Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

People Hate Daylight Saving. Science Tells Us Why.

News Feed
Monday, March 11, 2024

In the summer of 2017, when communication professor Jeffery Gentry moved from Oklahoma to accept a position at Eastern New Mexico University, he was pleasantly surprised to find it easier to get up in the morning. The difference, he realized, was early morning light. On September mornings in Portales, New Mexico, Gentry rose with the sun at around 6:30 a.m., but at that time of day in Oklahoma, it was still dark.As the Earth rotates, the sun reaches the eastern edge of a time zone first, with sunrise and sunset occurring progressively later as you move west. Gentry’s move had taken him from the western side of Central Time in Oklahoma to the eastern edge of Mountain Time. Following his curiosity into the scientific literature, he discovered the field of chronobiology, the study of biological rhythms, such as how cycles of daylight and dark affect living things. “I really just stumbled upon it from being a guinea pig in my own experiment,” he said.In 2022, Gentry and an interdisciplinary team of colleagues added to that body of research, publishing a study in the journal Time & Society that showed the rate of fatal motor-vehicle accidents was highest for people living in the far west of a time zone, where the sun rises and sets at least an hour later than on the eastern side. Chronobiology research shows that longer evening light can keep people up later and that, as Gentry found, morning darkness can make it harder to get going for work or school. Western-edge folks may suffer more deadly car wrecks, the team theorized, because they are commuting in the dark while sleep deprived and not fully alert.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.With all the hullabaloo over the health and safety of setting clocks forward an hour in the spring for Daylight Saving Time (DST) and back in the fall with Standard Time (ST), could where you live in a time zone actually have a more profound effect? I asked Gentry. “That’s very possible,” he said.Time researchers make this point, and research results and public opinion polls reflect it: Something is awry about the way we mark time. Those problems start with the annual toggle between DST and ST. In these days of sharp division, poll after poll finds most people unified in their dislike of switching clocks back and forth with the season. However, the question of whether to stick with ST or DST year-round once again sends people to different camps.Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST, or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said. On the other hand, public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic tends to favor permanent DST — and many politicians agree — perhaps because of the positive associations with summer sunshine. (A bill to make that switch passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2022, but then stalled in the House; a new version was recently reintroduced.)Some scientists have fired back that such a move would be a grave mistake: The German newspaper Die Welt quoted pioneering chronobiologist and sleep researcher Till Roenneberg warning that permanent DST would make Europeans “dicker, dümmer und grantiger” (fatter, dumber, and grumpier).The conflict over DST versus ST makes for grabby headlines and engaging social media posts. But focusing on the clash misses the bigger questions about how we choose to mark time. A close look at the research reveals not only uncertainties about the effects of DST, but also about other factors, such as how time zones are drawn and, possibly most important, how structuring our schedules around light and dark could have a profound impact on health and safety.“We absolutely need to think about our time,” said Beth Malow, a neurologist and director of the sleep division at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “And how are we going to actually figure this out as a country?”The 24-hour cycle of light and dark created by the Earth’s rotation is the force that rules our lives. Homer’s rosy-fingered dawn is what chronobiologists call a zeitgeber, German for “time giver” — a natural signal that touches off cyclical processes in the body governing our internal clocks. Morning light, for example, cues our bodies to ramp up production of cortisol, a hormone that helps us feel awake and alert. Meanwhile, as cortisol dwindles through the evening, darkness triggers the sleep-promoting hormone melatonin.In the language of chronobiologists, the biological clock rhythms of humans and other animals are entrained, or synchronized, to the solar clock.Humans have devised schemes such as time zones and Daylight Saving Time to optimize their interactions with these natural cycles of light and dark. But the match between time policy and the zeitgeber is often imperfect.When we set clocks forward with DST in the spring, many people suddenly have to get up for school or work before the light has jumpstarted physiological processes associated with wakefulness. Cortisol levels peak about an hour later during DST according to a 2014 Australian study. Then, at the other end of the day, people have to go to bed before hours of darkness have signaled to their body that it’s time to sleep.The abrupt change, especially to DST in the spring, can wreak havoc on health and safety. In a 2020 commentary for JAMA Neurology, Beth Malow and colleagues outline evidence for negative health effects during the DST transition, including less and poorer quality sleep, an increased risk of stroke and heart attack, and a decreased sense of well-being, particularly for men who work full time.In addition, although the research on road safety is mixed, some studies find an uptick in traffic accidents and fatalities in the days after the DST switch.However, those bad effects are fleeting. The longer-term impact of DST is hard to research because the amount of sunlight changes with the seasons. Only one study has directly compared permanent DST to permanent ST: a seven-year study of students aged 10 to 24 living in northwestern Russia when the government mandated a switch from seasonal DST to year-around DST in 2011 — and then switched again, to permanent ST, in 2014.Permanent DST meant that the sun also rose and set later in the winter. Results published in 2017 associated year-round DST with a greater likelihood of feeling down in the winter as well as sleeping later on weekends, a phenomenon known as social jet lag. Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues coined the term nearly two decades ago to describe the chronic sleep deprivation that people experience when they have to get up for school or work before they would awaken naturally.“Social jet lag is the umbrella term for not being able to live in sync with one’s biological time,” said Roenneberg. He likens wakening with an alarm to stopping the washing machine before the cycle is complete: “All we get is wet and dirty laundry,” he said. “And that’s what we get in our body.”Social jet lag is an artifact of our modern world. Nearly half of U.S. adults sleep at least an hour later when they have the chance, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open in 2022. And research suggests that the phenomenon is especially pronounced in adolescents due to both biology — melatonin release tends to be delayed in that age group, for example — and environmental factors such as late nights on electronics and early school-start times.Research by Roenneberg and others have associated social jet lag — and the sleep deprivation it reflects — with smoking and consuming higher amounts of alcohol and caffeine as well as a range of ill health effects including obesity, metabolic syndrome (a group of health conditions that increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes), risk factors for heart disease, and depression. Studies have also linked social jet lag to worse academic performance for high school and college students.In a thorough review, Roenneberg and colleagues argue that by pushing sunrise and sunset an hour later, permanent DST is bound to worsen social jet lag. But the Russian study is the only direct evidence of that link, and it’s uncertain whether those effects, which the Russian researchers characterize as “small or very small,” apply to older age groups or people living where the cycles of light and dark are less extreme. In Vorkuta, one of three cities in the study, for example, the sun never rises for a time in the winter and never sets for six weeks in the summer.Like all of the researchers I spoke with for this story, Derk-Jan Dijk, a sleep and physiology professor at the University of Surrey in England, sees potential harm in permanently setting our clocks an hour ahead because in the winter many people would have to start their day in darkness. “Any schedule that implies that you have to get up before sunrise may cause problems,” said Dijk. But he also doesn’t like to overstate the case against DST, especially when we observe it seasonally.“The entire discussion about Daylight Saving Time and how bad it is upsets me a little bit,” he told me. The slight effects seen during the transition to DST in the spring and then back to ST in the autumn, quickly disappear he noted. “There is no good evidence that during the entire summer, when we are on Daylight Saving Time, everything is worse,” he said. “I don’t think the evidence is there.”Polls show that we generally dislike mucking with time twice a year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans want to eliminate the changing of clocks, according to a nationally representative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted by The Economist magazine and market research company YouGov in 2021.Permanent DST enjoys bipartisan support among many political leaders in the U.S. In a document supporting the Sunshine Protection Act, Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, cites evidence that DST promotes health, safety, recreation, commerce, and energy savings. However, some of that research focuses on the harms of switching back and forth, so one could also use it to support year-around ST.In other cases, Rubio cherry picks studies showing benefits to DST while ignoring contradictory research. A 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service prepared for members of the U.S. Congress did not find substantial evidence that DST improves health and safety or that it reduces energy consumption by much — if at all.And, in drumming up supportive evidence, the permanent DST camp hits the same wall as the eliminate DST camp: Researchers haven’t sufficiently studied the effects of year-around DST.In a controversial 2020 perspective for the journal Clocks & Sleep, sleep scientists Christina Blume and Manuel Schabus call on the scientific establishment to own up to uncertainties in the existing data and to do the research needed to fill those holes. Still, even Blume acknowledges that taken as a whole, the available data makes a decent case that changing clocks to shift light from the morning to the evening could be bad for our health and safety.“We all agree as researchers that the safer option is to go for perennial Standard Time,” said Blume, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Basel in Switzerland.The nonprofit organization Save Standard Time lists endorsements from more than 30 sleep-science and medical organizations — including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Neurology among others — in addition to individual scientists and researchers.Here, I feel compelled to note that the last time we tried permanent DST, it didn’t go well. In attempt to conserve energy, Congress established a trial period of year-round DST in late 1973. But public approval dropped precipitously as Americans faced the reality of dark winter mornings. By October 1974, the country had reverted to four months of yearly ST.The disconnect between the perception and reality arises because of how we think and talk about the seasons and time change, said neurologist Malow, who testified before the U.S. Congress about the benefits of permanent ST. “People have associated being on standard time, with it being cold and winter and dark,” she said. Meanwhile “springing forward” coincides with the return of warmer, longer days.But, of course, DST doesn’t buy you more light. Winter days are short and summer days are long regardless of how you mark time.In addition to DST, other factors about how we control light and time in our environment — how we draw time zones, use artificial light, and set school and work schedules — affect our relationship to the solar clock as well as health and safety.To understand time zones, it helps to go back to basic geography. The Earth rotates all the way around in 24 hours. Imagine longitude lines running north and south separating the globe into 24 segments, each marking one hour’s rotation. Time zones roughly follow those longitude lines. As the Earth rotates, the sun rises and sets first on the eastern edge of a time zone, and then about an hour later on the western edge.Things gets interesting on either side of a time-zone boundary, where the sun position is essentially the same, but the clock time is different. In late January, for example, the sun sets around 6:10 p.m. in Columbus, Georgia in Eastern Time, but at 5:10 p.m. just over the time-zone border in Auburn, Alabama.People living on the late-sunset side of a time-zone border, like those in Columbus, tend to go to bed later, sleeping an average of around 20 minutes less each night than those on the early-sunset side, like those in Auburn, according to a 2019 study published in the Journal of Health Economics. Drawing on large national surveys and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that health outcomes associated with sleep deficiency and social jet lag were worse for the late-sunset folks. Their wages were also about 3 percent lower than those of early-sunset people, who, better rested, were presumably more productive.“The effects are larger when you zoom in really close the border,” said study co-author Osea Giuntella, an economics professor at the University of Pittsburgh.Seasonal changes, including the shift to DST in the spring, didn’t have a significant effect. Giuntella said that it’s possible that where you live in a time zone could have a bigger effect than DST, but he couldn’t be sure because DST wasn’t a focus of the study. That would be harder to study, he noted, as the time change typically affects people on both sides of a time-zone border. (Arizona is the only state in the continental U.S. that does not observe DST.)Another tricky aspect of time zones is that they don’t strictly adhere to longitude lines, but instead meander to accommodate city and state boundaries. In the U.S., all the time zones except Pacific Time encompass areas west of what would be the natural time-zone boundary. Communication professor Jeffery Gentry and a team that included Eastern New Mexico University professors with expertise in geography, biology, and education have dubbed those regions west of the geographic time zone “eccentric time localities,” or ETLs.In these ETLs, sunrise and sunset time may occur more than an hour later than the eastern side of the time zone. For example, geographically, Marquette, Mich., should be in Central Time, but instead the city lies in an ETL in Eastern Time. In late October, the sun rises at around 7:10 a.m. Eastern Time in Bangor, Maine, but not until around 8:30 a.m. in Marquette.Gentry and colleague’s analysis of more than 400,000 fatal traffic accidents that occurred between 2006 and 2017 showed that ETL residents suffered a 22 percent higher fatality rate than those living elsewhere in the time zone. If the death rate in ETLs had been the same as the rest of the time zone, they would have experienced about 15,000 fewer fatalities over 12 years, according to the analysis.The most likely explanation, according to the researchers, is that people in ETLs are forced to keep schedules that are out of sync with cues from the solar clock — what the authors call “dysfunctional social time.” Compared to people living with more light in the morning and less in the evening, Gentry told me, ETL dwellers may not sleep as long or as well and may be less sharp for their morning commute.The authors accounted for differences in urban and rural areas, but not for other factors linked to traffic accidents such as speed limits, drunk driving, and road conditions. Still, Gentry said that the strength of the study is the size and completeness of the data set, meaning that small regional differences are unlikely to affect the overall results. “We eliminated everything we could and we still have a pretty stark number here,” said Gentry.Gentry would like to see time zones redrawn. But other policy fixes could help as well. The authors didn’t explore whether accidents varied by season, but they found evidence from other research strong enough to presume that DST magnifies the potential harm of living in an ETL. Gentry said that notion leaves him hopeful because he views DST as simple enough to fix. “I’m more positive that if Daylight Saving Time were eliminated, that we might save quite a few lives.”The focus on issues like DST and time zones, some researchers say, can overlook another key part of the time policy puzzle.In our artificially lit world, our internal clocks are affected by far more than sunrise and sunset. No doubt, the sun is the strongest zeitgeber, but artificial light also affects our internal clocks, said sleep researcher Derk-Jan Dijk. He dismissed the notion that humans are entrained solely to the sun as a romantic idea. “We, to a large extent, have divorced our activity schedules from the natural light-dark cycle,” he said.A body of research shows that even dim light can suppress melatonin production and delay sleep. Blue light from fluorescent lights and our ubiquitous screens, which has the shortest wavelength and highest energy of light that the human eye can see, has a particularly powerful effect on circadian rhythms.Dijk is frustrated that focus on DST overlooks harder questions about the built environment and how we choose to live and work. “The more general question is how the heck do we actually come up with our work schedules and social schedules, which basically determine to what extent we make use of natural light versus man-made light?” said Dijk. Aligning our sleep and work schedules with the light that is available for free would not only be better for us, but, because we’d use less electricity to power devices late into the night, better for the planet.Doing so goes far beyond the details of the daylight saving debate — although it involves changes that are not so easily legislated by Congress.Like many other researchers, Dijk advocates for adjusting school-start times and allowing flexible work schedules so that people don’t have to get up before sunrise. In the time-zone study by Giuntella and colleagues, for example, when people could sleep later in the morning — because they were unemployed or started work later — they didn’t seem to experience the negative effects of living with later sunsets.And, although it sounds like a radical idea, states could also adjust time-zone boundaries. “I don’t think we want 10 time zones, but maybe we add one for the Northeast,” said Malow. Because the New England states are so far east, winter sunsets come early — before 4 p.m. in December in parts of Maine.And then there is the question of whether so-called ETLs would better align with the time zone to their west. For example, Malow lives in the Nashville area in Central Time, but part of the state juts into Eastern time. “If we could get Eastern Tennessee into Central Time, that would solve a lot of problems,” she said. As it is, if the country shifts to permanent DST, the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville wouldn’t see the sun until nearly 9 a.m. in January or darkness until nearly 10 p.m. in June.Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues have also suggested redrawing time-zone boundaries in Europe, which in some cases are even more skewed than those in the U.S.Ideally, Malow would like to see all of the above — flexible schedules, adjusted time zones, and permanent ST. “It’s important to look at the whole picture, and for us to figure something out,” said Malow. She’s somewhat hopeful as the discussions about how we mark time are not particularly partisan and changes wouldn’t cost much if anything.It could even bring people together across the political divide, said Malow. “Wouldn’t that be great?” she said. “Stopping the clock back and forth could be the great unifier in our country.”This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Something is awry about the way we mark time. Can research and policy changes help us reset the clocks?

In the summer of 2017, when communication professor Jeffery Gentry moved from Oklahoma to accept a position at Eastern New Mexico University, he was pleasantly surprised to find it easier to get up in the morning. The difference, he realized, was early morning light. On September mornings in Portales, New Mexico, Gentry rose with the sun at around 6:30 a.m., but at that time of day in Oklahoma, it was still dark.

As the Earth rotates, the sun reaches the eastern edge of a time zone first, with sunrise and sunset occurring progressively later as you move west. Gentry’s move had taken him from the western side of Central Time in Oklahoma to the eastern edge of Mountain Time. Following his curiosity into the scientific literature, he discovered the field of chronobiology, the study of biological rhythms, such as how cycles of daylight and dark affect living things. “I really just stumbled upon it from being a guinea pig in my own experiment,” he said.

In 2022, Gentry and an interdisciplinary team of colleagues added to that body of research, publishing a study in the journal Time & Society that showed the rate of fatal motor-vehicle accidents was highest for people living in the far west of a time zone, where the sun rises and sets at least an hour later than on the eastern side. Chronobiology research shows that longer evening light can keep people up later and that, as Gentry found, morning darkness can make it harder to get going for work or school. Western-edge folks may suffer more deadly car wrecks, the team theorized, because they are commuting in the dark while sleep deprived and not fully alert.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


With all the hullabaloo over the health and safety of setting clocks forward an hour in the spring for Daylight Saving Time (DST) and back in the fall with Standard Time (ST), could where you live in a time zone actually have a more profound effect? I asked Gentry. “That’s very possible,” he said.

Time researchers make this point, and research results and public opinion polls reflect it: Something is awry about the way we mark time. Those problems start with the annual toggle between DST and ST. In these days of sharp division, poll after poll finds most people unified in their dislike of switching clocks back and forth with the season. However, the question of whether to stick with ST or DST year-round once again sends people to different camps.

Scientists generally advocate for permanent ST, or “natural time,” as Gentry calls it because it better aligns people’s schedules with the sun year-round. “People who study the issue are all in agreement,” he said. On the other hand, public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic tends to favor permanent DST — and many politicians agree — perhaps because of the positive associations with summer sunshine. (A bill to make that switch passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2022, but then stalled in the House; a new version was recently reintroduced.)

Some scientists have fired back that such a move would be a grave mistake: The German newspaper Die Welt quoted pioneering chronobiologist and sleep researcher Till Roenneberg warning that permanent DST would make Europeans “dicker, dümmer und grantiger” (fatter, dumber, and grumpier).

The conflict over DST versus ST makes for grabby headlines and engaging social media posts. But focusing on the clash misses the bigger questions about how we choose to mark time. A close look at the research reveals not only uncertainties about the effects of DST, but also about other factors, such as how time zones are drawn and, possibly most important, how structuring our schedules around light and dark could have a profound impact on health and safety.

“We absolutely need to think about our time,” said Beth Malow, a neurologist and director of the sleep division at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “And how are we going to actually figure this out as a country?”

The 24-hour cycle of light and dark created by the Earth’s rotation is the force that rules our lives. Homer’s rosy-fingered dawn is what chronobiologists call a zeitgeber, German for “time giver” — a natural signal that touches off cyclical processes in the body governing our internal clocks. Morning light, for example, cues our bodies to ramp up production of cortisol, a hormone that helps us feel awake and alert. Meanwhile, as cortisol dwindles through the evening, darkness triggers the sleep-promoting hormone melatonin.

In the language of chronobiologists, the biological clock rhythms of humans and other animals are entrained, or synchronized, to the solar clock.

Humans have devised schemes such as time zones and Daylight Saving Time to optimize their interactions with these natural cycles of light and dark. But the match between time policy and the zeitgeber is often imperfect.

When we set clocks forward with DST in the spring, many people suddenly have to get up for school or work before the light has jumpstarted physiological processes associated with wakefulness. Cortisol levels peak about an hour later during DST according to a 2014 Australian study. Then, at the other end of the day, people have to go to bed before hours of darkness have signaled to their body that it’s time to sleep.

The abrupt change, especially to DST in the spring, can wreak havoc on health and safety. In a 2020 commentary for JAMA Neurology, Beth Malow and colleagues outline evidence for negative health effects during the DST transition, including less and poorer quality sleep, an increased risk of stroke and heart attack, and a decreased sense of well-being, particularly for men who work full time.

In addition, although the research on road safety is mixed, some studies find an uptick in traffic accidents and fatalities in the days after the DST switch.

However, those bad effects are fleeting. The longer-term impact of DST is hard to research because the amount of sunlight changes with the seasons. Only one study has directly compared permanent DST to permanent ST: a seven-year study of students aged 10 to 24 living in northwestern Russia when the government mandated a switch from seasonal DST to year-around DST in 2011 — and then switched again, to permanent ST, in 2014.

Permanent DST meant that the sun also rose and set later in the winter. Results published in 2017 associated year-round DST with a greater likelihood of feeling down in the winter as well as sleeping later on weekends, a phenomenon known as social jet lag. Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues coined the term nearly two decades ago to describe the chronic sleep deprivation that people experience when they have to get up for school or work before they would awaken naturally.

“Social jet lag is the umbrella term for not being able to live in sync with one’s biological time,” said Roenneberg. He likens wakening with an alarm to stopping the washing machine before the cycle is complete: “All we get is wet and dirty laundry,” he said. “And that’s what we get in our body.”

Social jet lag is an artifact of our modern world. Nearly half of U.S. adults sleep at least an hour later when they have the chance, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open in 2022. And research suggests that the phenomenon is especially pronounced in adolescents due to both biology — melatonin release tends to be delayed in that age group, for example — and environmental factors such as late nights on electronics and early school-start times.

Research by Roenneberg and others have associated social jet lag — and the sleep deprivation it reflects — with smoking and consuming higher amounts of alcohol and caffeine as well as a range of ill health effects including obesity, metabolic syndrome (a group of health conditions that increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes), risk factors for heart disease, and depression. Studies have also linked social jet lag to worse academic performance for high school and college students.

In a thorough review, Roenneberg and colleagues argue that by pushing sunrise and sunset an hour later, permanent DST is bound to worsen social jet lag. But the Russian study is the only direct evidence of that link, and it’s uncertain whether those effects, which the Russian researchers characterize as “small or very small,” apply to older age groups or people living where the cycles of light and dark are less extreme. In Vorkuta, one of three cities in the study, for example, the sun never rises for a time in the winter and never sets for six weeks in the summer.

Like all of the researchers I spoke with for this story, Derk-Jan Dijk, a sleep and physiology professor at the University of Surrey in England, sees potential harm in permanently setting our clocks an hour ahead because in the winter many people would have to start their day in darkness. “Any schedule that implies that you have to get up before sunrise may cause problems,” said Dijk. But he also doesn’t like to overstate the case against DST, especially when we observe it seasonally.

“The entire discussion about Daylight Saving Time and how bad it is upsets me a little bit,” he told me. The slight effects seen during the transition to DST in the spring and then back to ST in the autumn, quickly disappear he noted. “There is no good evidence that during the entire summer, when we are on Daylight Saving Time, everything is worse,” he said. “I don’t think the evidence is there.”

Polls show that we generally dislike mucking with time twice a year. Nearly two-thirds of Americans want to eliminate the changing of clocks, according to a nationally representative survey of 1,500 U.S. adults conducted by The Economist magazine and market research company YouGov in 2021.

Permanent DST enjoys bipartisan support among many political leaders in the U.S. In a document supporting the Sunshine Protection Act, Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, cites evidence that DST promotes health, safety, recreation, commerce, and energy savings. However, some of that research focuses on the harms of switching back and forth, so one could also use it to support year-around ST.

In other cases, Rubio cherry picks studies showing benefits to DST while ignoring contradictory research. A 2020 report from the Congressional Research Service prepared for members of the U.S. Congress did not find substantial evidence that DST improves health and safety or that it reduces energy consumption by much — if at all.

And, in drumming up supportive evidence, the permanent DST camp hits the same wall as the eliminate DST camp: Researchers haven’t sufficiently studied the effects of year-around DST.

In a controversial 2020 perspective for the journal Clocks & Sleep, sleep scientists Christina Blume and Manuel Schabus call on the scientific establishment to own up to uncertainties in the existing data and to do the research needed to fill those holes. Still, even Blume acknowledges that taken as a whole, the available data makes a decent case that changing clocks to shift light from the morning to the evening could be bad for our health and safety.

“We all agree as researchers that the safer option is to go for perennial Standard Time,” said Blume, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Basel in Switzerland.

The nonprofit organization Save Standard Time lists endorsements from more than 30 sleep-science and medical organizations — including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Neurology among others — in addition to individual scientists and researchers.

Here, I feel compelled to note that the last time we tried permanent DST, it didn’t go well. In attempt to conserve energy, Congress established a trial period of year-round DST in late 1973. But public approval dropped precipitously as Americans faced the reality of dark winter mornings. By October 1974, the country had reverted to four months of yearly ST.

The disconnect between the perception and reality arises because of how we think and talk about the seasons and time change, said neurologist Malow, who testified before the U.S. Congress about the benefits of permanent ST. “People have associated being on standard time, with it being cold and winter and dark,” she said. Meanwhile “springing forward” coincides with the return of warmer, longer days.

But, of course, DST doesn’t buy you more light. Winter days are short and summer days are long regardless of how you mark time.

In addition to DST, other factors about how we control light and time in our environment — how we draw time zones, use artificial light, and set school and work schedules — affect our relationship to the solar clock as well as health and safety.

To understand time zones, it helps to go back to basic geography. The Earth rotates all the way around in 24 hours. Imagine longitude lines running north and south separating the globe into 24 segments, each marking one hour’s rotation. Time zones roughly follow those longitude lines. As the Earth rotates, the sun rises and sets first on the eastern edge of a time zone, and then about an hour later on the western edge.

Things gets interesting on either side of a time-zone boundary, where the sun position is essentially the same, but the clock time is different. In late January, for example, the sun sets around 6:10 p.m. in Columbus, Georgia in Eastern Time, but at 5:10 p.m. just over the time-zone border in Auburn, Alabama.

People living on the late-sunset side of a time-zone border, like those in Columbus, tend to go to bed later, sleeping an average of around 20 minutes less each night than those on the early-sunset side, like those in Auburn, according to a 2019 study published in the Journal of Health Economics. Drawing on large national surveys and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that health outcomes associated with sleep deficiency and social jet lag were worse for the late-sunset folks. Their wages were also about 3 percent lower than those of early-sunset people, who, better rested, were presumably more productive.

“The effects are larger when you zoom in really close the border,” said study co-author Osea Giuntella, an economics professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

Seasonal changes, including the shift to DST in the spring, didn’t have a significant effect. Giuntella said that it’s possible that where you live in a time zone could have a bigger effect than DST, but he couldn’t be sure because DST wasn’t a focus of the study. That would be harder to study, he noted, as the time change typically affects people on both sides of a time-zone border. (Arizona is the only state in the continental U.S. that does not observe DST.)

Another tricky aspect of time zones is that they don’t strictly adhere to longitude lines, but instead meander to accommodate city and state boundaries. In the U.S., all the time zones except Pacific Time encompass areas west of what would be the natural time-zone boundary. Communication professor Jeffery Gentry and a team that included Eastern New Mexico University professors with expertise in geography, biology, and education have dubbed those regions west of the geographic time zone “eccentric time localities,” or ETLs.

In these ETLs, sunrise and sunset time may occur more than an hour later than the eastern side of the time zone. For example, geographically, Marquette, Mich., should be in Central Time, but instead the city lies in an ETL in Eastern Time. In late October, the sun rises at around 7:10 a.m. Eastern Time in Bangor, Maine, but not until around 8:30 a.m. in Marquette.

Gentry and colleague’s analysis of more than 400,000 fatal traffic accidents that occurred between 2006 and 2017 showed that ETL residents suffered a 22 percent higher fatality rate than those living elsewhere in the time zone. If the death rate in ETLs had been the same as the rest of the time zone, they would have experienced about 15,000 fewer fatalities over 12 years, according to the analysis.

The most likely explanation, according to the researchers, is that people in ETLs are forced to keep schedules that are out of sync with cues from the solar clock — what the authors call “dysfunctional social time.” Compared to people living with more light in the morning and less in the evening, Gentry told me, ETL dwellers may not sleep as long or as well and may be less sharp for their morning commute.

The authors accounted for differences in urban and rural areas, but not for other factors linked to traffic accidents such as speed limits, drunk driving, and road conditions. Still, Gentry said that the strength of the study is the size and completeness of the data set, meaning that small regional differences are unlikely to affect the overall results. “We eliminated everything we could and we still have a pretty stark number here,” said Gentry.

Gentry would like to see time zones redrawn. But other policy fixes could help as well. The authors didn’t explore whether accidents varied by season, but they found evidence from other research strong enough to presume that DST magnifies the potential harm of living in an ETL. Gentry said that notion leaves him hopeful because he views DST as simple enough to fix. “I’m more positive that if Daylight Saving Time were eliminated, that we might save quite a few lives.”

The focus on issues like DST and time zones, some researchers say, can overlook another key part of the time policy puzzle.

In our artificially lit world, our internal clocks are affected by far more than sunrise and sunset. No doubt, the sun is the strongest zeitgeber, but artificial light also affects our internal clocks, said sleep researcher Derk-Jan Dijk. He dismissed the notion that humans are entrained solely to the sun as a romantic idea. “We, to a large extent, have divorced our activity schedules from the natural light-dark cycle,” he said.

A body of research shows that even dim light can suppress melatonin production and delay sleep. Blue light from fluorescent lights and our ubiquitous screens, which has the shortest wavelength and highest energy of light that the human eye can see, has a particularly powerful effect on circadian rhythms.

Dijk is frustrated that focus on DST overlooks harder questions about the built environment and how we choose to live and work. “The more general question is how the heck do we actually come up with our work schedules and social schedules, which basically determine to what extent we make use of natural light versus man-made light?” said Dijk. Aligning our sleep and work schedules with the light that is available for free would not only be better for us, but, because we’d use less electricity to power devices late into the night, better for the planet.

Doing so goes far beyond the details of the daylight saving debate — although it involves changes that are not so easily legislated by Congress.

Like many other researchers, Dijk advocates for adjusting school-start times and allowing flexible work schedules so that people don’t have to get up before sunrise. In the time-zone study by Giuntella and colleagues, for example, when people could sleep later in the morning — because they were unemployed or started work later — they didn’t seem to experience the negative effects of living with later sunsets.

And, although it sounds like a radical idea, states could also adjust time-zone boundaries. “I don’t think we want 10 time zones, but maybe we add one for the Northeast,” said Malow. Because the New England states are so far east, winter sunsets come early — before 4 p.m. in December in parts of Maine.

And then there is the question of whether so-called ETLs would better align with the time zone to their west. For example, Malow lives in the Nashville area in Central Time, but part of the state juts into Eastern time. “If we could get Eastern Tennessee into Central Time, that would solve a lot of problems,” she said. As it is, if the country shifts to permanent DST, the cities of Chattanooga and Knoxville wouldn’t see the sun until nearly 9 a.m. in January or darkness until nearly 10 p.m. in June.

Chronobiologist Till Roenneberg and colleagues have also suggested redrawing time-zone boundaries in Europe, which in some cases are even more skewed than those in the U.S.

Ideally, Malow would like to see all of the above — flexible schedules, adjusted time zones, and permanent ST. “It’s important to look at the whole picture, and for us to figure something out,” said Malow. She’s somewhat hopeful as the discussions about how we mark time are not particularly partisan and changes wouldn’t cost much if anything.

It could even bring people together across the political divide, said Malow. “Wouldn’t that be great?” she said. “Stopping the clock back and forth could be the great unifier in our country.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Are Five Senses Holding Us Back? Scientists Say We Could Use Seven

A mathematical model shows memory capacity is maximized when represented by seven features. The study links this to the potential for seven senses, with applications in AI and neuroscience. Skoltech researchers have developed a mathematical model to study how memory works. Their analysis led to unexpected insights that may advance the design of robots, artificial [...]

A new mathematical model of memory hints that seven senses, not five, may be the optimal number for maximizing mental capacity. Credit: ShutterstockA mathematical model shows memory capacity is maximized when represented by seven features. The study links this to the potential for seven senses, with applications in AI and neuroscience. Skoltech researchers have developed a mathematical model to study how memory works. Their analysis led to unexpected insights that may advance the design of robots, artificial intelligence, and our understanding of human memory. The study, published in Scientific Reports, suggests there could be an ideal number of senses. If that is true, then humans with five senses might actually benefit from having a few more. “Our conclusion is, of course, highly speculative in application to human senses, although you never know: It could be that humans of the future would evolve a sense of radiation or magnetic field. But in any case, our findings may be of practical importance for robotics and the theory of artificial intelligence,” said study co-author Professor Nikolay Brilliantov of Skoltech AI. “It appears that when each concept retained in memory is characterized in terms of seven features — as opposed to, say, five or eight — the number of distinct objects held in memory is maximized.” Modeling memory engrams Building on a framework established in the early 20th century, the team focused on the basic units of memory known as “engrams.” An engram can be described as a sparse network of neurons distributed across different brain regions that activate together. Its conceptual content is an idealized object defined by multiple characteristics. In human memory, these characteristics map to sensory inputs. For instance, the memory of a banana would include its image, smell, taste, and other sensory details. Altogether, this forms a five-dimensional representation that exists within a larger five-dimensional space containing all other stored concepts. The five senses. Credit: Modified by Nicolas Posunko/Skoltech from image generated by Deep Style (Abstract) model on Deep Dream GeneratorOver time, engrams can become more refined or more diffuse depending on how frequently they are triggered by external stimuli acting through the senses, which in turn recall the memory of the object. This process represents how learning strengthens memories while disuse leads to forgetting through environmental interaction. “We have mathematically demonstrated that the engrams in the conceptual space tend to evolve toward a steady state, which means that after some transient period, a ‘mature’ distribution of engrams emerges, which then persists in time,” Brilliantov commented. “As we consider the ultimate capacity of a conceptual space of a given number of dimensions, we somewhat surprisingly find that the number of distinct engrams stored in memory in the steady state is the greatest for a concept space of seven dimensions. Hence, the seven senses claim.” Maximizing conceptual space In other words, let the objects that exist out there in the world be described by a finite number of features corresponding to the dimensions of some conceptual space. Suppose that we want to maximize the capacity of the conceptual space expressed as the number of distinct concepts associated with these objects. The greater the capacity of the conceptual space, the deeper the overall understanding of the world. It turns out that the maximum is attained when the dimension of the conceptual space is seven. From this, the researchers conclude that seven is the optimal number of senses. According to the researchers, this number does not depend on the details of the model — the properties of the conceptual space and the stimuli providing the sense impressions. The number seven appears to be a robust and persistent feature of memory engrams as such. One caveat is that multiple engrams of differing sizes existing around a common center are deemed to represent similar concepts and are therefore treated as one when calculating memory capacity. The memory of humans and other living beings is an enigmatic phenomenon tied to the property of consciousness, among other things. Advancing the theoretical models of memory will be instrumental to gaining new insights into the human mind and recreating humanlike memory in AI agents. Reference: “The critical dimension of memory engrams and an optimal number of senses” by Wendy Otieno, Ivan Y. Tyukin and Nikolay Brilliantov, 15 August 2025, Scientific Reports.DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-11244-y Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Autism Research Is a Chance for RFK Jr. to Take Pesticides Seriously

Unlike some of his other concerns, these echo legitimate science.

Pesticides once appeared to be a clear target for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s desire to “make America healthy again.” Before becoming the health secretary, he described Monsanto, the maker of the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, as “enemy of every admirable American value,” and vowed to “ban the worst agricultural chemicals already banned in other countries.” Since he came to power, many of Kennedy’s fans have waited eagerly for him to do just that.Kennedy has yet to satisfy them: In the latest MAHA action plan on children’s health, released last week, pesticides appear only briefly on a laundry list of vague ideas. The plan says that the government should fund research on how farmers could use less of them, and that the government "will work to ensure that the public has awareness and confidence” in the EPA’s existing pesticide-review process, which it called “robust.”Unlike Kennedy’s concerns about vaccines, his concerns about pesticides have echoed those found in a body of legitimate research. Studies have found associations between exposure to some herbicides and pesticides and cancer, hormone disruption, and other acute and chronic health conditions. These include neurodevelopmental impacts in children, such as autism—which Kennedy has also promised to tackle.Right now his department’s promised report on what has caused rates of autism to rise over recent decades is expected to highlight Tylenol use, whether during pregnancy or, as my colleague Tom Bartlett reported, based on Kennedy’s correspondence with a fringe researcher, in early childhood. Researchers generally point to a change in diagnostic criteria as the primary reason rates have spiked so dramatically. They also consider autism a complex condition that does not appear to have a single cause: Studies suggest that genetics play a bigger role than environmental factors in determining a person’s risk, though both seem likely to contribute and may work in concert. A serious effort from the government to understand its causes would require investment in long-term, large-cohort, and detailed studies that might cast light on the contribution of many environmental factors, including pesticides. Several studies have found neurological impacts associated with pesticides. UC Davis’s MIND Institute put out a study in 2014 that found autism risk was much higher among children whose mothers had lived near agricultural-pesticide areas while pregnant. A 2017 paper found that zip codes that conducted aerial spraying for mosquitoes—a pesticide—had comparatively higher rates of autism than zip codes that didn’t. Others have linked pesticides to a range of behavioral and cognitive impairment in children.Rebecca Schmidt, a molecular epidemiologist and professor at UC Davis, has been researching potential risk factors for autism as part of the school’s long-term MARBLES study of mothers and children. Schmidt and her colleagues study families with at least one child already diagnosed with the condition—to see what environmental and biological factors may raise the risk of subsequent children being diagnosed. (Younger siblings of a child with autism have on average a 20 percent chance of also having it.) Her own research, she told me, has not seen as dramatic of results for pesticides as the 2014 paper—which she also worked on—reported, though other labs have found associations of their own between prenatal pesticide exposure and autism.These studies, like most studies that assess environmental exposures, typically cannot determine causality between agricultural-pesticide exposure and autism risk. Investigating links between pesticides and health outcomes is challenging; researchers can look at geographic proximity to sprayed fields, but drilling down to find out how much pesticide actually ended up in a person’s body requires herculean diagnostic efforts, such as frequent urine sampling. And the conclusions drawn from these studies can only point to associations between certain exposures and the likelihood of developing the condition: Showing direct causality would involve willingly exposing pregnant mothers and infants to pesticides and seeing what happens, which scientists cannot do, for obvious reasons. But based on what she knows now, Schmidt told me, “pesticides are probably not a good exposure for any pregnant person, or even children,” since their brains are still developing.In investigating autism causes, Kennedy could also consider another environmental factor: air pollution. Breathing air pollution does have robust evidence linking it to neurodevelopmental effects in children, including autism. The Trump administration’s policy changes since January have predominantly tipped the country toward more air pollution, not less, while its climate-policy rollbacks will contribute even further to the burden of air pollution from wildfires. Meanwhile, some evidence also suggests a link between flame-retardant exposure and behavioral-developmental problems in children. Other studies have found possible links between pre- and postnatal exposure to PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” and autism.All of this means that following the science would give Kennedy many places to look. “We've been working on this for over a decade,” Schmidt told me. “Every time we do a study, it raises new questions. And so it’s a complex picture that takes time to tease apart.” Designing and completing strong studies of any of these factors is challenging and costly. If the federal government did want to put its resources toward finding the causes of autism, Kennedy would do well to increase funding for large, national studies that follow people for years.The latest MAHA plan does say that the National Institutes of Health, along with other agencies, will develop a way to evaluate “cumulative exposure,” or the impact of the cocktail of chemicals Americans are regularly interacting with—including pesticides. It does not say how that research will be funded or which of the tens of thousands of in-use chemicals the agencies would focus on.Since taking office, Kennedy has mostly avoided even rhetorically linking specific environmental exposures to health concerns. An earlier MAHA report had more to say on pesticides, but The New York Times and Politico reported that Republican lawmakers as well as the farm lobby expressed concern about its potential impact on farmers. At a Senate hearing, Kennedy said that there are “a million farmers who rely on glyphosate” and told lawmakers that “we are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model.” At a Heritage Foundation event last month, Kennedy’s senior adviser, Calley Means, said on a panel that corn and soybean farmers are not the “enemy,” but rather that the “deep state” is. (Corn and soy are two of the most heavily sprayed crops.) In response to a request for comment, HHS pointed me to last week’s MAHA plan, as well as the EPA’s work to evaluate environmental risks while phasing out animal testing.This shift has raised the ire of some of Kennedy’s most ardent fans. Zen Honeycutt, the founder of the advocacy group Moms Across America who has been a major Kennedy supporter, said shortly after the MAHA plan was unveiled last week that her vote for the Republican Party is not guaranteed: “We will be actively campaigning to get people into office coming in the midterms that will protect our children, and we are not beholden to political parties.” In a statement later that day, she said that eliminating specific mentions of glyphosate and atrazine, another widely used pesticide that appeared in the first report and has concerning health implications, is “a tactic to appease the pesticide companies.”Some of Kennedy’s defenders rightly point out that he is not in charge of the EPA, which regulates pesticides, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees farming policies. Even if he cannot regulate pesticides himself, he is in charge of the National Institutes of Health, “and the NIH can study the causes of the effects of these chemicals on Americans. Those studies can drive the marketplace and policy change,” Vani Hari, a food activist, MAHA influencer, and vocal supporter of Kennedy, told me. (In particular, she wants to see the United States, as some other countries have, eliminate the practice of spraying glyphosate on crop fields right before harvest, which farmers do to dry out the crops.) Kennedy understands the threat these chemicals pose, she told me: “When there is an opportunity to add influence, he will. He’s not afraid to speak up.”I asked whether she would be disappointed if the forthcoming autism report doesn’t mention pesticides and instead focuses on Tylenol and folate deficiencies. She told me she doubted that the autism report would overlook pesticides. “I don’t see that even happening,” she said. Yet in his few months in office, Kennedy has had many chances to let science guide him and has let them pass—on the health benefits of seed oils, the safety of abortion pills, children’s mental-health screening, and, most notably, vaccine policy. This may be one more.

See Vaccine Recommendations Backed by Science in These Handy Charts

These graphics will guide you through science-based vaccine guidelines for children and adults

Vaccines are a marvel of modern medicine: the carefully tested and regulated technologies teach people’s immune systems how to fight off potentially fatal infections, saving both lives and health care costs.But for as long as vaccines have existed, people have opposed them, and in recent years the antivaccine movement has gained visibility and power. Now the Department of Health and Human Services is led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—an environmental lawyer with no medical training and a history of antivaccine activism. And these lifesaving medical interventions are coming under threat.Access to COVID vaccines this fall is already expected to be limited to people aged 65 years or older and to those with underlying health conditions that make them more vulnerable to severe disease. And in June Kennedy dismissed all 17 sitting members of a crucial vaccine oversight group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which, in the past, has made independent, science-based recommendations on vaccine access for people in the U.S. The dismissals came just weeks before the panel’s next scheduled meeting; Kennedy appointed eight new members in advance of the meeting, which is still set to begin on June 25.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.As a public resource, Scientific American has created graphics outlining the vaccines recommended by ACIP as of its final meeting in 2024.Vaccine recommendations have always been in flux as new products have been developed and continuing research has suggested better practices: The COVID pandemic required brand-new vaccines for a novel virus, for example. And in the U.S., the stunning success of the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine led to its recommendation for everyone aged 26 or younger, meanwhile the oral polio vaccine was discontinued in favor of the inactivated injected vaccine.But traditionally, these decisions have been made by scientists based on solid research done within the confines of accepted ethical practices. These principles mean, for example, that a vaccine’s side effects are carefully monitored and evaluated against its immune benefit and that potential replacement vaccines are tested against their predecessors, not—as Kennedy has proposed—an inert placebo that would leave people vulnerable to an infection that doctors already have the tools to combat.Kennedy’s decision to replace ACIP wholesale and the comments he has made about deviating from standard vaccine policymaking practice suggest that new recommendations won’t be backed by established vaccine science—hence our reproduction of the vaccine recommendations as of the end of 2024.Note that these are generalized recommendations; people should talk with their health care providers about individual risks and needs, as well as how to proceed after missing a dose. Pregnant people can consult additional resources from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for vaccines recommended during pregnancy. People planning to travel internationally should also check what vaccines are recommended for their destination and consult with a health care professional more than a month before departure.Vaccines Recommended for ChildrenJen Christiansen; Source: “Recommended Immunizations for Birth through 6 Years Old, United States, 2025.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Version dated to November 22, 2024. Accessed June 18, 2025 (primary reference)Jen Christiansen; Source: “Recommended Immunizations for Children 7–18 Years Old, United States, 2025.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Version dated to November 22, 2024. Accessed June 18, 2025 (primary reference)Vaccines Recommended for AdultsJen Christiansen; Source: “Recommended Immunizations for Adults Aged 19 Years and Older, United States, 2025.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Version dated to November 22, 2024. Accessed June 18, 2025 (primary reference)Infections These Vaccines Protect AgainstRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV): This respiratory virus hospitalizes an estimated 58,000 children and 177,000 older adults each year in the U.S. Annually in the country, it kills between 100 and 500 children under five years old and about 14,000 older adults.Hepatitis A and B: Both of these viruses cause liver infections. Severe cases of hepatitis A can require liver transplants, while chronic cases of hepatitis B can lead to other liver problems, including liver cancer.Rotavirus: This common gastrointestinal virus causes diarrhea that is sometimes severe enough to require hospitalization. Infections are most common in children under three years old, and the virus can withstand handwashing and common hand sanitizers.Diphtheria: This bacterial infection has become rare in the U.S. through vaccination; before the vaccine was available, case rates could be as high as 200,000 annually. The infection can manifest in the respiratory system or the skin. Half of untreated people die; children under age five and adults more than 40 years old are most vulnerable.Tetanus: Sometimes called lockjaw because an early symptom is muscle pain and spasms in the jaw, tetanus is caused by toxins from a bacterium. Doctors don’t have a cure for tetanus, and the infection has become rare in the U.S. only through vaccination.Pertussis/whooping cough: This bacterial infection is sometimes nicknamed the “100-day cough” for its most characteristic symptom. U.S. infection levels have generally run between 10,000 and 20,000 diagnosed cases per year; the disease hospitalizes more than one in five infected children under six months old.Haemophilus influenzae type b infection: This bacterium—unrelated to the influenza virus—causes a host of infections, including mild cases in the ears and lungs but also severe cases in systems such as the bloodstream and central nervous system. Before the vaccine was developed, the U.S. saw 20,000 severe infections annually in children under five years of age, and one in 20 of these cases was fatal.Pneumococcal disease: The bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae can cause a range of infections, including so-called invasive infections that tend to be more serious. Pneumococcal disease can include pneumonia—pneumococcal pneumonia hospitalizes more than 150,000 people in the U.S. each year. But other types of pathogens also cause pneumonia, and pneumococcal disease can manifest anywhere in the body.Polio: This virus most frequently causes asymptomatic infections, but symptomatic infections can have quite severe symptoms, including paralysis of one or more limbs or even of the muscles involved in breathing. Polio can also trigger new symptoms many years after the initial infection in what’s called postpolio syndrome.COVID: In the five years since COVID emerged, this disease has contributed to the deaths of more than 1.2 million people in the U.S.; weekly death tolls remain in the hundreds. The virus also causes lingering and sometimes debilitating systemic issues known as long COVID, including in children.Influenza: This respiratory virus is most prevalent in North America between October and May. Although many cases can be treated at home, flu infections can be very serious, particularly in young children and adults aged 65 or older, as well as people with immune issues and other chronic conditions. During the 2023–2024 season, the CDC reported 34 million cases of flu, 380,000 hospitalizations and 17,000 deaths.Chickenpox: The varicella-zoster virus causes a characteristic itchy rash of small blisters that appear in conjunction with a fever, headache and other mild symptoms. Severe cases can cause more systemic infections, pneumonia, brain swelling and toxic shock syndrome. Adults who did not have chickenpox as a child are more vulnerable to serious infection.Measles: Measles is one of the most contagious viruses known to experts, and historically most children contracted it before the age of 15. Doctors have no cure for measles; they can only treat its symptoms. About one in 1,000 cases causes brain inflammation; even rarer complications can occur years after the initial infection. The measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine has dramatically reduced caseloads in the U.S. since the late 1960s, however.Mumps: Mumps is a viral infection characterized by the swelling of certain salivary glands, but other organs can also be affected, including the testicles, ovaries, brain, spinal cord and pancreas. Mumps can also trigger miscarriage early in pregnancy.Rubella: Sometimes called German measles, rubella is a viral infection that is unrelated to measles but also causes a rash. For most people, rubella is a mild illness, but it triggers serious birth defects in as many as 90 percent of cases in which the virus infects someone during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.Meningococcal disease: Infection of the blood or the membranes of the central nervous system by the bacterium Neisseria meningitidis kills 10 to 15 percent of people who are treated; cases that aren’t fatal can include a range of long-term issues.Human papilloma virus (HPV): Infection with this virus leaves people susceptible to cancer, particularly cervical cancer; nearly 38,000 cancers per year are attributed to the virus.Mpox: The virus that causes mpox was first identified in 1958 but more regularly infects animals than humans. In 2022 it began spreading in people worldwide, however. The infection is characterized by a painful rash and flulike symptoms. The vaccine is only recommended for people who are likely to be exposed to the virus.Dengue: Dengue is a mosquito-borne illness that is most common in tropical regions. In severe cases, it can damage blood vessels and interfere with the blood’s ability to clot. Vaccination is not available in the contiguous U.S., but it is available in U.S. territories and freely associated states for children aged nine to 16 who have had the disease before and live in a region where the infection is common.Shingles: This infection is caused by the same virus as chickenpox, which remains in the body after a chickenpox infection. When the previously dormant virus reactivates, it can cause shingles, a painful localized rash that is most common in people aged 50 or older and can lead to ongoing pain, vision issues and neurological problems.

How to allergy-proof your home

According to data from the Allergy and Asthma Network, 1 in 5 Americans have been diagnosed with environmental allergies, and over 50 percent of allergy sufferers say allergies impact their daily quality of life. Environmental allergies can include pollen, dust, mold, pet dander, and poor air quality. Your home should be a sanctuary, but allergens […] The post How to allergy-proof your home appeared first on Popular Science.

According to data from the Allergy and Asthma Network, 1 in 5 Americans have been diagnosed with environmental allergies, and over 50 percent of allergy sufferers say allergies impact their daily quality of life. Environmental allergies can include pollen, dust, mold, pet dander, and poor air quality. Your home should be a sanctuary, but allergens can make it a house of horrors. We rounded up a team of experts who provide practical tips and advice to help you allergy-proof your home and turn it into a comfortable and healthy place that you and your family can enjoy. Consider your flooring According to Dr. John McKeon, CEO of Allergy Standards Ltd., flooring is one of the largest surfaces in your home and can significantly influence your indoor air quality (IAQ)—especially if you have allergies. He explains that different types of flooring materials can either contribute to the buildup of allergies and pollutants or help maintain a cleaner environment. “Flooring can trap dust, pet dander, pollen, and mold, which can become airborne when disturbed, and if not regularly and thoroughly cleaned, these allergens can accumulate and negatively affect IAQ.”  McKeon notes that hard-surface flooring, like wood, tile, or vinyl, may not trap allergens as easily, but says it’s still important to select materials that are easy to clean and maintain. “Also, sticky allergen particles can be more difficult to remove from some types of flooring during cleaning,” McKeon warns. Here’s something else to consider: MeKeon says many flooring products and any associated adhesives or chemical treatments can release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air. “Exposure to these compounds can cause respiratory irritation and trigger allergic asthma.”  And if your flooring absorbs moisture, it can encourage mold and mildew. “Mold spores are a major concern for individuals with allergies and asthma, as they can easily become airborne and trigger allergic reactions or asthma symptoms,” McKeon says. However, he admits that the lack of strict regulations around health claims on household products has led to a flood of marketing terms, such as “eco-friendly,” “green,” and “low VOC,” making it difficult to know which products actually support better indoor air quality (IAQ). “I recommend choosing flooring that has been independently tested and verified,” McKeon says. Encourage shoe-free zones Studies show that it’s a good idea to take your shoes off when you come inside, and Lisa Sternfeld, interior designer, environmental health and wellness expert, and founder of WLLW, tells me there’s a good reason why.  “Shoes carry a wide range of contaminants, including pollen, dirt, and dust,” Sternfeld says. ”By removing shoes at the door, you’ll keep allergens out and prevent them from spreading to other areas.”  Tribesigns Shoe Cabinet Tribesigns Put this Tribesigns Shoe Cabinet near the entryway. It holds two dozen pairs of shoes and also has storage space for keys and other items on top.  Consider the impact of paint Paint can affect the appearance of your home, but it can also impact your IAQ. “The release of VOCs can irritate the respiratory system and exacerbate allergy symptoms,” McKeon warns. “It is advised that people with sensitivities to certain chemicals and those impacted by asthma and allergies limit exposure to VOCs as much as possible.”  However, considering their potentially harmful effects, McKeon says everyone should limit exposure to these chemicals. Even paint products that claim to be ‘low-VOC’ or ‘non-toxic’ may not necessarily meet the requirements to ensure safety. “Third-party certification is crucial because many paint manufacturers don’t fully disclose their ingredients, often to protect intellectual property,” McKeon explains.  However, the lack of transparency makes it difficult to make smart decisions. “A trusted certification label helps bridge that gap, guiding consumers toward wiser choices for better IAQ,” McKeon says. Step up your laundry game Washing your bedding, clothing, and soft toys can play a crucial role in reducing allergens, especially dust mite allergens and pet dander. We at PopSci firmly believe in saving money and energy, and washing laundry in cold water is one way to save both. However, if you need to allergy-proof your home, you may need to turn up the heat.  “The most effective allergen removal occurs when washing is done at high temperatures [at least 131°F/55°C], as this temperature kills dust mites and removes their allergens from fabrics,” McKeon says.   LG washing machines LG However, McKeon warns that not all washing machines can maintain a consistently high temperature throughout the wash cycle effectively. If you’re in the market for a new washing machine, he recommends one that has undergone third-party testing to ensure that it can reach and maintain those high temps.   Also, McKeon recommends fragrance-free laundry detergents. “Many fragrance chemicals are sensitizers and increase the VOC emissions off-gassed by the detergent,” he explains. “An effective laundry detergent should have the ability to remove allergens from fabrics, any chemicals present should be non-sensitizing and non-allergenic, and VOCs should be at such low levels as to not be a concern.”   Tide Free & Gentle Laundry Detergent Tide Melanie Carver is the chief mission officer at the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA). She recommends changing and washing any clothes that are worn during outdoor activities. “And dry your clothes in a clothes dryer or on an indoor rack, not on an outdoor line,” she advises. Change your shower routine You may be the type of person who likes to shower in the morning. However, if allergies are a concern, Carver recommends showering daily before you go to bed. “This will remove pollen from your body and hair and keep it off your bedding,” she explains. Use air purifiers We’re big fans of air purifiers because we know how important they are in maintaining a healthy living space. From the best air purifiers for asthma to the best air purifiers for smoke, we continually research and evaluate models. “Surprisingly, the air inside our homes can often be more harmful to our health than the air outside, as it contains a variety of pollutants and irritants that may cause allergies,” McKeon says.  “Everyday activities like cooking, VOCs emitted from paint and cleaning products, and even burning fuel (and candles) release particles and chemicals into the air.” And when you add common allergens like pollen, pet dander, and dust mite allergen, he says it’s clear that IAQ can have a serious impact on your health. Levoit Core 600 Air Purifier Levoit The Levoit Core 600 Air Purifier is one of the best air purifiers we’ve tested. Keep in mind that an air purifier with a higher clean air delivery rate (CADR) can clean the air faster than one with a lower CADR. In addition, Sternfeld recommends air purifiers with HEPA filters, such as the Levoit. They are effective at trapping airborne pollen, dust, and mold spores. “Place air purifiers in the bedroom or living area, or near high-traffic areas for maximum impact,” she says. Vacuum and clean with HEPA filters Sternfeld recommends regularly vacuuming with a vacuum cleaner that has a HEPA filter. “HEPA filters trap microscopic particles, including pollen, pet dander, and dust mites, she says, adding that the American Lung Association also recommends using vacuum cleaners with HEPA filters. Clean high-traffic areas more frequently and vacuum more often, especially if you have pets, to reduce dander buildup. Shark Status Upright Vacuum Shark The Shark Status Upright Vacuum has a HEPA filter and can clean hard floors, carpet, upholstery, ceiling fans, and more.  Damp-clean surfaces regularly If you tend to dust and clean with dry materials, here’s another change you may need to make.  “Wipe down surfaces with a damp cloth to capture pollen, rather than allowing it to become airborne,” Sternfeld advises. “Research shows that dusting with a damp cloth is more effective at trapping allergens compared to dry dusting, and this is particularly important for surfaces like furniture, counters, and window sills.”  Make bedding a priority Bed linens are a prime place for dust mites and pollen to accumulate, according to Sternfeld. She recommends laundering sheets weekly in hot water to help wash away irritants.  “Encase pillows and mattresses in dust-mite-proof covers, and wash sheets weekly on hot water as it helps wash away irritants more effectively than cold or lukewarm water,” Sternfeld advises.  Investing in bedding and mattress protection can also provide allergy relief. “Dust mites, which thrive in the warm, humid environment of bedding, produce waste that is a key allergen,” McKeon warns.  To reduce exposure to these allergens, he recommends using scientifically validated dust mite-proof encasings for mattresses, pillows, and duvets. “These encasings prevent dust mites from passing through, and thus minimize allergen exposure.” In addition, McKeon recommends quality, breathable bedding products that are tightly woven with no weak points at the seams or zippers. “Furthermore, the fabric must be able to withstand frequent washing, as regularly washing bedding in hot water (130°F/55°C) further reduces allergen levels.” SIJO AiryWeight Tencel Sheet Set Stay cool and dry when sleeping on the SIJO AiryWeight Tencel Sheet Set, which is also hypoallergenic. Wash soft furnishings frequently In addition to washing sheets, blankets, and pillows regularly, Sternfeld says you should also wash cushion covers and other soft surfaces regularly, as they can trap allergens and harbor dust mites. “A weekly wash in hot water can help eliminate allergens,” she says.  In fact, McKeon recommends choosing either non-fabric furniture or covering fabric furniture with slipcovers that can be removed and washed weekly. Maintain your HVAC filters  While your HVAC keeps your home at a comfortable temperature, HVAC filters keep you comfortable in another way. “HVAC filters play a crucial role in improving indoor air quality by trapping airborne particles like dust, pet dander, and pollen, McKeon explains. “These particles can circulate throughout the home if not effectively captured by the HVAC system’s filter, exacerbating allergy symptoms.”  He recommends a higher Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) rating, as this indicates the filter is more effective at capturing airborne particulate matter. It’s also important to change your air filters regularly, which can be anywhere from 1 to 3 months, since dirty filters will recirculate dust and other allergens.  Filtrete Allergen Defense Filters Filtrete Filtrete Allergen Defense Filters capture a variety of allergens for cleaner air. (And don’t forget your furnace filters, either.) Control humidity If you keep your home’s humidity levels under 50 percent, Sternfeld says this can help prevent mold and mildew from thriving. “Place dehumidifiers in areas like basements and bathrooms to help control moisture,” she advises. Mold thrives in damp environments, and keeping humidity in check can significantly reduce mold-related allergy triggers.  Carver notes that those warm and moist bathrooms are also prime growing spaces for mold. “Run your bathroom’s exhaust fan or open windows during showers and for 15 to 20 minutes after to allow moisture to escape,” she says.  And here’s another tip from Carver: Don’t let damp towels pile up. Allow them to dry completely when you step out of the shower or bathtub.  On the other hand, don’t let humidity levels get too low. McKeon warns that low humidity can lead to respiratory irritation and trigger allergic asthma or dry skin, which could make your symptoms worse. Frigidaire 50-Pint Humidifier Frigidaire Keep humidity levels within a safe range with the Frigidaire 50-Pint Humidifier, which features three speed settings. Avoid attracting insects If you leave water and food sources out at night, Carver warns that you may be attracting cockroaches.  “A cockroach allergy is a common trigger of year-round allergy and asthma—if you are allergic to them, they can trigger asthma attacks,” she warns. Rubbermaid Brilliance 14-Piece Food Storage Container Set Rubbermaid Keep insects at bay with the Rubbermaid Brilliance 14-Piece Food Storage Container Set, which is airtight and stackable. The post How to allergy-proof your home appeared first on Popular Science.

Science Isn’t about Domination. It’s about Democracy

Science is key to diplomacy, unity and democracy. What the Trump administration is trying to do to it will weaken the U.S.

Science Isn’t about Domination. It’s about DemocracyScience is key to diplomacy, unity and democracy. What the Trump administration is trying to do to it will weaken the U.S.By Megha Satyanarayana Nestled in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the slash-and-burn playbook for the federal government that the Trump administration is following while saying it isn’t, is a call for American “science dominance.”There is no such thing. And what the project means by the term—turning the Department of Energy into a handmaiden of the coal, oil and natural gas industry—betrays not only the taxpayer but science itself.Science isn’t a winner-take-all, zero-sum game of flag football. Whether during the cold war or the era of Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, the bedrock of science has been international cooperation. People pursue scientific knowledge not solely for the sake of lording our spoils over everyone else. The monetary value of research is not the only reason why humans engage in asking why of the world around us.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Science breeds diplomacy. It counters division. It tells us what is, not what we want things to be. Science enables democracy. The way the Trump administration is approaching it, by cutting funds for projects that run afoul of conservative values, such as ones related to diversity, or calling for research into claims that have already been debunked, which is the case for the idea that vaccines are linked to autism, defies all this. If that approach succeeds, it will make us a poorer nation in every sense of the word.By halting federal funds to scientific research, canceling university grants and threatening to deport immigrant scientists, the Trump administration is restricting the flow of ideas. By trying to legitimize debunked scientific ideas and allocating taxpayer dollars to research into those debunked ideas, the administration sows discord and undermines the role of public health in preventing sickness and disease. By canceling global aid for public health projects, the administration is shunning the U.S. role in global health. And in their push for energy dominance, Trump and his allies are kicking years of negotiation over climate change to the curb.By becoming insular, by cutting out the world, we stand to lose our best and brightest minds in science and the exchange of ideas that leads to innovation. Our country is a scientific and economic powerhouse precisely because we have been so open and collaborative for so long. China’s academic scientific output, as measured by publications in Nature journals, has surpassed that of the U.S. How can cutting federal science funding help the administration’s intellectual war with China? How can the U.S. further its national interests if we shut out ideas and people? How does democracy survive if we stop research and the flow of information?In setting the stage for the role of the U.S. government in science, Vannevar Bush told President Harry Truman in 1945 that “scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.” He noted the federal government’s role in supporting agricultural research and said, “The time has come when such support should be extended to other fields.”From the 1950s on, the U.S. government has been the largest funder of scientific research in the nation, not to mention the world. Those dollars have helped develop countless drugs, and a wide assortment of military and domestic machinery, and they have paid the salaries of millions of researchers. Those dollars have saved people and helped industrialize nations the world over.American scientific research has also influenced policymaking. This is where the tie to democracy matters most: evidence-based policymaking allows the largest number of people in the country to be healthy, be safe and have a voice. This is what cutbacks to science threaten. This is how Trump administration–sponsored research into questions that have basically been answered, because officials don’t like the answer, threatens the ability of all Americans to thrive.When Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., says the nation will know by the end of the summer what environmental factors cause autism and calls for the private medical records of autistic people as part of this push, this is a fishing expedition. Kennedy doesn’t like the answers that we already have—vaccines do not cause autism, and genetics influences the development of autism—so he wastes taxpayer money.Recently, a group of scientists from all over the world earned Breakthrough Prize for the work they did at CERN, a multinational facility that tests fundamental ideas in physics. With cuts to science funding, what will happen to projects like this, plans to improve our Antarctic field stations, and efforts like the evidence-driven Paris climate agreement? Such ideas underpin our grasp of the natural world and probe the technologies the U.S. needs. Scuttling science and shutting doors on the world will leave us in the dark. Domination will doom us to failure.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.