Yes, you could automate the measurement, but humans aren't precise enough for 1 mm resolution. Most people are slightly taller in the morning when they get up that they are by the end of the day; 1 cm resolution is appropriate, more is "decimal dust."
--- On Thu, 7/30/09, STANLEY DOORE <stan.do...@verizon.net> wrote: From: STANLEY DOORE <stan.do...@verizon.net> Subject: [USMA:45457] Re: Fw: default units for height To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 8:17 AM If centimeters without a decimal point is the only unit for height, I would have no objection. If that half-inch precision is all that's needed, then OK. If added precision is needed then millimeters is far better. Decimal points should not be used in any case. Automated measurement technology can provide the added precision automatically without rounding to the nearest centimeter. Stan Doore ----- Original Message ----- From: John M. Steele To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:45 AM Subject: [USMA:45456] Re: Fw: default units for height I'm not sure whether centimeters or meters is my first choice, but millimeters for human height is my third. Since Americans aren't very metric, maybe we should look at prevailing practive in "real" metric countries, not introduce further minor difference. In Europe and South America, the centimetre is commonly used for height and other human dimensions used for clothing sizes. I'm 194 cm, which could be written as 1.94 m or 1940 mm. Counting the space and unit, these occupy 6, 6, and 7 character positions. The first two correctly specify their precision. The third with its insignificant but required zero raise uncertainty about the precision of the number. (I'm strongly opposed to "naked numbers" without units attached.) Obviously humans aren't packaged for sale, but our packaging laws require the "rule of 1000" (elsewhere, it is only a "guideline.") An object sold by length must be marked in millimeters if <=999 mm, and in meters if >=1.00 m, only 3 digits may be used. While not strictly applicable to human height, dual-labeled packaging is the only metric many Americans have been exposed to so far. The rule makes reasonable sense, and if we ever get the US to metricate, we'll have plenty of "Americans using metric badly." Why add to it? Note: As an engineer, I am well aware of the practice of using millimeters only on drawings (to at least 99999 mm, I've never looked at drawings for bigger things), and have over 30 years experience doing so. Relatively few Americans really use engineering drawings, and those few can be taught the exception. In my opinion, this practice has no bearing on the correct unit to specify human height. Take your pick of centimeters or meters, but millimeters should not be used for children >999 mm. --- On Thu, 7/30/09, STANLEY DOORE <stan.do...@verizon.net> wrote: From: STANLEY DOORE <stan.do...@verizon.net> Subject: [USMA:45454] Re: Fw: default units for height To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 6:35 AM Millimeters rather than centimeters or meters should be used for the default for height. Millimeters has a number of advantages even though millimeters it may imply more precision. Use of millimeters only for height avoids complexity and confusion. Meters and centimeters require a decimal point or four printing/writing positions which millimeters would take anyway. So, there is no advantage in using either meters or centimeters. The use of meters and centimeters only adds to the confusion with a mixture of units (m. cm, mm) whereas the use of millimeters only does not. Stan Doore ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Potts To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:51 PM Subject: [USMA:45453] Re: Fw: default units for height Robert: I prefer to give my height in meters. It's consistent with the quasi-informal "rule of 1000" and with the BMI formula (m/h²). The trouble with millimeters, in this case, is that they tend to imply a degree of precision that is neither present nor required. For engineering and construction (cf. the Australian example), millimeters are fine. Drawings needn't show any units for linear dimensions. Bill Bill Potts WFP Consulting Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On Behalf Of Robert H. Bushnell Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:09 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: usma@colostate.edu Subject: [USMA:45452] Re: Fw: default units for height It is good of you to promote metric height numbers. However, I do not like centimeter. I want schools to stop teaching and using centimeter. I also want schools to stop teaching inch-pound numbers. So, I want height to be in millimeters. The number can be to the nearest 10 millimeters. Body mass index BMI uses height in meters, often shown with two decimal places, that is, to centimeter resolution. I say we should get used to millimeter height and make it a habit to shift to meters for BMI. Thanks for all your good work. Robert Bushnell On Jul 29, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Paul Trusten wrote: Another small victory for the metric system in heathcare! I wote to the author of Global RPh, an extremely useful Web site for pharmacists' drug information. Within its armaementarium are quite a number of calculators for things like body service area, creatinine clearance, and other values. When you first get to each of these calculators, the default measurement units are kilograms for weight, but INCHES for height! This might be dangerous! So, yesterday, I finally broke down and wrote the author, asking him to please change the default for height to centimeters. As you can see, he agreed. ----- Original Message ----- From: D. McAuley, GlobalRPh To: trus...@grandecom.net Sent: 29 July, 2009 06:42 Subject: Re: default units for height Hello Paul, In the past I tried to keep everyone happy.... however, I think its time to have default metric selections. It will probably be some time next week before these changes are made. Thank you for the suggestion.... Dave ----------------------------------------------- David McAuley, Pharm.D., R.Ph. GlobalRPh Inc. ad...@globalrph.com ----------------------------------------------- --- On Mon, 7/27/09, trus...@grandecom.net <trus...@grandecom.net> wrote: From: trus...@grandecom.net <trus...@grandecom.net> Subject: default units for height To: webmas...@globalrph.com Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 6:38 PM Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (trus...@grandecom.net) on Monday, July 27, 2009 at 20:38:10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- subject1: Globalrph form MessageType: Suggestion comments: On your calculators, please consider setting your Web sites default units for patient height to centimeters instead of inches. Your default units for weight are in kilograms. Only metric units should be used for patient parameters. name: Paul Trusten, R.Ph. verifyemail: trus...@grandecom.net Telephone: (432)528-7714 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REMOTE_ADDR: 12.154.32.242 HTTP_USER_AGENT: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2)
