Harold, Gallagher has moved on to the U. of Pittsburgh. NIST has a new “Acting Director.”
On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:02 PM, Harold_Potsdamer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
