Thank you, I found the pesky typos (it was one article) They plead "poverty" on special symbols (it's 2011. I don't understand why they don't have the extended ascii set available, but they claim they don't). Therefore I wasn't really too bothered by the lack of a mid-dot in kW·h or the lack of a degree symbol in temperatures. Per SP811, section 6.1.5, note 2, the space may be omitted from kW h per ISO31-0, or other cases where it does not lead to ambiguity, although SP811 recommends the dot or space always be used. I don't think AP would use "kW h" and can't use "kW·h." I decided "kWh" was good enough although others can recommend they use "kW h" if they wish.
I omitted the becquerel because the AP article does not list the curie. I am hoping they will use SP 330 as a reference and I don't have to explain the entire SI to them. I am focusing on what I consider their significant mistakes that they have the ability to correct. I'm not sure (but I have VERY little experience in measuring ionizing radiation) that measuring the radiation in becquerels is entirely (or reasonable) equivalent as it ignores the amount of energy per particle (and for gamma and x-rays, the probability that the particle will actually be absorbed). The energy that would be absorbed can be measured in grays by introduction of a suitable sensor, and if the radiation is characterized, the "damage points" in sieverts can be calculated. (Anyway, we would need Jim to write a better paragraph as I don't consider myself competent on measurement of ionizing radiation.) ________________________________ From: Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, May 5, 2011 9:25:01 AM Subject: [USMA:50431] RE: AP Styleguide 2009 A few typos in the letter: The symbol for kilowatt hour is kW·h, not kWh. The word "degree" is misspelled as "dgree". "The articles states" is ungrammatical. One of the s's is extra. Also, the section about radiation units should mention the becquerel. I heard a story about Fukushima this morning on NPR, and the reporter seemed to confuse radioactive matter with radiation. I've heard statements such as "there are so many sieverts of radiation in the air", which doesn't make sense - there's nothing to measure in sieverts unless there's a biological body absorbing the radiation. Radiation can be measured in becquerels per square meter, or an amount of radioactive matter can be measured in becquerels. Pierre -- lo ponse be lo mruli po'o cu ga'ezga roda lo ka dinko
