{"id":"daylight-saving-health-effects-58167","slug":"daylight-saving-health-effects-58167","title":"What Daylight Saving Actually Does to Health","description":"Moving clocks back and forth rearranges daily routines, but its measured effects on energy use, productivity, and health are surprisingly complex. A review spanning 157 studies across 36 countries challenges simple assumptions about seasonal time changes, highlighting modest increases in heart attack rates and traffic accidents in spring against reduced evening crime and lower autumn workplace injuries. The discussion unpacks circadian biology, infant sleep disruptions, and why farmers fought against daylight saving in the first place.","excerpt":"A pooled analysis found about a four percent relative increase in acute heart attacks following the spring clock transition.","pubDate":"2026-10-29T07:07:09.069Z","tags":["public-health","sleep-and-circadian-rhythm","mathematics"],"heroImage":"https://files.myweirdprompts.com/covers/daylight-saving-health-effects-58167.png","podcastAudioUrl":"https://episodes.myweirdprompts.com/audio/daylight-saving-health-effects-58167.m4a","podcastDuration":"27:45","episodeNumber":6339,"transcript":"Corn: The usual pitch is that daylight saving gives us more daylight. It gives us a different number on the microwave. Hannah sent us today's prompt after the clocks went back here and across Europe on Sunday. Winter evenings already feel abruptly short, Ezra has not accepted the revised timetable, and she wants to know whether the disruption buys us anything worth having.\n\nHerman: A baby maintains a fairly effective separation between government policy and breakfast.\n\nCorn: Hannah's particular objection is winter time. That feeling of the day disappearing before you've finished the afternoon, sometimes as though it's dark at quarter to four. She understands that early risers benefit from morning light. She wants to know why everyone else has to reorganize their sleep around it, and whether permanent summer time would actually be better.\n\nHerman: The awkward answer is that stopping the changes and choosing summer time are separate decisions. You can strongly support the first without supporting the second.\n\nCorn: You have already disappointed the microwave. I'm interested in the farmers, too, because they seem to get blamed for this every year without ever appearing to defend themselves.\n\nHerman: They were among the opponents. The farmers have an unusually strong wrongful conviction claim.\n\nCorn: Start with their acquittal.\n\nHerman: American farmers objected because the urban timetable moved while the agricultural timetable did not. Milk still had to be collected. Crops still had to be harvested, sometimes after dew had cleared. Moving market schedules earlier by the sun could leave less morning time to get produce ready and transported. After the First World War, Congress repealed national daylight saving over President Wilson's veto.\n\nCorn: We changed the clocks against their wishes, then named them as the sponsors.\n\nHerman: Benjamin Franklin also gets a job he never actually did. His seventeen eighty-four essay about saving candles was tongue in cheek. It encouraged earlier rising, rather than establishing our modern seasonal clock system. There were serious proposals later, but wartime fuel conservation drove national adoption. Germany implemented it in nineteen sixteen, at the beginning of May. America followed through its Standard Time Act in nineteen eighteen.\n\nCorn: A wartime economy measure that stayed to rearrange bedtime. That sounds more plausible than a farmer wanting an administrative sunrise.\n\nHerman: The original calculation had some logic. If people spend their waking evening in daylight, perhaps they burn less fuel for lighting. The difficulty is carrying that calculation into homes with air conditioning, electric heating, refrigerators, and very different working hours.\n\nCorn: Lighting is a smaller piece of the bill, and coming home during a hotter afternoon might increase cooling. Moving demand around doesn't automatically reduce it.\n\nHerman: Climate and behavior matter enormously. Some places can get a small saving. Others can offset it elsewhere. The broad claim that daylight saving delivers substantial, reliable energy savings is weak. You cannot justify a universal policy simply by pointing at fewer lamps switched on.\n\nCorn: Especially when the lamps are now the cheap part.\n\nHerman: What survives more convincingly is the preference for usable evening light. Shopping, exercise, children playing outside. Those are real benefits for people who actually use that hour. They just aren't the same thing as saving electricity.\n\nCorn: I buy that more readily than the fuel story. If someone says they want a walk after work, I know what they're getting. When they say society becomes more efficient, I want to inspect the invoice.\n\nHerman: Would you keep seasonal switching if that evening hour got more people outside, Corn?\n\nCorn: Not on that evidence alone. I'd want to know whether keeping summer time year round gives them the same benefit without the disruption, and then what happens to mornings. I suspect the seasonal compromise survives because each side can point to a different unpleasant hour.\n\nHerman: That is where the health discussion needs separating. An abrupt clock change, several months under summer time, and a permanently later clock are different exposures. Findings about one do not settle the others.\n\nCorn: Hannah doesn't need a population study to establish that Ezra woke at the old breakfast time. The uncertainty is how far that disruption spreads, how long it lasts, and what it costs.\n\nHerman: In spring, you advance the social schedule. Your alarm rings earlier relative to your internal night, and falling asleep earlier on command is difficult. Light is the strongest environmental timing signal for the circadian system. Morning light generally helps pull that system earlier. Evening light tends to push it later. Summer time can combine an earlier required wake-up with later evening light.\n\nCorn: An alarm clock negotiating against the sunset.\n\nHerman: The alarm usually wins attendance. It does not necessarily win adequate sleep. Evening chronotypes, people naturally inclined toward later sleep, tend to have more difficulty with that spring adjustment. A recent synthesis of sleep studies found shorter or poorer sleep and greater sleepiness around the spring change, with that pattern more evident among evening types.\n\nCorn: Autumn should be the easy one, then. An extra hour and universal gratitude.\n\nHerman: Easier for many adults, yes. Universally easy, no. A child waking at the same biological time now wakes an hour earlier by the clock. Feeding, naps, childcare, and the parents' bedtime all have to find one another again. Adults with rigid shifts can also have awkward adjustments. The direction matters, but so does control over your schedule.\n\nCorn: Hannah already goes to bed early to protect whatever sleep survives the night. You can't solve that by instructing her to discover bedtime.\n\nHerman: No. The usable margin may already be gone. My pediatrician instinct is to distinguish an understandable family disruption from a claim about a measured pediatric disease burden. The broad sleep review didn't isolate a clean infant result. We should not pretend its findings quantify what happens to babies.\n\nCorn: You also have an instinct to prescribe a stable routine while Parliament reaches into the nursery twice a year.\n\nHerman: I would prefer Parliament keep its hands off the bedtime routine. Though you, Corn, are about to support whichever policy leaves your nap untouched.\n\nCorn: My nap has excellent voter retention.\n\nHerman: Your nap also has no school run. That matters when we move from household inconvenience to public policy.\n\nCorn: The heart attack claim is where I start hearing numbers delivered as threats. How big is the effect actually supposed to be?\n\nHerman: A pooled analysis found about a four percent relative increase after the spring transition. Relative is doing important work there. That does not mean four percent of people have a heart attack, or that an individual's annual risk suddenly rises by four percentage points. It is a small increase in events over the comparison period, with variation between studies.\n\nCorn: Small for an individual can still matter across millions of people. It also isn't evidence that every tired Monday is a cardiac emergency.\n\nHerman: Autumn's pooled estimate was much less persuasive, compatible with little or no increase. Sleep loss, stress responses, and circadian disruption make the spring association biologically plausible. They do not prove that every observed change was caused by the clock.\n\nCorn: Hospital attendance and reporting have calendars of their own. You're comparing weeks that differ in more ways than a clock setting.\n\nHerman: Weather, holidays, changing daylight, and human behavior all complicate those comparisons. The large European Journal of Epidemiology review published this year pulled together a hundred and fifty-seven studies across thirty-six countries. Its conclusion directly challenged the idea that transitions and summer time are uniformly harmful.\n\nCorn: Uniformly is an ambitious claim about anything involving sleep.\n\nHerman: Spring transitions were associated with more acute heart attacks and fatal traffic accidents, but fewer crimes involving physical harm. Autumn transitions were associated with lower all-cause mortality and fewer workplace accidents, alongside more violent crime. Summer time itself was associated in some comparisons with fewer traffic accidents and lower mortality.\n\nCorn: I can see why evening light could affect street crime without improving anyone's circadian alignment. You're changing when people are outside, and whether other people can see them.\n\nHerman: Different pathways can point in different directions. Better visibility during a busy evening commute might help traffic safety, while darker mornings hurt another group. That does not cancel sleep disruption. It means the net result depends on exposure, not just on whether a clock moved.\n\nCorn: Calling every autumn association a benefit of switching would be the same mistake in reverse. You haven't shown that deliberately confusing my oven prevents workplace injuries.\n\nHerman: Agreed on the oven. Well... agreed on the causal claim. The review also criticized how confidently some sleep organizations describe long-term sleep debt. One supporting study involved nine healthy adults in Finland, tracked for a week.\n\nCorn: Nine people are doing a lot of public policy.\n\nHerman: A small study can reveal a mechanism. It cannot carry every claim about an entire population across a whole summer. That criticism doesn't erase circadian biology. It should narrow the certainty of the recommendation.\n\nCorn: You like the biological argument, though. I can hear you protecting it while removing the decorations.\n\nHerman: I do. You can have a strong physiological reason to prefer one timetable and still admit the epidemiology is mixed. Medicine does that all the time, preferably before somebody turns the recommendation into a slogan.\n\nCorn: Productivity seems especially vulnerable to that. Someone measures tired employees, someone else measures longer shopping hours, and both announce what the economy wants.\n\nHerman: Attention, working memory, and executive function can deteriorate with sleep disruption. That makes errors and slower work plausible around spring transitions. But turning those effects into a precise national productivity bill requires assumptions about jobs, recovery, and compensation. Retail activity increasing later in the evening is also not automatically a net gain. Some spending merely moves.\n\nCorn: The shop stays open longer. The customer still has the same wallet.\n\nHerman: Mental health deserves more care than a wallet comparison. Disrupted sleep can amplify emotional reactivity and destabilize people with chronic psychiatric illness. Reviews describe associations with worsening attention, disturbed sleep, and elevated suicidality risk in vulnerable groups around spring transitions. That is a reason to take schedule disruption seriously, not to declare a clock change dangerous for everybody in the same way.\n\nCorn: People whose stability depends on reliable sleep have less room to absorb a compulsory adjustment. The average effect can hide that.\n\nHerman: There are also more specialized findings. Recent patient-record work linked spring transitions with higher rates of certain retinal diagnoses, while some autumn associations ran the other way. Fertility work found no clear overall difference in live births around transition weeks, but a worse result in an older subgroup.\n\nCorn: Those sound like findings to follow, rather than reasons to tell someone their appointment landed in the wrong week.\n\nHerman: Precisely that distinction... no, the distinction is between an association worth investigating and a clinical instruction. Subgroup findings and diagnosis records need careful interpretation. More medical outcomes appearing in a database do not by themselves reveal what changed in the body.\n\nCorn: What about animals? They don't get the reassuring government announcement.\n\nHerman: I don't know of a dedicated body of daylight saving evidence for pets. My expectation is that feeding and walking schedules matter more than the clock face. If dinner moves suddenly, an animal can notice. If daylight and routine remain unchanged, the printed hour is irrelevant.\n\nCorn: Finally, a constituency that reads the policy correctly.\n\nHerman: Corn, would your answer change if schools simply started later during dark winter mornings under permanent summer time?\n\nCorn: Potentially, but then employers and buses and childcare have to move with them. If everyone shifts the schedule back an hour, you've recreated standard time with more paperwork. If only schools shift, parents have a new coordination problem.\n\nHerman: That is an important limit on the claim that permanent summer time is painless because schedules can adapt. Some can. Others are tied together too tightly for one institution to move alone.\n\nCorn: Still, standard time has an image problem. Permanent winter sounds like a punishment selected by a man who sells blackout curtains.\n\nHerman: Standard time is the better name. The sleep and chronobiology societies generally favor ending seasonal changes and keeping it. Their strongest argument is that it places social schedules closer to solar timing, giving more morning light and less late evening light than summer time.\n\nCorn: You predicted my nap vote. I predict you're about to make solar noon sound like a constitutional principle.\n\nHerman: Solar noon can survive without my endorsement. The practical question is when daylight reaches people relative to the hours they must wake, work, and sleep. A clock label alone doesn't settle that, especially across a wide time zone.\n\nCorn: That's the part I don't want buried. If two cities share the same clock but one sits hundreds of kilometers west, their residents receive very different morning light. Calling both standard time doesn't make their biological situation identical.\n\nHerman: Longitude matters. Farther west within a zone, sunrise and sunset arrive at later clock times. Latitude controls the seasonal length of the day. Your position within the zone helps decide where those daylight hours fall on the clock. The biological case for permanent standard time is fairly clear, but geography complicates its application.\n\nHilbert: Hilbert's Mid-Show Haiku.\nHilbert: The clock moves. The sun does not. We call this progress. The baby wakes in the dark.\n\nCorn: Ezra has declined the upgrade.\n\nHerman: Jerusalem shows why that geographic qualification matters. Its December solar noon comes before clock noon, roughly around half past eleven early in the month. Israel sits toward the eastern side of its winter time zone. The sun reaches its highest point relatively early by the clock, so sunset also comes relatively early.\n\nCorn: Not because we're inexplicably far north. We're using a clock that places the whole daylight period early.\n\nHerman: Partly. Winter still shortens the day. At the solstice Jerusalem has about ten hours of daylight, roughly four hours less than at the summer solstice. Longitude doesn't cause that seasonal loss. It helps explain why the remaining light ends at such an unwelcome clock time.\n\nCorn: Hannah's quarter-to-four feeling is familiar, particularly once buildings start taking the light. The actual earliest sunset is later, though.\n\nHerman: Around four thirty-four in the afternoon in early December. That is sunset at the horizon, not a promise of direct sunshine at every window or playground. A hill or a block of flats can finish your personal afternoon earlier.\n\nCorn: Jerusalem's buildings run an unofficial early closing scheme.\n\nHerman: Staying on summer time would move that sunset to five thirty-four by the clock. It would also move an early December sunrise from about six twenty-one to seven twenty-one. Same daylight, later labels, and different consequences for anyone leaving home early.\n\nCorn: An evening hour here might be more useful than an evening hour somewhere already dark at six. That makes a blanket European recommendation feel slightly too blunt for our actual problem.\n\nHerman: I think a local analysis is justified. I would still begin with a preference for standard time on biological grounds, but Jerusalem's eastern position makes permanent summer time a more serious proposition than it would be at the western edge of a zone.\n\nCorn: You'd need actual school journeys and shift starts, not just a photograph of a lovely evening promenade.\n\nHerman: What would persuade you, Corn? Suppose the morning journeys were manageable and evening outdoor time increased.\n\nCorn: Then I'd support a fixed later clock here. I don't regard eleven thirty solar noon as sacred. But I'd want the people cleaning buildings, opening shops, and taking children to school represented in the calculation. People with flexible office hours can mistake their own preferences for the public interest.\n\nHerman: That is why the American experiment matters. During the energy crisis, the United States tried year-round daylight saving. Winter mornings changed the politics very quickly.\n\nCorn: The summer evening proposal met January.\n\nHerman: Public support fell from seventy-nine percent to forty-two percent between December and March. In Florida, morning traffic accidents involving schoolchildren, including eight deaths, helped prompt Governor Reubin Askew to seek repeal. Those deaths are not a controlled demonstration of the clock's effect, but the dark school journeys were a concrete political problem.\n\nCorn: Eight dead children don't belong in an argument as a decorative statistic. The practical issue was children having to reach school before the light did.\n\nHerman: Nor should we treat that experiment as proof that every possible permanent summer timetable must fail. School transport, road safety, work patterns, and geography vary. It does show how public enthusiasm can collapse when the cost appears every morning instead of in an abstract poll.\n\nCorn: Places that never switch seem rather less dramatic. Arizona carries on without a biannual announcement that everyone is about to become confused.\n\nHerman: Most of Arizona observes standard time year round, with the Navajo Nation exception. Hawaii also stays on standard time, as do several American territories. Nearer the tropics, seasonal changes in day length are smaller. In hot Arizona, extra late afternoon summer sun is not necessarily a treasured leisure benefit.\n\nCorn: Nobody needs an extra hour to admire the parking lot temperature.\n\nHerman: Those places show that seasonal switching is dispensable. They don't prove that a northern city can keep summer time through winter without difficult mornings. Permanent later-clock systems elsewhere also illustrate that the country's schedule matters alongside the formal zone. People can eat, work, and sleep at different clock hours.\n\nCorn: Which means abolishing switching gives you a stable rule, not an automatically sensible life. A country can stop changing the clocks and still organize school too early.\n\nHerman: Europe has made coordination its own formidable obstacle. Its current synchronized rules come from a directive adopted in two thousand one, with changes on the last Sundays of March and October. Keeping transport and cross-border schedules aligned was central.\n\nCorn: The clock changes are synchronized. The effort to stop them is not.\n\nHerman: In the Commission's consultation, four point six million people responded, and eighty-four percent supported ending the changes. That was a self-selected consultation, not a representative poll of every European. It showed strong engagement and a very clear preference among respondents.\n\nCorn: Eighty-four percent of respondents is powerful. Eighty-four percent of citizens is a different claim, and politicians rather enjoy borrowing the larger one.\n\nHerman: The European Parliament voted to end switching in twenty nineteen. The proposal remains stuck among member states over implementation and coordination. This month, forty-four members of Parliament from fifteen countries pressed transport ministers to break the deadlock. Peter Liese, a German member and physician, has been a leading voice.\n\nCorn: They have had years to agree what time to hold the meeting.\n\nHerman: A further impact study is due by the end of the year. The disagreement includes what each country would keep and how to avoid a patchwork of neighboring decisions. Abolishing the transition is popular. Choosing the permanent hour distributes the inconvenience differently.\n\nCorn: That is a real coordination problem, though eight years suggests they've given it an exceptionally comfortable chair.\n\nHerman: America has its own legislative loop. The Senate passed the Sunshine Protection Act in twenty twenty-two, but the House did not take it through. The reintroduced version has now passed the House, with Senate approval still outstanding. The proposal favors permanent summer time, which is not the permanent standard time favored by sleep organizations.\n\nCorn: Even the phrase stop changing the clocks conceals a disagreement. One person means keep the late sunset. Another means restore morning light. They can sign the same petition.\n\nHerman: Israel's history adds religious scheduling to that disagreement. Prayer times, fasting, school routines, and evening observance all interact with sunlight differently. Historically, religious opposition and secular campaigning turned daylight saving into a proxy fight about modernity and identity.\n\nCorn: That framing makes ordinary scheduling nearly impossible. Wanting evening light doesn't mean you've defeated religion. Wanting a workable morning doesn't mean you oppose electricity.\n\nHerman: The present rule has been stable since the twenty thirteen amendment. Israel uses UTC plus two in winter and UTC plus three in summer. Summer time starts on the Friday before March's last Sunday and ends on October's last Sunday.\n\nCorn: Important distinction for our neighbors, too. We don't always change on the same dates as the Palestinian Authority, but this autumn change here was Sunday, not Friday.\n\nHerman: Different rules and occasional revisions can leave nearby people using different clock times. Phones picking up settings from different networks can make appointments especially awkward. It is a practical reminder that a national time decision can spill across a very small distance.\n\nCorn: The border doesn't need to move for a meeting to become an hour away.\n\nHerman: Attempts to abolish winter time here haven't become law. Tamar Zandberg's proposal for permanent summer time stalled. Boaz Toporovsky's later bill is listed as lapsed after his resignation. A proposal appearing in the Knesset database is not the same thing as an approved change.\n\nCorn: No secret extra evening has been enacted while we were asleep.\n\nHerman: There was even an old rumor about advancing two hours and later retreating only one, effectively shifting the baseline. It never became the rule. The realistic choice remains a fixed winter or summer offset, with the consequences openly stated.\n\nCorn: I'd rather skip the theatrical two-hour maneuver. If we're buying a darker morning, put it on the receipt.\n\nHerman: Employers could also alter working hours without changing the national zone. Some already have that flexibility. The hard part is a school opening, a bus connection, and a parent's shift all depending on one another. Stable clock time removes one disturbance, but it doesn't untangle those schedules.\n\nHilbert: Herman, if Sami opens his repair shop an hour later by the new clock, am I supposed to call that the same opening time? He has done it again. I went down there on Monday for a repair appointment. The shutter was down. He says he always opens after his morning walk. The sign says eight thirty. I have been arguing with him about that sign for long enough to remember when the lettering was blue.\n\nCorn: The walk has a better guarantee than the appointment.\n\nHilbert: I'm booking the first appointment on Sunday and walking the same route before it. I've arranged a taxi for six forty. There is a bakery halfway along. I intend to sit outside it until he passes, then follow him to the shop. Not secretly. I'll carry the repair slip. I want to see which part of eight thirty requires the extra hour.\n\nHerman: You'll need him to confirm the booking in the time he's actually using. Otherwise you may both be punctual and still miss each other.\n\nHilbert: He confirmed it. He wrote morning. Herman, you spent a good while distinguishing the clock from the schedule. Sami has managed without either. Corn, move a little closer to your microphone. Your last sentence dropped away. The taxi driver wanted a destination, so I gave him the bakery. The shop is two minutes farther, but I'm not paying him to sit behind a closed shutter.\n\nCorn: You've booked transport to the opening time's last known location.\n\nHilbert: I dislike losing the light before I've finished my errands. But spare evening light doesn't help me when I'm tired. I want it while I'm doing the work. I'll have the driver ring me because the phone buttons don't suit an anteater's claws. Sami rang yesterday and said to come at nine. His apprentice gets in then. The apprentice does the repairs carefully.\n\nHerman: ...Nine instead of eight thirty is a small change on paper, but it determines whether the journey works. I'd judge any permanent-clock proposal here by how honestly it accounts for those fixed morning commitments. My preference remains ending the switches and keeping standard time, with Israel's geography deserving its own serious assessment rather than an imported slogan.\n\nCorn: I'd end the switches too, and I'm more open to a fixed summer clock here. The decision worth watching is whether lawmakers can agree on the morning they're asking people to accept, rather than merely promising a better evening.\n\nHerman: Our thanks to Hilbert Flumingtop for producing the show and keeping the recording in order.\n\nCorn: For more along these lines, there's episode twenty-four fifty, The Time Zone King and the Database That Runs the World; and episode seven thirty-four, The Illusion of Now. This has been My Weird Prompts, the human-AI collaboration podcast.\n\nHerman: If you enjoyed this episode, leave us a review. It helps other curious people find the show.\n\nCorn: See you tomorrow.","showNotes":"Every seasonal clock shift brings familiar debates over disrupted sleep, dark afternoons, and household routines. However, the popular rationales behind daylight saving time rarely match reality. Far from lobbying for the policy, American farmers vigorously opposed it because early urban market schedules disrupted morning agricultural work. Furthermore, modern studies undermine the promise of massive energy savings, as lighting has become a minor fraction of modern electricity demand while air conditioning and heating complicate the equation. The physiological consequences are far more nuanced: while spring clock changes associate with short-term increases in acute heart attacks and fatal traffic accidents, they also align with reductions in violent crime, illustrating that light exposure and sleep schedules yield trade-offs rather than uniform harms.","promptSanitized":"Today I want to talk about daylight saving time and why I think the whole system is kind of ridiculous. I know I’m not alone in this, and I know some places have already stopped changing the clocks, but I’d like to understand whether there is actually a good reason to keep doing it.\n\nWhat I especially hate is winter time. In Israel the sun already sets relatively early, so moving the clock back and making it dark even earlier just feels insane to me. There are days when it feels like the sun is disappearing at 3:45 in the afternoon, which is not exactly Arctic-circle behavior. And with a baby, the clock change is a nightmare: suddenly your child is waking an hour earlier, everyone’s sleep is thrown off, and for what? I understand that earlier morning light may help people who have to get up very early, but is that really enough of a benefit to justify disrupting everyone’s schedules twice a year?\n\nSo first, why does daylight saving time exist in the first place, and which of the original reasons actually still apply? I’ve always heard things about farmers, energy savings, and making better use of daylight, but how much of that is myth and how much is real? What does the evidence say about the effects of changing the clocks on sleep, health, accidents, productivity, children, and even animals? And if we were going to stop changing the clocks, would permanent summer time actually be better than permanent winter time, or are there important biological reasons to prefer one over the other?\n\nI’d also love to look at places that already don’t change their clocks. What happens in countries or regions with permanent standard time or permanent daylight-saving-style time? Do people seem to benefit, and what problems have emerged?\n\nAnd finally, I want to understand Israel specifically. Why does the sun seem to set so early here compared with places at similar latitudes? Is it partly because of where Israel sits within its time zone? If so, could Israel logically shift its time zone, stay on summer time all year, or do something else that would give us more usable evening daylight? Basically: who is the current system actually serving, and what would we really gain or lose by getting rid of the clock changes altogether?","transcriptUrl":"https://episodes.myweirdprompts.com/transcripts/daylight-saving-health-effects-58167.md","url":"https://myweirdprompts.com/episode/daylight-saving-health-effects-58167/","_links":{"self":"https://myweirdprompts.com/api/episodes/daylight-saving-health-effects-58167.json","html":"https://myweirdprompts.com/episode/daylight-saving-health-effects-58167/","audio":"https://episodes.myweirdprompts.com/audio/daylight-saving-health-effects-58167.m4a"}}