Well, if they want to get rid of metric, the nutritional calorie (kilocalorie) needs to go too. Of course, the British Thermal Unit has exactly the problems of the calorie (definition depends on the temperature of the water). So I guess they will have to measure food energy in footpounds (the pounds naturally being pounds-force or lbf). I wonder how many people will be comfortable replacing the dietary guideline of 2000 Calories with 6 172 000 ft-lbf. What form would they assume for converting mass of starchy carbohydrate, fiber, protein, and fat to volume (teaspoons). Only fat would seem to have a reasonably accurate conversion. The others only come in natural forms that include considerable moisture (and variation). As a mass, the ounce would certainly be too large a unit; perhaps they would like to measure in grains.
--- On Sat, 3/10/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:51509] FDA Backtracking To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, March 10, 2012, 7:54 AM Oh God, Nooooooooooo....... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204781804577269504168468814.html Bruce E. Arkwright, Jr Erie PA Linux and Metric User and Enforcer I will only invest in nukes that are 150 gigameters away. How much solar energy have you collected today? Id put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we dont have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that. I wish I had a few more years left. -- Thomas Edison♽☯♑
