Pat, Here is something else to consider. The EU is suppose to introduce a new clothes sizing scheme sometime this year. It is based on a pictogram with body dimensions and masses in SI units. It is meant to replace all of the national variances with a single, simply, consistent standard.
This new system can work outside of the EU too. It might be in Australia's best interest to adopt it. Maybe you can play a role. Ending the old sizing system may have the effect of ending the need to convert metric measurements into FFU. You aught to look into it and help promote it in Australia. BTW, does anyone have any further info on when this new system officially goes into effect and what is being planned in the form of an education campaign? We don't seem to hear much about it, and this is the time an advertisement campaign should start, as a means to get people used to the new system. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2004-02-11 01:21 Subject: [USMA:28635] Re: Australian Birth Announcements > Thanks Ezra. > > I'll explore that possibility. > > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin LCAMS > Geelong, Australia > > Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication > matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words > subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > > on 11/2/04 1:14 PM, Ezra Steinberg at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Dear Pat: > > > > I'm wondering if there are any physicians who could be recruited to sign a > > petition recommending that Australian hospitals that the existing charts be > > replaced with one like the one you suggest and that the practice of hospital > > staff converting measurements of mass from SI to Imperial be discouraged > > through education (since merely trying to clamp down, even if administrators > > agreed with the change, would likely produce a backlash instead of > > cooperation). > > > > Cheers, > > Ezra > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Feb 10, 2004 2:43 PM > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [USMA:28621] Re: Australian Birth Announcements > > > > Dear Stan, Carleton, Stephen and All, > > > > Sadly, what you say seems to be true. > > > > What actually happens is that each baby has its mass determined in kilograms > > to the nearest gram and its length recorded in millimetres to the nearest > > millimetre by the nurses who assist with the birth. This is the way this > > information appears on the bay's birth records such as the birth > > certificate. > > > > Following this the new mother is asked by her sisters, cousins, aunts, and > > her very best friends for the weight of the baby to compare the new baby > > with their own babies. > > > > To make this comparison the new mother, often assisted by the same nurses > > who initially measured the baby, convert the mass of the new baby to pounds > > and ounces. In the Geelong hospital they even have a large chart on the > > hospital wall to assist in this process. > > > > Personally. I abhor this practice and rail against it whenever I have an > > opportunity. It seems to me that if the new baby becomes ill the physician > > who treats it will want to know its mass in kilograms so that they can > > administer drug dosages such as millilitres per kilogram or as micrograms > > per kilogram of the baby's mass. > > > > It seems to me to be quite dangerous to take the initial mass of the baby, > > convert this to pounds and ounces for the newspaper and for female relatives > > and friends, and then, when needed for the baby's health, to back convert > > from pounds and ounces to kilograms to advise the treating physician, who > > may have no connection with the birth hospital. > > > > The comparisons of baby masses that I use and recommend are: > > > > 1.5 kilograms = very small baby > > 2.5 kilograms = small baby > > 3.5 kilograms = average baby > > 4.5 kilograms = large baby > > 5.5 kilograms = very large baby > > > > And I would like to see a chart with this information replace all of the > > conversion charts currently in use in Australian hospitals. > > > > By the way, it is much less common to convert the baby's length to inches > > and fractions of inches, so often this measure is simply left in millimetres > > and subsequently ignored, except perhaps for the occasional newspaper > > announcement. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pat Naughtin LCAMS > > Geelong, Australia > > > > Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication > > matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words > > subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > on 2004-02-11 04.45, G. Stanley Doore at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> To bad the clothing industry didn't accept the metric size recommendations > >> made years ago so baby's and people's physical dimensions would match the SI > >> clothing sizes. The main impediment is women's current clothing sizes are > >> made to mislead or hid real dimensions. > >> Stan Doore > >> . > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:25 PM > >> Subject: [USMA:28619] Re: Australian Birth Announcements > >> > >> > >>> The mothers insist on it, so they can compare baby sizes. Think of it as > >> a legacy application that no one wants to stop using. > >>> > >>> Carleton > >>>> My dad's cousin, in Australia just mailed us > >>>> a birth announcement for her great-grandson, > >>>> from their local newspaper. > >>>> > >>>> It was interesting that the announcement > >>>> listed the baby's weight in pounds and ounces, > >>>> and the height in inches. There was no metric > >>>> used at all. > >>>> > >>>> Is this one of the few instances, in Australia, > >>>> where people still cling to the old system? > >>>> > >>>> Stephen Gallagher > >>>> > >>>> 1 > >>>> > >>> > >> > > -- > > > >
