Eugene,
Your puzzlement concerning why the NIST doesn't do in your opinion take
certain actions is in itself as one would expect when the know the NIST's
true feelings on SI. The NIST is not as pro-metric as you may think it is.
You may recall the NIST director Patrick D Gallagher's response to a metric
petition that received close to 50 000 signatures:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/supporting-american-choices-measurement
Not exactly a response one would expect from a director of a national
standards organisation. But the proof is in the pudding.
You may wish to read further the truth about the NIST in the blog from
Metric Maven.
http://themetricmaven.com/?p=3776
Here is an excerpt, but you should read the whole thing.
The lack of standardization in the US can and has cost lives. The acronym
NIST stands for The National Institute of Standards and Technology. A year
ago on May 24th 2013 (2013-05-24), on the Friday before Memorial Day
weekend, a time when bureaucrats know that news media is generally not
paying attention, the Director of NIST, Patrick D. Gallagher, penned a
response to a citizens petition requesting that the metric system be adopted
as the sole measurement system in the US. His response can be succinctly
stated as he supports a “do your own thing” approach to standardization.
Standardization is just too confining of a concept for a standards institute
to embrace apparently. The title of his response, in case readers have
forgotten, is Supporting American Choices on Measurement. It is well known
to metric advocates that 95% of the world’s population uses the metric
system. It would appear from just a cursory inspection of this fact, that
one could, with reasonable certainty, state that the metric system is
probably the most successful standard in the history of humanity. The
director of the US government body which is tasked with standards, cannot
even agree with a petition that the metric system should be the standard of
the US?
When one is confronted with Dr. Gallagher’s assertion that the best standard
is a lack of standards, and I remind you he is the director of the standards
body of the US, one’s mind can only interpret the strange dark and
contradictory humor of this apparently willful cognitive dissonance in but
one way—–by resorting to a Monty Python Metaphor. One of the most famous of
the Python’s sketches is The Cheese Shop.A patron walks into a cheese shop
and requests some cheese. He requests all different manner of cheeses one by
one, red Leicester? Tilsit? Caerphilly? Bel Paese? Red Windsor? Stilton?
Ementhal? Gruyere? Norweigan Jarlsburg?….. These requests continue ad
nausium until finally: Mousebender Well let’s keep it simple, how about
Cheddar? Wensleydale Well, I’m afraid we don’t get much call for it around
these parts. Mousebender No call for it? It’s the single most popular cheese
in the world! Wensleydale Not round these parts, sir.
The exchange continues as the patron continues to request cheese after
cheese until finally he states: Mousebender It’s not much of a cheese shop
really, is it? Wensleydale Finest in the district, sir. Mousebender And what
leads you to that conclusion? Wensleydale Well, it’s so clean. Mousebender
Well, it’s certainly uncontaminated by cheese.
I could see a similar exchange with the Director of NIST acting as a
standards proprietor where one could request mandatory metric industry
standards for fire hose couplers, foot measurement, wire sizes, drill bit
sizes, sheet metal thicknesses, medical weights and heights of humans, over
the counter medical dosages and on and on. Each time the Director would
parrot back “no.” And when one states “it’s not much of a Standards
Institute is it?” this phrase might be met with “finest in the US sir.”
Indeed, NIST appears to be quite clean, and uncontaminated with metric
standards for the US. As in the sketch, the most popular world measurement
standard, which is metric (aka Cheddar) is to be found nowhere as a standard
in the standards shop.
It is hard to take NIST’s assertion that it is a standards institute
seriously when it promotes the notion that a lack of standards is of
exceeding utility to the US, and serves as an illustration of what makes our
nation great. NIST is a Metric Cheese Shop, with no Cheddar, and it is
completely uncontaminated by cheese as far as I can tell. It is sad that a
scientific standards organization has been turned into a worldwide metric
joke. At least the Python players had much better writing, and were actually
funny while making important points. Patrick D. Gallagher’s response last
year was so feckless, it was almost a killer joke to metric advocates. Now
stop me if you’ve heard the one about the 600 choices of hose couplings
available to the Baltimore fire department.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Altounji
Sent: Monday, 2014-06-23 14:16
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:54024] FW: Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5
SI first would be a good step forward. I agree with point 2.
John Altounji
One size does not fit all.
Social promotion ruined Education.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of mechtly, eugene a
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 9:54 AM
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; U.S. Metric Accociation
Subject: [USMA:54022] Legal Metrology Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5
I completed a reading of *Legal Metrology Connection* 5-5, (aka W&M
Connection).and ask the following questions:
1. In view of the *fact*, that three federal laws declare that units of
measurement from the International System of Units (SI) are preferred for
trade and commerce in the Unites State,
NIST has ample authority to *require* that declarations of net amounts
inside packages and containers be expressed In *first place* in Units from
the SI, and only in second place in units from outside the SI, as required
by the current FPLA, even though the NCWM has not yet arrived at this
forward-looking requirement.
2. Why does NIST not promote, if not require, declarations of amount simply
by a number and the SI Unit, with "NET" or "NET CONTENTS" or "NET AMOUNT" as
*optional* modifiers?
Eugene Mechtly
________________________________________
From: Linda Crown [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:11 AM
To: mechtly, eugene a
Subject: Weights and Measures Connection, Volume 5 Issue 5
Dear Readers,
In this edition of the "Weights and Measures Connection," we introduce a new
member of the Office of Weights and Measures team, Mr. Clark Cooney. Some
of you may already know Clark; however, we have provided a brief
introduction for those who do not. There is also guidance on the use of
"Principal Display Panels on Random Packages" and an update on an
educational outreach effort conducted at a nearby middle school.
Please remember to check out the updated "Calendar" to see what OWM is
offering in the training area as well as scheduled meetings.
Online access is available to the newsletter at
http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/pubs/upload/WMConnections.pdf, and for your
convenience an Acrobat (.pdf) copy is attached.
As always, we would be happy to get your feedback and ideas for future
articles.
Happy reading,
Linda
Editor, "Weights and Measures Connection"
[email protected]
(301) 975-3998
