The only problem is that NIST does not have any rule-making or regulatory authority. It only sets standards as its predecessor did in 1893 when it defined the ip measures in terms of metric ones. As the national metrology institute of the United States, it is the U.S. representative to the CGPM and has been so since 1875.
The power to regulate weights and measures in the U.S. constitionally with Congress. The only laws Congress has passed establishing any sort of weights and measures has been in 1866, when it made metric legal, 1975, with the metric conversion act and 1988 with the Omnibus Trade act which declared SI to be the preferred system of measurement for trade and commerce in the U.S. and mandated that the federal government adopt metric standards and practices. Once again, this points to the overall problem: Officially, the United States is a metric country and has been for quite some time (over 100 years) but in practice, misses the mark tremendously. Pretty sad for a country that has been involved to some degree with the development of the metric system from its beginning. Phil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matthew Zotter Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 2:15 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:27298] Re: 22nd CGPM 2003 OCT 26 SUN I could be wrong, but I think that the NIST has been delegated that authority on behalf of USA. Sincerely, Matthew Zotter SC, USA -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ma Be Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 11:27 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:27295] Re: 22nd CGPM The question is though, does this resolution have ANY bite whatsoever??? How many out there are simply disregarding this? That's one of the strongest reasons why I vehicled here that when it comes to the issue of measurements this subject should be left for scientists to determine, NOT governments. In other words, if this class of people had the *authority* to determine what peoples are supposed to use we would NOT be in this mess in the US!!! Therefore, again, perhaps this whole dilemma could be solved by a simple delegation of authority from Congress to bodies like NIST, or something similar. Marcus On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:55:15 Pat Naughtin wrote: >Dear Bill, > >Thanks for posting this link. > >In the light of what Terry Simpson said recently about international >deviation in the use of SI units for measuring blood sugar levels (mmol/L >vs. mg/dl), I found Resolution 4 from the 1999 CGPM meeting particularly >appropriate. I have copied it here. > >Resolution 4 > >The need to use SI units in studies of Earth resources, the environment, >human well-being and related issues > >The 21st Confirence Ginirale des Poids et Mesures, > >considering that > >the effects on the geosphere and biosphere of industrial and commercial >activities and of many other human pursuits, as well as natural phenomena, >and the consequences for human health and well-being are the subject of >major studies worldwide, > >governments are increasingly faced with decisions of great economic and >political significance concerning the regulation of these activities, >the policies of governments are influenced by studies depending critically >on accurate and mutually compatible measurements often requiring very large >economic investments, > >much of the important scientific evidence required for decisions by >governments comes from measurements of small changes in certain key >parameters, measurements sometimes extending over several decades, >certain critical measurements have traditionally been made in ad hoc units, >based upon special instrumentation or procedures, and not in the >well-characterized and internationally agreed SI units, > >experience over many years has shown that measurements not directly linked >to the SI cannot be relied upon in the long term, cannot be compared with >similar measurements made elsewhere and do not adequately bring out possible >relationships with measurements made in other scientific disciplines, >increasing demands for reliability in measurements made for medical and >therapeutic purposes are leading to more demanding regulation in these >areas, > >recommends that those responsible for studies of Earth resources, the >environment, human well-being and related issues ensure that measurements >made within their programmes are in terms of wellcharacterized SI units so >that they are reliable in the long term, are comparable worldwide and are >linked to other areas of science and technology through the world's >measurement system established and maintained under the Metre Convention. > >Cheers, > >Pat Naughtin LCAMS >Geelong, Australia >-- > >on 23/10/03 9:59 AM, Bill Potts at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Unless anyone on this list was at the conference, I doubt it. >> >> However, you might want to keep monitoring >> http://www1.bipm.org/en/convention/cgpm/resolutions.html. It still shows the >> 1999 conference as the latest, but that will change. >> >> Bill Potts, CMS >> Roseville, CA >> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Behalf Of Matthew Zotter >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 16:38 >>> To: U.S. Metric Association >>> Subject: [USMA:27257] 22nd CGPM >>> >>> >>> 2003 OCT 22 WED >>> >>> Does anyone know what was decided at the 22nd CGPM, which was from >>> OCT 13 to >>> OCT 17? >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Matthew Zotter >>> SC, USA >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
