----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, 2004-07-15 11:07
Subject: [USMA:30426] Fw: your "Metric
Meddlers" column in the Telegraph
Received the following reply from Philip Johnston of the UK
Telegraph:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 04 Jul 15,Thursday 05:57
Subject: Re: your "Metric Meddlers" column in the
Telegraph
Dear Mr Trusten
Many thanks for your email and for taking the
trouble to write.
Of course I concede there are many who think the
present system in the UK and America is unsatisfactory but it is not such a
mess that it requires the enormous and expensive commitment involved in the
enforced removal of the final imperial measurements, not least because here in
Britain metrication is already pretty far advanced.
This is what
it is really all about. The realisation that imperial is in its "last
days" and any further attempts to remove the remnants of FFU will mean for
certain FFU is really dead. Something imperialists can not come to grips
with.
It could be, and has been, argued that some old
fashioned measurements are even more precise than metric units. Many of our
standard products are now sold showing metric measurements, this is true, but
many of those products, whilst notated in metric, are actually measured in
imperial.
Which "old
fashioned" units are more precise then metric units? This statement in
itself is in error. A unit can not be precise, only the definition of it
can be. SI units are all precisely defined by a physical
referance. FFU units are defined from SI and their precision depends on
how accurate the conversion factor is. Also the precision of the measuring devise
plays a role in how precise a measurement is.
This person may be referring to
some units, such as Fahrenheit that have smaller increments between whole
numbers, but that is not a definition of precision. Many ignorant
illiterates and innumerates like to confuse resolution with precision.
The remark about some products
being noted in metric but measured in imperial is just a wild ass guess, not a
fact. I've been to food plants (Kraft) in the US that have filling
machines dispensing grams of product, even if the size is suppose to
FFU. What I found interesting was that the amount set by the machine was
more then what the metric amount stated on the packgae was. There must
be such a fear of underfilling, that they actually put in more then they
state.
This person is assuming that
because the package may state 454 g and he knows it to be 1 pound that the
machines that filled it did it in FFU. They may have, but there is no
assurance they did. They may just as well have filled it to a metric
amount as I noted.
I am always glad to hear from people who do not
share the views expressed in the column (and there have been quite a few, I
can tell you.)
Interesting
that he received a lot of pro-metric views. Very Good. I hope
Chris and the UKMA see this as a sign that the people are not so attached to
FFU as the BWMA and their phony polls show.
Euric
Best wishes
Philip Johnston.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:09
PM
Subject: your "Metric Meddlers" column
in the Telegraph
Dear Mr. Johnston,
Thank you for your lively response in the
Telegraph concerning the recent UKMA report and
the metric system in the U.K.. Although I am a citizen of that country
which remains "the exception," I am an avid supporter of the adoption of
metric as the official, and everyday, standard of measurement for
use in the United States.
I value uniformity and modernity in
measurement, not as "twin gods", but as twin pillars of
thought. These qualities have advanced our respective societies towards
better health and greater convenience. Measurement is a form
of science, and should be available to our people as a precision
tool instead of a cavedweller's twig. That the whole world will soon
complete the adoption of this precision tool is a victory, and not
a failure, for human sensitivity. I hope you will consider joining such
an effort.
Sincerely,
Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
3609 Caldera Blvd., Apt.
122
Midland TX 79707-2872 USA
+1
432-694-6208
