Re: SI units

[mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Michael P. Grissom)]

Jim's comment actually addresses the crux of the issue as to
why the U.S. did not immediately embrace the SI units (despite
the concentrated efforts of the then NBS, now NIST, staff to
do so).  The U.S. had a much larger stake in the previous
units (rad, rem, Curie) than did ANY other country in the
world.

As an example, it was estimated at one point in the late 1970s
and early 1980s that for the U.S. Navy alone, the costs of
converting instruments and training programs would range from
$100 million to the neighborhood of $1 billion to complete.
In other words, the financial costs were far beyond anyone's
programmed budget!  Believe it or not, money does have an
impact on technical issues.  And economics is why U.S. industry
has been slow to convert to the metric system as well.  However,
heavy industry is changing and metric parts are in the pipeline
so the rest of the world is finally making a difference!  It
will still be awhile before we think km/h vice mph, however!

This is of course my own opinion and does not reflect the U.S.
Navy's or DOE's!
----------

>While I don't disagree with your premise that the SI units make 
>more physical sense, I wonder if your country's conversion 20 years ago 
>would have been quite so easy if you had 109 operating power reactors 
>with tens of thousands of workers who had been throughly and 
>+repeatedly+ trained in "mrem/dpm/microcurie/etc." limits.
>
>I consider this workforce familiarity with the "old" units to far 
>outweigh any "scientific" advantage from wholesale conversion to SI.
>
>Jim Barnes, CHP
>Radiation Safety Officer
>Rocketdyne Division, Rockwell International
>Canoga Park, CA
Michael P. Grissom
mikeg@slac.stanford.edu
Phone:  (415) 926-2346
Fax:    (415) 926-3030