Stan,
From my impressions of it, medicine is a fairly conservative field, and for
a good reason. Since it deals with the health of a human being, there isn't too much room for experimentation, and thus safety is of paramount importance. But precisely for that reason, medical professionals should start communicating with the public in using SI. Whether it's confusing pounds and kilograms or inches and centimeters, the safest thing would be to have one agreed measurement system. And since internally medicine is primarily metric, the choice of the measuring system is obvious.
One particular area where it would be extremely easy is with body temperature. It's a number that really exists in isolation--no one relates it to outdoor temperature or anything else for that matter. Weight and height are another issue, much more difficult to convince the general public to adopt, but in the name of reducing medical errors, it could be done. Ultimately, it is incumbent on the medical profession to move forward with taking metric to the patient. Remek On 5/15/07, STANLEY DOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> *Cc:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> *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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[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.-EUbusiness 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)[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)[EMAIL PROTECTED]
