I can update my website to say that that in a practical sense they have converted, however I chose to focus on those who have done so officially. Even many countries that have done so officially are far from having completed the process in a practical sense. If I make an exception for Myanmar then I will have to state that Canada, UK, and other countries have much progress to make in a practical sense.
Quoting Chimpsarecute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The key word is "official". If you read what I said, I stated that they > never did. But practically, they have converted. Visitors to these > countries have consistently reported that anything new is metric anything old > and ancient is not. If you want to state that they never officially changed, > that is fine. But you also need to inform those who would interpret this to > mean they are still 100 % FFU that such an assumption is not in step with > reality. > > From the CIA Handbook on Burma: > > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bm.html > > Exports: > $2.7 billion f.o.b. (2002) > Exports - commodities: > gas, wood products, pulses, beans, fish, rice > Exports - partners: > Thailand 31.4%, US 13%, India 7.4%, China 4.7% (2002) > Imports: > $2.5 billion f.o.b. (2002) > Imports - commodities: > machinery, transport equipment, construction materials, crude oil; food > products > Imports - partners: > China 27%, Singapore 19.5%, Thailand 12%, Malaysia 9.1%, Taiwan 6.3%, > South Korea 5.3%, Japan 4.3% (2002) > > > > > > > > Notice that all of the countries that Burma trades with are officially > metric. The products listed as being the commodities of import/export would > be metric also > > From the CIA handbook for Liberia: > > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/li.html: > > Exports - commodities: > rubber, timber, iron, diamonds, cocoa, coffee > Exports - partners: > Germany 54.8%, Poland 8.9%, France 8.5%, China 4.9%, Italy 4.5%, US > 4.2% (2002) > Imports: > $165 million f.o.b. (2002 est.) > Imports - commodities: > fuels, chemicals, machinery, transportation equipment, manufactured > goods; foodstuffs > Imports - partners: > South Korea 30.3%, Japan 19.1%, Germany 15.6%, France 9.1%, Singapore > 7.9% (2002) > > > > The US is listed as an export partner, but my hunch is that 4.2 % is in raw > materials and I can bet they are sold and priced in metric units. > > > By the fact that both of these countries trade heavily with metric countries > tells me they are in fact metric. None of there trading partners are going > to make special products for these two basket cases in FFU. > > I hope this is proof enough for you. > > Euric > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gavin Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Big Chimp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, 2004-03-07 15:51 > Subject: Re: [USMA:29044] Allowing metric only labeling on USA consumer > products - letter to Ralph Nader > > > > Thanks for the info but can you document it? I've searched online > encyclopedias > > and pro-metric sites and what I considered to be the most reliable sites > all > > said that Myanmar (Burma is the old name) and Liberia are not officially > using > > metric. > > > > The USMA website at http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm says > the > > following: > > > > "According to a survey taken several years ago, the only other countries > that > > have not officially adopted the metric system are Liberia (in western > Africa) > > and Myanmar (also known as Burma, in southeast Asia). These two countries > did > > not have an official policy of converting to metric, at least at the time > of > > the survey." > > > > I did not find any updated information about Myanma and Liberia on the USMA > > > website. > > > > Quoting Big Chimp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Gavin, > > > > > > Burma and Liberia are not FFU using countries. That is old news. These > > > countries have never officially metricated, due to political > instability. > > > But have metricated due to their neighbours being metric and all trade > is > > > done in metric. Those machines that are still imperial are those left > over > > > from by-gone years. Nothing new is imperial. > > > > > > The US is the only country not completely metric. And despite not > trying, > > > the US is 40 % metric, due to a large amount of imports of metric > products > > > and those US companies that have to use metric because the market is > metric. > > > > > > Euric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Gavin Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, 2004-03-01 15:36 > > > Subject: [USMA:29044] Allowing metric only labeling on USA consumer > > > products - letter to Ralph Nader > > > > > > > > > > Here is a copy of a letter I sent to Ralph Nader on 2004/02/28 > regarding > > > allow > > > > metric only labeling. If you want to send the same letter to Ralph > Nader > > > or > > > > others, feel free to do so. > > > > > > > > The USA should speed its conversion to metric for a number of reasons > and > > > > information about those reasons may be found at my website at > > > > http://www.xprt.net/~hightech/metric.htm . Of particular importance is > the > > > need > > > > to ammend the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) to allow > Metric-Only > > > > Labeling by businesses who desire such for their products. There are > many > > > USA > > > > businesses, especially ones where exports are a huge portion of their > > > business, > > > > who wish to discontinue mentioning the old fashioned (including US > > > Customary > > > > Units) on their labels. In 10 years the EU will no longer allow imports > to > > > > contain the imperial units (including US Customary Units) on the > labels, > > > even > > > > if the labels also indicate the metric units. Allowing USA businesses > to > > > use > > > > only metric units on their packages will make it easier for businesses > to > > > > adjust when all of their exports to the EU require such labels. > > > > > > > > All USA schools (to my knowledge) have been teaching metric to their > > > students > > > > for decades now and thus most people in the USA should be familiar > with > > > metric. > > > > However most people in the USA have not had much opportunity outside > of > > > school > > > > to make use of metric (except when they buy liters of soda pop and a > few > > > other > > > > consumer goods). Allowing metric only labeling on all consumer goods > would > > > make > > > > it easier for USA citizens to retain their knowledge of metric and > ease > > > the USA > > > > transistion to metric. I believe that many members of the U.S. Metric > > > > Association ( http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/ ) and even many > > > businesses > > > > would likely support Ralph Nader for President if Ralph Nader > campaigned > > > on > > > > urging ammending the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) to allow > > > Metric- > > > > Only Labeling. Some fans of metric had even planned on voting for > Howard > > > Dean > > > > because Howard Dean made a comment saying he is a fan of metric. > > > > > > > > Gavin Young > > > > http://www.xprt.net/~hightech , http://www.renewableelectricity.com, > > > > http://www.electric-automobile.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gavin Young > > http://www.xprt.net/~hightech , http://www.renewableelectricity.com, > > http://www.electric-automobile.com > > Gavin Young http://www.xprt.net/~hightech , http://www.renewableelectricity.com, http://www.electric-automobile.com
