I see what you are saying, but I would not agree that the use of two languages is the same as having two sets of numbers on a label. In your example much space is taken up. But with a dual set of numbers only a small space is used and there is usally sufficient space for both numbers without adding confusion.
Consider what you wrote compared to a label that states 2 L - 67.6 fl oz on a soda bottle. Yes, the extra 67.6 fl oz takes up some space but it really doesn't appear confusing. I can and usually do ignore the 67.6 fl oz and so does everyone else. Jerry ________________________________ From: Martin Vlietstra <vliets...@btinternet.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: Uri Gat <uri...@att.net>; Bill Brenner <bbren...@nibs.org>; John Benedict <jbeat...@aol.com>; Bruce Barrow <bbarr...@verizon.net>; Scott Orthey ASTM <sort...@astm.org> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:13:23 PM Subject: [USMA:43208] Re: EIA and SI Jerry, During the Apartheid era there were two official languages Ferry, Tydens the Apartheiddae was daar twee amplelike taale in in South Africa – English and Afrikaans. It was a legal requirement Suid Afrika – Engels en Afrikaans. Volgens die wet, moet die that both has to be treated equally, so the “small print” on the back verhandelling van allerby dieselvde wees, dus moes die “klein druk” of order forms appeared in both languages. Until some time in op die agterkand van bestellforms in allerby tale verskyn. Tot die the 1960’s it was common in South Africa for such alternate midde van the 1960’s was dit algemeen in Suid Afrika dat lines of print to be in English and Afrikaans, such as I have used here. afwisselende reels in Engels en Afrikaans gedruk word, soos ek hier gebruik het. This passage is an example of why the salesmen like giving a surplus of information – it can confuse the readership. If you could read the abover passage easily, fine – if you had trouble, then it is best to have a single system of measurement. Since sticking with the Imperial system is not an option, it is up to Government to take the lead to ensure a clean switch-over. ________________________________ From:owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate..edu] On Behalf Of Jeremiah MacGregor Sent: 21 February 2009 16:34 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: Uri Gat; Bill Brenner; John Benedict; Bruce Barrow; Scott Orthey ASTM Subject: [USMA:43145] Re: EIA and SI I agree with you. What harm is there in including metric units to the existing English units? This way those who prefer metric units could view them and ignore the English units. But possibly this is exactly what they don't want. They want everyone to be on the same page and use English units and for the obvious reason that English units create the necessary degree of confusion. If they included metric units and it gave the impression that the metric units made the understanding simpler then people might start to ignore the English units. Something obviously they don't want. Even with out them providing metric units, anyone who visits the site can easily convert the numbers for themselves and ignore the originals. This reminds me of the suggestion I had some years ago that our company's literature should contain both English and metric units. The idea was quickly shot down simply because there was a fear that a customer may contact someone in the company (sales or service) and actually refer to the metric values and catch the coworker off guard. The coworker may suddenly appear to be ignorant simply because he or she could not communicate intelligently with a customer in metric units. Of course this doesn't stop a customer from ignoring the published information in English units only and posing questions or comments using metric units. But by not publishing metric data is sort of a hint that this (and I'm sure others that have the same policy) company works only in English units. For the same reason, we don't publish any information in foreign languages. Jerry ________________________________ From:Stan Jakuba <jak...@snet.net> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: Uri Gat <uri...@att.net>; Bill Brenner <bbren...@nibs.org>; John Benedict <jbeat...@aol.com>; Bruce Barrow <bbarr...@verizon.net>; Scott Orthey ASTM <sort...@astm.org> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:03:42 AM Subject: [USMA:43082] EIA and SI Below is the answer from EIA received after my repeated follow-ups. It seems to me that it took the respondent substantionally longer to compose his bureaucratic reply than it would take a programmer to add a column of numbers (a simple multiplication by a conversion factor). I have experienced this attitude with some fed employees - no end to talking about why something cannot or should not be done, but not thinking how it could be done. I do not see his answering: "Would you or your designee be kind enough and respond to the USMA forum telling us what would EIA have to do that would enable the SI values inclusion, and what is preventing EIA from doing it." Mr. Boumazian is obviously not the person to step out of the box. Any ideas? There were pro-metric people at the Dept. of Energy I used to know but they must all be retired by now and in any case would not be in a position of influence. Stan Jakuba ----- Original Message ----- From:Bournazian, Jacob To:Stan Jakuba Sent:09 Feb 18, Wednesday 12:11 Subject:RE: SI units Dear Mr. Jakuba, You sent an email correspondence seeking a response on your recommendation that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) report energy statistics using the International System of Units (SI) along with the existing energy statistics that our agency releases. EIA provides metric conversion information to users on its website for various fuel groups. The links shown below are a few examples: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/charts.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/states/sep_fuel/notes/pr_metric.pdf http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec13_12.pdf http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec13_b.pdf http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html With over 2.5 million visits per month, there is low demand for metric information from the data users of EIA’s website. Aside from the United States Metrics Association (USMA), there appears to be little interest in the Congress, energy industry, and the general public to see energy statistics released in the International System of Units (SI). The mission of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is to provide policy-neutral data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. Reporting information in units of measurement that energy markets base their economic decisions upon is important to promoting public understanding regarding energy. For example, over 160,000 gasoline stations sell fuel by the gallon in the United States , and every trading center from NYMEX to the Chicago Board of Trade uses the gallon as the unit of measurement for clearing futures and spot contracts for refined petroleum products. So it makes sense for EIA to report petroleum statistics in terms of gallons instead of liters to promote public understanding in this market. Does it make sense for ABC Evening News to announce that this week the EIA reported that the U.S. average price for regular grade gasoline rose to over 52 cents per liter when the general public is purchasing gasoline at $2.00 per gallon at their local station? Similar results apply to other energy markets. Releasing information in SI should not be a stand alone goal but must fit in the broader mission of providing energy information that promotes sound public policy making by Congress and understanding by the public. As a statistical agency, EIA reports information about the supply and demand conditions in energy markets and does not attempt to change the rules on which markets function. EIA releases all of its information to the public through its website. It does not disseminate information through hardcopy publications. All the web pages are reviewed to release as much useful information to users as possible without compromising on navigation and other web architecture guidelines. There is no available room on all of the web pages to split the page in half and show the same information in SI. For users that are seeking a fast download of historical data for analysis or as inputs to models, the SI data would slow data users down. EIA general business practice is to publish statistics with only one or two places to the right of the decimal point. I don’t understand your comment: “I pointed out that, presently, the columns have plenty of white space in many pages meaning that the additional, SI columns would not require more paper. Can one ask for less? This was aside form the fact that the EIA numbers often have far too many digits indicating a superfluous precision.” The magnitude of the units of measurement for EIA’s statistics appear to be at a level of detail that satisfies overall customer demand based on annual customer satisfaction surveys. Another consideration is that the respondents to energy surveys do not keep their books and records according to SI. EIA collects information that reflects the record keeping practices of the respondents in order to minimize burden to satisfy requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. EIA operates over 70 surveys. Changes in the data processing systems for energy systems cost millions of dollars. The low demand for energy data shown in SI does not justify the enormous resource expenditure and increased reporting burden to industry that would be required to implement your suggestion.. Releasing information in SI is not just a simple step of making an adjustment to a publication file. There are other important considerations when calculating weighted prices or weighted cost information. The changes to the edit checks and imputation systems must be made first and that is where the most expense occurs in making the programming changes. What happens when a company’s reported values fail an edit check based on SI units and a data technician calls the company contact person to validate the reported value based on a different unit of measurement? Data collection and processing costs would also obviously increase. Once energy markets start using SI for the supply and consumption of energy, then EIA will be in a better position to collect and release information based in SI. A good example is hydrogen. The unit of measurement currently being used for measuring hydrogen production and consumption seems to be the kilogram so this could be an emerging energy market where EIA would collect and release information based on SI. Until similar changes occur in other energy markets, it is cost effective for meeting the public’s need for energy statistics by releasing the information in the units of measurement used by the market place and providing conversion tables and calculators on EIA’s website for those users that are interested in the equivalent metric measurements. Jacob Bournazian Energy Information Administration US Dept of Energy 1000 Independence Ave SW, EI-70 Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-5562 ________________________________ From:Stan Jakuba [mailto:jak...@snet.net] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 4:06 PM To: Bournazian, Jacob Subject: SI units Dear Mr. Bournazian: I am disappointed for not receiving a response to the letter copied below. Perhaps you sent a reply; it has not reached me. I will appreciate your acknowledgement of this letter. With the kindest regards, Stan Jakuba Dear Mr. Bournazian: A few weeks ago, I copied you on a letter which was written in response to your reasoning against EIA "going metric." In my letter I mentioned the repeated requests sent to EIA for the inclusion of SI units and numbers. I am copying the relevant passage here: ".... some of our requests were not for EIA to change to metric, only to add columns to the key data that would show those values also in SI. I pointed out that, presently, the columns have plenty of white space in many pages meaning that the additional, SI columns would not require more paper. Can one ask for less? This was aside form the fact that the EIA numbers often have far too many digits indicating a superfluous precision. Fixing that - printing only significant digits - would add more white space yet." Would you or your designee be kind enough and respond to the USMA forum telling us what would EIA have to do that would enable the SI values inclusion, and what is preventing EIA from doing it. Sincerely, Stan Jakuba
