Columnist Melissa Schorr: Shedding light on DST plight

Melissa Schorr

Monday, March 29, 1999 | 10:12 a.m.

"You will never find anybody who can give you a clear and compelling reason why we observe daylight-saving time."

Anonymous e-mail entitled "25 Things I've Learned in 50 Years."

Daylight-saving time, which begins Sunday, seems to befuddle the best of us -- despite the handy "fall back, spring ahead" mnemonic. What is clear is this: DST as is isn't winning any popularity contests.

But a little poking around reveals that, lo and behold, there is a reason behind it: By postponing darkness until later in the evening, fewer lights are used in the home; energy conservationists claim this saves 1 percent of electricity usage a day.

A brief history: DST was originally proposed by Ben Franklin, who noticed that early-morning light was being wasted as people slept. It was picked up on in 1907 by British builder William Willitt. When asked why he didn't just wake up earlier, Willitt gave the only sensible response to such an inane question: "What?"

During World Wars I and II, the United States went on DST to preserve energy use in the home, reverting to Standard Time after the war. But scattered pockets around the country liked the late summer hours so much they retained it, creating havoc for interstate travel. In 1966, frustrated train and bus operators pushed the Uniform Time Act through Congress to standardize their schedules.

So why is DST so maligned nowadays? Many just hate the hassle of switching back and forth: clock store owners resent resetting their wares. The forgetful tend to forget it. Insomniacs lose sleep over it. Worrywarts worry it causes traffic accidents. "I dread it," says a Las Vegas resident who signed an anti-DST website petition. "The shift is traumatic for the body."

But Dr. Paul Saskin, director of Sunrise Hospital's Sleep Disorder Center, says DST's effects are overblown. "It's only an hour; an hour is very adjustable," he assures. "Don't make up for it by going to bed earlier; don't sleep in Sunday. If people don't have problems with sleep, they're not going to have problems with this."

Still, Nevada's past two legislative sessions have seen bills trying to end the time shifts, either by enacting DST year-round, or removing us from participating altogether (joining states such as Arizona and Hawaii).

According to State Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, who proposed the former plan, both ideas died because they would put Nevada out of sync with all-important California visitors.

"I still think it has merit," says Ohrenschall, noting that although no one raised the issue this session, she may in the future. I hope so.

What has always seemed problematic about the current system to me is how we end daylight-saving time in the fall, just when we seem to need it most. Why, I've wondered, can't we stay on DST year-round, and have more afternoon light in the wintertime, when it already gets dark so abominably early?

Simple: Winter days are so short that extending daylight into the evening would end up delaying sunrise until as late as 9 a.m. The country even tried this once during the energy crisis in 1973, but people disliked the dark morning commute.

Personally, I think it's time for us to give it one more try. I'd rather enjoy my sunlight after work than on the way to it. Maybe that would make for slightly darker mornings. But in the spirit of William Willitt: So what?