Editor: I felt a need to respond to FortisAlberta’s comments regarding streetlighting and LEDs.
Citizens have the right to sleep well and view the night sky without having to self-fund blackout curtains, or drive without self-funding yellow glasses to block glare from poorly shielded streetlights, or excessively bright LED headlights.
When citizens self-fund amelioration of technological mistakes it is a case of prescribed technology where technology production models are divorced from growth that is based on lived experience.
This creates inequality, and happens when science serves technology instead of the public interest.
It is only recently (last 10 years) that the effects of blue light has become well known and studied. This research shows that some high pressure sodium lights (HPS) also contain harmful blue light. Therefore, it is not just LED lights that have an impact on health.
Both streetlighting and indoor lighting are equally harmful if not properly designed based on lived experience.
It’s a diversion to say streetlighting is less harmful. Preventing glare and light trespass by properly shielding streetlights is one of the recommendations that the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESA) developed with the International Dark Sky Association under the belief that “collaboration with other non-lighting organizations on lighting policies and regulations is essential for the benefit of the public interest.”
Based on the over-lighting (4000k bulbs) and inadequately shielded streetlighting installed in Canmore and Banff townsites, it does not appear that FortisAlberta is following the IESNA standards.
It is critical to remember that streetlights are a convenience and a choice because there are no laws mandating streetlights.
Liability for nighttime driving safety lies with drivers ensuring vehicles have working headlights. If Harvie Heights can choose to forego residential streetlights based on lived experience any municipality can.
Ryan James,
Harvie Heights
