Re: Bq soon

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

I agree that if there's a compelling economic reason to switch, such as loss of

competitiveness, then we should and will.  In this case, we don't need

regulators telling us to do this.  I also agree that such changes should be

evolutionary, not "cold turkey."  Unfortunately you are also probably right

regarding widespread American "innumeracy."



I believe that where there are economic reasons for switching, we either already

have switched, or are well along, eg., soft drink marketing and automobile

parts.



In short, when it's appropriate to switch, we will.  However, where there's no

compelling reason, let the process take its course.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com



"Faillace, Ernie" wrote:



> It seems to me that one could review the collective experience of other

> nations in having undergone the switch years (decades?) ago from "standard"

> to SI units.  How many errors were incurred during that transition period,

> say in Europe, for example?  Of course, if the error rate was reasonably low

> in Europe during the transition, one could possibly still argue that the

> average European is much better (including the non-PhDs) at converting units

> since he or she had been used to multiple currency conversions for years

> until the advent of the Euro, and would generally be better at arithmetic

> than the average American, according to most surveys of math and science

> aptitude among students of different countries.

>

> As an Italian residing in the US, I have had no major problems with unit

> conversions myself, easily going back and forth among both systems.  I tend

> to agree with Mike Stabin that the long term benefits are likely greater

> than the short term "pain".  One incident that comes to light is a certain

> US space mission that failed (and was very costly) due to the insistence by

> some engineers (including PhDs) on still using old "British" units rather

> than SI units. Of course, the Brits have abandoned such impractical units

> for quite some time now.  The key is to start in the schools at an early

> age, and begin the curriculum by first introducing international units,

> followed by a conversion to the "old" units so that children can communicate

> with their parents.  Since children nowadays frequently chat with

> international "pen" pals over the internet, and these pals use SI units in

> their day to day live, such a transition will be much less traumatic than

> you may imagine, especially since children are quite flexible at an early

> age.

>

> I imagine living in a military and economic superpower also has the effect

> of reducing the pressure to change based on outside influences, but I would

> imagine that most companies in the US would rather employ consistent units

> for their global products, since standardization results in economic savings

> and better communication of quantities to a global audience.  Certainly, the

> 2 liter bottle (and the 1 and 3 liter bottles) are prime examples that such

> a switch is possible without significant protests, especially among the

> young.  Global companies such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola can certainly see the

> value in standardization of their products.  Even though they still maintain

> some local flavor, I imagine they would be in favor of a more uniform

> product and packaging if they could have that choice.  I can't see

> radiological unit standardization as being significantly different (from a

> philosophical perspective, anyway).

>

> On the other hand, insistence on US units may result indirectly in

> protectionism in the US for those companies that fear international

> competition.  If international companies (including those that market rad

> instruments and nuclear medicine) have to go through the hassle of

> converting to US units (e.g., for gauges or labels) to market their

> products, they pay a penalty that makes them less competitive in the US

> relative to domestic US companies.

>

> Since, as a consumer, I feel that competition is healthy, this is another

> good reason for moving towards consistent units.  I have found that in the

> US people tend to be more "bottom-line" oriented than people in many other

> countries.  So if a good cost-benefit analysis is done that shows both

> long-term and short-term economic impacts (including the impact of errors

> either way), then affected business groups will lobby the applicable

> government agencies to either make the necessary changes or maintain the

> status quo.  The decision will likely hinge on whether the companies doing

> such lobbying are almost entirely US-focused or if they are true

> multinational or global companies, and how much money they pour into the

> lobbying effort.

>

> Once us "old farts" start to fade away, and the younger generations take

> over, we'll likely see them questioning us why it took so long to switch

> over.  Again, you have to start somewhere logical to effect the turnover,

> and the best targets are those who have not yet been set in "our" ways.  I

> would like to hear from our Canadian colleagues regarding the example of the

> gasoline stations posted by Bill Lipton.  During the switch from British to

> SI units (gallons to liters), what kind of resistance was encountered there?

> Did the schools have an early role in making this transition more palatable

> to the population?  Was a more socialistic orientation of the Canadian (and

> European) public, relative to a somewhat more individualistic US public, to

> some degree responsible for getting the population in the proper mindset?

>

> __________________________

> Ernesto Faillace, Eng.D, CHP

> Nuclear Engineer/Health Physicist

> TETRA TECH NUS, Inc.

> 900 Trail Ridge Drive

> Aiken, SC 29803

> Telephone: (803) 649-7963

> FAX: (803) 642-8454

> faillacee@ttnus.com

> http://www.ttnus.com/

> http://www.tetratech.com/

>

> NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY

> This e-mail message and its attachments (if any) are intended solely for the

> use of the addressees hereof.  In addition, this message and the attachments

> (if any) may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt

> from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient

> of this message, you are prohibited from reading, disclosing, reproducing,

> distributing, disseminating or otherwise using this transmission.  Delivery

> of this message to any person other than the intended recipient is not

> intended to waive any right or privilege.  If you have received this message

> in error, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately

> delete this message from your system.

>

>