BBC1 Six o’clock News launches a “stunner”

New research suggests that the principles of the metric system may have been outlined originally in England. The BBC launched this discovery on an unsuspecting British public during the Six o’clock  News on 13 July. Here is the  transcript of the broadcast (obtained by Robin Paice). Continue reading “BBC1 Six o’clock News launches a “stunner””

Using metric – accuracy v precision

A fellow metric supporter who admits to being a little weak on mathematics owned up to not understanding the difference between accuracy and precision when it comes to measurement.

He is probably right in saying that he is not alone and that many people fail to see advantages with metric in this respect.

I offer here two examples in an attempt to clarify the issue, one purely numeric, the other practical involving an everyday example of measurement.

Continue reading “Using metric – accuracy v precision”

UKMA slates EU climb down on metrication

The UK Metric Association has accused the European Commission of “political cowardice” because it has caved in to American and European exporters – supported by the UK Government – and effectively abandoned the objective of a single, rational system of measurement throughout Europe.

The Commission has just published its response to the recent consultation on revising the Units of Measurement Directive. It is a badly written and illogical document, and UKMA has commented on it in the following press release:

The following press release was issued on Wednesday, 27 June:
“Pro-metric group slates EU climb-down
London, 27 June 2007.
The UK Metric Association (UKMA) today accused the European Commission of caving in to pressure from European and American exporters – supported by the UK Government – to be allowed to carry on using imperial and American weights and measures in packaging and product manuals. In its response to the recent consultation the Commission proposes that “supplementary indications” should be allowed indefinitely and that the obligation of the UK to “fix a date” for converting road signs to metric units should be removed.

See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/uni_ms_en.htm

UKMA Chairman, Robin Paice, commented: “This has all the signs of a stitch-up between the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry and the European Commission. The DTI has made it clear that they are implacably opposed to further metrication in the UK, and rather than challenge them, the Commission has bottled out and is proposing to abandon the objective of a single, rational system of measurement used and understood throughout the European Union.”

In its own submission to the Commission*, UKMA had argued that there is a simple solution to the problems allegedly encountered by transatlantic traders in coping with two conflicting labelling regimes (the USA mostly requires dual American/metric units on packages, whereas the EU had intended to require metric-only). All that is needed, said UKMA, is a reciprocal arrangement to accept each other’s labelling for imports and exports. Until such an agreement is reached the EU could unilaterally accept dual-labelling on American imports. Or if that is too difficult, dual labelling could be allowed on all packages and product manuals etc – but not on loose goods priced and weighed out by the trader.

The Commission’s report ignores this last point and attempts to justify its rejection of the mutual recognition argument by suggesting that third countries might complain that it also affected their exports and would be a non-tariff barrier to trade. This argument is clearly disingenuous since it would obviously be possible to devise wording that would accommodate this very minor problem. They thus appear (or pretend) to believe that two systems are cheaper than one.

The Commission has also agreed to support a UK proposal that it should not have to name a date for converting road signs to metric units. Citing both the UKMA cost estimate of £80 million and the Transport Department’s grossly inflated estimate of £800 million, the Commission’s paper comments that imperial road signs have “cultural significance and do not give rise to discomfort which can be considered a major benefit”. They have thus failed completely to understand the benefits of a single system as well as the hidden costs of continuing to muddle through with two systems. They have also ignored UKMA’s argument that the continued existence of imperial road signs is the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of metric measures in the UK in everyday life. “As long as we have miles, yards, feet and inches on the road signs, many people will not adapt to measuring up for curtains and carpets in metres and square metres.”, said Robin Paice.

He added: “Why should the refusal of the Americans to accept the world system condemn the British to endure indefinitely the misery and muddle of incompatible weights and measures in shops and markets. It undermines consumer protection (one of the Commission’s claimed new stated objectives) wastes our children’s education, and just prolongs this “very British mess**.It is a piece of political cowardice.”

ENDS

*This can be seen at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/prepack/unitmeas/depot_anwers/c-non-gov-organis/R205.pdf

** “A very British mess”, with foreword by Lord Howe, is published by the UK Metric Association and can be obtained via UKMA’s website at http://www.ukma.org.uk/books/index.htm

Notes for editors:

(a) The UK Metric Association (UKMA) is an independent, non-party political, single issue pressure group which advocates the full adoption of the international metric system (“Système International” – SI) for all official, trade, legal, contractual and other purposes in the United Kingdom as soon as practicable. UKMA is financed entirely by membership subscriptions and personal donations.

(b) Further extensive background information can be found generally on UKMA’s website at www.ukma.org.uk .

(c) The following are available for interview or comment:

  • Robin Paice (Chairman) on 023 9275 5268 for telephone interviews
  • Roz Denny (Press Officer) on 020 7736 5383 or 0777 039 1581 for interviews in London or by telephone
  • Derek Pollard (Secretary) on 020 83746997 or 01304 375854″

—————————————————————
Further comment:

Despite this deeply depressing cave-in by the Commission, there are perhaps two consolations that can be drawn:

  • The Commission has at least not accepted the demands of the extreme imperialists (the so-called “metric martyrs”) to go back to selling in pounds and ounces, nor is the UK Government supporting this.
  • If these proposals are actually enacted. The EU will effectively cease to have any say in UK weights and measures. It will then be possible to separate the metrication issue from the European issue, and it will be possible to make the case for completing metrication on its merits without having to refute silly arguments about Brussels bureaucrats.

Barrels of oil

The media always report statistics of oil production, reserves etc in “barrels”. But how many people know how big a “barrel” is?* Indeed is it an appropriate unit of measurement to use in the context of world energy policy?

The oil industry used to be dominated by American companies, and as with aviation and computers, American units have largely been adopted as the industry standard.

This might not matter since the only people who trade in oil are industry insiders, and arguably the general public do not need to know how big a “barrel” is. They will understand that if OPEC reduces output by x million barrels per day, that’s a lot of oil, and price rises can therefore be expected. In any case, outside the USA, they will still buy the end product in litres.

Yet although it is not a consumer protection issue, there is a problem. Any departure from the International System of Units should be discouraged, as it results in dual labelling, conversion errors, the need to know two systems when one will suffice – and of course general incomprehension.
More particularly, the “barrel of oil equivalent” is used as a
measure of global energy production and consumption. For this, all energy sources (m3 of gas, tonnes of coal, etc.) are converted by energy content into the equivalent energy available in a barrel of crude oil.

BP produces an annual report of world energy consumption and has just produced this year’s. See www.bp.com/statisticalreview
I notice that they are now using the tonne of oil equivalent alongside, or sometimes in place of the barrel. Whilst this is clearly an improvement, it doesn’t really give you what you’re looking for. If you’re talking about world energy consumption, rather than just oil, then surely joules (or gigajoules – GJ) are the unit they should be working with? I can see some logic in using a quantity of oil to measure reserves, and refinery throughput, but if you’re comparing nuclear and gas, for example, what has oil got to do with it? The joule only gets a mention in the conversion tables – 1 tonne oil equivalent ~= 42 GJ.

*A “barrel” is 42 US gallons (equivalent to approximately 159 litres)

A new definition of the kilogram?

A new method of defining the kilogram is being sought by various teams of scientists around the world. However, it may be some years before a decision emerges. (NB – this will obviously not alter the actual size of the kilogram). This article, contributed by Martin Vlietstra, will be of interest to the more technically minded.

The kilogram is an anomaly in the world of physical constants – its current definition relies on a particular artefact or object – the prototype kilogram that is held by the BIPM on behalf of its “shareholders”, its subscriber governments. Every other physical constant is defined in terms of one or other physical phenomena that can, in principle, be measured in any laboratory in the world. Ever since the retirement of the prototype metre in 1960, scientists have been looking for a means of defining the kilogram by means of a scientific experiment and yet maintaining the accuracy that can be obtained using the prototype kilogram

One of the projects to redefine the kilogram is to define it in terms of a sphere of silicon. Such spheres are currently being produced in the laboratories of the Australian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (ACSIR) – See http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/making-an-exact-difference/2007/06/14/1181414466901.html.

Once the sphere has been manufactured, there are a number of problems associated with defining the kilogram. Firstly, the diameter of the sphere must known to an accuracy of better that one part in 10^8. If the sphere has a mass of exactly one kilogram, its radius will be approximately 93.58 mm, so its diameter needs to be known to better than 1 nm (which is approximately two wavelengths of light). Details of some of the scientific techniques used and the participating laboratories (Australian, Belgian, British and German [in alphabetic order]) can be found at http://www.npl.co.uk/mass/avogadro.html.

In addition to measuring the diameter, the scientists concerned will need to identify which is the more practical – to define the kilogram in terms a specific number of silicon atoms or to define it in terms of the mass of a sphere of specified radius. Part of the experiments currently under way is to decide which of the two techniques give the better results.

This is not the only experiment that is being developed to redefine the kilogram; another is the Watt Balance which is being carried out by the BIPM. (See http://www.bipm.org/en/scientific/elec/watt_balance/ ).

Who will decide which experiment is the better? This will ultimately be decided by the CGPM on the advice of the CIPM and is likely to be some years off.

CGPM = Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures / General Conference on Weights and Measures, a body consisting of representative of the governments that have subscribed to the Convention of the Metre.

CIPM = Comité International des Poids et Mesures /International Committee of Weights and Measures, a body of 18 eminent scientists elected by the CGPM.

“Office rents per sq ft not legal” – says LACORS

Metric Views has received confirmation – from an impeccable authority – of what it has long suspected: that the widespread practice of pricing and advertising office rents “per square foot” is illegal under UK law.

The full story, which has only recently come to light, seems to be as follows. Upon receipt of a complaint from a member of the public about giving business grants “per square foot”, a northern local authority Trading Standards Department initially responded that “services” are not covered by the Price Marking Order (PMO), and as this grant was considered to be a “service”, pricing “per square foot” was legal. It appears that this interpretation was frequently given by other Councils, and it was even supported by Consumer Direct, a national online helpline.

However, this interpretation was challenged by the member of the public, and LACORS (the Local Authority Co-ordinating body for Regulation) was asked to look again at the issue. In August 2004 they issued new guidance which reversed their previous opinion. Specifically, they rejected the previously quoted view that the PMO only applies to the pricing of goods for sale, and that prices “per sq ft” for or a fixed area are legal because they are merely for ‘guidance’.

The opinion is reproduced in full below, but briefly it confirms that Section 8 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 prohibits the use of imperial units “for trade” (as they are not included in the list of permitted units in the relevant Schedule to the Act). Moreover, “use for trade” includes any “transaction involving the rendering of money, where the transaction is by reference to quantity.” The opinion goes on to argue that, since office space, boat moorings, allotments etc must be priced per metre or square metre, it would be obviously sensible for them to be advertised inthe same way.

Trading Standards Departments which hitherto have relied on the earlier interpretation will now have to review their policy, and we can look forward to the gradual disappearance of imperial pricing of shop and office rents, storage space, allotments etc as Trading Standards Departments advise estate agents of the correct legal position.

The full text of the LACORS advice is given below. We have emboldened some of the more significant passages:

————————————————————————————–

Metrication

Advice on the use of imperial units

(Specifically, transactions (sale, rental, lease, grants) relating to floor
space, areas of land, length of boat moorings, length of archiving space,
etc.)

LACORS has received a number of enquiries regarding the use of imperial
units relating to transactions such as:

Sales, rental or lease of floor space (commercial or domestic
property) by reference to floor area
Rental of boat moorings by reference to length
Lease of archiving space by reference to length
Award of development grants by reference to floor area
Rental of allotments by reference to length and/or area of land

LACORS previously issued advice that “it is unlikely that room space is ‘goods’ for the purposes of either the Weights & Measures Act 1985 or the Price Marking Order 1991″. There was, therefore, no recommendation to use only metric units.

The LACORS Metrology Focus Group has revisited the question, and now finds this advice to be out-of-date. The following advice replaces that given
previously.

The legislation

The relevant section of the Weights & Measures Act 1985 reads as follows:

Section 8. Units of measurement, weights and measures lawful for use for
trade.
(1) No person shall-
(a) use for trade any unit of measurement which is not included in Parts I
to V of Schedule 1 to this Act.

It can be clearly seen from Schedule 1 that imperial units including the
foot, square foot etc. may NOT be used for trade, since they do not appear
in Parts I to V of that Schedule.

The definition of ‘use for trade’ is found in Section 7:
7. Meaning of ‘use for trade’.
(1) In this Act ‘use for trade’ means, subject to subsection (3) below, use
in Great Britain in connection with, or with a view to, a transaction
falling within subsection (2) below where-
(a) the transaction is by reference to quantity or is a transaction
for the purposes of which there is made or implied a statement of the
quantity of goods to which the transaction relates, and
(b) the use is for the purpose of the determination or statement of
that quantity.
(2) A transaction falls within this subsection if it is a transaction for-
(a) the transferring or rendering of money or money’s worth in
consideration of money or money’s worth, or
(b) the making of a payment in respect of any toll or duty.

A unit of measurement may, therefore, be deemed to be in ‘use for trade’ if
it is used in connection with a transaction involving the rendering of
money, where the transaction is by reference to quantity.

Since 7(1)(a) can be split into two separate clauses (that is to say ‘the
transaction is by reference to quantity’ or ‘is a transaction for the
purposes of which there is made or implied a statement of the quantity of
goods to which the transaction relates’). In the former case, there is no
requirement for the transaction to involve a quantity of ‘goods’.

Therefore, any reference to quantity, whether voluntary or otherwise, must
be made in metric units.

For clarification, it is also necessary to establish what constitutes a
‘transaction by reference to quantity’. Consider the two examples below:
1. Offices for rent
First floor offices, fully serviced, available now, 3,500 sq ft
£35,000 per annum
2. Offices for rent
First floor offices, fully serviced, £10 per sq ft per annum
3,500 sq ft unit available now

Clearly, the same office space is being offered at the same annual rental
price in each case; however, in example 1, the reference to area may be
considered to be a description – the rental price is a total sum for the
offices as described – and therefore the use of imperial units is
acceptable. In example 2, there is a clear relation between the floor space
and the calculation of the total rental price (“£10 per sq ft”), which
renders it a transaction by reference to quantity and therefore subject to
the requirements of the Weights & Measures Act 1985 requiring the use of
metric units.

When a transaction is by reference to quantity, as described above, this is
a legal requirement; where the quantity forms part of a description only,
metric units should be indicated for the sake of clarity and consistency.

Units of alcohol – rational metric sizes would solve the problem

Today’s TV news carried a leading story that units of alcohol will be appearing on all bottles, cans cartons etc of alcoholic drinks. People were asked in the street what they thought of this move. Several people asked, what’s a unit?

Continue reading “Units of alcohol – rational metric sizes would solve the problem”

Improving Numeracy – Why joined-up government is needed

Yesterday, Gordon Brown stressed the importance of improving numeracy skills when talking to the news media and the CBI. A modern, competitive UK clearly requires a numerate workforce. Numeracy is a life skill that everybody needs whether for managing your bank account, understanding your body weight or retiling the bathroom.

However, focusing just on schools is not enough. A child in Finland, Singapore or New Zealand will learn decimal arithmetic, decimal currency and metric units – and immediately be able to apply them outside the classroom. In Britain, a child’s numeracy skills are hobbled because it is harder for them to use their skills practically. As soon as children leave the classroom they face a hodgepodge of incompatible units: metric units (with which they can calculate) and imperial units (for which they have not been taught calculation skills).  If Mr Brown is serious about numeracy he needs to give British children the same chance as those in most other countries.

Numeracy is vital for everyday life and work, yet British proficiency is quite woeful. The DfES Skills for Life Survey showed that 15 million adults in England failed to achieve the basic level 1 proficiency in numeracy. In the workplace it is mainly applied to measurement or money but a Department of Education study in 2002 showed that one in three adults could not calculate the floor area of a room in either metric or imperial!

When I went to junior school in the mid 1960s we learned arithmetic not just with numbers but with pounds, shillings & pence; yards, feet and inches; stones, pounds & ounces – not forgetting fractions thereof. Some of my worst memories of that period were of doing long division and multiplication using “old money” and “old” imperial units. Working with a hodgepodge of bases including 3, 8, 10, 12, 14 & 20 was complex and confusing. Much time was lost in teaching us unnecessarily complex calculation, delaying the teaching of more interesting topics such as algebra, geometry and data analysis.

The educational benefits of using the metric system have long been recognised. In 1862 the Report from the Select Committee on Weights and Measures stated “Economy of time in education is one of the beneficial results of the Metric system. While the study of English weights and measures is laborious and repulsive to both teacher and pupil, any one can easily master the Metric system. The time which the use of a decimal system would save in education has been stated to be at least a year“. The report went on to unanimously recommend that Britain adopt the metric system.

Roughly 40 years ago my junior school teacher announced that everything would soon “go decimal”. He outlined the basics of decimal currency and metric measurement for us. The decision to adopt the metric system in the UK was announced in Parliament on 24 May 1965 on the merits of its simplicity, modernity and international usage. This was nothing to do with EEC pressure; after all President de Gaulle had vetoed our entry earlier.

Around 1970 we were told that then Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher, was requiring us to change our textbooks and the new ones were all decimal. After improving my maths skills in secondary school, thanks to using metric units and decimal currency, it was hard to use any of it in everyday life. In 1975, when buying food for the first time I was faced again with wretched pounds, ounces and ugly fractions. My metric education was betrayed and I faced the schizophrenic world of easy calculation in metric, but imperial in most practical situations.

Today – 42 years after starting with metric – we have a “very British mess” of metric and imperial. Fuel is sold by the litre (rather than the gallon) but road signs are still based on miles (rather than kilometres); making fuel consumption calculations very difficult. Do you use metric, imperial or simply give up because it is too messy?

As a parent I have now seen how my children fail to apply their calculating skills because it is not “cool” to talk in metric units and they do not really understand imperial. One day my youngest son asked “Dad, how many metres are there in a mile?”. When I told him “1,609” he was very baffled, but would have been equally confused if I had said “well 1,760 yards”. He is not alone, last year Times straw poll yielded answers of 52 to 10,000 for the number of yards in a mile. We have now taught a second generation to calculate in metric units but prevent them from applying it.

Numeracy is not just for abstract manipulation of numbers but is a practical life skill. In almost every case it is applied either using measurement units or money or both. However, most politicians want to do nothing to change. For example, a year ago Alistair Darling rejected a call to modernise our road signs to use metric units. The Government continues to ban the metric units taught for the last 30 years from distance signs and spends millions on new signage using imperial units that have not been taught since the early 1970s. So much for “joined-up” government!

The decimal number system is the foundation of modern numeracy. Most calculations today will be done with a calculator or a spreadsheet; but they both only work with decimal numbers. It is time to acknowledge the important link between decimal numeracy skills and applying them using metric measurement. Parents can help by measuring and weighing their offspring using metres and kilograms. Teachers can help their pupils understand their classroom exercises by giving real examples of metric quantities like a kilometre, a tonne, a hectare, etc without imperial conversion.

If Britain really wants good basic skills in the workplace and the home, urgent and decisive action is needed. Just as “old money” was taken out of circulation in 1971, “old units” must be withdrawn as soon as practicable. It cannot be that difficult – after all Australia and New Zealand managed it in the 1970s. Let’s stop undermining of our children’s numeracy and complete the metric conversion once and for all.

If Gordon Brown really wants better numeracy he needs to look beyond schools and fix our shops, adverts and road signs too. This requires a ‘joined-up’ government approach to measurement; something that has been missing in the UK for four decades.

[Roddy Urquhart]