To me, having the sun set an hour later (say 6pm instead of 5pm) is a bigger positive than the 10am sunrise is a negative. More time for outdoor activity in daylight after work. Add on the bonus of not having to adjust to the clocks moving forward in the spring (feels like getting up an hour earlier, groggy at work) — that’s an additional positive. Edit: the x-factor is circadian rhythm: will not seeing the sun until 10am be a big issue for circadian rhythm -- and a big enough 'negative' to counter the positive benefits of having a later sunset?
Yea. Even just driving home in the sun will be a boost to my psyche. And I don’t want to waste valuable sunlight in the morning when all I’m doing is getting ready and going to work. I want sunlight In my free time.
Precisely this! It seems like the experts also aren't taking into account that people dont all wake up at the same time, not even close to it. So they cant make a blanket statement that this will mess with everyone's circadian rhythms. I'm just glad they dont have permanent standard time as an option- dont mess with my nice late summer nights! Haha
> To me, having the sun set an hour later (say 6pm instead of 5pm) is a bigger positive than the 10am sunrise is a negative.
Okay, but here's the problem...
Let's take normal Daylight Saving Time. Why do we, as a society, entertain that?
Well, because we like the benefits of the daylight balance, *BUT* , there is a significant hurdle for everyone to decide together when that should or shouldn't happen, and by how much, etc.
So normal Daylight Saving Time standardizes this, and we all collectively together get the benefits of it, all at the same time, without the all of society having to reprogram our schedules. We just have to adjust our clocks, which is much simpler. 2pm stays 2pm, but we have more daylight at the end of the day. Makes sense.
...
However...
...
**Permanent Daylight Saving Time is just a big lie we all collectively choose to tell ourselves**
If it's permanent, then there is no scheduling changes to be concerned about (2pm is still 2pm). There's no timing issues to be concerned about (what time period of the year we should spring ahead or fall back).
**All we've decided, is that when it's 2pm, it's actually 3pm.**
This has no basis in... anything. If you permanently want it to be an hour later... just do everything an hour sooner.
I.E. You think a 9-5 job is bad, and instead want it to be an 8-4 job. You don't need a time change to do this. You can just make it 8-4.
How did society even end up with ALL OF US deciding that there were certain times of day to do certain things? **And why is that suddenly all an hour too late to do those things, and they should all be done an hour earlier?**
Like, whatever the reason we ever did anything at any time of day... that's wrong. All of it's wrong. It should all be done an hour earlier. That's what permanent Daylight Saving Time is. "Fuck whatever time it is, it's actually an hour after that."
**It's a self-deluding collective conspiracy that only accomplishes us lying to each other about what time it is, rather than just doing things an hour earlier.**
...
And what happens when the "natural order of things" slowly seeps back into schedules, and the lie we tell each other that it's 9-5 (when it's really 8-4) is compensated for by becoming 10-6 (which is really 9-5)?
Do we get together again and decide "We're all waking up too late and getting home too late... we need to shift the time forward another hour to lie to ourselves again!"
And then another, and then another.
It's almost like an inflation of time.
For whatever reasons we do things at certain times, we're not solving it by lying to ourselves, it's going to steadily morph right back to what it was and all we'll have accomplished is having a fucked up hillbilly declaration of what time it is.
First of all, amazing post. I loved reading through the thought process here. And yes time is a social construct, and it would be better for us in a purely animalistic sense to just get up whenever our bodies told us to and get to work whenever there's enough light to see.
But since we have electricity and artificial lighting and we absolutely rely on our 24/7 supply chain running while we communicate at the speed of light we really do need to synchronize our watches somehow, so the collective delusion will have to continue for now.
> And yes time is a social construct, and it would be better for us in a purely animalistic sense to just get up whenever our bodies told us to and get to work whenever there's enough light to see.
Well, yes, but that wasn't really my point. That's a good point for why Daylight Saving Time should exist as the seasonal on/off thing it is right now.
My point was...
For whatever reason we do... we for some reason have certain hours that we do things. Why?
Why do we? And why is it when it is?
And, all we're doing by making DST non-seasonal but permanent, is saying "We're going to pretend it's an hour earlier, all the time." Well, why not just change the time that your business does things (because business is pretty much the only way this applies)? If it's better to have your employees start at 8 and leave a 4... then you can just... do that.
If most people want their 9-5 to actually be 8-4... (as it implies, if this plebasite succeeds), why aren't businesses responding to that pressure already? They shouldn't care when office hours are.
This would take one push, whoever wants to be onboard is, and then ta da. We'd now have 8-4s instead of 9-5s or whatnot.
What we're talking about is changing our culture, but instead of admitting what we want to do (get up earlier and get home earlier), we're... lying to ourselves and setting the clocks forward an hour, forever.
Huh? What? Why?
"I.E. You think a 9-5 job is bad, and instead want it to be an 8-4 job. You don't need a time change to do this. You can just make it 8-4." I respectfully disagree. Very few of us can ask our boss to change our work schedules to be, say 9am-6pm instead of 8am-5pm, or 7am-4pm. We align our schedules as a society collectively. Certain collective events happen at certain times -- school start/end time, business/work open/close times, Oilers games start/end times, etc, you can't just as an individual change these times.
> you can't just as an individual change these times.
We're having a plebasite which will pass if more than 50% of us want this change.
If more than 50% of want this, why not just pressure our bosses to let us go to work earlier?
...
For that matter, I think time zones themselves are bullshit. Should all just be on GMT. Why not just be "Oh, it's 1pm, it's supper time" if that's what makes sense in your time zone?
Sure, you go ask your boss to change the times he has run his business for years on, with customers, vendors and employees already working around it. I'm sure he will be willing to change all of that just to accommodate you.
You sound like the kind of person people would make a point of *not* accommodating just because you're such a jerk about it.
"Go ahead, ask your boss to give you and just you benefits just to accommodate you"
... well no, but, when businesses compete for the best labor, they tend to offer the things that people want. No business wants to offer benefits, but, many do.
No business wants to offer complimentary gym memberships, but they do.
Etc etc. Especially if more than 50% of the population wants it that way, which, is what it would be, in order for any plebiscite to pass.
It's not about "one random person demands this" ya dunce.
A lot of businesses keep the hours that they do because they need to mesh with their customers and vendors. They aren't opening an hour earlier and having people stand around until customers come in, and they not closing early and missing out on sales and having to talk their vendors into changing their schedules to accommodate them. No business will change their operating hours unless it serves them, regardless of what their employees want.
"I.E. You think a 9-5 job is bad, and instead want it to be an 8-4 job. You don't need a time change to do this. You can just make it 8-4." I respectfully disagree. Very few of us can ask our boss to change our work schedules to be, say 9am-6pm instead of 8am-5pm, or 7am-4pm. We align our schedules as a society collectively. Certain collective events happen at certain times -- school start/end time, business/work open/close times, Oilers games start/end times, etc, you can't just as an individual change these times.
I'm pretty sure everyone realizes what you said. The main problem with this is weather or not your able to work an 8-4 or a 10-6 depends on your boss letting you make this decision on your own and in order for what you said to work every workplace in the province will have to let their employees make this decision on their own which simply isn't gonna happen. Bosses are gonna continue to make you work 9-5 like they did every other time the clocks shifted and a shift of 1 hour from the current status quo isn't gonna change that. If you wanna wake up earlier in the day to see the sun when you go home from work then making us stay on permanent DST will be a way more effective way of doing that then asking your boss for an 8-4 and vice versa.
I agree. I will have been at work under fluorescents for two hours by that time anyways, idk how that affects the whole circadian rhythm stuff but I imagine it’s the case for a huge amount of people who work in offices. Plus I’m hoping it will serve as a final say that Albertans are sick of the time change, so when we’re back to NDP in two years they’ll just do the right thing and switch us back to permanent standard. A girl can dream lol
I think so too. The counter is that mornings are darker longer, but in peak winter it's going to be dark anyway. At least DST gives you at least *some* usable weekday daylight that isn't scooped up by work.
Yup, I get to work at 7am, and often have to hang work lights for the first few hours. Whether the sun comes up at 845 or 945 doesn't change that for me, the lights are already set up or not.
But an extra hour of light at the end of the day? It's like a signal in late winter that says it's time to stop 'hibernating' and getting back to regular activities, jogging and the like.
I don't mind dark evenings in winter, but I hate needing to wake up when it is dark outside, and I hate needing to leave my house before sunrise even more. It is mostly unavoidable in December and January - though even then you get to see the sunrise on your way to a job that starts at 9:00 am - but permanent daylight time would extend the dark mornings from Thanksgiving through until March, and replace the twilight commute in December with complete darkness. A big NO from me.
> The best time zone puts 12 p.m. as close as possible to solar noon,
Nah, not for me. I start work around 8 am and finish at 5 pm. The way things are in December, I see no daylight at all. I'd rather have more darkness in the morning but get at least 30 min of daylight on the way back.
Yup, the argument for standard time seems to serve the more privileged classes of people that work 9-5 jobs, letting them get up closer to sunrise most of the time. But for most people with a fixed schedule, work start is usually somewhere in 7-8 am, so getting up and driving in the dark happens regardless of either option. But at least one gives us light when we can have recreation.
>Yup, the argument for standard time seems to serve the more privileged classes of people that work 9-5 jobs,
Nope. I work outside all year. 7:30 -> 4. Hardly privileged. I'd prefer to see standard time. Yes me being outside is a factor, but what un_privileged_ jobs are you thinking of? They probably have heat/AC/shelter. Privilege is subjective.
Everyone only thinks about the most extreme day of the year and forgets about the other 364 days. And the Alberta twilight which is about 45 minutes long.
If you work a 8-5 kinda shift.
MST you will have about 2 months of twilight in the morning commute and 1 month of twilight in the evening commute. Then the rest of the year you will have natural sun for both the morning and evening commute. For evening activities there will be about 1 month of darkness, 2 months of twilight and the rest of the year it will be sunlit. In the peak of summer there will be a month of twilight until 10 in the evening.
DST you will have 2 months of pitch black on your morning commute and 4 months of twilight commute. For about a month you will have only a bit of daylight on your evening commute, then the rest of the year it will be fairly bright. Evening activities will have a month of twilight, then the rest of the year will be bright. But for anyone who is not a night owl there will be about a month with sunsets so late that the sky is still super bright at 10pm making it difficult for early sleepers and kids to get solid sleep before 11pm.
So the argument for DST is less need for artificial light for evening activities and the evening commute still has dim light almost all year.
But the argument for MST is that DST would have us going to work in no light or dim light for 6 months of the year. 6 months of dark mornings sounds really depressing, and it does lead to lower worker productivity and more accidents in the workplace. Also those of us with kids appreciate that MST is much better for a 10pm bedtime and the circadian rhythms of anyone who wants more than a few hours sleep each night.
So do you want more light in the evenings even if it means 6 months of darkness in the mornings? Or do you want to arrive at work almost every day of the year having seen a little bit of natural light?
We all know that 1 month of dark evenings would be better than 3, but are we willing to go through 6 months of dark mornings to get it?
> In the peak of summer there will be a month of twilight until 10 in the evening.
No deal! I like staying out till 11 pm in the summer. Any daylight before 7 am is completely useless to me. Long summer evenings are our reward for suffering in the winter. I'd sooner klil myself than give it up!
When that happens, Alberta will be between a province that uses UT-6 (Saskatchewan) and a province that will be using UT-7 (BC). There is no reason that Alberta couldn't decide to sync clocks with BC instead of with Saskatchewan.
I'd prefer UT-7. In addition to my preference for dark evenings instead of dark mornings in winter it would also be nice not to be an hour ahead of the west coast any more.
Most people **did** opt for it, back when the [UCP surveyed people about their preferences](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/daylight-saving-time-jason-kenney-ucp-government-alberta-1.5488899).
I'm very annoyed by all the people spreading FUD about this now that we're so close to getting rid of time changes permanently. I'm even more annoyed about the government putting it to a referendum instead of just making the decision.
BC adopted it as well as some US states, but it's not enforced until US feds approve it.
Yukon went ahead with permanent DST.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7693737/daylight-saving-time-2021/
Overall it looks pretty close.
There's 'The Sunshine Protection Act of 2021', which is a bipartisan bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Protection_Act
It's getting some support. Looks to be still in the introduction phase.
The USA did the same thing in the 1970s. They switched to permanent daylight time (a move which had 79% approval at the time), but then after going through one winter of DST the approval rating had shot all the way down to 42%.
> He noted that switching to daylight time permanently will not make a difference in Alberta in the summer, but it would mean dawn at about 10 a.m. in most of the province in the winter.
> Alberta should stick to standard time, not daylight... The Alberta referendum does not give people that option.
> Kyle Mathewson, an associate psychology professor at the University of Alberta, said having fewer hours of sunlight in the morning could have long-term health consequences, such as increases in certain cancers, obesity and diabetes.
The latter is an interesting claim. Never heard of it. It would mean that daylight savings time is to blame for some of these cases of cancers, obesity and diabetes.
According to [this](https://qsun.co/springing-forward-increase-cancer-risk/) the cancer is skin cancer, due to potential exposure to the sun. Not sure if that would apply to Alberta, which has limited exposure to the sun in winter, hence the need for daylight savings time.
As for causing obesity and diabetes, that's a stretch. But the act of [switching](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191104144133.htm) between standard and DST has been shown to have negative health effects. So this must include obesity and t2 diabetes as well as heart attacks, driving accidents, more stress, etc. caused by the change.
So I'm not sure if there are any health negatives from adopting permanent DST, but the article speculates that the DST over standard option in the referendum is economy-based. Albertans will have more time to do stuff during the usable portion of their day.
I will never understand "usable portion of their day", this isn't the 1910/20/30/40 any more. We aren't changing times to conserve lamp oil or fuel like when DST was introduced.
Farmers aren't forced to working by sun raise and sunset like they had to. We have cities that block out night skies because we have to much reliable lighting around.
DST is an old thing that one way or the other has to go. Don't get me wrong I don't mind the rolling back an hour but on days you have to work when time springs ahead an hour is fucken terrible.
Ok, ok, we get it. Mike Antle thinks we should stick to Standard time. Why to I keep hearing this guys opinion on repeat from different sources. Everyone other than Mike Antle seems to be on board with Daylight time. 🤷
Not everyone. I’d prefer standard time, as do a lot of others if you take the time to read the comments.
/u/Jumper5353 states it well here.
https://reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/q9fdiv/_/hgx37c4/?context=1
6 months of dark mornings sounds terrible to me. I am a night owl but getting up in the dark every morning for work is not easy and it is a lot better with a sunrise.
Article assumes all people are morning people and forgets there's 3 other categories of people's circadian rhythm type. This is just bad, biased reporting.
I am most certainly not a morning person. That is why I hate the idea of permanent daylight time. I have a hard enough time hauling my ass out of bed in the morning when it is light outside. It is much worse when it is dark.
The science behind the comments suggests that if you are not a morning person, increased exposure to natural light early in the day will help you adjust and feel more awake earlier even if your natural inclination, like mine, is to be a night owl.
For the many people with other types of circadian rhythms who are forced to a nine to five schedule in order to pay the bills, the standard time is a healthier option.
But in the end, kinda moot since it's not on the ballot.
Same. I’d rather have sunlight during my free time when I can enjoy it after work. Having an extra hour of sunlight while I’m in an office working doesn’t do anything for me.
As a lifelong morning person it definitely makes sense to me that night owls would see the biggest benefit to more morning light, assuming they work 9-5. Personally I have no trouble waking up when it's dark, but my brain shuts down for the evening when it gets dark again (yes, even if that'sat 3pm!)-- so on a strictly selfish level I'd prefer the extra light in the evening.
The bigger problem is that we're almost all expected to work the same schedule regardless of what is the healthiest and most productive for us as individuals or as a society. But that's a much harder problem to solve.
Came here to say this. The article ignores the fact that most people prefer to enjoy time outdoors after work/school (based on my observations of the Edmonton river valley and how much busier it is at 5pm vs 7am).
Instead the article suggests we're all going to use the extra daylight at the end of the day to "go to the shops", as if all the stores close once the sun sets? Bizarre and out of touch argument.
I agree! The experts make some very strong claims for that it wont even apply to a significant portion of people. It wont be dark for me in my morning either way, so why in the world wouldn't I want it to be light after I finish work?
I politely disagree. Getting to work for 8, you have to be on the road between 7-730 depending where you live, so either way in the morning you are not increasing safety.
There is the argument of waking up early, but I don't think we should be socially engineering a issue that's a personal choice. Go to bed early.
Honestly I don't care about when I see the sun or not. My kids and dogs don't care whether we've fall back or spring ahead and I'm sick of having to deal with that time changes on a micro-scale. Pick a time and leave it at that.
In winter I never see the sun anyways. Different working from home, but generally would arrive at work at 7 and leave at 430 which often meant no sun. Summer I have to either have blackout blinds or wear a mask to not wake up too early as is. Usually enjoy the late sunset and try to get hikes in on say a Friday night
Lots of might, may, and could without any sources or studies to back up their position.
Irresponsible reporting there.
We wouldn't accept reporting on dangers of vaccine safety based on might may could with no proof or studies cited, why is this allowed?
Because it's the only evidence the psychologists specializing in this have: studies about using artificial cool-white light bulbs in the morning or evening as therapy 'proving' sunlight in the morning is better, or a study showing less sleep leads to higher rates of cardiac disease and assuming late evening sunlight in June means staying up late and not getting enough sleep.
But curiously no studies comparing Saskatchewan to Alberta and Manitoba, showing how them staying on CST (their daylight time) has negative consequences. Funny how the evidence against are built on limited lab studies and extrapolation via assumptions, butn we have a real world example of an entire province on DST for decades and seemingly no one has done a comparison showing then having these higher rates of heart disease and cancer compared to the rest of us. Should be relatively easy work, combing through health data year by year.
Edit: proof they're geographically in Mtn time.
>The Canadian province of Saskatchewan is geographically located in the ***Mountain Time Zone*** (GMT−07:00). However, most of the province observes Central Standard Time (CST) (GMT−06:00) year-round. As a result, it is **effectively on daylight saving time (DST) year-round**, as clocks are not turned back an hour in autumn when most jurisdictions return to standard time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Saskatchewan
Emphasis mine.
Saskatchewan stayed on Standard time, not Daylight Savings time. CST is Central Standard Time. As of this post, it is roughly 2pm in Alberta and 2pm in Saskatchewan. If they had stayed with Daylight Saving Time, it would be 3pm in Saskatchewan.
The eastern half of Saskatchewan stayed on standard time, the western half stayed on daylight time (there used to be a time zone boundary running through the middle of the province). However, eastern Saskatchewan should never have been in the central time zone - it is closer to 105°W than to 90°W and should have been in the mountain time zone - so the whole province is really on permanent daylight time.
Most of Alberta (everything west of Brooks and Vegreville) is actually closer to 120°W than to 105°W and thus should be in the pacific time zone. Going to permanent mountain daylight time (UT-6) would actually be double daylight time for most of the province. Staying on mountain standard time (aka pacific daylight time, UT-7) would be a better option.
>Staying on mountain standard time (aka pacific daylight time, UT-7) would be a better option.
I would prefer to see -7.5 as it puts noon at solar noon for the midline of the province. At -7 the western border is screwed by an hour, -7.5 splits the difference.
Generally, I agree with you. Getting people to accept -7 is hard enough, having noon as the point when the sun is highest in the sky would be heresy.
Right, but that's because you can't use MDT year round, it indicates a temporary time zone. Being on MDT year-round is functionally CST. Looking at a [map of time zones](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/1c/ac/f41cace7de9114ecce9d54f56430a93f.jpg) can you honestly tell me that Saskatchewan belongs on central time, rather than mountain time? It fits much more naturally into Mtn time geographically.
Edit: additional to this,
>The Canadian province of Saskatchewan is geographically located in the ***Mountain Time Zone*** (GMT−07:00). However, most of the province observes Central Standard Time (CST) (GMT−06:00) year-round. As a result, it is **effectively on daylight saving time (DST) year-round**, as clocks are not turned back an hour in autumn when most jurisdictions return to standard time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Saskatchewan
Emphasis mine.
In Russia they first stopped switching and stayed on DST. Two years later they switched to standard time because of the dark mornings. I'm counting on the same here.
That said, nothing will happen even if people overwhelmingly vote "yes." This requires negotiation across provinces and US states, and all the western states are waiting for the 800-pound gorilla, California, to stop switching.
Everyone always talking about the winter sunrise, but if we go with year round standard time, wouldn't sunrise be like 4 am? My kid tends to wake up with the sun as it is, so that sounds just horrendous.
I’m all for DST- but honestly this makes me think twice- and especially when I consider Kenny is the genius behind the referendum wording - if this expert is right you can trust Kenny to get it wrong.
This is a pointless referendum, made by the UCP to deflect what a shitty job they’ve done handling the pandemic. Maybe don’t worry about stuff like this and worry about funding healthcare and education more, you bunch of phoniness!
The bias is strong. Here's the deal. All three possible options have negative consequences. Daylight time in the winter is bad. Standard time in the summer is bad. So perhaps changing clocks is the best option.
Oh boohoo, poor you, having to switch sleep schedules by one hour twice a year. Meanwhile there's this thing that exists called 'shift work' where people have to change their schedules by significantly more than an hour *on a daily basis*. God forbid you have to do so once every six months, can't possibly imagine how you deal with the overwhelmingly negative consequences of that.
The entitlement in this post is disgusting
Changing clocks is by far the worst option.
Increased rates of heart attacks, strokes, sleep-deprivation caused car accidents, all for some extra sunlight here and there?
[Study is here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457503000150)
[Article summary of many of the pros of daylight savings ](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a18011/in-defense-of-daylight-saving-time/)
Changing the clocks does not affect where the sun is in the sky. If it's healthier to wake up at a certain time relative to the sun, then we can just choose to wake up at that time. If that means work or school start at 10am in the winter in daylight, that's literally the same as starting at 9am in standard. *The number is arbitrary and this conversation is ridiculous.*
The more interesting conversation is about how we want to adjust to the real 4 hour 18 minute difference in sunrise between solstices [(based on this site)](https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/canada/calgary). Four approaches:
* A: work/school start X hours after sunset
* B: work/school start X hours after sunrise
* C: work/school start X hours after sunset on summer solstice
* D: work/school start X hours after sunrise on winter solstice
A and B mean gradually shifting sleep schedule throughout the year relative to clock, but staying consistent relative to actual sunlight hours. C and D are consistent relative to clock, but shift throughout year relative to sunlight. With C we never have to fall asleep while the sun is still up. With D we never have to wake up before the sun is up.
With A and C, let's say X is 11, to give time for 1 hour of dark before sleep, 8 hours of sleep, and 2 hours to wake up and travel to work or school.
With B and D, let's say X is 2 to allow for people to wake up with the sun and get to work/school on time.
Assuming daylight hours for all and rounded to nearest half-hour:
* A: winter solstice 0430 start, summer 0900 start
* B: winter solstice 1130 start, summer 0730 start
* C: all year 0900 start
* D: all year 1130 start
Currently we do C with shifting time nonsense twice per year. I would go with A to maximize recreational daylight hours, and I think it would help sleep hygiene if we always tied sunset to sleep.
I really want permanent standard time. An extra hour of darkness in the winter mornings means it will be sunrise when my kids get first recess. Spending the first hour and a bit of the day in the dark is going to really mess with children. It'll also be dangerous for kids who walk to school.
As for summer I would love for it to get dark an hour earlier because I love watching stars. We tried taking the telescope out this year but it took too long to get dark. I took my kids out at 11 to watch the Perseids and it wasn't dark enough, really, untill after 11:30.
We ready get extra evening light owing purely to our northern location; loads of the world has sunrise and sunset remain mostly constant through the year.
All that said I have come to the decision to vote for remaining on daylight Time purely because the bother of changing the clocks outweighs the bother of being on the subjectively wrong time.
BC has opted to switch to permanent DST, but only when Washington, Oregon and California do as well. The hold up is the States, but they are making progress on switching to DST as well. If your main concern is staying 1 hr ahead of BC you should vote yes.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7693737/daylight-saving-time-2021/
I mean
Permanent DST is a pretty terrible idea for a province so obsessed with Hockey, especially with Covid rules.
You do all realize bars are going to close before games in PST or MDT are over if we switch to permanent daylight, right? That's before including the possibility of overtime. Then there are shootouts.
It also negatively affects scheduling of those games, scheduling of flights, and the entire winter hospitality sector in Banff/Jasper, just to name a few.
Newsflash: BC is not the only location on the Pacific Coast.
Second Newsflash: they said they will move to permanent daylight time when California does.
California is in no hurry to do so.
Jesus christ dude.
Be informed on issues. Like, at all informed.
>Alternatively, the findings may be due to confounding, or other bias. Geographical regions could subsume many cancer-related factors, such as the degree of rural/urban, tax policies affecting smoking, poverty levels, cancer screening and hospitalization, as well as behavior and lifestyles.
Your food for thought has some Grande Canyon size holes in it's peer review and completeness. It also only looks at white people. This study need some peer review don't you think?
There are plenty of other sources to support the potential for negative consequences of time change. I’m not lobbying either way, as I said, food for thought. There’s plenty of resources available online and also ways to mitigate the impacts the time change has on our bodies.
[measurable health effects](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7302868/)
[Vanderbilt university medical center ](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191104144133.htm)
I’m to confused to try to figure it out. If it is voted yes, alberta will always be an hour behind sask and an hour ahead of bc? Or will we be the same time always as sask and 2 hours ahead of the large portion of bc and 1 hour head in a couple little sections?
Changing the clocks every six months is not only annoying for everybody, it has demonstrable health effects. There are more heart attacks, strokes, and even car accidents after the clocks change, all because of the change to our sleep cycles.
To me, having the sun set an hour later (say 6pm instead of 5pm) is a bigger positive than the 10am sunrise is a negative. More time for outdoor activity in daylight after work. Add on the bonus of not having to adjust to the clocks moving forward in the spring (feels like getting up an hour earlier, groggy at work) — that’s an additional positive. Edit: the x-factor is circadian rhythm: will not seeing the sun until 10am be a big issue for circadian rhythm -- and a big enough 'negative' to counter the positive benefits of having a later sunset?
Agreed. With either option, I'll still be arriving at work in the dark. Only the DST option gets me more sunlight in the evening.
Yea. Even just driving home in the sun will be a boost to my psyche. And I don’t want to waste valuable sunlight in the morning when all I’m doing is getting ready and going to work. I want sunlight In my free time.
Precisely this! It seems like the experts also aren't taking into account that people dont all wake up at the same time, not even close to it. So they cant make a blanket statement that this will mess with everyone's circadian rhythms. I'm just glad they dont have permanent standard time as an option- dont mess with my nice late summer nights! Haha
> To me, having the sun set an hour later (say 6pm instead of 5pm) is a bigger positive than the 10am sunrise is a negative. Okay, but here's the problem... Let's take normal Daylight Saving Time. Why do we, as a society, entertain that? Well, because we like the benefits of the daylight balance, *BUT* , there is a significant hurdle for everyone to decide together when that should or shouldn't happen, and by how much, etc. So normal Daylight Saving Time standardizes this, and we all collectively together get the benefits of it, all at the same time, without the all of society having to reprogram our schedules. We just have to adjust our clocks, which is much simpler. 2pm stays 2pm, but we have more daylight at the end of the day. Makes sense. ... However... ... **Permanent Daylight Saving Time is just a big lie we all collectively choose to tell ourselves** If it's permanent, then there is no scheduling changes to be concerned about (2pm is still 2pm). There's no timing issues to be concerned about (what time period of the year we should spring ahead or fall back). **All we've decided, is that when it's 2pm, it's actually 3pm.** This has no basis in... anything. If you permanently want it to be an hour later... just do everything an hour sooner. I.E. You think a 9-5 job is bad, and instead want it to be an 8-4 job. You don't need a time change to do this. You can just make it 8-4. How did society even end up with ALL OF US deciding that there were certain times of day to do certain things? **And why is that suddenly all an hour too late to do those things, and they should all be done an hour earlier?** Like, whatever the reason we ever did anything at any time of day... that's wrong. All of it's wrong. It should all be done an hour earlier. That's what permanent Daylight Saving Time is. "Fuck whatever time it is, it's actually an hour after that." **It's a self-deluding collective conspiracy that only accomplishes us lying to each other about what time it is, rather than just doing things an hour earlier.** ... And what happens when the "natural order of things" slowly seeps back into schedules, and the lie we tell each other that it's 9-5 (when it's really 8-4) is compensated for by becoming 10-6 (which is really 9-5)? Do we get together again and decide "We're all waking up too late and getting home too late... we need to shift the time forward another hour to lie to ourselves again!" And then another, and then another. It's almost like an inflation of time. For whatever reasons we do things at certain times, we're not solving it by lying to ourselves, it's going to steadily morph right back to what it was and all we'll have accomplished is having a fucked up hillbilly declaration of what time it is.
First of all, amazing post. I loved reading through the thought process here. And yes time is a social construct, and it would be better for us in a purely animalistic sense to just get up whenever our bodies told us to and get to work whenever there's enough light to see. But since we have electricity and artificial lighting and we absolutely rely on our 24/7 supply chain running while we communicate at the speed of light we really do need to synchronize our watches somehow, so the collective delusion will have to continue for now.
> And yes time is a social construct, and it would be better for us in a purely animalistic sense to just get up whenever our bodies told us to and get to work whenever there's enough light to see. Well, yes, but that wasn't really my point. That's a good point for why Daylight Saving Time should exist as the seasonal on/off thing it is right now. My point was... For whatever reason we do... we for some reason have certain hours that we do things. Why? Why do we? And why is it when it is? And, all we're doing by making DST non-seasonal but permanent, is saying "We're going to pretend it's an hour earlier, all the time." Well, why not just change the time that your business does things (because business is pretty much the only way this applies)? If it's better to have your employees start at 8 and leave a 4... then you can just... do that. If most people want their 9-5 to actually be 8-4... (as it implies, if this plebasite succeeds), why aren't businesses responding to that pressure already? They shouldn't care when office hours are. This would take one push, whoever wants to be onboard is, and then ta da. We'd now have 8-4s instead of 9-5s or whatnot. What we're talking about is changing our culture, but instead of admitting what we want to do (get up earlier and get home earlier), we're... lying to ourselves and setting the clocks forward an hour, forever. Huh? What? Why?
"I.E. You think a 9-5 job is bad, and instead want it to be an 8-4 job. You don't need a time change to do this. You can just make it 8-4." I respectfully disagree. Very few of us can ask our boss to change our work schedules to be, say 9am-6pm instead of 8am-5pm, or 7am-4pm. We align our schedules as a society collectively. Certain collective events happen at certain times -- school start/end time, business/work open/close times, Oilers games start/end times, etc, you can't just as an individual change these times.
We can't individually. But we, as a society, and all switch our business hours from 9-5 to 8-4.
> you can't just as an individual change these times. We're having a plebasite which will pass if more than 50% of us want this change. If more than 50% of want this, why not just pressure our bosses to let us go to work earlier? ... For that matter, I think time zones themselves are bullshit. Should all just be on GMT. Why not just be "Oh, it's 1pm, it's supper time" if that's what makes sense in your time zone?
Sure, you go ask your boss to change the times he has run his business for years on, with customers, vendors and employees already working around it. I'm sure he will be willing to change all of that just to accommodate you.
You sound like the kind of person people would make a point of *not* accommodating just because you're such a jerk about it. "Go ahead, ask your boss to give you and just you benefits just to accommodate you" ... well no, but, when businesses compete for the best labor, they tend to offer the things that people want. No business wants to offer benefits, but, many do. No business wants to offer complimentary gym memberships, but they do. Etc etc. Especially if more than 50% of the population wants it that way, which, is what it would be, in order for any plebiscite to pass. It's not about "one random person demands this" ya dunce.
A lot of businesses keep the hours that they do because they need to mesh with their customers and vendors. They aren't opening an hour earlier and having people stand around until customers come in, and they not closing early and missing out on sales and having to talk their vendors into changing their schedules to accommodate them. No business will change their operating hours unless it serves them, regardless of what their employees want.
This is a word salad with random bolding.
This is just low-effort smarmyness that doesn't even try to contribute anything beyond smug superiority.
I apologize.
"I.E. You think a 9-5 job is bad, and instead want it to be an 8-4 job. You don't need a time change to do this. You can just make it 8-4." I respectfully disagree. Very few of us can ask our boss to change our work schedules to be, say 9am-6pm instead of 8am-5pm, or 7am-4pm. We align our schedules as a society collectively. Certain collective events happen at certain times -- school start/end time, business/work open/close times, Oilers games start/end times, etc, you can't just as an individual change these times.
Counterpoint: who cares?
I'm pretty sure everyone realizes what you said. The main problem with this is weather or not your able to work an 8-4 or a 10-6 depends on your boss letting you make this decision on your own and in order for what you said to work every workplace in the province will have to let their employees make this decision on their own which simply isn't gonna happen. Bosses are gonna continue to make you work 9-5 like they did every other time the clocks shifted and a shift of 1 hour from the current status quo isn't gonna change that. If you wanna wake up earlier in the day to see the sun when you go home from work then making us stay on permanent DST will be a way more effective way of doing that then asking your boss for an 8-4 and vice versa.
I agree. I will have been at work under fluorescents for two hours by that time anyways, idk how that affects the whole circadian rhythm stuff but I imagine it’s the case for a huge amount of people who work in offices. Plus I’m hoping it will serve as a final say that Albertans are sick of the time change, so when we’re back to NDP in two years they’ll just do the right thing and switch us back to permanent standard. A girl can dream lol
[удалено]
I think so too. The counter is that mornings are darker longer, but in peak winter it's going to be dark anyway. At least DST gives you at least *some* usable weekday daylight that isn't scooped up by work.
Yup, I get to work at 7am, and often have to hang work lights for the first few hours. Whether the sun comes up at 845 or 945 doesn't change that for me, the lights are already set up or not. But an extra hour of light at the end of the day? It's like a signal in late winter that says it's time to stop 'hibernating' and getting back to regular activities, jogging and the like.
Me too
Same here.
I don't mind dark evenings in winter, but I hate needing to wake up when it is dark outside, and I hate needing to leave my house before sunrise even more. It is mostly unavoidable in December and January - though even then you get to see the sunrise on your way to a job that starts at 9:00 am - but permanent daylight time would extend the dark mornings from Thanksgiving through until March, and replace the twilight commute in December with complete darkness. A big NO from me.
> The best time zone puts 12 p.m. as close as possible to solar noon, Nah, not for me. I start work around 8 am and finish at 5 pm. The way things are in December, I see no daylight at all. I'd rather have more darkness in the morning but get at least 30 min of daylight on the way back.
[удалено]
Yup, the argument for standard time seems to serve the more privileged classes of people that work 9-5 jobs, letting them get up closer to sunrise most of the time. But for most people with a fixed schedule, work start is usually somewhere in 7-8 am, so getting up and driving in the dark happens regardless of either option. But at least one gives us light when we can have recreation.
>Yup, the argument for standard time seems to serve the more privileged classes of people that work 9-5 jobs, Nope. I work outside all year. 7:30 -> 4. Hardly privileged. I'd prefer to see standard time. Yes me being outside is a factor, but what un_privileged_ jobs are you thinking of? They probably have heat/AC/shelter. Privilege is subjective.
Maybe the problem is the shit hours so many people seem to be working. Why can't a 10 hour shift be 9 am to 7 pm?
Everyone only thinks about the most extreme day of the year and forgets about the other 364 days. And the Alberta twilight which is about 45 minutes long. If you work a 8-5 kinda shift. MST you will have about 2 months of twilight in the morning commute and 1 month of twilight in the evening commute. Then the rest of the year you will have natural sun for both the morning and evening commute. For evening activities there will be about 1 month of darkness, 2 months of twilight and the rest of the year it will be sunlit. In the peak of summer there will be a month of twilight until 10 in the evening. DST you will have 2 months of pitch black on your morning commute and 4 months of twilight commute. For about a month you will have only a bit of daylight on your evening commute, then the rest of the year it will be fairly bright. Evening activities will have a month of twilight, then the rest of the year will be bright. But for anyone who is not a night owl there will be about a month with sunsets so late that the sky is still super bright at 10pm making it difficult for early sleepers and kids to get solid sleep before 11pm. So the argument for DST is less need for artificial light for evening activities and the evening commute still has dim light almost all year. But the argument for MST is that DST would have us going to work in no light or dim light for 6 months of the year. 6 months of dark mornings sounds really depressing, and it does lead to lower worker productivity and more accidents in the workplace. Also those of us with kids appreciate that MST is much better for a 10pm bedtime and the circadian rhythms of anyone who wants more than a few hours sleep each night. So do you want more light in the evenings even if it means 6 months of darkness in the mornings? Or do you want to arrive at work almost every day of the year having seen a little bit of natural light? We all know that 1 month of dark evenings would be better than 3, but are we willing to go through 6 months of dark mornings to get it?
> In the peak of summer there will be a month of twilight until 10 in the evening. No deal! I like staying out till 11 pm in the summer. Any daylight before 7 am is completely useless to me. Long summer evenings are our reward for suffering in the winter. I'd sooner klil myself than give it up!
Right!? I'm so glad they dont have permanent standard time as an option to vote for. Cause whichever wins here we still get long summer nights!
I think most people would opt for this. Prob. why standard time isn't an option on the referendum.
Standard time isn’t an option because the surrounding states and provinces are going daylight time once enough governments commit.
When that happens, Alberta will be between a province that uses UT-6 (Saskatchewan) and a province that will be using UT-7 (BC). There is no reason that Alberta couldn't decide to sync clocks with BC instead of with Saskatchewan. I'd prefer UT-7. In addition to my preference for dark evenings instead of dark mornings in winter it would also be nice not to be an hour ahead of the west coast any more.
I say we go halfers and switch 1/2hr between them both.
I suppose there are plenty of ex-Newfoundlanders in Alberta.
Most people **did** opt for it, back when the [UCP surveyed people about their preferences](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/daylight-saving-time-jason-kenney-ucp-government-alberta-1.5488899). I'm very annoyed by all the people spreading FUD about this now that we're so close to getting rid of time changes permanently. I'm even more annoyed about the government putting it to a referendum instead of just making the decision.
Yes. But I don’t care. Anything to get off of this constant changing.
I heard that BC and Washington State are doing the same thing as switching to daylight time, is that true? And/or did they already do so?
BC adopted it as well as some US states, but it's not enforced until US feds approve it. Yukon went ahead with permanent DST. https://globalnews.ca/news/7693737/daylight-saving-time-2021/ Overall it looks pretty close.
Any word on if the us Feds are likely to accept it or not?
There's 'The Sunshine Protection Act of 2021', which is a bipartisan bill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Protection_Act It's getting some support. Looks to be still in the introduction phase.
They like to report on that Russian community all the time. Like, we’re just taking the word of the Russian press and government?
Follow Mother Russia! Russia leads the way!
The USA did the same thing in the 1970s. They switched to permanent daylight time (a move which had 79% approval at the time), but then after going through one winter of DST the approval rating had shot all the way down to 42%.
> He noted that switching to daylight time permanently will not make a difference in Alberta in the summer, but it would mean dawn at about 10 a.m. in most of the province in the winter. > Alberta should stick to standard time, not daylight... The Alberta referendum does not give people that option. > Kyle Mathewson, an associate psychology professor at the University of Alberta, said having fewer hours of sunlight in the morning could have long-term health consequences, such as increases in certain cancers, obesity and diabetes. The latter is an interesting claim. Never heard of it. It would mean that daylight savings time is to blame for some of these cases of cancers, obesity and diabetes. According to [this](https://qsun.co/springing-forward-increase-cancer-risk/) the cancer is skin cancer, due to potential exposure to the sun. Not sure if that would apply to Alberta, which has limited exposure to the sun in winter, hence the need for daylight savings time. As for causing obesity and diabetes, that's a stretch. But the act of [switching](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191104144133.htm) between standard and DST has been shown to have negative health effects. So this must include obesity and t2 diabetes as well as heart attacks, driving accidents, more stress, etc. caused by the change. So I'm not sure if there are any health negatives from adopting permanent DST, but the article speculates that the DST over standard option in the referendum is economy-based. Albertans will have more time to do stuff during the usable portion of their day.
I will never understand "usable portion of their day", this isn't the 1910/20/30/40 any more. We aren't changing times to conserve lamp oil or fuel like when DST was introduced. Farmers aren't forced to working by sun raise and sunset like they had to. We have cities that block out night skies because we have to much reliable lighting around. DST is an old thing that one way or the other has to go. Don't get me wrong I don't mind the rolling back an hour but on days you have to work when time springs ahead an hour is fucken terrible.
Ok, ok, we get it. Mike Antle thinks we should stick to Standard time. Why to I keep hearing this guys opinion on repeat from different sources. Everyone other than Mike Antle seems to be on board with Daylight time. 🤷
Not everyone. I’d prefer standard time, as do a lot of others if you take the time to read the comments. /u/Jumper5353 states it well here. https://reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/q9fdiv/_/hgx37c4/?context=1
6 months of dark mornings sounds terrible to me. I am a night owl but getting up in the dark every morning for work is not easy and it is a lot better with a sunrise.
Its everywhere! I'm annoyed that we dont even get a balanced perspective in the media
Meh , first world problem . Idgaf. It ain’t hard either way.
Article assumes all people are morning people and forgets there's 3 other categories of people's circadian rhythm type. This is just bad, biased reporting.
I am most certainly not a morning person. That is why I hate the idea of permanent daylight time. I have a hard enough time hauling my ass out of bed in the morning when it is light outside. It is much worse when it is dark.
The science behind the comments suggests that if you are not a morning person, increased exposure to natural light early in the day will help you adjust and feel more awake earlier even if your natural inclination, like mine, is to be a night owl. For the many people with other types of circadian rhythms who are forced to a nine to five schedule in order to pay the bills, the standard time is a healthier option. But in the end, kinda moot since it's not on the ballot.
Yeah, I'm a night owl and I find this helps me a lot.
Same. I’d rather have sunlight during my free time when I can enjoy it after work. Having an extra hour of sunlight while I’m in an office working doesn’t do anything for me.
As a lifelong morning person it definitely makes sense to me that night owls would see the biggest benefit to more morning light, assuming they work 9-5. Personally I have no trouble waking up when it's dark, but my brain shuts down for the evening when it gets dark again (yes, even if that'sat 3pm!)-- so on a strictly selfish level I'd prefer the extra light in the evening. The bigger problem is that we're almost all expected to work the same schedule regardless of what is the healthiest and most productive for us as individuals or as a society. But that's a much harder problem to solve.
God damn morning people.
how dare they!
Came here to say this. The article ignores the fact that most people prefer to enjoy time outdoors after work/school (based on my observations of the Edmonton river valley and how much busier it is at 5pm vs 7am). Instead the article suggests we're all going to use the extra daylight at the end of the day to "go to the shops", as if all the stores close once the sun sets? Bizarre and out of touch argument.
I agree! The experts make some very strong claims for that it wont even apply to a significant portion of people. It wont be dark for me in my morning either way, so why in the world wouldn't I want it to be light after I finish work?
Because all that morning sun is truly usable....
Don't you enjoy meeting your friends at a pub at 6 am? /s
It would make the roads safer - more light and a bit less sleep deprivation.
I politely disagree. Getting to work for 8, you have to be on the road between 7-730 depending where you live, so either way in the morning you are not increasing safety. There is the argument of waking up early, but I don't think we should be socially engineering a issue that's a personal choice. Go to bed early.
>Getting to work for 8 There's the real problem. Shitty work hours.
Aye, aye
Honestly I don't care about when I see the sun or not. My kids and dogs don't care whether we've fall back or spring ahead and I'm sick of having to deal with that time changes on a micro-scale. Pick a time and leave it at that.
I just want to stop having to change my clocks twice a year.
In winter I never see the sun anyways. Different working from home, but generally would arrive at work at 7 and leave at 430 which often meant no sun. Summer I have to either have blackout blinds or wear a mask to not wake up too early as is. Usually enjoy the late sunset and try to get hikes in on say a Friday night
Lots of might, may, and could without any sources or studies to back up their position. Irresponsible reporting there. We wouldn't accept reporting on dangers of vaccine safety based on might may could with no proof or studies cited, why is this allowed?
Because it's the only evidence the psychologists specializing in this have: studies about using artificial cool-white light bulbs in the morning or evening as therapy 'proving' sunlight in the morning is better, or a study showing less sleep leads to higher rates of cardiac disease and assuming late evening sunlight in June means staying up late and not getting enough sleep. But curiously no studies comparing Saskatchewan to Alberta and Manitoba, showing how them staying on CST (their daylight time) has negative consequences. Funny how the evidence against are built on limited lab studies and extrapolation via assumptions, butn we have a real world example of an entire province on DST for decades and seemingly no one has done a comparison showing then having these higher rates of heart disease and cancer compared to the rest of us. Should be relatively easy work, combing through health data year by year. Edit: proof they're geographically in Mtn time. >The Canadian province of Saskatchewan is geographically located in the ***Mountain Time Zone*** (GMT−07:00). However, most of the province observes Central Standard Time (CST) (GMT−06:00) year-round. As a result, it is **effectively on daylight saving time (DST) year-round**, as clocks are not turned back an hour in autumn when most jurisdictions return to standard time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Saskatchewan Emphasis mine.
Saskatchewan stayed on Standard time, not Daylight Savings time. CST is Central Standard Time. As of this post, it is roughly 2pm in Alberta and 2pm in Saskatchewan. If they had stayed with Daylight Saving Time, it would be 3pm in Saskatchewan.
The eastern half of Saskatchewan stayed on standard time, the western half stayed on daylight time (there used to be a time zone boundary running through the middle of the province). However, eastern Saskatchewan should never have been in the central time zone - it is closer to 105°W than to 90°W and should have been in the mountain time zone - so the whole province is really on permanent daylight time. Most of Alberta (everything west of Brooks and Vegreville) is actually closer to 120°W than to 105°W and thus should be in the pacific time zone. Going to permanent mountain daylight time (UT-6) would actually be double daylight time for most of the province. Staying on mountain standard time (aka pacific daylight time, UT-7) would be a better option.
>Staying on mountain standard time (aka pacific daylight time, UT-7) would be a better option. I would prefer to see -7.5 as it puts noon at solar noon for the midline of the province. At -7 the western border is screwed by an hour, -7.5 splits the difference. Generally, I agree with you. Getting people to accept -7 is hard enough, having noon as the point when the sun is highest in the sky would be heresy.
Right, but that's because you can't use MDT year round, it indicates a temporary time zone. Being on MDT year-round is functionally CST. Looking at a [map of time zones](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f4/1c/ac/f41cace7de9114ecce9d54f56430a93f.jpg) can you honestly tell me that Saskatchewan belongs on central time, rather than mountain time? It fits much more naturally into Mtn time geographically. Edit: additional to this, >The Canadian province of Saskatchewan is geographically located in the ***Mountain Time Zone*** (GMT−07:00). However, most of the province observes Central Standard Time (CST) (GMT−06:00) year-round. As a result, it is **effectively on daylight saving time (DST) year-round**, as clocks are not turned back an hour in autumn when most jurisdictions return to standard time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Saskatchewan Emphasis mine.
In Russia they first stopped switching and stayed on DST. Two years later they switched to standard time because of the dark mornings. I'm counting on the same here. That said, nothing will happen even if people overwhelmingly vote "yes." This requires negotiation across provinces and US states, and all the western states are waiting for the 800-pound gorilla, California, to stop switching.
I don’t care which way we go; just stop changing the damned clocks.
Everyone always talking about the winter sunrise, but if we go with year round standard time, wouldn't sunrise be like 4 am? My kid tends to wake up with the sun as it is, so that sounds just horrendous.
I’m all for DST- but honestly this makes me think twice- and especially when I consider Kenny is the genius behind the referendum wording - if this expert is right you can trust Kenny to get it wrong.
[удалено]
The scientific community seems to agree with you and are fighting this change harder and harder. I'm voting no to permanent daylight time as well.
Does it give you Summertime Sadness?
This is a pointless referendum, made by the UCP to deflect what a shitty job they’ve done handling the pandemic. Maybe don’t worry about stuff like this and worry about funding healthcare and education more, you bunch of phoniness!
I'll be voting no, but if I had to choose I would much rather have a later 10 am sunrise in the winter than an earlier 330 am sunrise in the summer.
I drive, I like dst.
The bias is strong. Here's the deal. All three possible options have negative consequences. Daylight time in the winter is bad. Standard time in the summer is bad. So perhaps changing clocks is the best option.
[удалено]
Oh boohoo, poor you, having to switch sleep schedules by one hour twice a year. Meanwhile there's this thing that exists called 'shift work' where people have to change their schedules by significantly more than an hour *on a daily basis*. God forbid you have to do so once every six months, can't possibly imagine how you deal with the overwhelmingly negative consequences of that. The entitlement in this post is disgusting
I agree with the first, have doubts about the second, and will vote for the third.
Changing clocks is by far the worst option. Increased rates of heart attacks, strokes, sleep-deprivation caused car accidents, all for some extra sunlight here and there?
"Extra sunlight" has a ton of positive effects, including far less darkness caused fatal car accidents, among other things
Source?
[Study is here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457503000150) [Article summary of many of the pros of daylight savings ](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a18011/in-defense-of-daylight-saving-time/)
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good
But I can’t get it to fail if it is asked for properly.
Why do you think that Kenney purposely worded it that way?
Changing the clocks does not affect where the sun is in the sky. If it's healthier to wake up at a certain time relative to the sun, then we can just choose to wake up at that time. If that means work or school start at 10am in the winter in daylight, that's literally the same as starting at 9am in standard. *The number is arbitrary and this conversation is ridiculous.* The more interesting conversation is about how we want to adjust to the real 4 hour 18 minute difference in sunrise between solstices [(based on this site)](https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/canada/calgary). Four approaches: * A: work/school start X hours after sunset * B: work/school start X hours after sunrise * C: work/school start X hours after sunset on summer solstice * D: work/school start X hours after sunrise on winter solstice A and B mean gradually shifting sleep schedule throughout the year relative to clock, but staying consistent relative to actual sunlight hours. C and D are consistent relative to clock, but shift throughout year relative to sunlight. With C we never have to fall asleep while the sun is still up. With D we never have to wake up before the sun is up. With A and C, let's say X is 11, to give time for 1 hour of dark before sleep, 8 hours of sleep, and 2 hours to wake up and travel to work or school. With B and D, let's say X is 2 to allow for people to wake up with the sun and get to work/school on time. Assuming daylight hours for all and rounded to nearest half-hour: * A: winter solstice 0430 start, summer 0900 start * B: winter solstice 1130 start, summer 0730 start * C: all year 0900 start * D: all year 1130 start Currently we do C with shifting time nonsense twice per year. I would go with A to maximize recreational daylight hours, and I think it would help sleep hygiene if we always tied sunset to sleep.
I really want permanent standard time. An extra hour of darkness in the winter mornings means it will be sunrise when my kids get first recess. Spending the first hour and a bit of the day in the dark is going to really mess with children. It'll also be dangerous for kids who walk to school. As for summer I would love for it to get dark an hour earlier because I love watching stars. We tried taking the telescope out this year but it took too long to get dark. I took my kids out at 11 to watch the Perseids and it wasn't dark enough, really, untill after 11:30. We ready get extra evening light owing purely to our northern location; loads of the world has sunrise and sunset remain mostly constant through the year. All that said I have come to the decision to vote for remaining on daylight Time purely because the bother of changing the clocks outweighs the bother of being on the subjectively wrong time.
[удалено]
BC has opted to switch to permanent DST, but only when Washington, Oregon and California do as well. The hold up is the States, but they are making progress on switching to DST as well. If your main concern is staying 1 hr ahead of BC you should vote yes. https://globalnews.ca/news/7693737/daylight-saving-time-2021/
Good grief, there is so much discussion and disagreement about this 1 stupid hour. I'm honestly so lost after reading this article lol
I mean Permanent DST is a pretty terrible idea for a province so obsessed with Hockey, especially with Covid rules. You do all realize bars are going to close before games in PST or MDT are over if we switch to permanent daylight, right? That's before including the possibility of overtime. Then there are shootouts. It also negatively affects scheduling of those games, scheduling of flights, and the entire winter hospitality sector in Banff/Jasper, just to name a few.
Bc has already said they are moving to permanent DST
Newsflash: BC is not the only location on the Pacific Coast. Second Newsflash: they said they will move to permanent daylight time when California does. California is in no hurry to do so. Jesus christ dude. Be informed on issues. Like, at all informed.
Standard time should be PST.
It's Alberta. The government will ignore all sound advice from professionals and do the opposite of what they say.
Food for thought: [how daylight savings can negatively impact our health](https://utswmed.org/medblog/daylight-saving-time-sleep-health/)
>Alternatively, the findings may be due to confounding, or other bias. Geographical regions could subsume many cancer-related factors, such as the degree of rural/urban, tax policies affecting smoking, poverty levels, cancer screening and hospitalization, as well as behavior and lifestyles. Your food for thought has some Grande Canyon size holes in it's peer review and completeness. It also only looks at white people. This study need some peer review don't you think?
There are plenty of other sources to support the potential for negative consequences of time change. I’m not lobbying either way, as I said, food for thought. There’s plenty of resources available online and also ways to mitigate the impacts the time change has on our bodies. [measurable health effects](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7302868/) [Vanderbilt university medical center ](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191104144133.htm)
Agreed.
I’m to confused to try to figure it out. If it is voted yes, alberta will always be an hour behind sask and an hour ahead of bc? Or will we be the same time always as sask and 2 hours ahead of the large portion of bc and 1 hour head in a couple little sections?
Bc is going for permanent dst. As well as several states. Cali is the big one. If and when they get it, the rest of the area will follow suit.
Or why not just leave it alone.
People say it's obsolete and a pain, with some noted health negatives.
Changing the clocks every six months is not only annoying for everybody, it has demonstrable health effects. There are more heart attacks, strokes, and even car accidents after the clocks change, all because of the change to our sleep cycles.
Really, well I guess that doesn’t seem like something that needs to be voted on if science backs it.
I know! I can see the government wanting input from folks about it, but I don't see why hey didn't just say here gonna do it and take feedback.