermist on July 6, 2009 at 10:02 AM · Report
43
This sounds familiar.....oh yes, when the much whiter mercury vapor lamps were replaced with the yellow sodium vapor lamps. Sodium was more efficient, cut through fog better (no small thing in parts of Seattle) and made everyone look like they had liver disease. I remember in particular communities around research telescopes objecting; they were among the first in order to make the switch (The narrow yellow color band made light pollution less of a problem). I still find the yellow rather nausea inducing myself.


Not saying all that stuff in the article isn't true, just that we've been down a similar road 20-30 years ago and zombie blue may not be all that much worse than liver disease yellow.


I'm not enough to remember why/if people objected to mercury street lights.

Posted by david on July 6, 2009 at 10:57 AM · Report
44
Wow what a lot of good inforamtion in the article, and mis-information following.

"Blue light" (and for humans. at these levels, it has to be "blue") promotes wakefulness in humans by suppressing melatonin. Also, the presence of melatonin reduces the incidence and growth of cancer, and promotes sleep, reduces obesity etc. The day/night cycle is part of every animal and most plants - and these "very blue" lights will increase the effect on humans TREMENDOUSLY!

LEDs can be made in any "color" - but the cost and efficiency do go up for "warmer" (lower CCT) sources - but so what? Do we only filter some poisons from our water, because that's at the limit of what we will pay? (well yeah we do .. )

For more technically accurate information see the documents available at
http://www.mindspring.com/~resodance/RAM…
Posted by D, Keith on July 13, 2009 at 6:54 PM · Report
45
Kill the lights before they kill us.
Posted by diecasting http://www.bldiecasting.com on July 21, 2009 at 8:01 PM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in News

  • Out of Step Why Is Seattle's Port CEO Lobbying Against Environmental Reform?

  • Give 'Em Heck Democrats could lose a congressional seat in southwest Washington this fall. Why they need to get behind a candidate now, and why that candidate is Denny Heck.

  • Police Beat Teacher Schooled by Student

  • My Marriage License This gay man got a marriage license in Seattle last week. Unfortunately, I only obtained it by agreeing to marry a lesbian.

  • Pot Potato A Bill to Decriminalize Pot Is Popular with Voters—So Why Won't the Legislature Pass It?