Daylight savings time.

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:04 pm

The simple answer is: the US is disgustingly hidebound.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:31 pm

"Hidebound"?

Blackstar the Chakat · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:37 pm

Rochey wrote:Fine, but have you any evidence to show that DS does save energy? You are the one making the claims, thus you must prevent the evidence, not I.

The US expanded the amount of time with Daylight Savings Time. Now this country may not be the smartest, but surely we wouldn't do that if there wasn't a benefit.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:41 pm

And yet, you have yet to prove that there is such a benefit.
I've already shown that one state at least is getting quite the oposite from a benefit from DS. Unless you can bring up evidence to disprove it, then it wouldn't be too off the mark to assume similar situations in other states.

Blackstar the Chakat · Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:51 pm

From the article you presented:

Still, the case on daylight-saving time isn't closed.

"One study of the situation in Indiana cannot accurately asses the impact of [daylight-saving time] changes across the nation, especially when it does not include more northern, colder regions," the congressman notes.

So the article that you presented as evidence for you arguement agrees that one study of one state doesn't prove squat. So you have yet to prove your own point.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:13 pm

ChakatBlackstar wrote:So the article that you presented as evidence for you arguement agrees that one study of one state doesn't prove squat. So you have yet to prove your own point.

And you continue to fail to answer Rochey's request for evidence. You have made the claim that Daylight Saving reduces energy consumption. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for that assertion.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:21 pm

Blackstar, I'm going to say this again:
Provide evidence for your claims or concede the point.

Nitpicking my own evidence proves nothing for you, and just points out that you're being evasive.

Blackstar the Chakat · Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:19 pm

Retailers, sporting goods makers, and other businesses benefit from extra afternoon sunlight, as it induces customers to shop and to participate in outdoor afternoon sports.

For example, in 1984 Fortune magazine estimated that a seven-week extension of DST would yield an additional $30 million for 7-Eleven stores, and the National Golf Foundation estimated the extension would increase golf industry revenues $200 million to $300 million

It also alters sunlight exposure; whether this is beneficial depends on one's location and daily schedule, as sunlight triggers vitamin D synthesis in the skin. Sunlight strongly influences seasonal affective disorder; DST may help in depression by causing individuals to rise earlier.

So, do you got anything more convincing then a single study of a single state?

Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:31 pm

Rochey wrote:"Hidebound"?

Averse to innovation and tied strongly to tradition.

And Blackstar - Rochey doesn't have to provide any evidence, as he was responding to YOUR claim. You have mentioned anecdotes about retail and vitamin D (although you get all the vitamin D you need with about 10 minutes of strong sunshine a week, and if discussing SAD you should be talking about melatonin levels rather than vitamin D) but haven't said anything about energy consumption, which was your claim.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, because I don't really know of much research - but you have to back up your claim with more than "I think so."

Blackstar the Chakat · Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:07 am

Mikey wrote:
Rochey wrote:"Hidebound"?
Averse to innovation and tied strongly to tradition.

And Blackstar - Rochey doesn't have to provide any evidence, as he was responding to YOUR claim. You have mentioned anecdotes about retail and vitamin D (although you get all the vitamin D you need with about 10 minutes of strong sunshine a week, and if discussing SAD you should be talking about melatonin levels rather than vitamin D) but haven't said anything about energy consumption, which was your claim.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, because I don't really know of much research - but you have to back up your claim with more than "I think so."

No my claim was:

Helps save on energy, more light during the day(which actually has known medical and psychological benefits)

So I showed more light during the day has benefits. And most of these come from. as for sources, in order of apperence:

Brendan Cronin; Elizabeth Garnsey (2007-10-19). "Daylight saving in GB; is there evidence in favour of clock time on GMT?" (PDF). Dept. of Engineering, University of Cambridge.

Dana Knight. "Daylight-saving time becomes daylight-spending time for many businesses", Indianapolis Star, 2006-04-17.

Shari Roan. "Change in daylight saving time may affect moods", Los Angeles Times, 2007-03-05

So it's not "I think so" it's "they think so". I've got three sources supporting my opinion. Rochey has one source.

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:48 am

OK. Why are these only coming to light now?

BTW, I don't have any of those periodicals to hand. Can you quote some of the relevant parts?

Blackstar the Chakat · Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:14 am

Mikey wrote:OK. Why are these only coming to light now?

because you just asked?

Post by **Mikey** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:58 am

Ask a silly question...

Really, though, if you're debating something and claim a position, you should back up that position at the time that you make the claim. Additionally, citing a periodical without showing what you're citing doesn't help that much - you could be referring to an opinion piece, which hardly counts as evidence.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:00 pm

Retailers, sporting goods makers, and other businesses benefit from extra afternoon sunlight, as it induces customers to shop and to participate in outdoor afternoon sports.

I've heard of precisely zero people who don't shop simply because the sun's gone down. And simply giving them an hour more isn't going to majorly encourage people; the sun will still be going down at that point, so there's little difference other than it's slightly brighter for longer. If people want something, they'll go out and buy it regardless of the time. If they don't want it that much, they'll go in the next day in the morning of around lunch time. Simply giving them an extra hour of semi-sunlight isn't going to ecourage many people into going on shopping sprees.
Hell, 24 hour shops exist for a reason; people will still shop in complete darkness.

As for encouraging people to participate in sports events, no one's going to decide not to buy a ticket for tommorows match just because it'll be on at night. So that point doesn't hold up, either.

For example, in 1984 Fortune magazine estimated that a seven-week extension of DST would yield an additional $30 million for 7-Eleven stores, and the National Golf Foundation estimated the extension would increase golf industry revenues $200 million to $300 million

Have you got anything more recent than a twenty year old magazine?

It also alters sunlight exposure; whether this is beneficial depends on one's location and daily schedule, as sunlight triggers vitamin D synthesis in the skin. Sunlight strongly influences seasonal affective disorder; DST may help in depression by causing individuals to rise earlier.

Uh, that's completely pointless. Within a few minutes of standing in sunlight, your body will already have built up more than the necessary amount. So this is useless too.

So, do you got anything more convincing then a single study of a single state?

Have you got anything? My source proved that one area is experiencing an increase in energy. You haven't brought up anything supporting your energy claims at all. Unless you bring up conflicting sources, we have no reason to assume that it isn't the same in other, similar areas.

So I showed more light during the day has benefits.

Funny, because you have yet to show it saves energy, and I have already shown that any possible medical help would be completely negligable.

Brendan Cronin; Elizabeth Garnsey (2007-10-19). "Daylight saving in GB; is there evidence in favour of clock time on GMT?" (PDF). Dept. of Engineering, University of Cambridge.

How about quoting this source?

Dana Knight. "Daylight-saving time becomes daylight-spending time for many businesses", Indianapolis Star, 2006-04-17.

How about quoting this source?

Shari Roan. "Change in daylight saving time may affect moods", Los Angeles Times, 2007-03-05

How about quoting this source?

So it's not "I think so" it's "they think so".

And their opinions are completely unverafiable seeing as how you just vaguely called out their names, and said they supported you.

I've got three sources supporting my opinion. Rochey has one source.

No, you've got three source who may support you on one aspect of the debate. I have one source that is shown to have supported another aspect of the debate.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:34 pm

Some more interesting reading that supports my idea of getting rid of DST.

DST may be harming the enviroment
Basicaly, it says that the increased energy requirements during DST cause increased CO2 emissions, harming the enviroment.

About half way down the page
The US government asked the Department of Transportation to do a study into it. They said that there was a very minimal amount of energy saved. However, a National Bureu of Standards review found that there were no energy savings of any useful quantity. They also found that there were increased fatalities among school children walking to school in the morning during DST.

An Australian study showed that DST did not save energy in Australia

DST has no positive effects for California

A whole bunch of bad effects, ranging from farming to cinema attendance

DST can cost up to $1 billion to implement for companies

That stuff makes for some interesting reading, and quite nicely supports my argument. I would have quoted it, but.....well, it'd be far too much to quote.

Still, it seems that the weight of evidence is firmly on my side here.