Allen 1 David Allen Samuel Dunn Writing 150 11 Oct.

2012 Raising awareness of the hidden pollution through rhetoric The global population is made aware of multiple types of pollution. Air, water, nuclear, soil, and even global warming are a few. But Verlyn Klinkenborg, a former university literature teacher and New York Times editor as well as nonfiction writer, brings to our attention of yet another kind that is largely unknown in his essay Our Vanishing Night. He argues that the widespread use of artificial lights in cities creates light pollution that confuses humans biological clocks. Klinkenborg attempts to inform and persuade an environment-minded audience to act on this problem through sympathetic and logical parallels to animals, a small bandwagon appeal, and scientific evidence. A large part of Klinkenborgs argument lies in his use of sympathetic appeals through the use of animals. He aims to make a parallel between humans and other species to convince the reader that humans are (or soon will be) in danger. Certain words like vanish, targets, and disproportionately, evoke sympathetic responses for these animals from the reader. When National Geographic readers readread, In some Swiss valleys the European lesser horseshoe bat began to vanish after streetlights were installed reports and statistics about endangered and extinct species come to their minds and they immediately sense a danger that may lead to something irreversible and damaging to the environment. This helps get the
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Allen 2 readers on Klinkenborgs side so he can lure them into believing there is true danger to those at risk of light pollution. Consider tThe sentence Other nocturnal mammals including desert rodents, fruit bats, opossums, and badgers forage more cautiously under the permanent full moon of light pollution because theyve become easier targets for predators. When this audience reads the word target, a small, vulnerable animal undoubtedly comes to mind. This creates a parallel between humans and targets that further create sympathy for these victims, which Klinkenborg uses to his advantage. The last example is especially interesting. It reads, Migrating at night, birds are apt to collide with brightly lit tall buildings; immature birds on their first journey suffer disproportionately. Disproportionately triggers a sympathetic response that something is wrong. Disproportionate situations, for National Geographic readers, signal that something needs to be fixed. Klinkenborg uses this reaction to gain support for change and action against light pollution. Klinkenborg intends to use this appeal to get the reader to apply these vulnerable feelings to themselves and realize the danger that theyre in. The image of sea turtle hatchlings stranded and confused by artificial lighting behind the beach is used to put us in the turtles position, one where we are disordered even when we arent aware of what is happening. Save one, Klinkenborg states claims about these affected animals largely without citation, save one.: For example, on many species [Light] acts as a magnet, a process being studied by researchers such as Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich, co-founders of the Los Angeles-based Urban Wildlands Group. he

Allen 3 claims One population of Bewicks swans wintering in England put on fat more rapidly than usual, priming them to begin their Siberian migration early. Klinkenborg is intending to boost his argument by throwing in studies, but, in fact, he is damaging his credibility since he cites animal findings without citation and he is no authority on the matter. Although he does a fine job at pulling out a pathetic emotional appeal from his audience, it is mostly without much credibilitystanding, and, more importantlyon top of that, there is no logical connection that states why distracting streetlights directly affect humans biological cycle. Klinkenborg further tries to persuade the readers to take action by using a bandwagon fallacy. He claims, It was once thought that light pollution only affected astronomers, who need to see the night sky in all its glorious clarity. Yes, it is obvious that astronomers need to see the night without glare, but he uses the example of Flagstaff to convince us that we should follow suit to take action. Flagstaff , to protect the view from Lowell Observatory, has tightened its regulations . . . and in 2001 it was declared the first International Dark Sky City. He then follows with More and more cities and even entire countries, such as the Czech Republic, have committed themselves to reducing unwanted glare. He says that other cities have followed Flagstaffs example, but his argument that everyday residents need to have a clear sky is relatively weak. His claim is that Darkness is as essential to our biological welfare, to our internal clockwork, as light itself. The regular oscillation of waking and sleep in our lives one of our circadian rhythms is nothing less than a biological expression of the regular oscillation of light on Earth. He says that darkness is essential, but theres no direct link between

Allen 4 clearing up the night sky and our biological clock. Klinkenborg, essentially, is stating that because glare from light pollution is somehow affecting our biological clock, cities and even countries should heighten restrictions on lighting. As far as pure scientific evidence goes, there is little to none. There is only one statistic mentioned that supports the overall argument suspiciously placed in the second-to-last paragraph: At least one new study has suggested a direct correlation between higher rates of breast cancer in women and the nighttime brightness of their neighborhoods. Klinkenborg uses the phrase as least to trick the reader into accepting the credibility of one un-cited statistic by subconsciously thinking that there are more studies than this one mentioned, even if there isnt. At first read, it is tempting to buy into this idea after going through 4 paragraphs of unsupported sympathetic appeals to animals. Perhaps this is a real issue that needs to be addressed, but more evidence needs to be used in order to support the claim that light pollution affects humans biological cycle. Klinkenborg points out that this is an issue that could be fixed easily, but the need to do so does not come out as strong enough.