And I'm so glad that Jim brought this up and shared this post with us. This is yet another strong argument for possibly amending the constitution (or whatever it would be required to be done legislativewise) to relinquish responsibility on this to technical people and standards organizations. Perhaps only when they're finally granted the necessary power will the US finally join the ranks of metric countries around the planet. Good post, Jim.
Marcus On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:16:32 James R. Frysinger wrote: >Dear colleagues, > >There seems to be some misunderstandings among those posting here on >metric standards and the USMA. Hopefully I can clarify matters rather >than further muddying the waters. > >The goal of the USMA is to promote metrication of the U.S. That means, >to cause laws, regulations, and policies to be amended such that only SI >units (or those accepted for use with the SI) are used in the U.S. Thus, >we would like to see product indications given solely in metric units. >To pick the particular example of paper, this goal is just as well met >by a pack of paper described as being 216 mm by 279 mm as it would by a >pack of paper described as being 210 mm by 297 mm. Both packs of paper >would thus be described in SI units. > >What is the reason, what is the justification, what is the basis for >shifting the U.S. to utilization of only metric units? It is a treaty, >an article of diplomacy signed by governments, some of which required >legislative ratification to make those signatures valid. Thus, it has a >basis under diplomatic and international law. More so, it has the common >appeal of universality and pandemic support. That universal custom makes >it practical to support and to push for adherence to the Treaty of the >Meter in the U.S., but that is secondary to the treaty itself, which we >have signed and ratified. Under that treaty, a system of measurement was >devised, a system which has been called the SI since 1960. Bottom line >-- the SI is an international agreement. > >Now, governments who are signatories to that treaty, and dozens which >are not, implement that agreement within their countries through >decrees, laws, regulations, rules, or happenstance -- depending on the >size and sophistication of the particular government. We are trying to >close that loop here in the U.S. At the moment, we stand with one foot >on the pier and one foot in the rowboat, which is not tied to the pier. >This is very precarious! We are striving to finish the job of >transfering ourselves fully into the rowboat so that we can embark on >greater things, rather than resting partially static at the shoreline. >Bottom line -- we are trying to get the job finished in making this the >national U.S. measurement system, casting out all other units. Since >this is a national-level matter, our way of doing so may differ slightly >from the way other governments do so. For example, the U.K. specifies >which sizes of products may be sold for retail; bread may be sold in 400 >g or 800 g loaves, but not 500 g loaves, as I recall. Germany may also >have a proclivity for regulating allowable product sizes through its >beloved DIN system. We Americans chose not to do so; we let market >forces determine the sizes convenient to producers and consumers. The >same distinction goes for paper. The U.K. might have the ability to >specify a national paper size; we in the U.S. do not have a national >paper size, but hopefully will someday require that all packs of paper >indicate the paper size in metric units only. Thus, the USMA pushes for >changes to labeling laws, not for size specification changes -- there >being no such specifications to begin with in the U.S. except on a case >by case basis. > >In the meantime, science and technology societies, industrial and >commercial organizations, and national government labs have reason to >fill in some of the details. It is convenient for all household light >bulbs to use the same size sockets and socket thread pitches. We in the >U.S. therefore allow industrial standards to be set for that; we do not >make it a national requrement. But first, the industries have to want to >do that, perhaps as a result of being goaded by the consumers. Those >industrial and societal standards can be national (such as the ANSI, >ASME, or National Electrical Code standards) or international (such as >IEEE, IEC, or ISO standards). But they do not carry the force of law (as >do the ones in the paragraph above) or of diplomatic agreement (as does >the SI, described two paragraphs above). Bottom line -- these are >voluntary standards, unless a national law invokes them. > >So, there are three levels here that must be seen as being distinct: >international/diplomatic, national/legal, and commmercial/voluntary, in >descending order of hierarchy. The SI is in the highest level. ISO >standards are in the lowest level. Rightly so, ISO uses SI units to >write its standards, as does the IEEEE and many others. These, lowest >level, voluntary standards are "derivative" in this regard. Bottom line >-- the ISO follows the CGPM/CIPM/BIPM's SI. SI kindly takes input from >but is not derived from and does not depend on the ISO. > >The USMA is working at the middle level of these three, to bring the >U.S. into greater compliance with the uppermost level. Thus it works >with the federal government and with state governments (especially >through the NCWM). The USMA does not have the resources to worry about >promoting or taking part in developing all of the standards of the >lowest, voluntary level. It does help on a case-by-case basis in >developing with some of the voluntary standards that will have great >impact. Thus I have worked on boards with the American Welding Society >and the IEEE (as well as a joint IEEE/ASTM board). I am joined on those >two, especially the latter by Lorelle Young and other USMA memebers. >But, by a wide margin, its greatest emphasis is on the middle, >national/legal level. We are after changes in law and regulation. We >attack that goal in various ways: by communicating with legislators, by >communicating with industry, and by communicating with the public. > >Saying that we also have to push for all standards which happen to be >written in metric units is asking the USMA to exceed its resources. And, >frankly, it is inane. Is 50 Hz electrical distribution more metric than >60 Hz? The former seems more logical and decimal while the latter draws >upon that Olde Babylonian Numbering System, so why are the A4 >enthusiasts not also pushing to get the Western Hemisphere to change the >frequency of our electrical grids? No, we take what we have and we >indicate its properties in metric units, in this case hertz (in contrast >to the cps of times past). Likewise, we want to take what we have for a >common paper size and indicate its properties in metric units, namely, >millimeters. Millimeters, Adrian, are SI. Paper is paper. Let the public >pick the size of the paper they choose to use, but let them be informed >about its size in millimeters. > >Let me know when your house is shifted from 60 Hz "Babylnian" power and >is running on 50 Hz "metric" power, supplied by your local electrical >utility, Adrian, and I'll replace all my 216 mm by 279 mm "nonmetric" >paper with 210 mm by 297 mm "metric" paper. But you know, Bill Gates >will still call those 90 mm diskettes, "three and one-half inch floppy >disks". Sigh. > >Jim > >-- >Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" >James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ >10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789 > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
