Stan et al,
In healthcare, the height is centimeters is always an integer. There's no
need to measure a person's height to the nearest millimeter. Picture yourself
standing on a scale and having the nurse raise or lower the metal marker to the
top of your head. The nearest centimeter is sufficient.
However, I would like to see an America in which our people are able to change
units upon inspection, i.e., one should be able to look at 173 cm and see 1.73
m without picking up a pencil. One good reason for that is that calculating
body mass index requires the height to be in meters.
On this list, we often talk about which set of units to use; I would like to
see metric education teach Americans much greater proficiency in decimal mental
arithmetic. Now, that something that should become as American as a Big Mac (a
bit more modern than apple pie, I guess). We think decimally with currency
already; I don't think too many people in the U.S. would look at the value
$0.25 and say, "point two five dollars." We should think about measurement the
same way.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: STANLEY DOORE
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: 30 July, 2009 07:17
Subject: [USMA:45457] Re: Fw: default units for height
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)
