Street Lamps Aren't The Main Source Of Light Pollution In Cities
How dark is the night sky where you live? If you're in an urban area, the answer will likely be 'not dark at all'. The pervasiveness of artificial light – be it in the form of streetlamps, billboards, screens or floodlights – keeps our cities bright long after most people have gone to bed. And it's on the rise.
In 2016, a group of researchers found that 83% of the world's population and more than 99% of people in the U.S. and Europe live under light-polluted skies. In 2023, some of the same authors showed that the average night sky is getting brighter by 9.6% per year, due to artificial light in our surroundings spilling into the atmosphere. This is equivalent to a quadrupling of sky brightness over the duration of a human childhood (18 years).
And while it's true that almost all light pollution is generated in urban areas, its effects extend beyond the streetscape. The 'light domes' of Las Vegas and Los Angeles can be seen from Death Valley National Park, despite it being 150km and 250km away, respectively. For many city-dwellers, true outdoor darkness is not something they experience regularly.
In discussions around light pollution, the switch to LED (light-emitting diodes) streetlamps is often mentioned as a contributing factor. The high efficiency and low cost of LEDs makes them increasingly common on our urban roads. But if its pollution we're interested in, then it's not the streetlamps we should be talking about.
The Nachtlichter ('night lights' in German) campaign involved hundreds of citizen scientists ... More counting and classifying many thousands of light sources in urban areas. They found that streetlamps make up a relatively small fraction of the total
Bright lights, big city
In Germany in 2021, a group of 257 citizen scientists, led by Dr Christopher Kyba (Ruhr University Bochum), carried out a novel study on artificial light at night (ALAN). Using a dedicated app called Nachtlichter ('night lights' in German), they counted and classified 234,044 illuminated light sources across a 22-km2 area that included city centers, residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas. No areas with skyscrapers were included in the survey.
Their findings, published last week in the journal Nature Cities, showed that public streetlamps make up a relatively small percentage (10-13%) of all contaminating light sources counted. In dense areas, streetlamps were outnumbered by other light sources by a factor of up to 7.
Instead, they found that private windows were by far the most frequently observed light source, representing more than 48% of the total. Commercial windows were the third most common type of night-time light source (7.4%), with floodlights and other building-mounted lights following closely behind (7.3% of the total). Signs – both illuminated and self-luminous – represented 5.5% of the total count.
In terms of the brightness of surveyed lights, the vast majority of streetlamps were shieled, meaning that the light was being directed towards the ground, rather than 'trespassing' into the atmosphere. In contrast, the majority (58%) of observed floodlights and 29% of building-mounted lights were unshielded, and so were casting their light upwards, adding to the overall light pollution.
The team's study area was chosen specifically to overlap with the path of a passing satellite carrying an instrument called the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). VIIRS is ultra-sensitive in low-light conditions, and is regularly used to monitor night-time lights from space. This allowed the Nachtlichter team to make a comparison between their ground-based lighting inventory, and the orbit-based measurements of the same area.
'By comparing these data with the satellite observations, we identified a correlation between the number of counted lights per square kilometer and the radiance observed by the satellite sensor,' says Kyba.
He continues, 'Both energy and lighting policy as well as research on the effects of artificial light on the environment have generally focused on street lighting. Our findings indicate that a broader approach that considers all lighting is necessary in order to understand and reduce the environmental impacts of light in cities."
This photograph taken on March 22, 2025, shows a view of the ancient Acropolis with lights off ... More during the Earth Hour environmental campaign in Athens. Earth Hour is a global call to turn off lights for one hour in a bid to highlight the global climate change. (Photo by ARIS MESSINIS/AFP via Getty Images)
Going Dark
Another urban sky brightening study published this month focused on Hong Kong; one of the most densely populated regions in the world. There, a group of scientists took advantage of an annual event called Earth Hour to study light pollution.
Organized by the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to raise environmental awareness, Earth Hour involves the voluntary switching off of lights for one hour (20:30-21:30 local time) on a specified day. The campaign is widely supported in Hong Kong, with more than 4,000 organizations and buildings opting in to the 'lights-out' event each year. This provided the team of researchers, led by Dr Chu-Wing So, with an opportunity to directly quantify the impact that bright lights have on the night sky.
They examined footage from an all-sky camera installed on the roof of the Hong Kong Space Museum in the Tsim Sha Tsui district, and collected data from a night sky brightness meter co-located with the camera. This allowed them to compare images of the sky before, during, and after the lights-out hour every year from 2015 to 2024. To look at the influence of street-level billboards on storefronts and illuminated signs closer to the ground, they also carried out wide-field photography and a street-level survey. Taken together, this data showed a night sky that was more than 50% darker on average during the lights-out period. They showed that the presence of clouds also amplified the brightening effect of light pollution – as cloud coverage increased from 40% to 85%, urban night sky brightness increased sixfold.
To identify the types of lighting that dominate light pollution in this district of Hong Kong, the team set up a portable spectrometer alongside the all-sky camera and brightness meter. This allowed them to identify the specific wavelengths of light that were decreased or absent during the lights-out period.
They found that emission reductions mostly occurred in three wavelength bands: 445–500nm, 500-540 nm, and 615–650 nm, which corresponds to blue, green and red emissions from LED billboard screens. They also measured reductions in the 585–595 nm range, which is associated with metal halide floodlights used for facades and billboards. The sodium streetlamps had a negligible impact on sky brightening.
They conclude 'the substantial darkening observed in Hong Kong [during Earth Hour] can be largely attributed to the simple act of turning off approximately 120 decorative or advertising lights on commercial buildings and shopping malls. Although they represent only a small fraction of the total external lighting in the city…. they are in fact the main contributors to light pollution in Hong Kong.'
The 'light dome' of Los Angeles and other major cities can be visible from great distances.
So what?
It's becoming increasingly clear that excessive or inappropriate use of artificial lighting at night (ALAN) has widespread implications for ecological health. It can confuse and endanger nocturnal species who are active at night. Migratory birds and bats are diverted and disoriented by the presence of artificial lighting on their routes, with many killed as a result of colliding with brightly-lit structures. Other bird species and frogs change their breeding behaviors. A study published last month looked at 7 years of VIIRS data from 428 cities in Northern Hemisphere concluded that artificial light may be lengthening the growing season in urban environments by as much as 3 weeks compared to rural areas.
Humans are also not immune from ALAN's influence, though it can be challenging to separate it out from that of other environmental factors. Unsurprisingly, it has been shown to disrupt our circadian rhythms (the 24-ish hour cycles that regulate how our bodies function, including our wake-sleep cycle). These disruptions, in turn, have been linked to an elevated risk of cardiovascular diseases, chronic stress, disorders and depression. Chronic, long-term, regular, or cumulative exposure to ALAN may even be a risk factor for certain cancers and neurodegenerative diseases.
Put simply, too much light at night is bad for everyone. And as these (and many other) studies show, most of the light polluting our night skies has nothing to do with safety on our roads and streets. It's mostly about advertising and poorly mounted floodlights, and to a much lesser extent, people not closing their curtains.
The solutions are relatively simple and numerous. As a start: Avoid lighting up places that don't actually need to be lit. Where light is needed, be more intentional about what type, how much, and its location. Use timers or motion sensors to enable lights-out periods. Light pollution is serious. Cities need to start treating it as such.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Merck's $2 Billion Bet: The Tiny Biotech That Could Save Its Neurology Pipeline
Merck KGaA (NYSE:MRK) is going back on offense in neurologyand it's betting big. The German drugmaker just announced a collaboration with Skyhawk Therapeutics that could top $2 billion, aimed at developing RNA-targeting small molecules for hard-to-treat neurological diseases. Under the deal, Skyhawk will lead discovery and preclinical development using its proprietary RNA splicing tech, while Merck steps in if the science clears early hurdles. Though financial terms weren't disclosed, the structure includes upfront and milestone payments, plus royalties tied to future sales. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 2 Warning Sign with MRK. This isn't a pivot. It's a rebuild. After two major clinical failures rocked its pipeline and with its blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug Mavenclad losing exclusivity starting in 2026, Merck is under pressure to restock its innovation shelf. CEO Belen Garijo is tightening focus on external innovationand fast. That includes this Skyhawk deal, and the recently closed acquisition of SpringWorks Therapeutics, which is expected to start contributing to Merck's healthcare revenue in the second half of this year. Behind the scenes, this deal speaks volumes about where Merck thinks the next frontier lies. Amy Kao, who heads neuroscience and immunology research at Merck, called RNA splicing modulation an exciting frontierand that might be understating it. The company is betting that Skyhawk's tech could unlock new treatments where traditional approaches have failed. If even one program makes it through to commercialization, it could mark a turning point in Merck's quest to reignite long-term growth in its pharma arm. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Scientific American
5 days ago
- Scientific American
's First Issue, the Solar System Grew by a Planet
In astronomy, 180 years is a very long time—maybe not for the goings-on in the universe but certainly for our understanding of it. When Scientific American published its very first issue 180 years ago this month, our view of the cosmos was substantively different. We had no idea of the scale of the universe or even if anything existed outside our Milky Way galaxy. We didn't know how stars were born, what powered them or where comets came from—or that supernovae were even a thing. Closer to home, astronomers were wildly guessing about how our solar system formed and how Earth's moon came to exist. Heck, we didn't even know how many planets were in the solar system! On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. To be fair, we still don't. But our understanding of our sun's family was still pretty sketchy in August 1845, and it was scarcely a year later that our solar system would grow by an entire planet. For all of antiquity, Saturn was the most distant planet known to humanity. It wasn't until 1781 that German-British astronomer William Herschel reported seeing a slowly moving 'comet' in the constellation Taurus as he scanned the skies with his telescope. It took two years before orbital calculations showed it was not a comet at all but instead a giant planet orbiting the sun beyond Saturn. Uranus, the first new planet ever discovered, was found by accident. Over the ensuing decades, though, astronomers saw that Uranus was misbehaving. Using the mathematical equations governing gravity and orbits, they calculated the shape of Uranus's orbit and used that to predict where the planet should be in the sky. Observations indicated that the actual position of Uranus significantly deviated from what was predicted, however. Sometimes it 'pulled ahead' of the calculated location, and sometimes it lagged behind. Many astronomers wondered these anomalies were caused by another planet lurking unseen beyond Uranus, which itself was, at best, barely visible to the naked eye; a planet farther out would be much dimmer and could have easily escaped detection. But where was it? The sky is huge when you're trying to search for a dim point of light over thousands of square degrees; remember, back then, skywatchers only had their telescopes and eyes. No cameras or detectors were available. Searching for a faint, distant world was like looking for a planetary needle in a cosmic haystack. The mathematics of orbital mechanics offered a shortcut, though. If you assumed a given orbit for the planet, then its position over time could be roughly calculated by its effect on Uranus. This sort of 'X marks the spot' calculation can be done in moments on today's computers, but in the mid-19th century it was done by hand, and the word 'tedious' hardly describes the scope of the work. Still, in the 1840s, independently of each other, two men attempted exactly this. John Couch Adams, a British mathematician and astronomer at the University of Cambridge, worked on the calculations in his spare time starting in 1843. He reported his findings to James Challis, director of the Cambridge Observatory at the time, and to England's Astronomer Royal George Biddell Airy, both of whom treated it chiefly as an interesting bit of math rather than a guide for finding a potential planet. In their defense, however, Adams's calculations were incomplete and not yet suitable to be put into action. At the same time, French astronomer Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier was also working on calculating the presumptive planet's position. He announced his results at a public meeting of the French Academy of Sciences on June 1, 1846. I'll note that Le Verrier only disclosed his calculated locations for the planet on the sky, not his estimates for its mass or orbit. Still, this was enough to cause a minor panic across the Channel when Le Verrier's news reached Cambridge, with Airy realizing the similarity to what Adams was working on. Because discovering the first new planet in 65 years was a matter of great scientific and national pride, Challis went to the telescope and began an urgent, earnest search. Like the calculations themselves, this was a tedious undertaking that involved scanning the sky and comparing what was seen with hand-drawn, not entirely accurate star maps. Making matters even worse, Adams had been working on new solutions to the planet's location and his calculations were flawed, so Challis was looking in the wrong part of the sky. On August 31, 1846, Le Verrier made another presentation to the academy, this time also reporting the putative new world's calculated mass and orbit. Three weeks later, assistant astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle at the Berlin Observatory read of Le Verrier's work. Assisted by a student named Heinrich Louis d'Arrest, Galle took to the observatory's 24-centimeter telescope on the evening of September 23 to look for the planet. Using better star maps than the British had, they sighted the world in the early morning hours of September 24, less than a degree from the position Le Verrier had predicted. As the story is told, Galle read off the coordinates of stars he saw through the eyepiece, and at one point d'Arrest excitedly shouted, 'That star is not on the map!' Thus, Neptune was discovered. Le Verrier is credited for the discovery work, though Adams, upon insistence from the British at the time, is generally also given co-credit. This is controversial because it's not clear just how accurate Adams's results were— see the article 'The Case of the Pilfered Planet,' by science historians William Sheehan, Nicholas Kollerstrom and Craig B. Waff, in the December 2004 issue of Scientific American for details. Still, while Uranus was found by chance, Neptune was found by math (with a helping hand from happenstance). Ironically, that night in September 1846 was not the first time it had ever been observed. Galileo took copious notes when, centuries earlier, he first turned his crude telescope to the sky; we now know he saw Neptune in 1612 and 1613 but mistook it for a star. (Too bad; had he figured it out, he would've been famous.) Neptune had been spotted many other times before as well but passed over for the same reasons. In a very cruel irony, records reveal that Challis himself saw Neptune twice in August 1846 but failed to notice its true nature. I've observed Neptune many times through my own small telescope; it's a wan aqua dot, barely discernable from a faint background star. Still, seeing it myself—knowing those photons took many hours to fly across billions of kilometers of space only to fall into my telescope and onto my retina—has been a thrill. Of course, I've had a huge advantage over Galle, with modern star maps and software that have told me exactly where to look, but that has only shone a spotlight on what an achievement the discovery was almost 180 years ago. And what of the 18 decades since? The universe is vastly larger than we then imagined in 1846, and we can now find Neptune-like planets orbiting other stars by the hundreds. We've also discovered thousands more objects orbiting the sun beyond Neptune, including Pluto. It's almost routine. As for Neptune itself, we've observed it with an array of space telescopes and even sent a space probe, Voyager 2, to fly past the enigmatic giant planet, allowing us to see its array of bizarre moons and weather patterns up close. Scientific American has been there along the way, too, with its first issue in August 1845 nearly coinciding with the discovery of the last known major planet of the solar system. Researchers have taken immense steps in unlocking even deeper secrets of the cosmos over the past 180 years, and during that time, this magazine has played a major role in informing the public about their findings. I'm proud to be a part of this long-running adventure.
Vox
5 days ago
- Vox
The fake news that helped put us on a path to Mars
The richest person in the world is obsessed with creating a city on Mars. Elon Musk would like to see a million people living in a self-sufficient Martian settlement by 2050, both as a plan B for Earth and because it gives us something cool to get excited about. Traveling to Mars has been a recurring theme of spacefaring fantasies for decades, from the German rocket innovator Wernher von Braun to science fiction writers Ray Bradbury and Kim Stanley Robinson. Human exploits on Mars have also been the subject of countless movies, TV shows, and comic books. There are many good reasons to explore Mars. The discovery of water deep below the surface and ice at its poles suggests that the conditions to sustain life may have existed on the Red Planet, and perhaps still do. Studying Mars could teach us about how life emerged on Earth. While rovers have made great strides in uncovering the planet's secrets, human explorers could accelerate the pace of discovery. Living on Mars would bring many challenges for humans, among them cosmic and solar radiation exposure, an asphyxiating atmosphere, lower-than-Earth gravity, extreme temperatures, toxic soil, and no ready supply of food, drinkable water, or breathable air. But our cultural and scientific fascination with Mars lives on. And if Musk's SpaceX or a competitor lands humans on Mars in the coming years, it will be the realization of an ancient dream. To think that it all started with an optical illusion that tricked some astronomers into believing that Mars was riven with canals flanked with vegetation and carved by wise, peace-loving extraterrestrials. Today, Explained co-host Sean Ramewaram spoke with David Baron, author of The Martians: The True Story of An Alien Craze that Captured Turn-of-the-Century America, about the belief in intelligent Martian life and the fixation on Mars that has gripped generations of scientists, science fiction writers, and tech billionaires. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. Why do we all care about Mars? As a culture, Mars has seeped into our collective psyche. There's this sense of mystery and romance. A little more than a century ago, the public believed that Mars was inhabited by intelligent beings. Before Martians were staples of science fiction, they were believed to be a scientific fact. You could open the New York Times in 1906 and read in all seriousness about the civilization on Mars, what the Martians might be like, how we might communicate with them, and what we might learn from them. In 1907, the Wall Street Journal said the biggest news of the year was proof of intelligent life on Mars. Where did the fact that there were Martians come from? It all started in 1877. In the 19th century, all we knew about Mars was what we could see through earthbound telescopes. But in 1877, when Mars came especially close to Earth, an Italian astronomer named Giovanni Schiaparelli decided he was going to make a detailed map of Mars. And so, night after night, he studied the planet and saw what he thought were oceans and continents. But he also saw this network of thin, exceptionally straight lines that he imagined were waterways. He called them 'canali,' which in Italian means channels, but when it was translated into English, it was mistranslated as canals. And so, as soon as 1877, people were joking about these canals on Mars and wondering what they were, but people didn't think they were artificially constructed. In 1894, Percival Lowell, an American astronomer, came along and said, yes, these were irrigation canals that Martians were using to survive on a planet that was running out of water. All of Mars's moisture was locked up in the polar ice caps at the north and south poles, and for the Martians to survive, they had created this global network of irrigation canals. That's what these lines supposedly were. They would come and go with the seasons. They tended to appear in the spring and summer, and they would fade in the fall and winter. Lowell theorized that vegetation along the irrigation canals would appear in the spring and summer, and fade in the fall and winter when the leaves presumably died off. This was also a time when people were looking for hope in outer space. In the late 19th century, at least in the West, there were a lot of reasons for despair. There was anarchism in Europe. There were heads of state being assassinated. President William McKinley was assassinated in the United States early in the 20th century. There was a feeling that society was running down. There were wars, including the Spanish-American War in the late 19th century. The idea was that the Martians were these advanced beings who were what we hopefully would become in the future. The fact that they had this global network of irrigation canals meant that they had pulled together as a planet and evolved beyond war and divisive politics. Because it looked like they were cooperating across a planet. Exactly. So there was a real desire to believe in the Martians. Was there anyone out there saying, 'Guys, just because we see some canals, it doesn't mean there are Martians'? Absolutely. In fact, the astronomical community divided into the canalists and the anti-canalists. Lowell was a self-made astronomer. He was an extraordinarily wealthy and articulate human being from a very prominent family in Massachusetts. And so he was able to write articles for the Atlantic Monthly promoting his ideas. He was out there giving lectures about the Martians. And so he was able to convince the public, even if there were a lot of astronomers he couldn't convince. When was peak obsession with Mars in this era? That was 1908 and 1909. By 1908, the idea was so widespread, you had pastors in church sermonizing about the Martians and expressing to their congregations that we should emulate the Martians and look to our neighboring planet for the kind of society that we should be. Alexander Graham Bell, who of course invented the telephone, was convinced that the Martians were real. He saw no question that Mars was inhabited by intelligent beings. Nikola Tesla, a great inventor who came up with our modern system of generating and distributing electrical power, was convinced that he picked up radio signals from Mars. And when he announced that to the world at the beginning of 1901, it set off an absolute craze. Martians invaded popular culture. They showed up on the vaudeville and Broadway stages. There was a popular show called 'A Yankee Circus on Mars.' You had a Martian that became a comic character in the newspapers. They showed up in Tin Pan Alley songs. In fact, I have an original wax cylinder recording of a song called 'A Signal From Mars' from back then. The Martians were just everywhere in popular culture. How did it fall apart? Astronomers by the 1910s had pretty well convinced themselves that this whole canal theory was bunk. But the idea had so taken hold in the brains of the public that the idea of canals on Mars persisted until the 1950s and 60s. In 1938, there was the famous 'War of the Worlds' radio broadcast by Orson Welles. And there were people who actually believed, listening to the radio, that the Martians were invading. I actually found a letter to Orson Welles that was written by one of those listeners who was fooled, who was angry about it. And what she wrote was, well, haven't astronomers found canals on Mars? Don't we know that there are Martians there? The idea persisted well into the 1960s when NASA sent its first Mariner spacecraft flying by Mars to take the first close-up pictures of the surface. And there was not only no sign of a civilization, there was no sign of straight lines. It just looked like a dead world. Thinking back to what you said earlier, when people were first enchanted by this idea of Martians in the early 20th century, it was this idea that we could all work together that really captured imaginations. And it's still a nice idea. Do you think there's still a chance that we could get together as a human race to unite in an effort to get to Mars? It doesn't look that likely. I think what will inspire the United States to get to Mars more than anything is competition, because the Chinese want to get there. But there is still this dream of Mars as this techno-utopia that will be better than Earth, that will be more egalitarian, where we can start over again. I think there are two lessons from the Mars craze. On the one hand, it's a cautionary tale. We tend to project onto Mars what we hope is there, not what's really there. A hundred years ago, we believed in Martians because we wanted to believe that there was a better world next door. Today, I think a lot of the talk about Mars is that we're going to create this utopia next door. That's going to be so difficult: technically difficult, and, as you said, getting humans together to make this possible, Lord knows if that's ever going to happen.
