3 ms·

Have you checked on SRBR's position paper citations yet? We've talked several times about how quite a few citations they use to justify claiming that DST has ne

by dahart 6y ago

Have you checked on SRBR's position paper citations yet? We've talked several times about how quite a few citations they use to justify claiming that DST has negative health effects are coming from research that does not study DST, and how the position paper is just speculating that DST outcomes might share the same results. Except they don't admit they're speculating, they claim it's "strong" evidence. Are you not yet convinced that the position paper is making stronger claims than the research they cite can support?

throw0101a 6y ago
Nope. Every time DST comes up people say "I like daylight when I leave the office". Which is fine. And I like not having to wear a mask… but I do it anyway because I don't want to spend the energy reading the papers, so I'll just trust the experts. My province passed some DST legislation last fall—put forward by some random legislator without any consultations AFAICT—and the experts weighed in after the fact: * https://twitter.com/ChronobioCanada/status/1316122292318068736 https://twitter.com/ChronobioCanada/status/13161222923180687... On this topic I'm willing to delegate things out to others. I just pass along the my 'research' in case someone may choose to nerd out. And given that it appears that most sleep and chronobiology societies, in multiple countries, come to the same conclusion/position, seems that there's a strong leaning in one direction in the research.
- dahart 6y ago
  You’re comparing daylight to not spreading a disease? Really? It’s disingenuous to compare disease research for which there is volumes of direct evidence to daylight research for which is very little research, and the research is indirect - which the SRBR plainly admits, when you read beyond the abstract. This is one way they’re misleading you, by leaving the uncertainty out of the abstracts and conclusions. You’re doing yourself a disservice if care about this at all and you’re really not reading past the abstract. And I know you care about this a little. How do you arrive at the claim “most” societies agree with SRBR? I’ve seen two of them, SRBR and AASM. Do you have a survey of all the societies that have studied DST? Most scientists agree that the appeal to authority argument is a fallacy.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    If you wish to spend your time scouring journals for opposing views go right ahead. Here's a (non-exhaustive) list of groups that probably study this issue: * https://srbr.org/about-us/other-societies/ https://srbr.org/about-us/other-societies/ It's probably a good place to start.
    - dahart 6y ago
      Thank you for the list, I will do a little poking around just for our conversation 8 months from now. ;) The very first publication I found in 2 minutes following links randomly, from the starting place you provided says: “Repeatedly, [Social Jet Lag] has been found to be a risk factor for higher body mass index (BMI) or even obesity, depressive symptoms, and for behaviour that is hazardous to health, such as smoking and poor dietary habits (for a review see [15]). The effects found by Borisenkov et al. (2017) [14] correspond to a statistically small to medium effect size (r = 0.2). Roenneberg, Winnebeck, et al. [8] however recently claimed that this effect was “biologically large”. While that may be true, such a claim is unjustified so long as we lack information about the practical meaningfulness of differences in SJL on an interval scale” [1] (emphasis mine) This is exactly what I’ve been saying. The health claims of DST are being exaggerated. I don’t have any problem with their conclusion that perennial Standard Time seems to have “higher” support than perennial Daylight Savings, based on the available and indirect evidence, but SRBR and others calling it conclusive and “strong” is not something that either the science nor most scientists agree with. Your claim that there’s strong consensus isn’t true. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2624-5175/2/1/3/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2624-5175/2/1/3/htm
      - throw0101a 6y ago
        > Your claim that there’s strong consensus isn’t true. Are there any chronobiology or sleep societies that are advocating either (a) leaving the twice-yearly time jump as it is or (b) switching to year-round DST? > Scientists around the world support this initiative to adopt Standard Time, and statements have been issued by the U.S.-based Society for Research on Biological Rhythms, the European Biological Rhythms Society, and the European Sleep Research Society. As Canadian biological rhythm researchers supporting evidence-based policy, we strongly recommend a switch to permanent Standard Time. * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-turn-back-the-clock-on-daylight-savings-why-standard-time-all-year/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-turn-back-th... * https://archive.is/f441n https://archive.is/f441n (in case of paywall) The main regions that do DST are US, Canada, and EU (30-50˚ latitude): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_countr... And all of the societies that cover these areas say (AFAICT) go to year-round Standard Time.

by dahart 6y ago

throw0101a 6y ago

Nope. Every time DST comes up people say "I like daylight when I leave the office". Which is fine. And I like not having to wear a mask… but I do it anyway because I don't want to spend the energy reading the papers, so I'll just trust the experts. My province passed some DST legislation last fall—put forward by some random legislator without any consultations AFAICT—and the experts weighed in after the fact: * https://twitter.com/ChronobioCanada/status/1316122292318068736 https://twitter.com/ChronobioCanada/status/13161222923180687... On this topic I'm willing to delegate things out to others. I just pass along the my 'research' in case someone may choose to nerd out. And given that it appears that most sleep and chronobiology societies, in multiple countries, come to the same conclusion/position, seems that there's a strong leaning in one direction in the research.

dahart 6y ago
You’re comparing daylight to not spreading a disease? Really? It’s disingenuous to compare disease research for which there is volumes of direct evidence to daylight research for which is very little research, and the research is indirect - which the SRBR plainly admits, when you read beyond the abstract. This is one way they’re misleading you, by leaving the uncertainty out of the abstracts and conclusions. You’re doing yourself a disservice if care about this at all and you’re really not reading past the abstract. And I know you care about this a little. How do you arrive at the claim “most” societies agree with SRBR? I’ve seen two of them, SRBR and AASM. Do you have a survey of all the societies that have studied DST? Most scientists agree that the appeal to authority argument is a fallacy.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  If you wish to spend your time scouring journals for opposing views go right ahead. Here's a (non-exhaustive) list of groups that probably study this issue: * https://srbr.org/about-us/other-societies/ https://srbr.org/about-us/other-societies/ It's probably a good place to start.
  - dahart 6y ago
    Thank you for the list, I will do a little poking around just for our conversation 8 months from now. ;) The very first publication I found in 2 minutes following links randomly, from the starting place you provided says: “Repeatedly, [Social Jet Lag] has been found to be a risk factor for higher body mass index (BMI) or even obesity, depressive symptoms, and for behaviour that is hazardous to health, such as smoking and poor dietary habits (for a review see [15]). The effects found by Borisenkov et al. (2017) [14] correspond to a statistically small to medium effect size (r = 0.2). Roenneberg, Winnebeck, et al. [8] however recently claimed that this effect was “biologically large”. While that may be true, such a claim is unjustified so long as we lack information about the practical meaningfulness of differences in SJL on an interval scale” [1] (emphasis mine) This is exactly what I’ve been saying. The health claims of DST are being exaggerated. I don’t have any problem with their conclusion that perennial Standard Time seems to have “higher” support than perennial Daylight Savings, based on the available and indirect evidence, but SRBR and others calling it conclusive and “strong” is not something that either the science nor most scientists agree with. Your claim that there’s strong consensus isn’t true. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/2624-5175/2/1/3/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2624-5175/2/1/3/htm
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > Your claim that there’s strong consensus isn’t true. Are there any chronobiology or sleep societies that are advocating either (a) leaving the twice-yearly time jump as it is or (b) switching to year-round DST? > Scientists around the world support this initiative to adopt Standard Time, and statements have been issued by the U.S.-based Society for Research on Biological Rhythms, the European Biological Rhythms Society, and the European Sleep Research Society. As Canadian biological rhythm researchers supporting evidence-based policy, we strongly recommend a switch to permanent Standard Time. * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-turn-back-the-clock-on-daylight-savings-why-standard-time-all-year/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-turn-back-th... * https://archive.is/f441n https://archive.is/f441n (in case of paywall) The main regions that do DST are US, Canada, and EU (30-50˚ latitude): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_by_countr... And all of the societies that cover these areas say (AFAICT) go to year-round Standard Time.