>From Marcus: ... >However, if we have prefixes why should we and not >use a one that would be suitable like the M?
Because, as I am trying to say, 99.9% of people in the U.S. will not understand....
>I respectfully disagree, Carl, there clearly is a >MAJOR distinction between a mg and a Mg, one is a >billion times smaller than the other. There should >be no chance for confusion here.
Sigh. Please try to pay attention to what I am actually saying. Marcus, since almost no one in the U.S. has seen Mg as meaning one million grams, they will assume it is the same thing as mg, which they *have* seen. They may have even seen someone write 'milligram' as 'Mg'....
What Carl says is absolutely correct -- most Americans will not understand the difference between "mg" and "Mg."
For that matter, all the time I see products from (supposedly) metric countries that show "ML" where they mean "mL." If those who live in metric countries and (supposedly) have used metric for years cannot get the distinction, expecting Americans new to the metric system to understand it is crazy.
People will continue to use the tonne because it is shorter and easier to remember than "megagram," just like liter is shorter and easier to remember than "cubic decimeter."
We have a tough enough battle in metrication without trying to change human nature while we are at it.
Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
