It's approaching that time of year where Australia's time zones go all askew - causing all sorts of problems trying to work out, amongst other things, what time live sports are shown on Foxsports - and believe me - for some people that's a big deal! But I digress....
At this time of year, regular as clockwork, the debate reignites in Brisbane over whether we should step into line with the rest of the eastern states and adopt daylight savings. And every year, the pollies trot out different excuse as to why they're too weak to do so.
This year's is a real doozie. Apparently Queensland can't allow daylight savings because, in the opinion Chairman Doctor Beattie, it will increase Queenslander's exposure to skin cancer. I never realised that winding the clock forwards or backwards would actual increase or decrease out planet's exposure to the sun!!!! How amazing!!!!!!
This excuse ranks right up there with the idea that it confuses the cows and makes curtains fade faster. Why not just tell the truth? That Queensland has too many people outside the south-east corner who will be disadvantaged by such a change? That or it'll piss off too many voters? Is it really that hard for a politician to be honest these days?
4 comments:
While you're quite correct that the main reason is that people outside the SE corner will be disadvantaged, the skin cancer thing isn't as entirely bogus as it might appear on first glance.
The main danger time for UV exposure is between 10am and 2 pm. Shifting this an hour (11-3) means that many schoolkids (for example) will be getting out while the UV's still up at fairly high levels. So while the amount of sunlight doesn't change, our patterns of exposure do - and that's what can lead to the increase.
That's why the Qld Cancer Council said he was talking through his hat. Most schools still tend to have their lunch times around midday. Shifting an hour either way isn't going to shift lunch time from the peak expose period.
I wasn't talking about lunch.
I was talking about 'home time'.
I'll go with what the Cancer Council says because they have a clue, I was just pointing out that the reasoning wasn't entirely faulty. (Using it as the main reason certainly was faulty, which we haven't disagreed about.)
The Cancer reason is not entirely wrong. But...remember that referendum (sp?) that we had some years back...the one that cost several million dollars...where the *entire state* decided we did not want it?
Why then are we bothering to waste more money on some bloody report? All that needs to be pointed out is: we took a vote, and the people who would be affected (ie. residents of Queensland) voted against it.
The End. Nothing more to discuss.
Post a Comment