Losing Time

In most countries where Daylight Saving Time is government dictated, the big time change this year (2008) is on the 30^th of March. Those are most of the countries in Europe, from Norway to Russia, and on to Turkey. However, North America is different; most of the USA, most of Canada and Cuba are moving the clock up an hour on March 9^th. Mexico is different yet, as the time change there is on April 6^th. Countries in Central America do not participate in the DST shift. None of the Asian countries, except Russia (which is tied into European commerce), participate in daylight savings time.

In total, there are 73 countries in which at least one location in the country observes DST. However, there are 130 countries that do not observe DST. This brings some confusion to people who deal in cross border commerce. A world clock such as that at http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ can alleviate uncertainties brought on by DST.

The primary reason for this government dictated time change is to make better use of daylight. However, the USA government's move of setting DST start on March 9th rather than on the more accepted March 30th date used in most other countries is to save additional energy.

That contention is being successfully challenged. A recent study by researchers at the University of California (UCSB) covering nearly all the households in southern Indiana serviced by Duke Energy Corporation showed that having all of Indiana adopt the extra weeks of DST increased the energy cost for southern Indiana households by an additional $8.6 million. That's big money, especially when extrapolated over the entire country. A similar study in Australia regarding a temporary extension of DST there for the 2000 summer Olympics showed that the temporary clock change also increased energy use. Although the exact figures are not available, results have shown that extending DST is an expensive proposition.

Another factor is social costs. The estimation is that social costs are very significant. Although it is difficult to quantify social costs, it appears that getting off from work an hour earlier in the afternoon during the extra DST in March provides opportunities to drive to outdoor activities, shopping malls, etc. This caused more gasoline to be used and resulted in increased auto emissions; that is exactly counter to what the "saving energy" promotion is all about.

So, why is DST extended? One might guess that this is more political than logical. It is no secret that lobbyists affect many of the USA government's dictates. There certainly are companies and organizations which benefit from DST. Most companies who sell outdoor activity gear benefit. Malls and stores in other locations find that shoppers will use what is perceived as better afternoon shopping periods. Also, amusement parks and other entertainment facilities will get more business. And so it goes. The "energy saving" ploy is just that, disinformation. Let's just accept that DST is good for business.

If DST is so beneficial to vested interests, why not just move the clock up once and have it done with? That was tried in response to the oil embargo of 1973. The USA went on all year, extended daylight-saving time in 1974 and 1975. That didn't work out so well. Although a 1975 report to congress concluded that energy (primarily oil) was saved because of the year round DST, a later study by the National Bureau of Standards was unable to document any saving. However, the myth of energy savings has endured. Also, there were some auto accident deaths which were directly traced to early morning darkness in those winter months. But at the time, the government needed to show some response to the embargo regardless of the facts.

In addition to the above factors, there is a toll on the human body. On the 9^th of March, we will turn the clock ahead and most of us will lose one hour of sleep. That loss will make our morning routines, work commute and Monday meetings more difficult. In fact, it is documented that there are more accidents on the Monday following the DST changeover than on most other days; there are exceptions such as New Year Eve, etc. But the fact remains that it takes several days for our bodies and thinking processes to recoup even that small change in our normal routines.

A recent study by Penn State College of Medicine shows that losing as little as one hour of sleep a night can have adverse effects. That's what happens for most people on the Sunday that DST takes effect. Sure, most of us can use Sunday to recoup, but adverse effects linger. An effect can be that a person's immune system is compromised for a few days. Other effects that relate to distortion of a person's metabolism can be more serious. Certainly, most healthy people can come through without any physical problems, but there are others who may not fare so well.

Many years ago, when DST was first proposed in a thesis, "Waste of Daylight" (1907), one of the proponents suggested advancing clocks 20 minutes on each of four Sundays in April, and retarding them by the same amount on four Sundays in September. This made sense because such timing allows a person's body to adjust. However, the entire proposal was dismissed because it was too radical. But from a physiological point of view, the proposal was sound, certainly more so that the present one hour jolt.

In the context of giving the body time to adjust, most people will be well advised to creep up on DST change. That is, on each of, say, four days during the week preceding the time change, retire about 12 to 15 minutes earlier and wake up by the same earlier amount each day. By getting active earlier and earlier each day, during a span of three or four days, a person will be better attuned to the DST change. The point is to have a gradual change in one's sleeping pattern so the one's metabolism will not be overly upset. Of course, we live in a fast society and some people probably won't have time to consider gradually creeping up on the DST jolt. But generally speaking, most people will escape any potentially adverse effects by providing their bodies with time to adjust to the DST changed sleep pattern.

All in all, DST has some benefits but, as noted above, there are problems associated with its unnatural dictate. Although DST may make some sense, the additional three weeks extension is very questionable. The extension should be reconsidered.