Re: Let's hear it for SI units! NOT!

[Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>]

Sandy Perle wrote:

[snip

> In summary, the cost to what can already be considered as wasteful $$
> (assuming that LNT is not valid), will be increased exponentially,
> simply by converting to new units. Who are we changing for? To
> appease other countries? Obviously, there is little to be gained for
> the average physicist in a hospital or power reactor facility. In
> essence, their lives will be made even more complicated, at the same
> time there will not be one additional ounce of prevention, reduction
> of dose, etc. There is no justification to convert. If the regulatory
> bodies believed there to be a valid reason, the NRC and others could
> have mandated this conversion years ago. They elected not to. They
> are more perceptive to the catastrophe that would befall many
> facilities if this was mandated. Hopefully, they will continue to use
> common sense when it comes to the documentation of dose, so the
> hundreds of thousands of workers won't be left in the dark.

Thank you, Sandy, for expressing my sentiments exactly.  I'm mostly
a lurker on this list because, having been retired now almost 10
years, I'm frankly a little intimidated by the scope of new
knowledge since my retirement.  This list constitutes some of the
best continuing education I've found!  But this SI fiasco hits one
of my hot buttons.  Indeed the prospect of having to deal with this
abomination was one of the (small) factors in my decision to retire
very early.  Consider what a person who desires to be fluent in
science must already contend with - CGS units, MKS units, the
English standard system, if one is interested in historical British,
the Whentworth and a gaggle of others and now for no apparent good
reason, the SI units.  Is this some deep, dark conspiracy between
the academics and the book publishers to enhance consultants' fees
and sell textbooks?  (semi- :-) )

Consider some other impacts.

*	The average radiation worker in a power plant; e.g., a craftsman
who has to work in a controlled area, likely has no idea what an mR
is.  But he knows from his orientation training and experience that
when that little pocket chamber reaches 100 thingamajigs - midscale,
it's time to do something.  Now consider forcing an SI-calibrated
chamber on him.  Now he's told by Management, whom he distrusts
anyway, that 100 thingamajigs no longer apply and now he is
permitted to receive X units of this new system (where X is either
larger or smaller than before, depending on what prefix is applied
to sieverts.)  At the very best, he is confused.  At worst, he
interprets this as a management scheme to secretly nuke him.  Morale
and labor relations suffer and the bottom dwelling personal injury
lawyers are just sitting, waiting to exploit his distrust into yet
another frivolous but expensive lawsuit.  And for what?  Someone's
notion of "convergence"?

*	Consider the cost of all the obsoleted equipment.  Some equipment
can be converted by gluing on new dials but many others can't. 
Pocket chambers surely can't.  Neither can many digital instruments
lacking the ability to receive new firmware.  And many instruments
that COULD receive new dials and faces lack the calibration bite to
accommodate the new units unless some awkward full scale increment
is selected.  Again, for what purpose?

*	Consider the cost of changing tech specs.  Procedures, as Sandy
mentioned, are one cost but I suspect that changing all the Tech
Specs and related documents would cost at least as much.  Just
scouring the multitude of documents for each occurrence of an old
unit would be comparable to fixing a major Y2K-afflicted software
system.

I am also affiliated with the SAE (Society of Automotive
Engineers.)  A few years ago they tried to force the SI-only rule
for publication.  Horsepower was expressed in KW and torque in N*M. 
Gad.  It has pretty much failed.  As a face-saving gesture, they are
now publishing the English units in parenthesis.

Since anyone with a scientific or engineering education and any
experience moves easily between unit systems in the course of daily
work, the decision on SI units should be based on the effects it has
on other non- or semi-technical people (technicians, craftsmen, etc)
and on the costs.  By any measure in these areas, the SI conversion
is a failure and deserves the rejection it has received in the US.

John
-- 
John De Armond
johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
RDS Inc.
Cleveland, TN
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html