Pat Naughtin wrote: >Data from Netherlands >This data appears to have been taken using centimetre measurements >and then converted to millimetres (implying a false level of >precision) to match the other data.
The data were not obtained with cm. Anthropometric data is usually mm. Some of the values were rounded to the nearest 5 mm. I am not aware of a relationship between prefixes and precision. If there is, then perhaps it should be mentioned by the BIPM. Anyone that uses anthropometric data (such as myself) that misunderstands the difference between precision and prefixes should not be working in the field. If you would like the standard deviation data for each country and sex, I have that here. >Data from Sri Lanka >I simply don't believe this data. OK. >By the way, what happened to the Brasilian ladies? The reference has no data for Brazil females. Thank you for reading the data in detail and challenging it where you identify curiosities. It makes the effort of digging it out worth while. If you are interested in discussing this topic, I would be happy to chat to you about it via email. The good news is that more data on body size are being collected as part of an international initiative to improve the sizing of clothes. The current clothing size standards are inaccurate and inconsistent. www.bsi-global.com/News/Releases/2002/March/n3f02c7044524a.xalter http://www.tno.nl/en/news/tno_magazine/march_2002/em1_12_13.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3142934.stm
