Returning to Standard Time Would Be Better than Permanent Daylight Saving Time

As I do every year at this time, I advocate for the elimination of having to change the clocks twice a year. But there is a division on whether to eliminate Daylight Saving Time and remain on Standard Time, or the make Daylight Saving Time permanent. There is more legislative momentum for the latter, but the former is optimal. Nineteen States in the American Union have passed laws to remain on Daylight Saving Time permanently, pending federal approval of a similar law. There is also some support in the United States Congress for permanent Daylight Saving Time. Although it would eliminate the twice-a-year cost and burden of the changing the clocks and reduce some of the sleep deprivation and consequent physical and mental health problems and accidents caused by springing forward and falling back every year, it is not the optimal option for health reasons. Because Standard Time is based on the course of the sun in the sky, with noon corresponding approximately to the sun’s highest point in the sky, our circadian rhythms (the body’s natural sleep/wake cycle) are aligned with both with the sun and Standard Time. Disruptions of the circadian rhythm are injurious to health. Plus, the darker mornings lead to more traffic accidents. Therefore, although permanent Daylight Saving Time would be better than the status quo, a return to Standard Time would be better. I also note that our circadian rhythms are already under enough stress because of artificial light, which is one of many reasons to support the Dark Sky Initiative, in addition to reducing the disruptions to wildlife and especially to allow for better astronomical observation. Laws and practices ought to be promote all aspects of health, instead of undermining them.