Paul, you have identified a critical area of discontinuity where the medical
industry uses the SI for medicine and people use English units to describe
their weight. (mass).
This is an area needs to be resolved now. It would help people to understand
metric and reduce their fear of it when they give their dimensions (height and
weight) in SI. This would be a major advance in adopting the SI.
Clothing sizes is where the SI needs to be adopted soon since it can relate to
accuracy and safety in medical practice. SI clothing sizes also would help
people to relate the metre and the mm in many other aspects of life.
Regards, Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Trusten
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:59 AM
Subject: [USMA:38693] Re: Is U.S. metrication still considered "extreme?"
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
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]
--
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]
