Yes, John. My objection is the dumbed-down unit used by the AP ("foot"), not
the excess precision of the estimated depth.
I see that I previously wrote "numbed down" which my spell checker did not
reject, but "numbed down" also applies.
Gene.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "John M. Steele" <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [USMA:47640] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI
>To: [email protected], "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
>
> I hope that is a joke, as I KNOW you understand
> precision and sensible rounding.
> However, we have some "decimal dusters" who might
> not get it.
>
> The 1000 m is of course one of "those" numbers where
> you ask how many of those digits are significant.
> Given a vertical plume, and general lack of
> precision in measurements at sea, I'm guessing 1 or
> 2, although clearly it is a guess.
>
> However, I do wonder why British Petroleum measures
> the leak in American "barrels." Do they think they
> are aidding or hindering understanding? Given the
> range, that figure has no significant figures and
> the order of magnitude seems debatable.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 11:00:56 AM
> Subject: [USMA:47640] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team
> Using SI
>
> Pat,
>
> In my local newspaper I read that an oil plume was
> located at a depth of "3 300 feet" which was
> probably reported at 1 000 meters. i.e. 3 300 x
> 0.3048 = 1 005.84 meters. Note the discrepancy of
> 5.84 meters between the value reported and the
> numbed down value disseminated by the Associated
> Press.
>
> Shame on the AP distortion!
>
> Gene,
> Censor of Deviations from SI
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:29:29 +1000
> >From: Pat Naughtin
> <[email protected]>
> >Subject: [USMA:47625] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team
> Using SI
> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> >
> > Dear Gene,
> > You might be interested in this article in our
> local
> > newspaper, 'The
> > Age':
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/world/experts-at-loggerheads-over-oil-leak-rate-20100608-xtlj.html
> > Since each of the sources has their own
> > 'down-dumber' I don't suppose we can have any
> > confidence whether the original data (kilograms,
> > litres, cubic metres, metres per minute, metres
> per
> > hour, gallons UK, gallons USA, feet per minute,
> etc,
> > ) is being reported reliable given the
> possibility
> > of multiple conversion errors.
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pat Naughtin
> >...
