2002-11-28

Carl,

Just think of the articles you read where someone did the conversion and did
not include the original metric.  You really can't back convert what you are
reading to SI, because you don't know if it is correct or not.  In the cases
below, the distance was rounded to appear as if the FFU is rational.  The
mass was converted backwards.

The mass conversion is scary.  Just think how common this type of wrong
conversion occurs in hospitals.  That is where scales are in pounds and
dosages are in milligrams or millilitres per kilogram body mass and a
conversion is needed to get the individual dosage correct.  People can die
or become seriously injured.  But, I guess that is the price we are all
willing to pay to keep our scales in pounds.  And what is amazing is that no
one is looking at this as a safety issue and is allowing the status quo to
continue.

I agree that FFU should be dropped, but the editors of these article insist
they and nobody else understands SI and if SI is going to be there, FFU must
also.  If one has to go it will be metric.  If these are the only choices,
then I prefer to see the metric and FFU together as in the article.  This
way, I don't care if the FFU is wrong.  Wrong FFU only helps confuse and
distort users of FFU mental reference points.  And the more confused and
distorted, the better SI looks.

John



>
> It said the bull shark, which measures up to 3.5 metres (10 feet) in
length
> and weighs around 230 kg (104 pounds), can survive in fresh or saltwater
and
> will eat almost anything.
> [end quote]
>
> Either they need a lesson in how to use a calculator or they should just
> leave the metric units alone.  Obviously, the person who included the
number
> of pounds wasn't paying much attention.  Even in colloquial units it
doesn't
> make sense (10 feet long and only 104 pounds?  Is this an anorexic
shark?).
> I did not send a comment to CNN yet, since I sent one recently.  If anyone
> else wants to do so, go ahead.  As of this afternoon the article was at:
>
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/11/26/australia.drought.reut/in
> dex.html
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to