Dear John,
Congratulations on your great line:
The costs of being non-metric are mostly borne by those who oppose it.
I suspect that I will use this line, or something like it, often in
future!
As you know, I have given this issue some thought in the past, see the
8 page article 'Costs of non-metrication' that applies mostly to non-
metrication in the USA. You can download this article from http://www.metricationmatters.com/docs/CostOfNonMetrication.pdf
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, that you can obtain
from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See http://www.metricationmatters.com
for more metrication information, contact Pat at [email protected]
or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
On 2009/11/10, at 23:24 , John M. Steele wrote:
I won't pretend I understand exactly how our government works. But
we've already been told that before anything (like FPLA amendment)
can go to Congress, it has to be endorsed by the Commerce
Secretary. I assume ALL the management between NIST and the
Secretary has to be supportive and it can be sidetracked at any step.
While NIST can be very helpful to anyone wanting to be more metric,
I think they are relatively ineffective at making anyone be metric
without substantial support in Congress, support that appears to be
totally lacking.
Any company that REALLY wants to be metric can be metric internally,
find metric suppliers, and do a few conversions to successfully
masquerade as "dual" so as to not upset Customary customers. They
have most of the advantage of being metric and little incentive to
"rock the boat." The costs of being non-metric are mostly borne by
those who oppose it. However, that means it is unlikely that
champions will step forth. Without champions, in positions of
power, wholesale metrication won't happen.
--- On Mon, 11/9/09, Edgar Warf <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Edgar Warf <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:46149] Re: Fwd: News Release: Senate Confirms Patrick
Gallagher as 14th NIST Director
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 9:37 PM
John and Brij,
With regard to John's response, this is what I was thinking, but
didn't convey my thoughts very well. Likewise, I wasn't entirely
certain what influence Dr. Gallagher would have in the matter. I
see this as yet another opportunity for the USMA to "bend the ear"
of someone else - not that a government solution (to anything) is
desirable, but it does offer the USMA another venue to voice its
position.
Now, while this may seem piecemeal, the idea of moving metric
(deeper or for the first time) into areas of the U.S. economy
becomes more palatable (as John suggests) to those who are
unfamiliar with its use (and conventions) or to those who have been
forced to use cumbersome USC units in conjunction with SI (dual unit
implementation).
Anything that will "move the needle" further toward SI, as you say,
is a good thing. Think of this as a grassroots movement to change
an entrenched negative perception surrounding SI.
The biggest gain for SI, in the U.S., will come when (voluntary) all-
metric labeling is allowed within the U.S. It'll be a multi-front
effort from both the manufacturing base (who would prefer one set of
units and minimized overhead) and the consumer.
Consumers, confronted daily with all-metric-labeled products, would
rather quickly come to realize the simplicity of SI, while having
the most commonly-used units of measure (mL, L, g, kg) slowly slip
into the American subconscious and vocabulary without any
(perceived) affront to our ingrained cultural preferences. After
all, our nation's roots begin with 13 English colonies.
Even now, my 82-year-old mother can instinctively identify a 500 mL,
1 L, 2 L, and a 3 L bottled product, and do so without any
difficulty. I mention her age to illustrate that she was educated
exclusively in U.S. Customary units. The question becomes, why is
that so?
Answer: Because the PET (and alcoholic) bottling industry
essentially standardized on certain metric volumes that are easily
recognized, so that even the elderly don't have an issue.
This is what I meant by eating the elephant one bite at a time.
Regards,
Edgar
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM, John M. Steele <[email protected]
> wrote:
I don't believe he can push for that, as there have been previous
backlashes supported by Congress, which has passed new laws (the
Federal highway metric debacle, and within Federal building
construction, bricks and lighting fixtures).
We can't expect that and should be careful not to ask for it.
However, we can still make some suggestions that move the needle,
based on metric (supposedly) being our preferred system of measure:
*Any law which specifies or accepts ONLY Customary measure should be
modified to require dual (or permissive metric-only), Customary-
only must never suffice. Examples: Beer, meat, deli, random weight
produce, in terms of labeling. Many other examples exist in other
areas.
*As metric (SI) is the preferred system of measure, permissive
metric-only is ALWAYS an acceptable alternative to dual (but dual is
permitted, thus metric is never required).
*Government agencies must obey EO12770 and accept metric data from
and provide metric data to citizens who have voluntarily converted
to converted to metric. No forcing us to provide Customary weight
and height for driver's licenses, passports, etc, or giving us
Customary-only weather, or Dept, of Energy data.
Voluntary metric could be a LOT more metric than it is now without
being forced. I think the requirement for dual would be enough of a
PITA that going metric would look more attractive. But the
requirement for dual or permissive-metric-only must be UNIVERSAL.
--- On Mon, 11/9/09, Edgar Warf <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Edgar Warf <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:46145] Re: Fwd: News Release: Senate Confirms Patrick
Gallagher as 14th NIST Director
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 6:14 PM
I know the NIST has been supportive of metrication efforts,
especially as it relates to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
(FPLA), but I have to ask the question.
Will Dr. Gallagher push for more consistent and exclusive use of
metrication within certain industries or segments of the U.S.
economy (transportation, freight, consumer products, etc.)? If so,
U.S. metrication efforts may get some needed traction.
After all, how do you eat an elephant (metaphorically speaking)?
One bite at a time.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
NEWS RELEASE FROM THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Friday, November 6,
2009
FOR MORE INFORMATION,
CONTACT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
202-482-4883
SENATE CONFIRMS DR. PATRICK GALLAGHER AS 14TH NIST DIRECTOR
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Senate confirmed Dr. Patrick D. Gallagher by
unanimous consent last evening as the 14th director of the U.S.
Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST). Gallagher has worked at NIST since 1993 as a scientist and
as a laboratory director. He has carried out the functions of the
director in his current position as deputy director since September
2008. President Obama nominated Gallagher, 46, to his new post on
September 10, 2009.
"NIST is a unique agency with a strong culture of world-class
scientific achievement and is critically important to the nation's
ability to innovate and create jobs. Dr. Gallagher is a top-notch
scientist, administrator, and proven leader," U.S. Commerce
Secretary Gary Locke said. "We expect him to continue his capable
stewardship of NIST as we tackle complex problems like cyber
security, developing an interoperable ‘smart’ energy grid,
standardizing electronic health records and advancing the
manufacturing sector."
"I am humbled and honored to serve as the next Director of NIST,"
Gallagher said. "NIST is at an important juncture in its history. We
have a world-class workforce, state-of-the-art research facilities,
and the opportunity to make a real difference helping find
practical, innovative solutions to some of the nation’s toughest
technical challenges."
Gallagher has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Pittsburgh.
He taught high-school math and science for a year after receiving
his B.A. in physics and philosophy from Benedictine College in
Atchison, Kansas.
Gallagher came to the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) in
1993 to pursue research in neutron and X-ray instrumentation, and
accompanying studies of the properties of technologically important
"soft" materials such as polymers, liquids and gels.
In 2000, Gallagher was a NIST agency representative for the White
House National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and became
active in U.S. policy for scientific user facilities. At the Office
of Science and Technology Policy, he served as chair of the
Interagency Working Group on neutron and light source facilities.
In 2006, he was awarded a Department of Commerce Gold Medal, the
department’s highest award, in recognition of this work. In 2004, he
became director of the NCNR, a national user facility for neutron
research that is one of the most heavily used facilities of its type
in the nation.
A native of Albuquerque, N.M., Gallagher lives with his wife and
three sons in Gaithersburg, Md.
Founded in 1901, NIST is a nonregulatory agency of the Commerce
Department that promotes U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards and
technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
quality of life.
# # #
Note: An image of Dr. Gallagher is available at
http://patapsco.nist.gov/imagegallery//details.cfm?imageid=698
