This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Space & Planetary Science

At Least Someone In the White House Knew How To Watch an Eclipse

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 21, 2017
Filed under

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “At Least Someone In the White House Knew How To Watch an Eclipse”

  1. moon2mars says:
    0
    0

    Come on, there images on TV that showed him wearing the required eye ware looking at the eclipse.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      He was standing there for a long time staring at it without glasses and was too dumb to know that this was not a good idea. Do I need to post the video?

    • Forrest Lumpkin says:
      0
      0

      As our president/leader, is he not supposed to lead by example? The President doing something in view of the public that has been widely publicized as being dangerous to one’s eyes seems to me to be setting a very bad example. I can just hear teenagers and young adults justifying not using the proper protection because “the President looked at the sun without the safety glasses”!

  2. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    Momentary lapse of sanity, since the article also said “Donald did, in fact, pull out his special glasses to have a more lengthy look later, but it’s still funny.”

  3. John Campbell says:
    0
    0

    I am wondering if the hype around the eclipse– which is a “natural” event, even if it confuses the flat earthers– has been done as an economic stimulus for the locations under the path of totality.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Right. The government told NASA, NOAA etc. to use the eclipse as an excuse to tell people to travel long distances, wait in traffic jams, etc. just so they could spur the local economy.

      • John Campbell says:
        0
        0

        Look, it isn’t _really_ NASA that’s been cranking up the hype… that’s what we have news agencies for (I suspect the hype would have been greater is this was a slow news month).

        It’s just… funny to me. How many airline tickets? How many fuel sales? Hotel/motel rooms? Restaurants?

        (chuckles)

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          And how many millions of people have a better understanding of astronomy?

          • John Campbell says:
            0
            0

            I still believe many will still ascribe either “black” magic or a mutant Star Goat (HHGTTG reference to the GoldFrimchans) to this mundane coincidence in physics.

            Think of how many people believe in ChemTrails, teenagers kidnapped and sent to Mars… and that the Earth is FLAT.

            I guess my sense of humor is rather (ahem) “dry” (albeit not as dry as an actuary’s).

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Some cities have certainly hyped up the eclipse for the tourist potential. Carbondale, Illinois, has been promoting itself as the “eclipse crossroads” of America, since they were in the path or totality yesterday, and will be again for the 2024 eclipse. I’d be disappointed in a local chamber of commerce which passed up such an opportunity.

          On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how it played out. Since we’re close, the local press have been reporting on travel to Wyoming. I haven’t seen the final numbers, but the state’s population was expected to double for one day. A town of 20,000 people had to find temporary parking for 60,000 cars. If most of those people stayed in larger towns or cities, and just drove out for a few hours, that town wouldn’t have made much from the exorbitant hotel rates. Police, traffic control, and all kinds of state/local government services were really pressed dealing with the temporary, mass migration. When all the bills are counted up, I wonder if the chambers of commerce made the right cost. Did the tourist income really exceed the extra costs to the local government and community?

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Did the tourist income really exceed the extra costs to the local government and community?

            The metric isn’t for the day, but that some of those visitors will enjoy the locality and will return when its quieter. Simply raising awareness of the area’s existence, and increasing the number of people who feel comfortable travelling there. Esp. families, who will often visit the same area over and over once they have a favourite. It takes a big event to get them to travel somewhere new, then, if they like it, it becomes their favourite.

            “Events” are often lossy, but without them you get a slow decline in regular (non-event) tourism numbers. It’s an advert: it doesn’t make the store money directly, but pays off when a percentage of viewers come into the store next week.

            Police, traffic control, and all kinds of state/local government services were really pressed dealing with the temporary, mass migration.

            Most of these people are paid whether you hold a special event or not. There will be extra costs, overtime, clean-up, etc. But often when its an “event”, the town’s civic organisations will volunteer to help anyway. There are costs, but they are usually not proportionate to the size of the crowd.

    • Jack says:
      0
      0

      If you have ever seen a total solar eclipse you would realize how silly the first part of your statement sounds.
      Taken from Princeton KY
      https://uploads.disquscdn.c

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      I don’t look at it as hype, because now that I’ve seen it, I’m really glad people told me about it and that I looked up more info myself and then traveled the little bit it took. Thanks to those people, scientists, news agencies, federal entities, hobbyists, etc.

  4. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    Eclipses don’t emit some magic radiation. It’s just the freakin’ sun. No more dangerous, no less. It’s just that an eclipse is the only time you have a reason to just stare at the sun. And so, inevitably, some people do. Usually it’s harmless (really bad afterimage that goes away after an hour or so), but some people will suffer permanent damage to that part of their retina. So it’s worth reminding people: Don’t stare at the sun.

    But this ends up being another example of good intentions by experts (in every total eclipse, of the millions of watchers, there are a few hundred cases of eye-damage), combining with stupidity by those reporting on the experts. So the message gets dumbed down further and further, and hence made to seem more and more hysterical. So now Trump looks at the sun, doesn’t instantly go blind, and a million idiots will decide that it “proves” that “experts” don’t know anything.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      While I agree, the other issue is lawyers. If you tell people it’s o.k. to look directly at the sun, but only for a few seconds lawyers happen. Someone is going to look too long, suffer permanent eye damage, get a lawyer, and then sue you for saying it was o.k. to look at the sun. So, the message became “never look at the sun”. Welcome to the U.S. where lawyers love personal injury cases where they can pin the blame on someone other than the guy that clearly did something stupid.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        You’re probably right, but I have trouble seeing much risk of permanent damage. Remember, seventeenth century and earlier maritime navigation (i.e. prior to instruments like a sextant) involved looking directly at the Sun for perhaps a few dozen seconds, repeated on a daily basis. That very definitely resulted in permanent loss of vision, including complete blindness in one eye. But that was over the course of years, not from a one-time event.

  5. Rick Smith says:
    0
    0

    I think you guys have been watching too much Rachel Maddow

  6. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    I see this as missed opportunity to invite amateur astronomers and children to set up there stuff (yes, a big headache for Secret Service) as part of promoting STEM, kind of like WH easter egg hunt.

  7. Jack Burton says:
    0
    0

    Did he stare or glance? We all have looked directly at it before OR.. reflections on cars while driving. Did he have damage? I doubt it. Gimme a break. Is this an impeachable offense? LOL

  8. MarcNBarrett says:
    0
    0

    trump has no idea how to lead by example. I can only hope that the only people who see him looking at the sun without protection and decide that they can do it themselves are Republicans.

  9. Robert Rice says:
    0
    0

    Don’t people stare at Sunrises and Sunsets all over the planet every day?

    • MarcNBarrett says:
      0
      0

      Big difference. In a sunrise or sunset, the damaging short-wavelength UV rays are absorbed by the atmosphere, which is why a sunrise or sunset appears red — only the longer wavelengths pass through.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        If that were the case, wouldn’t eclipse-viewing glasses simply block UV? I think the intensity is as great a concern as the wavelength. (Although the intensity is lower at sunset.) I doubt a few seconds is a serious concern. That said, I see a couple of reasonable concerns.

        Looking at a sunset (or catching a pop fly in baseball, as someone else suggested) is not staring directly at the Sun. All those photos are not landing on the exact same part of the retina, and the part with the greatest density or rods and cones.

        More importantly, after looking directly at the Sun, you are likely to have a strong, temporary after image. If you do that a minute or half a minute before totality, you would not be able to see the best part of the eclipse. And you just spent how much money and time to get yourself on the path of totality?

  10. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think Trump’s critics are now concerned about his eyesight, but rather just some other trivial thing to critisize him about.

    • moon2mars says:
      0
      0

      You hit the nail on the head!

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      What rational person stares at the sun like that?

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Well, I did.

        Let me explain: I briefly glanced at the sun before totality mostly because I wondered if all of the ‘safety-nazis’ were over reacting and overstating the problem (I couldn’t tell as I couldn’t look long enough!).

        And, yea, I know better. Also, it irritated my wife.

        Question Authority!

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          I read a Reddit AMA from a NASA team (I think about the eclipse beforehand and the one guy said he did get a spot on his retina from one eclipse he saw after looking at it when the sun came back out after totality. So that was enough for me.

          I can’t find it now. Maybe he removed that part.

          Here’s something else –
          “A case report published by Ta C. Chang and Kara Cavuoto of the University of Miamiโ€™s Bascom Palmer Eye Institute detailed lasting injuries in a 12-year-old girl. She suffered severe vision damage after staring at the full Sun for about one full minute.”
          https://arstechnica.com/sci

  11. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Suzie and I flew to St. Louis to see the eclipse, and to stay with some friends. We rented a condo in a place called Innsbrook. Setting couldn’t have been better; I was imagining all sorts of crowds and jostling. And clouds. But basically clear skies.

    And easily the shortest 2 minutes of my life. Humans require more than 2 minutes simply to adjust and fully experience the oddness of the event.

    I noticed though the awesome brightness of the sun by taking a series of photos showing the shadow of a tree on the grass. The contrast between the shadow of the tree, and the fully lit grass, was not discernible to my eye until totality. I mean at the instant of totality the shadow disappeared; the slightest amount of sun brought it completely back. Same with looking at the sun, too; I figured that 90%+ coverage would make the sun a ‘safe’ thing to observe without protection. Nope.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      I already looked up the next one in 7 years. We’ll have 4 minutes then in the STL area, this time going SW to NE.

      Yeah, I had read that, so only looked without glasses at totality, then stopped looking right away when it got bright again which was basically .1% sun. Before/after totality, looking around it was like having sunglasses, and then slightly darker sunglasses. You still don’t look at the sun. It was cool and weird. But looking at the sun without glasses at totality was glorious. Too short! I want to see more ๐Ÿ™‚

  12. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    The thing is that the First Daughter makes everything and anything look good, even sci-fi geek shades! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Is that how political dynasties start? When people notice that the dad has the job and seems clueless, and the kid actually looks really good by comparison? I can’t see myself voting for Donald in 2020, but Ivanka is at least marginally conceivable.

  13. Josh Freeman says:
    0
    0

    Staring contest… Trump vs. Sun

    Trump wins and gives a speech reading a teleprompter a short time later… #MAGA

  14. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    I also wonder about the reflection that millions of people see on the car in front of them when they are in traffic on the drive home. And of course sometimes the sun is right above the car in front of you.

  15. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    Yeah, I’ve seen lots of awesome photos of it, but seeing it in person was pretty amazing.

  16. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    Hey I just realized Trump missed his chance to have a photo to go up against Putin wearing his whatever future glasses things like in the NASAWatch Putin stories. Need to have something better ๐Ÿ™‚