You are quite right; it is a risk management issue. But I'm afraid that
anti-metric thinking is deeply ingrained in this society, and nothing
will change until a tragedy happens.
Also, it isn't the patients who would mind the metric units, it's the
American doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who are
likely to object. Fortunately, the electronic documentation of height
and weight MUST be in SI, so the parameters which appear on the patient
medication administration record are always SI. it's just that the
absolute value of each parameter may be incorrect,because both
measurement units are bandied about.
"U.S. Metric Association" wrote:
>
> USMA Digest 488
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) the Celsius-less nurse
> by Paul Trusten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2) Re: USMA mailing list
> by "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 3) last night in the House of Commons
> by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 4) Re: Weather
> by "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 5) Re: metric in Walmart
> by Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 6) Re: [ukma] Commons debate
> by "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 7) House of commons debate - 2001-03-14
> by "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 8) Fw: [ukma] Re: Commons Debate-complain!
> by "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 9) Re: the Celsius-less nurse
> by "James J. Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 10) Re: metric in Walmart
> by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph B. Reid)
> 11) Re: Metric Yardsticks
> by "Stephen C. Gallagher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 12) Re: metric in Walmart
> by "Stephen C. Gallagher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 13) RE: last night in the House of Commons
> by "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 14) Re: the Celsius-less nurse
> by "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 15) RE: last night in the House of Commons
> by "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 16) RE: last night in the House of Commons
> by "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 17) Re: Metric Yardsticks
> by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 18) Re: metric in Walmart
> by "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 19) Innumeracy
> by "Duncan Bath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 20) RE: last night in the House of Commons
> by "Duncan Bath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 21) a filthy trick on Weather Channel!
> by "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11636] the Celsius-less nurse
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:44:43 -0600
> From: Paul Trusten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm afraid that there are many healthcare professionals who are ignorant
> of the Celsius temperature scale. If you should happen across a
> pharmacist who is ignorant of it, that would be a tragedy.
>
> Recently, I was instrumental in getting a form changed at my hospital so
> that it no longer requests the patient weight in pounds OR kilograms.
> Sadly, I could only get it changed to pounds, but at least that may
> prevent someone from entering a lb. figure when kg were meant, or vice
> versa. It is possible for someone to weigh over 100 kg, so, let us say,
> the number 128 could mean either a trim person (lb.) or a very obese
> person (kg). If someone writes 128 kg but means pounds, the dose of a
> drug could be calculated which is far in excess of the correct dose for
> that patient. Funny thing is, even with the "kg" box gone, nurses will
> still go ahead and write the kg weight in, giving the proper units (kg).
> IMHO, It is a cavalier attitude about measurement systems that could be
> dangerous.
>
> I maintain that the adoption of SI in the United States, even on a small
> scale (healthcare), requires, first of all, inspiration. It has to be a
> matter of motivation, and it has to be across all sectors of a group or
> an organization. If we can instill fear everywhere, such as the fear we
> generated over Y2K, we should be able to instill knowledge (of SI) as
> well. We can't have just a few people in one enterprise devoted to the
> use of one standard of measurement when too many others just do not
> care.
> --
> Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
> 3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apt. 122
> Midland TX 79707-2872 USA
> (915)-694-6208
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11637] Re: USMA mailing list
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:46:41 -0800
> From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Anyone using Jim and Joe's list, please note that, as of May 23, I'll be in
> Roseville, CA, not San Jose, CA.
>
> It's a minor detail, of course, if you'll only be using the email list for
> email. <g>
>
> Bill Potts, CMS
> San Jose, CA
> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of Jim McCracken
> > Sent: March 15, 2001 10:05
> > To: U.S. Metric Association
> > Subject: [USMA:11635] Re: USMA mailing list
> >
> >
> > For those who want to turn Joe's list into a useful tool, attached are an
> > Excel version, and a commas delimited version of Joe's list.
> >
> > Anyone who want to verify the names would help the list members develop a
> > useful tool that can more readily be updated.
> >
> > At 09:33 AM 3/15/01 -0400, Joseph B. Reid wrote:
> > >It has been some time since I last posted my list of people who post
> > >message on
> > >the USMA list. I have no way of knowing when somebody has
> > dropped off the
> > >list.
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11638] last night in the House of Commons
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:00:03 +0000
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> the full text of last night's debate (an attempt to have the latest
> legislation enforcing the 2009 cut-off for supplementary units
> repealed) can be seen on Hansard at:
>
>
>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/cm010314/debtext/10314-34.htm#10314-34_head0
>
> A list of MPs can be found at http://www.parliament.uk (I can't give
> the exact link as the site as been down all evening).
>
> Not all have published e-mails, but it would be useful if our friends
> in the US could send messages to those who spoke, telling them what
> rubbish they said about the USA's metrication programme.
>
> There is quite a lot to read; in summary, there was no division last
> night (for what reason, I have yet to find out). It has been deferred
> to March 21.
>
> Chris
> --
> Chris KEENAN
> UK Metrication Association: http://www.metric.org.uk/
> UK Correspondent, US Metric Association
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11639] Re: Weather
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:33:07 +0100
> From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Gallagher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:09 AM
> Subject: [USMA:11615] Re: Weather
>
> Just like my co-worker who grew up in Cornwall, Ont. and tells me that he
> would see US cars coming over the bridge during the summer with skis on the
> ski racks.
>
> (snip)
>
> Your remark reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) story of American
> tourists arriving in Toronto in August and asking where they would find the
> best skiing conditions.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> They must have gone to the Weatheroffice site, seen that temperatures in
> July were 30 degrees or even higher in cities like Toronto and Ottawa and in
> the twenties in the mountains. "30 degrees Fahrenheit in the cities and in
> the twenties in the mountains! Wonderful, that is very good for skiing!
> Let's go!" Think of the nurse in USMA 11627 who never heard of the Celsius
> scale. Maybe she was one of them going on a skiing holiday in the Canadian
> summer.
>
> The last two summers I saw very often temperatures in the large Canadian
> cities between 30 and 35 degrees on Weatheroffice.
>
> I saw something like that, long ago. It had been cold and snowy during
> February with lots of the white stuff in the hills and mountains. Then warm
> air came in with lots of rain. I saw people leaving on that warm day (> 10
> degrees) with pouring rain for a day trip to the Belgiam Ardennes, which
> reach up to 700 m. They must have thought that an ascent of a few hundred
> meters would do the trick. This is never enough when subtropical air from
> the southern Atlantic is the boss here. Any snow left was slush. Too bad for
> them!
>
> Han
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11640] Re: metric in Walmart
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:05:38 +1100
> From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dear Greg and All,
>
> Two stories:
>
> I was in a furniture store some time ago with a view to buying a table. I
> asked an assistant if a particular table came in various sizes. 'Yes' he
> replied, 'this model comes in 5 by 3 or you can have it as 6 by 3.' My
> response was, 'Could you tell me that in modern metric measures, please. I'm
> not old enough to understand your old measures.'
>
> In a camping store I was seeking a hose to connect my gas stove to its
> bottle. I asked an assistant to show me some hoses about a metre long. He
> replied, 'We've got some 3 foot ones here.' My response was simple, 'Could
> you please find another assistant to serve me, please. I did not come here
> for a history lesson - I wanted to buy a hose about a metre long.' I then
> ignored him - and, in the absence of a suitable assistant - I bought the
> hose from another supplier.
>
> I suspect that my anger in these instances was partly based on the apparent
> young ages of the assistants, as it was clear that they had recently left
> school and they were inordinately proud of their new-found knowledge of the
> foot as a measuring unit. I am sure that they didn't learn it at school; it
> was part of their on-the-job store training.
>
> I am reminded of a line in the 'Assessment of NASA¹s Use of the Metric
> System, G-00-021' report following the loss of the Mars Climate Observer,
> which referred to the relationship between older and younger members of
> NASA's engineering staff. I quote:
>
> 'The problem arises when senior engineers comfortable with the English
> system encourage or require young (often metric-trained) engineers to use
> English rather than SI units, indefinitely delaying the transition to SI
> usage.'
>
> And I am inclined to view this simply as due to the power and status
> relationships between young bulls and old bulls, with little or nothing to
> do with the technical transition to SI.
>
> The technical transition of a mind to SI is essentially the work of an hour
> or (at most) two; the transition of a mind to a new power relationship is
> the work of a generation or (at least) two.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pat Naughtin CAMS
> Geelong, Australia
>
> on 2001-03-15 01.11, Gregory Peterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I noticed a couple of uses of metric at Walmart that were worth noting:
> >
> > 1) Life jackets.
> >
> > Though none of the labelling was done by Walmart all the printing on the life
> > jackets gave chest sizes in inches, centimetres; this order and no brackets.
> > As well certain brands also included a "minimum flotation" value quoted in
> > 'N', 'pounds-force'; this order and no brackets
> >
> > I have to admit that at first I didn't know what "61 N" was refering to, at
> > first thinking that this might be some regulatory rating number. It was
> > unforatuante that I had to see "pounds-force" to realize that the number was
> > quoted in newtons. I so rarely see newtons and I have come to expect any of
> > the confusing collection of wombat units that I didn't expect to see a
> > rational metric unit of measure.
> > Fortunately I understand this newton value relative to my own weight far more
> > than "pounds-force".
> >
> > In both cases, chest size and flotation, the rational numbers were wombat and
> > the metric were merely converted, however it was nice to see them there none
> > the less.
> >
> > 2) Store signage.
> >
> > There was an large back yard tent/gazebo that caught my wife's eye. The
> > Walmart tag listed the dimesions as "3 M X 110 IN". I said outloud "three
> > metres by one-hundred and ten inches.... whatever one-hundred and ten inches
> > means!" A sales person (about 45 years old) was nearby and he told me that he
> > didn't know were they came up with these measurements and he just tells people
> > that its "ten by ten". He didn't provide me with units. At this point he
> > continued on his way. I can only assume he measured the gazebo by placing one
> > foot in front of another. Hoping he'd hear me I said, "Oh, I guess it's about
> > three metres tall then."
> >
> > I would have caught up and pressed the issue with the sale's person but at the
> > time I was holding an 85 cm softball bat and I thought I looked a bit too
> > agressive. >;)
> >
> > greg
> > Saskatoon SK Canada
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11641] Re: [ukma] Commons debate
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:38:09 -0500
> From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 2001-03-15
>
> When I went to the site below, I didn't see anything. I clicked on a link
> and it took me to the BBC site. There, I found nothing until I typed in
> POUNDS in the search box. It linked me to this page:
>
> http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/KSEnglish.exe?method=mainQuery&ATNMYFIEL
> D_Headline=&db0=English&xoptions=sortboth&numresults=1000&BATCHHITS=25&query
> threshold=50&query=pounds
>
> The first article I saw was:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1160000/1160196.stm
>
> Thursday, 8 February, 2001, 13:05 GMT
> Reprieve for pounds and ounces
>
> Shoppers have time to weigh up the metric debate
>
> Shoppers in the UK have ten extra years to buy their food in pounds and
> ounces, it has been announced. (First Paragraph)
>
> As far as I can tell, the only "reprieve", if you want to call it that is
> that pounds and ounces may be used as supplemental units on packaging for
> the next 10 years. Actually, if you want to be technical, it is 8 years and
> 9.5 months, or until 2009-12-31
>
> I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.
>
> John
>
> Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
> frei zu sein.
>
> There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
> are free!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, 2001-03-14 18:13
> Subject: [ukma] Commons debate
>
> > The House of Commons debate (to repeal the latest legislation) is
> > available live (now) at
> >
> http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/westminster_live/default.
> stm
> >
> > follow the link to Live Coverage.
> >
> > Chris
> > --
> > UK Metrication Association: http://www.metric.org.uk/
> > #>- Subscription Options; -<#
> > #>- http://list.to/srv/SubOpt?id=_3rQpacvqSYtzWnzv+uZIywA8YKXkpvU9?= -<#
> >
> > UK Metrication Association
> > http://www.metric.org.uk
> > Messages posted on the list should not be reproduced without permission.
> > Mailinglist WWW Archive;
> > http://list.to/srv/WebArchive?id=_y+MuWw+gZOn1ZWUJ6zhcYw=
> >
> > Advertisement;
> > Another mailing list you can subscribe to is KretAphroditus
> >
> > To subscribe to this mailing list, send a message to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word SUBSCRIBE in the body.
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11642] House of commons debate - 2001-03-14
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:53:03 -0500
> From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have heard the
> Minister say that we had 16 sittings. Is that in order when, according to
> the Official Report, the final sitting was the 15th sitting?
>
> Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for the Chair.
>
> Mr. Lock: It is certainly not a matter for the Chair, but it is typical of
> the points that have been taken.
>
> This is a good Bill and it has been properly scrutinised. Its powers are
> needed for the police and for the victims of crime and I commend it to the
> House.
>
> Question put and agreed to.
>
> Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
>
> BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
> Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15
> (Exempted business),
>
> That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Weights and Measures
> (Metrication Amendments) Regulations may be proceeded with, though opposed,
> until half-past Eleven o'clock.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
>
> Question agreed to.
> 14 Mar 2001 : Column 1126
>
> Weights and Measures
>
> 10 pm
>
> Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): I beg to move,
>
> That the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001
> (S.I., 2001, No. 85), dated 16th January 2001, a copy of which was laid
> before this House on 17th January, be revoked.
>
> The House now proceeds to scrutiny of an important regulation touching on
> the subject of metrication. Our objection to the regulations--
>
> Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Would hon. Members leaving the
> Chamber please do so quietly?
>
> Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Our objection is that the regulations mark another
> stage in the Government's determination to drive out pounds, ounces and
> other familiar imperial units of measurement, and to replace them with an
> enforced metrication policy, even when that is unnecessary and unwanted.
>
> The background to the regulations is that in 1999 the Government ended the
> permitted sale of loose goods--fruit and vegetables, meat, fish and so
> on--in pounds and ounces. From 31 December 1999, it became a criminal
> offence to sell those loose goods in the familiar units that we had used for
> so long. That has led to the absurd prosecution of a market trader, Mr.
> Thoburn, in Sunderland. His only crime, it is alleged, is that he is selling
> fruit in pounds and ounces.
>
> The court case is costing tens of thousands of pounds. It is still under
> way, and we await the verdict.
>
> Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Does my right hon. Friend share my
> perplexity about the matter? Some people might consider it a modern thing to
> use systeme internationale d'unite measures, but the United States uses
> pounds and ounces in NASA space probes, as well as miles, feet, inches and
> square yards in other circumstances. Can my right hon. Friend understand
> what the Government's motive could be for abandoning historical units of
> measurement such as pounds and ounces in favour of metrication? Metrication
> is popular in Europe, but it is not understood here.
>
> Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to give the United States as an
> example of a country that uses imperial measurements. However, I do not
> think that they are called imperial units there; rather, they are known as
> non-metric, or even English, units. Indeed, in some cases in the US, there
> has been a reversion to such units and away from metrication.
>
> My hon. Friend asks why the Government are so intent on metrication, and I
> confess my bafflement on that point.
>
> The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The
> Government have had to address the issue because, as the right hon.
> Gentleman well knows, the previous Government signed up to metrication time
> and again, and reconfirmed as much in this Chamber, time and again.
>
> Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is not quite the case, as my remarks will show.
> Doubtless the Government will try to blame everything on everyone but
> themselves, but in this case it will not work.
>
> 14 Mar 2001 : Column 1127
>
> The point that I was developing leads on from the intervention by my hon.
> Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). It is that the metrication
> process has nothing to do with consumer rights or the protection of consumer
> interests. In the case of Mr. Thoburn and his sale of fruit and vegetables
> in pounds and ounces, it is neither suggested nor alleged that he was in any
> way misleading his customers. Quite the reverse--he was serving his
> customers in the units they asked for; he was not short-changing them in any
> way. In the market in Sunderland, there were many other outlets. There is
> choice in a market, by definition. If he was doing something that his
> customers disapproved of, they could easily buy their produce from somebody
> else. He would lose business if he was thought to be imposing his values on
> an unwilling public. He and his customers were simply exercising choice, and
> the Government are now denying them that choice.
>
> Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Thoburn
> case. Am I right in thinking that the genesis of the regulations can be
> traced back to 1989 and the European Council of Ministers, whose United
> Kingdom representative was the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude),
> now foreign affairs spokesperson for the Conservative party?
>
> Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting this
> slightly wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)
> obtained for this country an extension of the rights of traders to continue
> to use imperial measurements. This Government failed to do that in 1999, so
> the guilt lies on the Government Benches rather than ours.
>
> Dr. Howells: I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House.
> Why does he not simply admit that the Government of whom he and the right
> hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) were members signed up to metrication
> and then managed to obtain a 10-year extension which would enable traders to
> put supplementary measurements on each weighing scale? That is precisely
> what we did the year before last.
>
> Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the Minister cannot avoid
> responsibility in that way. These prosecutions are proceeding because in
> 1999 the Government failed to extend the right to use imperial units in
> trade in loose goods. We obtained that extension in 1989--that is a matter
> of record.
>
> The Government did not even try to obtain an extension in 1999. I have a
> helpful written answer from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for
> Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who is in his place. The hon.
> Gentleman said:
>
> "The Government have not discussed the derogation for goods sold loose with
> Members of the European Commission."--[Official Report, 8 July 1999; Vol.
> 334, c. 583W.]
>
> The Government did not even discuss the matter, let alone ask or insist.
> 14 Mar 2001 : Column 1128
>
> An extension of this right could easily have been obtained. The original
> directive was negotiated by the Labour Government in 1979. It includes the
> following lines:
>
> "Whereas the laws which regulate the use of units of measurement in the
> Member States differ from one Member State to another and as a result hinder
> trade; whereas, in these circumstances, it is necessary to harmonize laws,
> regulations and administrative provisions in order to overcome such
> obstacles".
>
> It is clear from that preamble that the entire rationale was built on the
> premise that the use of imperial measurement hindered trade. However, Mr.
> Thoburn and his market trader colleagues in Sunderland are not engaging in
> international trade. How can it possibly be said that the sale by a market
> trader in some way infringes the rules and regulations of international
> trade? It is preposterous.
>
> Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Does it not go even further than that?
> If it was a question of concern for international trade, and a trader
> insisted on using a unit of measurement that was not acceptable to potential
> customers on the continent, he would not be able to trade. People trade in
> the measurements that their customers want.
>
> Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Trade exists by satisfying
> customers. Someone who supplies goods in units that are inconvenient or are
> not understood will not sell them. People do not need bureaucrats or central
> Government to tell them that. It is much better to leave such matters to
> normal commercial intercourse at market level.
>
> Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
>
> Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I
> want to make progress.
>
> The domestic sale of loose goods has no single market implications and does
> not affect other member states in any way. It is a purely domestic matter
> and therefore falls under the subsidiarity requirement, which is now written
> into the treaty of Rome, as amended. Respect for subsidiarity is insisted
> upon, so if the Government had asked in 1999 whether United Kingdom traders
> should continue to use pounds and ounces for domestic trade, no case
> whatever would have been made against the proposition, which would have been
> allowed. As has been mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham
> succeeded in obtaining a further derogation when he applied for one. The
> same would apply in respect of many units of measurement.
>
> It may interest the House to be reminded that some imperial measurements
> have indefinite extensions. They include the mile and the acre, and pints of
> milk can still be sold in returnable bottles. The use of such measurements
> is still permitted because the Government and the European Union know
> perfectly well that if they insisted on abolishing them in favour of metric
> measurements, the public would not accept their decision. The principle is
> already established. When it is convenient for the public to continue to use
> traditional imperial measurements, they are allowed to do so. Will the
>
> 14 Mar 2001 : Column 1129
>
> Minister clarify, however, whether those extensions are indefinite? Could we
> be required by majority voting to abolish the mile, the acre and the pint in
> due course?
>
> John
>
> Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt
> frei zu sein.
>
> There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they
> are free!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11643] Fw: [ukma] Re: Commons Debate-complain!
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:58:00 -0500
> From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen Davis
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 2001-03-15 16:26
> Subject: [ukma] Re: Commons Debate-complain!
>
> I am with Chris (as I am sure everyone else is) totally on this! Reading
> about the attitudes of the MP's opposed to metrication on the Hansard site
> made for a good argument about the merits of a dictatorship!
>
> If you will excuse my language beforehand, I must say I have never read so
> much bullshit in my life!
>
> They say 96% of the population are opposed to metric. If this is so, where
> were the placard-wavers when litres were introduced in filling stations?
> When were the demonstrations outside shops and supermarkets when
> pre-packaged food had to show metric only measurements? Indeed, when has
> there ever been a peep from the majority of the population until now?
>
> It is only because of garbage about 'totalitarian' councils sending round
> burly police officers to enforce the law that the public has been sold by a
> willing media coupled with a spineless Government's reluctance to enforce
> the law that has led to the public giving credence to what is going on now.
>
> For God's sake, it's about time this apology for a Government got off their
> fat backsides and got their message across by every means necessary. Use
> the press, television, websites, the lot! Anything to help counter the
> absolute crap that, due to this Government's inaction, appears to be winning
> the argument! Don't let it!!
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [USMA:11644] Re: the Celsius-less nurse
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:35:24 -0900
> From: "James J. Wentworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Paul, you have to use units that hospital administrators, nurses and doctors
> *really* understand: the ones with a $ preceding them. They especially pay
> attention to a $ with a "-" preceding it. How's this for inspiration to
> hospitals to use kg and cm only:
>
> "Mr./Ms. Chairman/Chairwoman of the hospital board, do you willingly intend
> to keep an accident enabling factor (use of lb. and in.) that could easily
> result in an accident that would trigger expensive lawsuits?! [Follow this
> with actual examples.] Which is cheaper to deal with, patients whining
> about getting their weights and heights in metric units or having to pay a
> court settlement to a dead patient's family?"
>
> Jason
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Trusten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:44 AM
> Subject: [USMA:11636] the Celsius-less nurse
>
> >
> > I'm afraid that there are many healthcare professionals who are ignorant
> > of the Celsius temperature scale. If you should happen across a
> > pharmacist who is ignorant of it, that would be a tragedy.
> >
> > Recently, I was instrumental in getting a form changed at my hospital so
> > that it no longer requests the patient weight in pounds OR kilograms.
> > Sadly, I could only get it changed to pounds, but at least that may
> > prevent someone f
--
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
3609 Caldera Boulevard, Apt. 122
Midland TX 79707-2872 USA
(915)-694-6208
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
