That's the key---we are all from Missouri. We need to be shown. I was
shown way back in 1974, when I discovered that adding grams and getting
a mathematical total (just a plain old sum) was a lot easier than having
to change ounces, scruples, and drams to grains, adding up the grains,
then converting the sum back to ounces, scruples, and drams. But, it
proceeds to a matter of life and death. The co-existence of two systems
of measurement in U.S. healthcare poses a continuing threat. When a
medication dose is based upon body mass, it is stated in mg/kg, or g/kg,
or units/kg. Heparin, an anticoagulant, is often dosed in units/kg. If
the patient's weight in pounds is misstated as kilograms (a 120-pound
patient is said to weigh a whopping 120 kg, when he/she actually weighs
only 54 kg), a four-fold overdose, and perhaps death, can result. I've
not yet heard about a case of this happening, but an outbreak such
errors would make the establishment of a metric culture in the U.S. as
vital as it actually is in this instance.
STANLEY DOORE wrote:
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 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <mailto:[email protected]>
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]
--
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]
