My mother always forgets to move the kitchen clock one hour forwards or backwards when the moment comes. So at that time Sunday familiar meals suffer from over or under-cooked procedures. I understand that it must be difficult for retired to match with worker’s pace of life. Obviously old people’s opinion is not so much relevant as other’s. Flicking through some articles we can find different headlines either praising the advantages or panning the disadvantages of dragging the working hours according to daylight. In the UK go even further. British Summer Time (BST) could be maintained during the winter months and "double summertime" applied during summer months, putting the UK one hour ahead of GMT during winter and two hours ahead during summer, meaning lighter nights but darker mornings and matching Central European Time. It is not the first time that such a measure has been taken. The clocks were moved forward by an hour during World War II, to maximise productivity at munitions factories and ensure people got home safely before the blackout. It was again “trialed” between 1968 and 1971. But after complaints in Scotland and northern England, the experiment was adjourned. The information generated then and its relevance in 2010 would be questionable. To start with disadvantages that has been put forward, opponents claim that there is no compelling evidence of the benefits. The list of objections includes the havoc it would cause to travel timetables and the UK-wide TV schedule. Some of the northern-most areas of Scotland would not see daylight until 10am during the winter months. As a result, opponents argue this would increase accidents and make farmers' lives harder. They fear a later sunrise makes the school more dangerous as well, especially among children walking to school. If you missed “British pride” you just have to hear UK Prime Minister David Cameron who says he is determined to keep Britain a "united time zone". And cut off from the continent as usual, I would say. Perhaps inhabitants of higher latitudes could see their timetables a little bit diverted from the sun’s, mainly in the winter. Conversely, supporters rave about the advantages of giving up old-fashioned GMT. They claim for safety factors such as it would allow an extra 235 hours of daylight after work every year and deliver benefits including reduction of UK road deaths by 82 per year and serious injuries by about 212. It is estimated that could save the government £1.4bn in terms of road safety benefits alone over 10 years. Greenest effects would be produced reducing carbon dioxide emissions about almost 500,000 tonnes of CO2 through people leaving lights and heating off. So cutting carbon emissions by those figures would be the equivalent of taking 200,000 cars off Britain's roads. Economical reasons like boosting British tourism revenue by £3.5bn have to be seriously considered. It would also add perhaps a 15 or 20% extra revenue to the companies. Scotland could be benefitted from extra £300m of tourism incomes and 7,000 new jobs created. Campaigners also say that there would be a boost to leisure activities which could be devoted to promote sport and exercise as long as to reduce energy use. I say lighter evenings make us happier, healthier and safe. You may check how people react when the clocks change now, in the winter people think 'oh, shit' and in the spring their mood is uplifted. I have always thought that our body clocks are set to wake up with the sunrise and it's not just because humans are lazy creatures, we've been built that way. The sleep body clock is orientated towards daylight and sensitive to it Actually I quite agree with what an eminent Professor says, "Biologically we're designed to wake up with the sunrise. If we do, it resets the body clock, makes us more alert and happier. It's more of a struggle to wake up if it's dark. That has psychological implications, we are gloomier."
My mother always forgets to move the kitchen clock one hour forwards or backwards when the moment comes. So at that time Sunday familiar meals suffer from over or under-cooked procedures. I understand that it must be difficult for retired to match with worker’s pace of life.
ReplyDeleteObviously old people’s opinion is not so much relevant as other’s. Flicking through some articles we can find different headlines either praising the advantages or panning the disadvantages of dragging the working hours according to daylight.
In the UK go even further. British Summer Time (BST) could be maintained during the winter months and "double summertime" applied during summer months, putting the UK one hour ahead of GMT during winter and two hours ahead during summer, meaning lighter nights but darker mornings and matching Central European Time.
It is not the first time that such a measure has been taken. The clocks were moved forward by an hour during World War II, to maximise productivity at munitions factories and ensure people got home safely before the blackout.
It was again “trialed” between 1968 and 1971. But after complaints in Scotland and northern England, the experiment was adjourned. The information generated then and its relevance in 2010 would be questionable.
To start with disadvantages that has been put forward, opponents claim that there is no compelling evidence of the benefits. The list of objections includes the havoc it would cause to travel timetables and the UK-wide TV schedule.
Some of the northern-most areas of Scotland would not see daylight until 10am during the winter months. As a result, opponents argue this would increase accidents and make farmers' lives harder.
They fear a later sunrise makes the school more dangerous as well, especially among children walking to school.
If you missed “British pride” you just have to hear UK Prime Minister David Cameron who says he is determined to keep Britain a "united time zone". And cut off from the continent as usual, I would say.
Perhaps inhabitants of higher latitudes could see their timetables a little bit diverted from the sun’s, mainly in the winter.
Conversely, supporters rave about the advantages of giving up old-fashioned GMT.
They claim for safety factors such as it would allow an extra 235 hours of daylight after work every year and deliver benefits including reduction of UK road deaths by 82 per year and serious injuries by about 212. It is estimated that could save the government £1.4bn in terms of road safety benefits alone over 10 years.
Greenest effects would be produced reducing carbon dioxide emissions about almost 500,000 tonnes of CO2 through people leaving lights and heating off. So cutting carbon emissions by those figures would be the equivalent of taking 200,000 cars off Britain's roads.
Economical reasons like boosting British tourism revenue by £3.5bn have to be seriously considered. It would also add perhaps a 15 or 20% extra revenue to the companies. Scotland could be benefitted from extra £300m of tourism incomes and 7,000 new jobs created.
Campaigners also say that there would be a boost to leisure activities which could be devoted to promote sport and exercise as long as to reduce energy use. I say lighter evenings make us happier, healthier and safe. You may check how people react when the clocks change now, in the winter people think 'oh, shit' and in the spring their mood is uplifted.
I have always thought that our body clocks are set to wake up with the sunrise and it's not just because humans are lazy creatures, we've been built that way. The sleep body clock is orientated towards daylight and sensitive to it
Actually I quite agree with what an eminent Professor says, "Biologically we're designed to wake up with the sunrise. If we do, it resets the body clock, makes us more alert and happier. It's more of a struggle to wake up if it's dark. That has psychological implications, we are gloomier."