Well put Paul. People by their very nature don't like change of any kind as we can see in other areas. More and more I see metric only included in reporting, particularly in some sports events which are in metric like track and swimming. It's just coming slowly. Your persistence is well-needed. Keep up the good work.
When confronted, use this example of how volume and weight (mass) of water relate and are useful. 1 mm of rain in 1 m^2 = 1 L and has a weight (mass) of 1 kg. Therefore 1000 mm of water in 1 m^2 = 1000 L = 1 kL (cubic metre) = 1 t (metric tonne or 2200 lbs) of water. Some engineers and scientists who use the SI (metric) regularly haven't thought of metric in this practical way. I know because I get some blank stares when I ask them about it, but then they understand quickly when it's explained to them. Regards, Stan Doore ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trusten To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:51 AM Subject: [USMA:38691] Is U.S. metrication still considered "extreme?" Those of us who have worked for U.S. changeover to the metric system have done so under the influence. That is, we have pursued it under the influence of logic, and the desire for efficiency in our working and intellectual lives. Yet, there may be some in the U.S. who believe that this goal is sought only by people who are somehow working as part of a fringe political agenda. For me, it has been a quest based on logic and the desire for efficiency of thought and deed, plus one other thing: after 30 years of having authorities exact new standards of me in my work, I seek to have them also enact an encompassing standard that reflects the notion of standardization itself. Yet, they ignore this one. They continue to tolerate the inconsistency of holding on to the old units in official places. In that sense, they are extreme, and we are not. But, it doesn't play that way politically in the U.S. Across the fruited plain, we metric-system advocates have long been considered "the crazies." To what extent is that changing? I'm not talking about the halls of NIST, IEEE, and my own USMA. We're steeped in it. The American landscape, however, is still in love with the familiar inch-pound units, so much so that metric is habitually and deliberately excluded. The 110-yard quotation in the article about China (mentioned by Jim Frysinger in his letter to Fox News) is a perfect example of this. Yesterday, a radio talk show received the following comment from a caller: "The [members of one U.S. political party] want to bring the European Union into the U.S." The speaker was not referring to the new U.S.-EU business dialogue, and wasn't talking about the metric system. But, he was offering up his belief that closer ties with the EU represent a threat to U.S. national sovereignty. These squeaky wheels get the grease, and as U.S. metrication becomes more apparent---for example, when the FPLA is amended to allow the metric-only option, and we finally do get 2 L bottles of soda that say 2 L and nothing else on the label---somebody will make themselves available to cry "foreign invasion." I want to suggest that, if confronted by this kind of whining, that we redouble our efforts to put U.S. metrication into context with our continuing development as a nation. We must continue to support it as an overdue fundamental advancement of our society, and never seek to portray it as a political weapon or as part of a political doctrine. It will be new for us, but no newer than 100 cents to the dollar. It is measurement, not a manifesto. -- Paul Trusten, R.Ph. Public Relations Director U.S. Metric Association, Inc. www.metric.org 3609 Caldera Blvd., Apt. 122 Midland TX 79707-2872 USA +1(432)528-7724 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
