2 ms·
Sometimes the ignorance of lawmakers is just baffling. I mean there is pretty much a scientific consensus as far as I know that switching to permanent DST is a
by dathinab 5y ago
Sometimes the ignorance of lawmakers is just baffling.
I mean there is pretty much a scientific consensus as far as I know that switching to permanent DST is a quite unhealthy choice for the larger part of the population, which happen to already be negative affected by other effects also balanced against them.
Just to be clear I don't know if it's worse then DST switching.
But it's worse then permanent "normal" (i.e. winter) time.
I mean there is a reason this was the normal time, before DST was introduced.
I also want to note here that for some areas in some time zones the negative effects of permanent DST might be less then for other areas (potentially) in other time zone, idk. how this applies to the US.
- SubiculumCode 5y agoYour claim that DST is worse for health than standard time IN THE ABSENCE of seasonal switching seems doubtful. Got a source?
- dathinab 5y agoYes in absence, because the seasonal switches are rather unhealthy. Wrt. sources I don't have any english ones at hand without looking them up. But it shouldn't be to hard to find. I mean like I said it's pretty much consensus as far as I know between sleep scientist. Through like always it's a bit more nounced, like it's not worse for all people, but the larger group of people and it makes effects of social jetlack and similar worse (as it overlaps with them, maybe also because of people will change their action but that's hard to include in a prediction). EDIT: I'm currently wondering if less healthy working conditions in the US might affect what is worse/better. Also the consensus is wrt. Germany not necessary the US, I was a bit oversimplifying things.