Author Topic: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution  (Read 450 times)

Steven Autio

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« on: December 28, 2017, 06:37:46 PM »
The below link is to an article about light pollution being caused by pot growers in the Emerald Triangle region of Northern California. The comments are interesting. This is an issue to bring up with local officials when they are considering legalized growing (which I did this morning).

http://kymkemp.com/2...r-environments/



unmoharib

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2017, 07:05:25 AM »
Whether it's cannabis, fruit, herbs or veggies we will be seeing more of these operations as time goes by. The only solution is to have mandatory use of black-out tarps by municipal, state, provincial or territorial regulators. We should be pushing for that all government levels.

Seth Mamidi

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2018, 11:12:32 AM »
Below is a comment on this article by Pete Strasser of the IDA which I think is instructive:

This is an excellent, well written and thoroughly referenced article. Hat’s off to you. I am the Technical Director of The International Dark Sky Association. You are doing well to notify the area of the problem. It can easily spin out of control by more and more unshielded greenhouses entering the area. One need only to look at Belgium as a “don’t let this happen to you” situation. Most of us have seen the fascinating image of the world at night. Belgium is easy to spot as it is the brightest country on the map, and the reason is unshielded greenhouses. Regulations were sought, but only single greenhouses were scrutinized as potential for problems. The collective number were not, and the proliferation has led them to be the poster child of indoor sourced light pollution on the planet.

The fact that laws are on the books mandating shielding is great; the lack of enforcement is typical. As a condition of approval, this should solve the problem. Give the non-compliant growers 30 days to get into compliance or cut the power. The cover should be mylar on a retractable rail. The reflection can go back to the plants and the output from the source can be decreased giving energy savings while maintaining illuminance levels. The system should be very cost effective.

Another intriguing concept is eco-friendly product, grown by sunlight and natural, seasonal photoperiod. This is inspired. I’d love to see some tests comparing THC and CBD production of natural vs artificially lighted grown product. Measured carbon footprint of natural vs artificial can also be utilized for product selection.
To get enforcement initiated, gather like minded folks and speak with a unified voice at council meetings. Coming with proposals for solutions greatly increases the likelihood of action.

Again, well done.

bardeperdi

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2018, 02:31:05 PM »
earlyriser, afaik, from what little I've read on the subject CBD/THC ratios are primarily influenced by timing of harvest, aren't they?

In any case, as was already noted, it doesn't really matter if it's pot, poppies, carrots, tomatoes, bananas, or orchids. A lighted green house is a lighted greenhouse. As far as I know, they all employ extended light hours to maximize growth and rapid production of final product.

Ligon Payton

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2018, 09:49:56 PM »
Quote
earlyriser, afaik, from what little I've read on the subject CBD/THC ratios are primarily influenced by timing of harvest, aren't they?

In any case, as was already noted, it doesn't really matter if it's pot, poppies, carrots, tomatoes, bananas, or orchids. A lighted green house is a lighted greenhouse. As far as I know, they all employ extended light hours to maximize growth and rapid production of final product.

True. I just want people to think about this possibility when hear about their area legalizing growing of marijuana. The fact that this might mean greenhouses and light pollution is probably not something that even crosses the mind of legislators or voters, but it's something that we should demand be regulated from the get-go. The easiest time to get potential growers to agree to any regulation will be when they are hoping for it to be legalized. That's why I've asked my representatives to insert language prohibiting emission of light from growing facilities in any land use regulations related to growing marijuana.

James Clayton

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2018, 04:23:30 PM »
I'm sorry, but if they did that they'd have to impose the same restrictions on everyone else who uses lighted greenhouses. It's just not going to happen. You would be subjecting your citizenry to huge costs for court cases the state would lose over and over and over again. Personally I think the whole commercial pot thing is yet another scam so that one small group of rich investors can form a hegemony. Just legalize it and any citizen can grow it for themselves if they so choose. It's far more difficult for your average citizen to grow a good tomato crop or a bug free cabbage.

PS> if you really want to change the greenhouse situation stop buying greenhouse grown fruits and vegetables and encourage everyone you know to do the same. As long as the public wants their "fresh" tomatoes (etc) in the dead of winter (non canned I mean) we're going to see increasing numbers of greenhouses to fulfill that demand as the population increases.

Personally I don't touch greenhouse-grown anything. Grocery stores don't get my business for tomatoes unless they came from a local farm during the normal season.

Rick Perrigo

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2018, 01:14:17 AM »
Quote
I'm sorry, but if they did that they'd have to impose the same restrictions on everyone else who uses lighted greenhouses. It's just not going to happen. You would be subjecting your citizenry to huge costs for court cases the state would lose over and over and over again. Personally I think the whole commercial pot thing is yet another scam so that one small group of rich investors can form a hegemony. Just legalize it and any citizen can grow it for themselves if they so choose. It's far more difficult for your average citizen to grow a good tomato crop or a bug free cabbage.

PS> if you really want to change the greenhouse situation stop buying greenhouse grown fruits and vegetables and encourage everyone you know to do the same. As long as the public wants their "fresh" tomatoes (etc) in the dead of winter (non canned I mean) we're going to see increasing numbers of greenhouses to fulfill that demand as the population increases.

Personally I don't touch greenhouse-grown anything. Grocery stores don't get my business for tomatoes unless they came from a local farm during the normal season.

If the state passes a law regulating greenhouses, that's the end of it. There won't be any court cases because the state is well within its authority to regulate that sort of thing, and the companies running the greenhouses know this.

Frankly, I think eventually the greenhouses will voluntarily add blinds. The light pollution is so severe, even regular folks in Wapakoneta are starting to get fed-up (see below). Negative news articles are becoming more common. Can lawsuits be far behind? Adding Mylar blinds is a pretty cheap way to stop the bad press and avoid legal hassles.

Never give up!

http://www.daytondai...cVu8qwyY3gbqKL/

aninerti

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2018, 12:18:24 PM »
I agree overall, I was simply pointing out that any such law would logically have to extend to other greenhouse users or tax-payer costly litigation will surely ensue, which might be problematic, but as you say, they may add preventatives on their own.

Brandon Hughes

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2018, 12:25:29 PM »
I am an indoor grower with no experience of outdoor or greenhouse growing. All the books say to be discreet so I would have to say these growers are sloppy/lazy.

One point not mentioned in the article is that supplemental lighting is only useful for keeping the plants in a young/vegetative stage. This time period would mainly be from march to may that the lights would be on when the sun doesn't put out 16 hours of daylight. The growers only need to supplement the light for the few hours that are needed to give a total of 16 hours of light. Some growers use 24 hours of light indoors even though this doesn't make the plants bigger or more productive. Assuming a greenhouse is a commercial facility, you would think the lights would only be on for the few hours instead of all night. There are many kinds of grow lights but generally metal halides are used for vegetative giving the signature blue/white light. IDK what kind of nebula filter would help out with that kind of bulb.

The one greenhouse grower I know uses the black out tarp technique to get one of his greenhouses to bloom(12 hours of sunlight) all spring and summer long. He does his vegetative growth indoors so there won't be glowing greenhouses in the springtime.

Quas Padilla

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2018, 07:28:12 AM »
Quote
I am an indoor grower with no experience of outdoor or greenhouse growing. All the books say to be discreet so I would have to say these growers are sloppy/lazy.
I believe the situation is legal, commercial growers

fefeldarsro

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2018, 11:39:28 PM »
Quote
Quote

I'm sorry, but if they did that they'd have to impose the same restrictions on everyone else who uses lighted greenhouses. It's just not going to happen. You would be subjecting your citizenry to huge costs for court cases the state would lose over and over and over again. Personally I think the whole commercial pot thing is yet another scam so that one small group of rich investors can form a hegemony. Just legalize it and any citizen can grow it for themselves if they so choose. It's far more difficult for your average citizen to grow a good tomato crop or a bug free cabbage.

PS> if you really want to change the greenhouse situation stop buying greenhouse grown fruits and vegetables and encourage everyone you know to do the same. As long as the public wants their "fresh" tomatoes (etc) in the dead of winter (non canned I mean) we're going to see increasing numbers of greenhouses to fulfill that demand as the population increases.

Personally I don't touch greenhouse-grown anything. Grocery stores don't get my business for tomatoes unless they came from a local farm during the normal season.

If the state passes a law regulating greenhouses, that's the end of it. There won't be any court cases because the state is well within its authority to regulate that sort of thing, and the companies running the greenhouses know this.

Frankly, I think eventually the greenhouses will voluntarily add blinds. The light pollution is so severe, even regular folks in Wapakoneta are starting to get fed-up (see below). Negative news articles are becoming more common. Can lawsuits be far behind? Adding Mylar blinds is a pretty cheap way to stop the bad press and avoid legal hassles.

Never give up!

http://www.daytondai...cVu8qwyY3gbqKL/

I fear that this outlook is rather naive in its beliefs, because that won't happen. The new revenues being generated from sales of pot that has been seen going to states that have commercially legalized such facilities has been huge so far. State officials are quickly recognizing its lucrative potential for states' coffers and are not going to bring new laws, urged or supported by what they will consider to be a small band of the fringe element, to interfere significantly with the industry in any manner.

Now once the industry gains wide spread acceptance across the country, it might become possible for locals to meet with individual growers one by one and hopefully find some who wish to work with a community out of good will, but legal action against them is going to fall flat. The fact of the matter is, just as always, that astronomy enthusiasts make up such a minute voting block that they are rarely heeded unless there is some financial benefit to politicians/city. And just has been seen in regions where some form of light curtailment/limitation has passed the legislature, actual enforcement is very difficult to come by.

BrooksObs

bersrorexnutg

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2018, 12:47:56 AM »
Quote
<p class="citation">QuoteI am an indoor grower with no experience of outdoor or greenhouse growing. All the books say to be discreet so I would have to say these growers are sloppy/lazy.
I believe the situation is legal, commercial growers[/quote]
it is still illegal federally and they still patrol the emerald triangle. With the amount of light being put out it does look like commercial growers.

lodersconsharp

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2018, 02:01:16 AM »
Quote
Quote

Quote

I'm sorry, but if they did that they'd have to impose the same restrictions on everyone else who uses lighted greenhouses. It's just not going to happen. You would be subjecting your citizenry to huge costs for court cases the state would lose over and over and over again. Personally I think the whole commercial pot thing is yet another scam so that one small group of rich investors can form a hegemony. Just legalize it and any citizen can grow it for themselves if they so choose. It's far more difficult for your average citizen to grow a good tomato crop or a bug free cabbage.

PS&gt; if you really want to change the greenhouse situation stop buying greenhouse grown fruits and vegetables and encourage everyone you know to do the same. As long as the public wants their "fresh" tomatoes (etc) in the dead of winter (non canned I mean) we're going to see increasing numbers of greenhouses to fulfill that demand as the population increases.

Personally I don't touch greenhouse-grown anything. Grocery stores don't get my business for tomatoes unless they came from a local farm during the normal season.

If the state passes a law regulating greenhouses, that's the end of it. There won't be any court cases because the state is well within its authority to regulate that sort of thing, and the companies running the greenhouses know this.

Frankly, I think eventually the greenhouses will voluntarily add blinds. The light pollution is so severe, even regular folks in Wapakoneta are starting to get fed-up (see below). Negative news articles are becoming more common. Can lawsuits be far behind? Adding Mylar blinds is a pretty cheap way to stop the bad press and avoid legal hassles.

Never give up!

http://www.daytondai...cVu8qwyY3gbqKL/

I fear that this outlook is rather naive in its beliefs, because that won't happen. The new revenues being generated from sales of pot that has been seen going to states that have commercially legalized such facilities has been huge so far. State officials are quickly recognizing its lucrative potential for states' coffers and are not going to bring new laws, urged or supported by what they will consider to be a small band of the fringe element, to interfere significantly with the industry in any manner.

Now once the industry gains wide spread acceptance across the country, it might become possible for locals to meet with individual growers one by one and hopefully find some who wish to work with a community out of good will, but legal action against them is going to fall flat. The fact of the matter is, just as always, that astronomy enthusiasts make up such a minute voting block that they are rarely heeded unless there is some financial benefit to politicians/city. And just has been seen in regions where some form of light curtailment/limitation has passed the legislature, actual enforcement is very difficult to come by.

BrooksObs
I guess the 18 states that have regulations in place regulating light pollution are all naive then.

http://www.ncsl.org/...-pollution.aspx

ceisilipan

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2018, 04:23:32 PM »
Quote
Quote

Quote

<p class="citation">Quote
I am an indoor grower with no experience of outdoor or greenhouse growing. All the books say to be discreet so I would have to say these growers are sloppy/lazy.
I believe the situation is legal, commercial growers

it is still illegal federally and they still patrol the emerald triangle. With the amount of light being put out it does look like commercial growers.

Federal laws or not, many states have legalized it. I'm not in this thread to argue for or against legalization, nor will I allow someone to drag me into a prolonged bickermatch for this topic. My comments have to do with what IS happening. AFAIK, since you brought up the Emerald triangle, California allows med marijuana, as do quite a few other states, and since we're talking federal, so does Washington DC, which isn't even a state, but the defacto city state in which our federal government is located... It is grown somewhere and outdoor or partial outdoor makes sense. What the OP was discussing was attempting to restrict the greenhouses who do grow it (they'd have to have some semblance of legality or they wouldn't last for much more than a heartbeat) from adding to local light pollution by employing curtains. He also asked about CBD/THC ratios in artificial vs natural lighting, and I responded that I was under the impression from books I've read that CBD/THC ratios are primarily governed by the timing of harvest.

It is my guess that if they restrict locally-legal, sanctioned pot greenhouses as per the OP's opening statements, they'll likely face expensive (to taxpayers in the end) law suits if they do not similarly restrict other non-marijuana related green house operations. Perhaps someone with a law degree might chime in, idk. I don't have one, just common sense and an IQ well above double digits.

bersrorexnutg

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2018, 01:13:18 AM »
Quote
Quote

I'm sorry, but if they did that they'd have to impose the same restrictions on everyone else who uses lighted greenhouses. It's just not going to happen. You would be subjecting your citizenry to huge costs for court cases the state would lose over and over and over again. Personally I think the whole commercial pot thing is yet another scam so that one small group of rich investors can form a hegemony. Just legalize it and any citizen can grow it for themselves if they so choose. It's far more difficult for your average citizen to grow a good tomato crop or a bug free cabbage.

PS&gt; if you really want to change the greenhouse situation stop buying greenhouse grown fruits and vegetables and encourage everyone you know to do the same. As long as the public wants their "fresh" tomatoes (etc) in the dead of winter (non canned I mean) we're going to see increasing numbers of greenhouses to fulfill that demand as the population increases.

Personally I don't touch greenhouse-grown anything. Grocery stores don't get my business for tomatoes unless they came from a local farm during the normal season.

If the state passes a law regulating greenhouses, that's the end of it. There won't be any court cases because the state is well within its authority to regulate that sort of thing, and the companies running the greenhouses know this.

Frankly, I think eventually the greenhouses will voluntarily add blinds. The light pollution is so severe, even regular folks in Wapakoneta are starting to get fed-up (see below). Negative news articles are becoming more common. Can lawsuits be far behind? Adding Mylar blinds is a pretty cheap way to stop the bad press and avoid legal hassles.

Never give up!

http://www.daytondai...cVu8qwyY3gbqKL/

I fear that this outlook is rather naive in its beliefs, because that won't happen. The new revenues being generated from sales of pot that has been seen going to states that have commercially legalized such facilities has been huge so far. State officials are quickly recognizing its lucrative potential for states' coffers and are not going to bring new laws, urged or supported by what they will consider to be a small band of the fringe element, to interfere significantly with the industry in any manner.

Now once the industry gains wide spread acceptance across the country, it might become possible for locals to meet with individual growers one by one and hopefully find some who wish to work with a community out of good will, but legal action against them is going to fall flat. The fact of the matter is, just as always, that astronomy enthusiasts make up such a minute voting block that they are rarely heeded unless there is some financial benefit to politicians/city. And just has been seen in regions where some form of light curtailment/limitation has passed the legislature, actual enforcement is very difficult to come by.

BrooksObs[/quote]
I guess the 18 states that have regulations in place regulating light pollution are all naive then.

http://www.ncsl.org/...-pollution.aspx[/quote]

No, it is only the folks who think that those laws are likely to be enforced to any degree and create change who are the ones being naive. I live in the NY/New England region. I've been a witness to the long hassle of getting such "laws" on record state by state. While it makes good PR, their enforcement has been a running joke. The only thing happening throughout the entire region is that light pollution gets ever worse. There's a noted college town over in Connecticut that I pass through often that was widely lauded in the press for passing a major light curtailment bill quite some years back and was one of the first to do so. The press claimed a marked darkening of their skies would result. In reality the degree of difference before and after the law went on the books was so minor that it was utterly meaningless and the situation there today is worse than it ever was before the law was established. So much for good city lighting policies!

Let me also re-post a quotation lifted from the other thread on this forum concerning greenhouse lighting, this one from the town's mayor and illustrating the typical view of elected officials on such matters.

"We could not be more pleased with the relationships we have formed with the owners (of the offending greenhouses), Lois Chibante and Paul Mastronardi,” he said. “I have personally spoken with dozens of our citizens, all of whom are thrilled that we have finally landed a ‘big fish’ for our industrial park. Although the city respects the views of all of our citizens, as usual we are hearing only the opinions of a few. On behalf of the great majority of our citizens, we are thrilled to have Golden Fresh Farms here in Wapakoneta.

I've watched our country light up ever more for over half a century now and without ever any ebb to its steady expansion. Folks thinking that laws can be passed now especially against growing industries that are potential gold mines for state and local government coffers are simply deluding themselves. The only hope is friendly one on one meetings with such business owners at the local level in hopes of finding that they are community spirited and willing to compromise...laws will do nothing.

BrooksObs