There might be some, but I really haven't seen any anti-Brit feelings. However, there are a lot of anti-BP feelings.
There is frustration we are not getting straight answers. The leak has grown fromm 1000 barrels per day to a rough estimate by the independent task force of 19000 -42000 barrels per day. Much of their formal, written reaction plan is obsolete and incorrect "boilerplate." Many of their reaction steps have been slow and ineffective. And there is growing evidence of numerous safety problems being ignored. There has been similar frustration with Toyota in another field, but that doesn't carry over to Honda or the rest of Japan. I think the same is true with the anti-BP feelings. ________________________________ From: Stephen Humphreys <barkatf...@hotmail.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 1:40:37 PM Subject: [USMA:47650] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI I was of the understanding that 'barrels' was an international thing used only by the oil companies. Interesting that this international company has stirred up a bit of anti-brit feeling in the US (not on this list though) where BP is truly an international company like Ford. ________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:26:35 -0700 From: jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net Subject: [USMA:47641] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI To: usma@colostate.edu I hope that is a joke, as I KNOW you understand precision and sensible rounding. However, we have some "decimal dusters" who might not get it. The 1000 m is of course one of "those" numbers where you ask how many of those digits are significant. Given a vertical plume, and general lack of precision in measurements at sea, I'm guessing 1 or 2, although clearly it is a guess. However, I do wonder why British Petroleum measures the leak in American "barrels." Do they think they are aidding or hindering understanding? Given the range, that figure has no significant figures and the order of magnitude seems debatable. ________________________________ From: "mech...@illinois.edu" <mech...@illinois.edu> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thu, June 10, 2010 11:00:56 AM Subject: [USMA:47640] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI Pat, In my local newspaper I read that an oil plume was located at a depth of "3 300 feet" which was probably reported at 1 000 meters. i.e. 3 300 x 0.3048 = 1 005.84 meters. Note the discrepancy of 5.84 meters between the value reported and the numbed down value disseminated by the Associated Press. Shame on the AP distortion! Gene, Censor of Deviations from SI ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:29:29 +1000 >From: Pat Naughtin <pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com> >Subject: [USMA:47625] Re: Oil Spill Technical Team Using SI >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu> > > Dear Gene, > You might be interested in this article in our local > newspaper, 'The > Age': >http://www.theage.com.au/world/experts-at-loggerheads-over-oil-leak-rate-20100608-xtlj.html > > Since each of the sources has their own > 'down-dumber' I don't suppose we can have any > confidence whether the original data (kilograms, > litres, cubic metres, metres per minute, metres per > hour, gallons UK, gallons USA, feet per minute, etc, > ) is being reported reliable given the possibility > of multiple conversion errors. > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin >... ________________________________ Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.
