4 ms·

We already know that changing the clocks twice a year leads to sleep deprivation for everyone - more car accidents, more heart attacks, etc. The whole point is

by jgwil2 6y ago

We already know that changing the clocks twice a year leads to sleep deprivation for everyone - more car accidents, more heart attacks, etc. The whole point is to stop the twice yearly disruption of our sleep.

runarberg 6y ago
What public health experts need to find out then is whether moving to permanent DST is the right call then, as opposed to moving to permanent standard time. I have a hunch that standard is a better choice for most people’s health.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  The US spends 2/3rds of a year in DST rather than Standard Time, so that would possibly imply there is no health difference or the health difference is actually weighted towards DST at this point. Also, a problem with hour-wide timezones is that DST is closer to what "standard time" is supposed to be (when solar noon and observed noon most closely match) naturally on the western edges of the timezones. So any arguments over whether DST or Standard is "healthier" also likely have to take into account how much the population is weighted to one edge or the other.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    We are arguing against a move to permanent DST. The fact that the time is clock is moved delays the period where we suffer late sunrise significantly. If instead of DST being 2/3 of the year it would be 3/3 of the year, the remaining 1/3 would be significantly worse for the portion of the population that is forced to wake up before sunrise. As an example, there is a period now (before covid) where my partner’s commute started before sunrise during DST, then we would move to standard and happily the commute was back to during sunrise for a couple of more weeks. If we stayed on a permanent DST those extra couple of weeks would be darker in the morning. And I have a strong feeling that can have health implications for a broad subset of the population.
    - WorldMaker 6y ago
      Sure, I'm just pointing out that there is also the issue with geography of a timezone: on the western edge of a timezone the sun is 45-minutes to an hour-later and a move to permanent Standard Time as an example counter-alternative would have similar implications for the other side of a timezone. (More people getting up before sunrise not just in all of the Winter, but also large parts of Spring, and Fall.) Neither permanent answer is great for the entire hour-wide width of today's timezones. In some ways the DST switch is a large part of how we can sanely keep such large timezones at all.

by jgwil2 6y ago

runarberg 6y ago

What public health experts need to find out then is whether moving to permanent DST is the right call then, as opposed to moving to permanent standard time. I have a hunch that standard is a better choice for most people’s health.

WorldMaker 6y ago
The US spends 2/3rds of a year in DST rather than Standard Time, so that would possibly imply there is no health difference or the health difference is actually weighted towards DST at this point. Also, a problem with hour-wide timezones is that DST is closer to what "standard time" is supposed to be (when solar noon and observed noon most closely match) naturally on the western edges of the timezones. So any arguments over whether DST or Standard is "healthier" also likely have to take into account how much the population is weighted to one edge or the other.
- runarberg 6y ago
  We are arguing against a move to permanent DST. The fact that the time is clock is moved delays the period where we suffer late sunrise significantly. If instead of DST being 2/3 of the year it would be 3/3 of the year, the remaining 1/3 would be significantly worse for the portion of the population that is forced to wake up before sunrise. As an example, there is a period now (before covid) where my partner’s commute started before sunrise during DST, then we would move to standard and happily the commute was back to during sunrise for a couple of more weeks. If we stayed on a permanent DST those extra couple of weeks would be darker in the morning. And I have a strong feeling that can have health implications for a broad subset of the population.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    Sure, I'm just pointing out that there is also the issue with geography of a timezone: on the western edge of a timezone the sun is 45-minutes to an hour-later and a move to permanent Standard Time as an example counter-alternative would have similar implications for the other side of a timezone. (More people getting up before sunrise not just in all of the Winter, but also large parts of Spring, and Fall.) Neither permanent answer is great for the entire hour-wide width of today's timezones. In some ways the DST switch is a large part of how we can sanely keep such large timezones at all.