I agree either 182 cm or 1.82 m is equally valid. The 1.82 m form has the advantage that it is directly usable in BMI calculation: 71 kg/(1.82 m)² = 21.4 kg/m² (he's pretty skinny).
Some would argue centimeters should be discouraged (I don't particularly agree). For a human height, I would prefer either to 1820 mm, but I would use 1820 (without units) on an engineering drawing. ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, February 2, 2013 6:06:29 PM Subject: [USMA:52302] Re: The Metric System, the United States of America, and Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed With no link to the article, I cannot determine in what context the opening statement was made. But saying either 1.82 m or 182 cm is equally valid. In both cases, it can be verbally expressed as ‘one-eighty-two’. I don’t see a problem. John F-L From: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 10:55 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:52301] Re: The Metric System, the United States of America, and Scientific Literacy | Sci-Ed The article starts off with: "Here’s a quick quiz: I weigh 71 kilograms, and am about 1.82 meters tall" I think the common way of measuring human height is, for example, 182 cm, but not as the example given in the article. I think the person writing the article should have done a little more research before getting off on the wrong foot. David Pearl MetricPioneer.com 503-428-4917 > Very timely and the writer works at the Smithsonian! Great comics > >http://blogs.plos.org/scied/2013/01/28/the-metric-system-united-states-of-america-and-scientific-literacy/ >/ > > > Sent from my iPad > > No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6072 - Release Date: 01/31/13
