Preserving the Night Sky

I’m a member of the International Dark-Sky Association. These guys are the light pollution authorities of the world. If you visit their website, you can find all kinds of information about the importance of dark skies (and not just to astronomers), as well as how to make your block, your community, your city, your state, a dark-sky site. They have a link to lighting practices and equipment that will help preserve dark skies while maintaining safety in your community. And, many of their suggestions help preserve energy expenses (an important factor).

The community I live in has some energy- and light-pollution-cutting lighting practices, although some neighbors still think it’s great to throw light up to the sky indiscriminately. In our neighborhood we managed to get our local utility to put up “screens” around the nearest streetlight so that the light shines down on the street, like it’s supposed to, and not in our bedroom window, or bathing our yard.

One of the more illustrative pages on their site is a series of links to various places on Earth, showing the light pollution from satellite’s-eye views. Check it out, and do your part to reduce light pollution, save energy, and preserve the beauty of the night skies for everyone to appreciate.

Fascinating, but Useless?

I Don’t Think So

I was browsing around at Borders Books last night, checking out the latest science books. One thing I’ve been noticing over the past few years is that the science sections in bookstores are getting smaller at about the same rate that pseudoscience, religion, and mystery book sections are growing. I don’t know that there’s a strict correlation (and I’m not saying that those three sections are related, so don’t go there), but I note the trend.

Anyway, I ran across this great little book at the counter called the Ultimate Book of Useless Information. I’m a sucker for factoids and little-known data points. So, I bought it and started browsing through it while waiting to pick someone up at the airport.

Since I’m interested in astronomy and space science, and since I’ve been doing a lot of reading on global warming and our atmosphere, a few nuggets caught my eye. First, as it says on page 61, the surface temperature on planet Earth would be 176 Fahrenheit by day and fall to 220 F by night if we didn’t have this atmosphere that sustains us. Also, as it says on page 61, Earth’s atmosphere is proportionally thinner than the skin of an apple.

Interesting facts, these. But useless? I don’t think so. They tell us a lot about our planet in just a few words. Stuff worth knowing. So, I’m not sure why the compiler of these “useless” facts dubs them so, because every fact is a teachable moment, a chance to learn something about the universe. Still, the book makes us think about these facts. It raises questions like “How do they know that?” and “Is that still true?” So, perhaps that’s the authors’ intention. Still, I don’t like seeing facts dismissed as “useless.”

Here’s another one: hot water is heavier than cold water. How do they know that? Can you prove this to yourself? How? A nice little lesson in science and fluid physics, don’t you think?

Here’s another: the human tooth has about 55 miles of canals in it. Ask your dentist about THAT the next time you’re in for a checkup (or, a root canal)!

Here’s a not-so-useless fact: a third of all cancers are Sun-related. That’s news you can use, and proof that much science data IS useful. And I think most people agree with that, once they stop to think about it.

Yet, there are those who reject science for a variety of reasons: ignorance, fear, religious misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the role of science. They may have spurred a bit of head-banging among those of us who see science as a system of knowledge and not the evil, godless practice that a few misguided souls make it out to be. In that case, I offer this last bit that I’ll mention from the book: banging your head against a wall burns 150 calories an hour.

Update: if you get this book, don’t take every “fact” in it that you read as correct. I’ve found a few “facts” that are somewhat sloppily stated, and at least one that’s flat-out wrong and could have been corrected with very simple research. With that caveat, this is still an interesting read, and now can be used as a jumping-off point to sharpen your critical thinking skills by fact-checking the “fact” mongers.