To: Atlanta Journal-Constitution Attn: Ms. Julie Chao Dear Ms. Chao: I read with interest your subject article. There is so much news from China these days. I truly hope the 'tough' line now being espoused by the new Bush administration will not close the news spigot. The picture which shows the 150.1 meter line to which the water is expected to rise precluded your editors from requiring you to change the reference to yards or feet, thank goodness. However, in your eleventh paragraph, the phrase, "it will be 1.4 miles long," most certainly was not the phrasing originally used. I presume it was 2.2 km, 2.3 km, or more precisely 2.25 km. The number 2.25 km translates to 1.4 miles, using the nearest tenth mile. Why was it necessary to convert the kilometers to miles? Certainly most Americans know that one kilometer is comprised of 1 000 meters. So if anyone tries to relate the depth of 150.1 meters to the scope of the length of the whole area involved, that being 2 250 meters, it is obviously more sensible than trying to relate, in any fashion, 150.1 m to 1.4 miles. Some years ago, the U.S. government stated the "the International System of Units (metric) is the preferred system of measurement for the U.S." We are being delayed in getting there each time in which the newsmedia insists on converting metric measures to WOMBAT (Way Of Measuring Badly in America Today). I find it difficult to believe that the original report did not give the length of the area in kilometers which the AP Style Book tells your editors to retain and report in just that way. Norman Werling 1240 Hunters Drive Stone Mountain, GA 30083-2545 404-292-9328
