I agree with your opinions below, John. However, in medical practice, the expressions milligrams per deciliter and micrograms per deciliter are well established.
I'm not sure if these can be legally included within the scope of "trade and commerce" of if medical practice is regulated otherwise by the Food and Drug Administration within its jurisdiction and not obliged to deprecate the deciliter. What do you find on this question? Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 05:53:41 -0700 (PDT) >From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:44478] Re: FPLA 2010 >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >No. The liter is a fine "special name" for volumes between 1-999 liters, the >milliliter >and microliter for smaller amounts. I am objecting to the usage of prefixes >greater than >1 with it. Prefixes smaller than one may be used (although centiliter and >deciliter are >not permitted for trade in the US). > > > >Not only does NIST SP811 recommend against prefixes greater than one with the >liter, the >current FTC rules supporting FPLA and current UPLR require the cubic meter for >volumes in >excess of 1 m³, and do not allow the kiloliter. By size, they are quite >specific about >units ("these and no others") > > > >If you push the kiloliter, it is simply a distraction from the attempt to >amend FPLA to >permissive-metric-only; to me, it makes no sense, and I would advocate against >the change, >even at the risk of delaying FPLA amendment. > > > >While I am not advocating it, the SAE (TSB003) does prefer cubic decimeter to >liter and >cubic centimeter to milliliter. It is not strictly necessary to use the liter >at all, >although I think it is a convenient unit "in range." Curiously, FPLA and UPLR >allow cubic >decimeters, but not linear decimeters as units for trade. > >
