Here are some comments from bloggers on the CMO idea: "Pardon my smugness -- it comes from being raised in a land that uses the metric system. So this idea that's been making the rounds -- expressing energy content in "cubic miles of oil" -- don't impress me much. Why not cubic cubits?
Fortunately, someone's done the heavy lifting of criticizing this idea a bit more thoroughly:" "It seems to me that such a nomenclature makes people think of energy in terms of imperial units and in terms of petroleum products." ""Miles" is an appropriate measure since the nation that needs the most education is wedded to them. For global usage, "kilometers" would be better. " http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/22/114946/380 On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:40:43 +0100, "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I have sent this letter to the editor: > > Dear sir, madam, > > I have read the following article: > "Joules, BTUs, Quads-Let's Call the Whole Thing Off > By Harry Goldstein and William Sweet" > Please let the authors of this article know that as a citizen of a > country that uses the metric system - The Netherlands - and as an ardent > supporter and user of metric I totally reject their proposal for the > global adoption of the CMO (Cubic Mile of Oil". > I expect that all metric nations and international standardization > organisations like ISO etc. will reject this proposal within two seconds > after having heard of it. The joule with the appropriate use of > SI-decimal prefixes is the unit of energy. All other units of energy > should be consigned to history and this CMO should be stillborn. > > Yours sincerely, > > Han Maenen, The Netherlands > -- Bernard Rachtmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
