Permanent Standard Time Could Cut Strokes, Obesity Among Americans (usnews.com) 190
A new Stanford-led study finds that switching permanently to standard time could prevent 300,000 strokes and reduce obesity in 2.6 million Americans by better aligning circadian rhythms with natural light. Researchers argue that the twice-yearly clock changes are the worst option for public health, while permanent daylight saving time would offer two-thirds of the benefits. From a report: "We found that staying in standard time or staying in daylight saving time is definitely better than switching twice a year," senior researcher Jamie Zeitzer said in a news release. He's a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University in California. For the study, researchers estimated how different national time policies might affect American's circadian rhythms -- the body's innate clock that regulates many physiological processes. The human circadian cycle isn't exactly 24 hours, researchers noted. It's about 12 minutes longer for most people, and it can be changed based on a person's exposure to light.
"When you get light in the morning, it speeds up the circadian cycle. When you get light in the evening, it slows things down," Zeitzer said. "You generally need more morning light and less evening light to keep well synchronized to a 24-hour day." An out-of-sync circadian cycle has been linked with many different poor health outcomes, researchers said. "The more light exposure you get at the wrong times, the weaker the circadian clock," Zeitzer said. "All of these things that are downstream -- for example, your immune system, your energy -- don't match up quite as well." Most people would experience the least circadian burden under permanent standard time, which prioritizes morning light, researchers found.
The research team then linked its analysis of circadian rhythms to county-level data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to see how each time policy might affect people's health. Their models showed that permanent standard time would reduce obesity nationwide by 0.78% and stroke by 0.09%. Those seemingly small percentage changes, when played out across the national population, would mean 2.6 million fewer people with obesity and 300,000 fewer cases of stroke. Permanent daylight savings time would result in a 0.51% drop in obesity -- around 1.7 million people -- and a 0.04% reduction in strokes, or 220,000 cases. Either move would help American health. "You have people who are passionate on both sides of this, and they have very different arguments," Zeitzer said. The findings have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"When you get light in the morning, it speeds up the circadian cycle. When you get light in the evening, it slows things down," Zeitzer said. "You generally need more morning light and less evening light to keep well synchronized to a 24-hour day." An out-of-sync circadian cycle has been linked with many different poor health outcomes, researchers said. "The more light exposure you get at the wrong times, the weaker the circadian clock," Zeitzer said. "All of these things that are downstream -- for example, your immune system, your energy -- don't match up quite as well." Most people would experience the least circadian burden under permanent standard time, which prioritizes morning light, researchers found.
The research team then linked its analysis of circadian rhythms to county-level data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to see how each time policy might affect people's health. Their models showed that permanent standard time would reduce obesity nationwide by 0.78% and stroke by 0.09%. Those seemingly small percentage changes, when played out across the national population, would mean 2.6 million fewer people with obesity and 300,000 fewer cases of stroke. Permanent daylight savings time would result in a 0.51% drop in obesity -- around 1.7 million people -- and a 0.04% reduction in strokes, or 220,000 cases. Either move would help American health. "You have people who are passionate on both sides of this, and they have very different arguments," Zeitzer said. The findings have been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Every parent wants this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL kids respect sleep time with daylight savings? Are you a German and is this one of those cultural punctuality things that no one in the rest of the world can comprehend?
Re: (Score:2)
*without
Re:Parents removed the last ban in 1974 (Score:5, Informative)
That was a switch to permanent "Daylight Savings Time", so in northern area it can stay dark until almost 10am.
This is to get rid of DST all together and just remain on Standard Time. It has the added benefit of not staying light until after 10pm in the summer. The only benefit to DST is right now it would be getting dark around 7pm instead of 8pm. But I'd give that up in a heart beat to have normal sleep patterns.
There are many studies that people's internal clocks follow standard time, it's almost like the people who figured it all out knew what they were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point it's basically dark at 8pm and I'm on the western portion of the time zone. It would make me sad to lose all daylight after dinner for 6 months of the year.
I'm all for eliminating the time change, I'd simply prefer to have the extra hour of sun later in the day when I'd get a chance to enjoy it.
Re:Parents removed the last ban in 1974 (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see there being much of a sleep pattern difference from 3:30am - 10pm than 4:30am - 11pm. It's still only 5.5 hours of darkness and would require blackout curtains either way.
Re: (Score:3)
People who like doing 'summer time' live near the center of their respective time zones, people who don't like it live near the edges.
The real problem is we are all still hung up on 8-5 being office hours, and 9-5/6 being retail hours. That was needed in the early industrial era because people had to make plans based on expectations, even thru the later 20th century if you were out and about you needed to be able to assume shops would be open etc.
Now you can discover a business hours with your smart phone a
Re: (Score:2)
organizations like schools that have legitimate reasons for wanting their operations to be coincident with daylight can easily have special November to February hours or whatever.
The problem is that families would get a one-hour shift for *some* family members but not others, which is something that the current system avoids. Extra demerit points if some organizations choose November to February and others choose October to March.
That would be at least as simple as changing the clocks in the present here.
It's simpler - just a calendar to annotate rather than changing clocks - but it could make life more complicated than it is now.
Re:Parents removed the last ban in 1974 (Score:4, Informative)
Well maybe schools could just not have such absurd hours that not only muck about with daylight but are actively detrimental to their students' health.
Just HOW many studies have there been about how important a good night's sleep is to a child's, and particular a teenager's, health and ability to focus and pay attention on class? I couldn't begin to guess. But they all pretty much agree that they need more sleep and waking up early adds to the detrimental effects of the insufficient rest.
And yet... When I wasn't in high school, first period started at, and I shit you not, 7:30am. That meant a 5:30am wakeup to catch a 6:00am bus. I can't even deal well with a 5:30 wake-up now as an adult, with access to coffee and even ephedrine. The only way I'm functional at 5:30am is if I've been up all night. If special circumstances like an early flight I have to get up at the butt-crack of dawn to catch necessitate, I pre-stage a 5-hour energy on my nightstand, have the coffee maker all set up to go the moment I'm out of the shower, and have all of my bags fully packed, weighed, and arranged the night before. As a teenager, I was the walking dead that early.
Elementary school was not much better. Classes started at 8:15am. Oddly, middle school was the odd duck out and started at a much more reasonable 9:30am.
Sy yeah... maybe instead of playing shenanigans with everyones' clocks, schools should try listening to the people who actually study and know about childhood development and shift their hours to a later and more reasonable time in general.
Re: (Score:3)
As someone that gets up at 4:15am to reach work by 5:30am, I just go to bed by 8:30pm. I would love it if the sun would go down earlier in the summer, because it's kind of a twilight at 8:30 right now.
So set the clock where ever you want, then never touch it again. The spring forward is horrible and frankly, the fall back isn't great either because I wake up earlier then I need to and am dead by 5pm at night.
So please, just pick a time and stick with it and accept the consequences.
P.S. I think one of the pr
Re: (Score:2)
and 9-5/6 being retail hours
What are "retail hours"? Everything else you said made perfect sense and the public will have no tolerance for that. Cooperation died along time ago, now Karen says its me, mine, money. Now get commuting back to the office, your betters have rent to pay. /s
In the end there can only be one "human" left, but they'll be winning.
Re: (Score:3)
Why didn't the schools just start an hour later?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Parents removed the last ban in 1974 (Score:5, Insightful)
If everything moved an hour later, what's the point of DST in the first place then? The original point was that permanent DST means parents were dropping kids off in the dark since sunrise was an hour later. Moving everything one hour later is then the same thing as standard time. So just keep standard time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't the schools just start an hour later?
School hours were historically set based on standard office/factory hours of 8-5. If the parents are expected to be at work at 8am, they can drop their children off at school and then make their way to work by 8 am without too much disruption. Starting school later would make the parents late to work or leave the children unattended longer before class started. Back when moms did not work outside the home, school started later, as it was expected that they would see children off to school.
Every time it c
Re: (Score:3)
Or you know, pay people better so we can actually afford to let one parent stay home. I know, crazy talk.
Both parents should work and then spend all their money to pay other people to take care of their kids. /s
Not sure why those sorts of folks even bother having kids if they are both going to be so busy working all the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to hear about your kids. DST still needs to go.
It's been done (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's been done (Score:5, Interesting)
Brazil scrapped DST a few years ago - did the research check against their data?
Who cares? I have lived without time changes for a little less than half my life. I HATE how I feel for about 2 weeks twice a year now that I am back with the insane people who think that they can legislate the value of Pi. Stop being stupid.
Re:It's been done (Score:4, Informative)
For some people it's not the hour of sleep, it's suddenly waking up an hour early. I'm one of them. If I stay up an hour late and get up at my normal time, I'll be more groggy and tired than usual for a while. But I'll be functional and more or less normal by the time I get to the office. If I go to bed at my normal time and have to wake up an hour early though... Let's just say I'm not a pleasant person until I'm about three coffees into the day.
Plus, the daylight lasting an hour longer is a bummer in the evenings; causing a 1-hour delay in the beginning of the city's nightlife. That's bad enough on the weekends, when you can at least sleep in the next day. But when the day's fun time starts an hour later, but you still have the weekday alarm to go to work the next day, it puts a crimp in the social life, which is... also... a bummer.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like getting up earlier for no reason and doing it for DST is worse then no reason. I already get up at 415a every morning and am pretty good at getting to bed by 830-900 every night. If it's a day off, my body sort of knows to let me sleep, but I'm still awake by 6am unless I was up super late, which is rare now. I find getting that consistent sleep has a huge effect on my overall mood and stress levels. Life is just better with that consistent sleep.
So please, let us just set the clocks and stop m
Re: (Score:2)
DST is for countries outside the Tropics, where the time of Sunrise and Dawn differs greatly between the saisons.
It makes sense for Brazil to have no DST. It makes sense for Minnesota to have it.
No mention of latitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Any research like this is questionable if it doesn't account for latitude and the effect different latitudes have in the research results,
Re:No mention of latitude (Score:4, Informative)
Australian southern states have daylight savings, while the northern states don't. I think they've always had that arrangement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you live nearer the equator then daylight savings is a nuisance, however if you live nearer the poles then daylight savings is great. Hence the polarised view on the issue. Where I live there is nearly 6 hours more sun light in summer than in winter each day.
Any research like this is questionable if it doesn't account for latitude and the effect different latitudes have in the research results,
I suspect this "research" will be dubious for many reasons. Mainly caused by someone who started with an answer and went looking for a justification.
The latitude is very, very important. Up here in the dreaded south of the UK there's an 8 hour difference between the hours of daylight you get in midsummer and midwinter. In June and July you have full daylight from 5 AM to 10 PM (DST) and in December and January you only have daylight from 8 AM to 4 PM (GMT). This is for the UK in general, if you lived up
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No mention of latitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a hint: Farmers, especially dairy farmers, hate the changes. Power savings are theoretical at best. Oh and if you really want to help the children install sidewalks and pay for crossing guards.
Re: (Score:2)
A nuisance it may be, but that doesn't make it great. Honestly I don't give a shit about farmers. It's just really nice to have more afternoon sun after work to enjoy life. Which raises a new point... we all agree changing the clocks suck, but let's start a new argument: I propose permanent summer time, because fuck standard time and dark afternoons.
Re: (Score:2)
that is just stupid, because it means noon is never when the sun is directly overhead anywhere.
If you want more time in the afternoon why not leave the clocks and centuries of language alone, and just convince people to make business hours 7-4 rather than 8-5?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to give a shit about farmers, one way or the other. DST is irrelevant to farming and I really can't fathom how that myth that it is and is kept for the farmers got started. Cows don't read clocks. Nor do pigs, chickens, or sheep. Crops don't operate on clock time either. So neither do farmers. They tend to the crops and animals when the crops and animals need tending to; no matter where the big hand and little hand point.
So really... you *SHOULD* care about farms and farmers. You *DO*
Re:No mention of latitude (Score:4, Insightful)
when you live near the poles 1h shift won't change much... your day last couple months... same night...
Re: (Score:3)
I have never had a satisfactory answer as to why people can't just adjust their personal schedule to whatever suits them. If a community wants the schools to open an hour later, let them do it. No need to change the time for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never had a satisfactory answer as to why people can't just adjust their personal schedule to whatever suits them.
Then you haven't been listening.
Most people aren't in control of their own schedules - it's as simple as that.
Re:No mention of latitude (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why standard time? Why not keep it on summer time?
As for changing the hours you're officially open, I'm happy for you that you work in a company or job that lives in isolation and does not engage with vendors, customers, or other businesses, but for many your solution is a non-starter.
Even me who works from home has my work hours dictated by meetings I support with others. We can't all live in a social bubble.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Daylight saving time (which is oddly named, if you think about it, because it) kicks in in the summer, when high latitudes have more daylight than they know what to do with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At the poles it's even more useless. In the winter, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 4PM, and in the summer, it rises around 4AM and sets around 9PM (standard time). Daylight savings means it rises at 5AM and sets at 10PM. It's pretty useles
If you want to make a difference (Score:2)
pass a law that bans rotating shift work. You can't get much worse than a week on day shift, then a week on evening, then a third on graveyard.
Come on now (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not in favor of DST but be real. Americans will generally always have bad health, no matter what time of day it is.
No agreement (Score:3)
100% of Americans want the time changes to go away. The problem? 50% think DST should become the permanent time, while the other 50% think it should be non-DST. That's the real problem.
Personally, I'd rather have the extra hour of daylight in the evening. If it's dark in the morning then schools can start an hour later (which some in my region actually did for a week last year).
Either way, if it ever goes permanent, you're going to have half the population unhappy with what became permanent.
Re: (Score:2)
I was surprised to hear complaints in the first place. I always thought clocks forward in summertime is a good idea.
Re:No agreement (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No agreement (Score:4, Interesting)
free to have
That's a nice lie pushed by people who are promoting standard time. No one is "free" to set the times of their business hours. Those hours are dictated with interactions with suppliers, customers, other businesses, heck may even be contractually specified in the case of lease agreements, and in general they are at the mercy of the society they are in.
The only solution is mandating a unified change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No agreement (Score:2)
Locations on the west side of time zones have daylight an hour behind the eastern sides; each is always on DST or not relative to the other side.
In my dream world we're all on Standard time and locations that have large seasonal variations in sunrise/sunset times can just adjust school/government/store opening times to suit their local solar times.
Re:No agreement (Score:4, Insightful)
Count me in the apparently 0% of the population that likes the switch. It maps well to my body's natural cycles and that keeps me awake, alert, and happy throughout the day. My only gripe is that the fall back is a couple of weeks too late and spring forward is a couple of weeks too early -- it should be closer to the equinox than it currently is.
Second-best to keeping the switch would be year-round standard time, possibly with a culture of shifting business hours in the summer.
Year-round daylight time is a very distant third choice. Really, I find the idea of year-round daylight time offensive. The sun should be at its peak around noon. If you are on the far eastern edge of your timezone and think you ought to be one timezone ahead, cool. But for those of us in the western half of our timezones, daylight saving time means astronomical noon is after 1:30 PM.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The US has 6 timezones already. It couldn't be much worse if you just let each state decide.
I opted out of this bullshit years ago. Permanent UTC now. Even that has leap second nonsense. Contemplating switching to TAI.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has 6 timezones already. It couldn't be much worse if you just let each state decide.
There are three time zones across the 48 contiguous states.
I opted out of this bullshit years ago.
How does one "opt out"? What does this even mean? Does everyone else now organize their time around your schedule?
Re: (Score:3)
Permanent UTC now.
Easy to say when you live in or near London (which as I recall, you do).
There's nothing wrong with local time, and there are good reasons humans have used it literally for as long as we've had clocks. You are trading one mental adjustment -- "what time is it where Bob lives?" -- with a different one -- "what time is it where I am when the sun is directly overhead?" Guess which one you need to worry about more often?
And if you think adjusting to time zones is annoying now when traveling, imagine needing re
Re: (Score:2)
50% think DST should become the permanent time, while the other 50% think it should be non-DST. That's the real problem.
Personally, I'd rather have the extra hour of daylight in the evening.
Are you attached to the local numbering on a 12 hour clock? Do people find the current situation preferable to (as an example) standardizing on UTC+0 globally, and then working through whatever semantic and work-shift accommodations are needed to keep things working at a local level?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
100% of Americans want the time changes to go away. The problem? 50% think DST should become the permanent time, while the other 50% think it should be non-DST. That's the real problem.
Personally, I'd rather have the extra hour of daylight in the evening. If it's dark in the morning then schools can start an hour later (which some in my region actually did for a week last year).
Either way, if it ever goes permanent, you're going to have half the population unhappy with what became permanent.
Split the difference, halfway between, that way no one is happy!
Back in yesteryear, the family farm I worked on used to have its own "timezone" that was literally the split between DST and standard. The main purpose was to keep chores consistent for the dairy throughout the year. But it also led to lots of fun family fights over what time something was, which was a nice bonus to keep things lively.
Re: (Score:2)
100% of Americans want the time changes to go away.
I don't even notice it anymore ever since my clocks change automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. I don't really have a preference either way though if I had to choose, Standard because I myself go to bed before 9pm. I get up for work in darkness year round and actually find it super odd to drive to work in the day light. It just feels "wrong", though I start at 530am, so it's never an issue unless I am going in late (which is super rare).
The real problem is the back and forth. The week of time change just really messes with me and for no reason that I can tell. Like, let's just fuck wi
Yeah... no (Score:4, Insightful)
What's gonna stop obesity among Americans isn't permanent standard time. It really, REALLY isn't that.
A good start would be making healthy food that isn't 1,000,000 calories per pound, and not made of fat and sugar mixed in unknown chemicals affordable. And taxing the living shit out of junk food. And getting people to stop eating supertanker-sized servings.
Re: (Score:2)
You will never make fresh food cheaper than manufactured food, because the latter is shelf stable and can be made from poor quality ingredients which are cosmetically unsalable. Ultra-processed foods are cheaper everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are exactly right. I see non-curated videos of people all over the world. It is clear that American food is engineered to cause excess fat regardless of how much you eat. It is disgusting.
Conspiracy theory: They do it so that even poor people are fat so that everyone can point and say: see? they are fat, they are not starving.", despite the fact that indeed, they ARE starving.
Re: (Score:2)
Mounjaro and Wegovy might though.
Re: Yeah... no (Score:3, Funny)
Could - the ultimate weasel word (Score:2)
Back and forth (Score:2)
Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time we try to do away with daylight savings time out come the retail lobbies and more importantly the commercial real estate owners lobbies and that's the end of that.
Every aspect of your life is shaped and warped by big business.
Dump That DST Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Solar noon is the only thing that matters.
Noon should be based on solar position only. Ever. That means no DST. Dump that DST bullshit.
P.S. No matter how we choose to set the clocks, it is probable that 50% of the population will have some form of issue with it. Science! Not whims.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've never understood this argument.
The "standard work day" is 9-5, which means that the middle of the day is 1pm. And therefore it makes sense to have permanent summer time I guess.
I'm an early bird so it's already dark when I go out in the mornings (Northern Europe). I always hate the October clock change because it just takes away the sun for that brief period when I would still see it in the evening after work.
This year "civil twilight" will go from 07:34-18:42
Re: (Score:2)
You need bigger quotes for your standard work day. I haven't seen a 9am standard in a LONG time. I've seen lots of 0730 start time's and "core" hours of 1000 - 1400. I'd love a job that didn't start till 9am. I've heard those called bankers hours but they still have them start at 0800 to 0830 and open the doors at 0900 for some of the older fashion places.
Re: (Score:2)
One More Datapoint... (Score:2)
Not marketing and eating junk? (Score:2)
One of these days they'll realise this. Abandoning DST will make a tiny difference compared to what health diet and exercise would achieve. But this would decimate the junk food industry, and treating exercise like a luxury for the middle class and for those with the time for it is going to cost dollars. So obesity it is.
Compromise? (Score:2)
Why don't we just move the clocks 30 minutes and make it permanent? This seems like a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing the time standard is stupid! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just get rid of it. (Score:2)
Never Travel (Score:2)
Never mind "jet lag"; this is proof positive that moving your body a single time zone is bad for your health.
Answer is to go pre-1883 (Score:2)
The whole standard vs daylight savings time argument is missing the forest for the trees. A vast majority of people want to stop changing the clock twice a year but where their city ends up keeps the tension/paralysis intact. Those on the west side of a time zone want to keep it one way and those on the east want the other way. The answer is to drop the 4 time zones for CONUS and return to how time was set pre-1883. Every urban area takes its mean solar noon sun as noon for the clocks. So UTC + longitude /
Another thing Trump promised but won't do. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Would anything be different this time? (Score:2)
This study applies model of lighting conditions throughout the country to a circadian health model and draws conclusions about health impacts of each of the three scenarios from model evaluation alone.
I am personally skeptical of these types of extrapolations from models generally. Numbers being bandied about in this study seem unreasonably large. I would be far more interested in learning about studies that actually managed to find real world health signals in real world data following time policy change
Wow, we're our annual discussion early! (Score:2)
I've been in the "Permanent Daylight Saving Time" camp for a long time. However, I'll be retiring soon... so at this point I really don't care. Change nothing or change everything... blessedly I'll be away from it.
Re: (Score:3)
"A six-day work week." you first.
"Compulsory fitness levels." you first.
"Ban on tobacco products." Create another class of drugs for people to grow in their back yard and deal on the street.
Anymore wise ideas, Einstein.
Re:Things that would do this, better (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, let's make cigarettes cool again!
Re: (Score:3)
I assume the GPP was thinking along of the lines of cutting "full time" to 36 hours a week, and moving to six hour work days.
I am not endorsing or advocating that but I can see how some might like it. It would align the work day to the school day, which could simplify the childcare for many two income households for one thing.
It might be a good work/life balance choice for many but it would suck if you have a long commute to add another episode of windshield time to each week.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume the GPP was thinking along of the lines of cutting "full time" to 36 hours a week, and moving to six hour work days.
See that's the opposite of what we actually need to do. Realistically, the average person gets maybe five or six usable hours in a day, so right now, work gets five of those blocks and we get two. With that scheme, work gets six of those blocks and we get one.
A better plan is four five-hour work days. One extra usable day for ourselves, plus working hours tailored to knowledge workers' actual ability to focus rather than longer hours in which productivity rapidly goes towards zero or even negative.
Spend
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's total bullshit as so many people happily travel across timelines, either for work or holidays.
Holy shit, what travel agency do I need to call to get that vacation package?
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of Americans cross time zones for more than twenty-four hours at least once a year.
This is incorrect.
61 percent of the population does not take a "long distance" trip in a year.
Incidentally, this defines "long distance" as "50 miles". Of the "long trips", 58% of those are less than 125 miles away. So only 16% of people travel over 125 miles away in a given year. Less than 125 miles is relatively unlikely to cross a time zone. Growing up my family would regularly make 300 mile trips but still not cross a timezone.
Re: (Score:2)
Given where the timezones are, certainly not 'most' people. Yes, you can cross a time zone in less than 25 miles if you happen to live within 25 miles, this doesn't support your stance of "most americans spend at least a day timezone shifted every year", since that's a pretty specific circumstance that doesn't apply to most people.
Even for them, I wonder what percentage of those trips introduce inconsistency in their schedule. If they work in one timezone, then they would consistently be living according
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on how I feel when I have to incur such a trip, I wouldn't be surprised if making those trips routinely would have long term bad effects on your health.