A worker adjusts hands on a stainless steel tower clock at Electric Time Company, Inc. in Medfield, Mass. (AP file)
Re: “Is it time for a time change?,” Dec. 3 editorial.
Having lived without daylight saving time for most of my life (I am from Arizona) I can’t see any great need for it. We have standard time for a reason: It is a balance between light and dark. Our clocks are “set” so that the sun is highest in the sky at noon, and sunrise and sunset are at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. respectively. Of course, these are approximations that change with the seasons and longitude and latitude.
To suggest staying on DST all year round is to move sunrise and sunset later, with sunrise feeling especially late in the winter months, due to the short hours of daylight available at higher latitudes.
I think there is something to be said for trying to optimize our clock settings to yield noon when the sun is at its zenith, thereby allowing for a balance of a.m. and p.m. light.
Tina Eden, Niwot
This letter was published in the Dec. 4 edition.The “twice-yearly dance” of changing time is a bad idea. However, there is a better alternative than permanent daylight saving time: permanent standard time.
DST might make sense on the East Coast where they work 9 to 5. But not in Colorado, where we typically start school or work earlier.
For some, itap nice to have an extra hour in the evening for golf. However, it has a big cost. Our circadian rhythms are regulated by daylight. Studies of schoolchildren illustrate that fact. When the kids in the studies are forced to get up hours before dawn, their performance suffers.
David Jones, Aurora
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
