I think it is interesting to think about new names for the kilogram, but I'd say don't get your hopes up that it will be changed. I think the system is pretty darn good as it stands, and there is no compelling reason to change the name of the kilogram. If it is hard getting just the U.S. to use the system that everyone else uses, think how hard it would be to get *everyone* to agree that we need to change the kilogram.
One problem with using Mg is that it's use is not standardized. As far as I have seen, pretty much everyone uses tons (or tonnes). Trying to use Mg would create some of the problems that using colloquial units causes--everyone else uses something else. The unit ton is already a de facto standard. I know some of you are thinking right now that Mg is better because its meaning can be understood from the symbol (M is mega, g is gram), but I think that most of the public doesn't think that carefully about SI. In the U.S., Mg would be guaranteed to be confused with mg. Many of you are concerned about confusion from overly precise package labels, but this would be a much more serious confusion. By the way, my biology class a few years ago used gigatons to talk about global water movement patterns (evaporation, precipitation, etc.). A few years ago Gillette spun off White Rain into its own company. They re-launched all of their products (with new packages, of course). They offer a 750 mL bottle of shampoo, but more common is the 15 fl. oz. bottle. I just saw in the store a 10 ounce bottle (I think) of body wash (I wasn't shopping for it I promise!). The bottle did not list the contents in milliliters at all. I wonder how we can enforce the current FPLA. (A bunch of letters from men at the same time would probably make the company suspicious.) I recently finished a new web site. The site has some articles I sent to the list as well as some new content. The site is at: www.aros.net/~cos. Carl Sorenson
