A bit more on the lighting up Stonehenge story, in the form of some counter-arguments to those against it, from the Eternal Idol website:http://www.eternalidol.com/?p=10344
I think the lights are pretty and I love lights being a connoisseur of the Himalayan type in the middle of the tropics.
but they have a point - L.E.D.s are low level laser and a they affect the area around them. I wanted to put LED's in a computer but my friend suggested I don't because there were reports that they effect the electronics. I won but I do know that unusual things happen. For instance I have a bioptron(The BIOPTRON Light Therapy)which is based on healing light but conversely light while it can heal can also affect and some cases destroy tissue. The bioptron also uses colour therapy - different colours work on different bacteria and affects mood. Coloured light has been shown to alter the psychological of persons and animals, for instance blue lights have been shown to decrease aggression and violence and are utilised around toliet blocks and railway stations.
So when it comes down to it, while it might be beautiful to view, lights would affect Stonehenge and the way we perceive it. It may damage it to surround it with light and for future generations we should preserve it to the best of our abilities.
You never know, things always change. If there is money(tourist dollars) involved I'm sure some people can be convinced.
Yes, that's a very fair point, but I think if done tastefully, and not over-lit, it would enhance the site, and it doesn't have to be forever. We light other monuments, after all. I also think I may have felt obliged to defend Lady Packenham's idea because the druids attacked it, and I do personally get a little irritated by the way in which some druids see themselves as the self-appointed guardians of that site, despite there being no connection between their Iron Age priestly forebears and a much older Neolithic monument. They're certainly not protecting it on my
English Heritage - also agin it - are a different matter, and they may have a point when they caution against the possibility of traffic accidents on the adjacent highway, caused by people slowing down to look at it (something they do during daylight in any case), but then again, Health and Safety (duly capitalised) tends to get used a lot these days as an excuse not to do things. One of the banes of our life, actually .........
Unfortunately, whether it's lit up or not, Stonehenge is a dismal place to visit, really, because it's completely ruined by being yards from one of the busiest roads in England and a constant cacophany of noise. There's been talk for years about tunneling the road, but I doubt it will ever happen; it's just too expensive, especially these days. But I do find it a bit of an embarrassment - it's why I much prefer going to Avebury - so I just think that compared to the A303 dual carriageway flying past, lights on the stones wouldn't be too much of an intrusion upon the landscape.
So I get what you're saying, but I'd err on the side of aesthetics on this one, and say, put up the lights, and see how it goes. But I'm sure it won't happen.