Comments on: Blood transconfusion http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/ Commentary on the measurement muddle in the UK Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:09:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Tom http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/#comment-13332 Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:50:26 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/#comment-13332 One UK pint is about 568.261485 ml, and One US pint is about 473.176473 ml. Here in the US, 450 ml really does seem just under a pint (~4.9% less). My question is why 450 ml, why not an even half liter for a unit of blood. One UK pint is about 568.261485 ml, and
One US pint is about 473.176473 ml.

Here in the US, 450 ml really does seem just under a pint (~4.9% less). My question is why 450 ml, why not an even half liter for a unit of blood.

]]> by: David http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/#comment-436 Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:57:21 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/#comment-436 I just want to add that I do not want to put off anyone from donating blood. Just that, by incompetent or inaccurate conversions from metric to imperial, the people responsible for taking it might be misleading you about the amount you donate. [Comment has been edited] I just want to add that I do not want to put off anyone from donating blood. Just that, by incompetent or inaccurate conversions from metric to imperial, the people responsible for taking it might be misleading you about the amount you donate. [Comment has been edited]

]]> by: Philip S Hall http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/#comment-303 Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:07:34 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/#comment-303 In answer to a comment made above I would like to make it clear that the article is in no way intended as a criticism of the National Blood Service practices. The NBS are doing a vitally important job and it is essential that healthy people come forward to give blood. A unit of blood is scaled to be completely safe for all volunteers who qualify. The point of the article is about the quality of published information in respect of measurement data and the potential harm that the continued use of an obsolete unit like the pint can do to the campaign for recruiting volunteers. I would also point out that this example is not the only case where measurement information given in NHS literature is being compromised by archaic units in the misguided belief that the public will be better informed as a result. Future articles will be dealing with this matter in other health related areas. In answer to a comment made above I would like to make it clear that the article is in no way intended as a criticism of the National Blood Service practices.

The NBS are doing a vitally important job and it is essential that healthy people come forward to give blood. A unit of blood is scaled to be completely safe for all volunteers who qualify.

The point of the article is about the quality of published information in respect of measurement data and the potential harm that the continued use of an obsolete unit like the pint can do to the campaign for recruiting volunteers.

I would also point out that this example is not the only case where measurement information given in NHS literature is being compromised by archaic units in the misguided belief that the public will be better informed as a result. Future articles will be dealing with this matter in other health related areas.

]]> by: David http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/#comment-294 Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:29:56 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/17/blood-transconfusion/#comment-294 The pint in the UK is defined as 568 ml. So what definition do the National Blood Service use? Or are they just really bad at maths. A change to everything in metric would certainly help here, as saying they take 450 ml (just under a pint) is clearly misleading, if not fraudulent. Probably they do not know what a pint is in this country (perhaps they do not drink beer in pubs at all nor have milk delivered, last time I looked milk bottles are labelled as 1 pint 568 ml, and some beer glasses are labelled that way too), which suggests they also might take a wrong amount of blood from a person. I currently will not consider donating blood as they take so much, and if they really did want to take nearly a pint, perhaps 550 ml, that is too much. 450 ml is over 100 ml less than a pint. Maybe I should say to them I weigh just under a tonne. If they are going to use an illegal definition of a pint which they have made up, then I can make up anything if I were to go and donate blood, surely? The pint in the UK is defined as 568 ml. So what definition do the National Blood Service use? Or are they just really bad at maths.

A change to everything in metric would certainly help here, as saying they take 450 ml (just under a pint) is clearly misleading, if not fraudulent.

Probably they do not know what a pint is in this country (perhaps they do not drink beer in pubs at all nor have milk delivered, last time I looked milk bottles are labelled as 1 pint 568 ml, and some beer glasses are labelled that way too), which suggests they also might take a wrong amount of blood from a person. I currently will not consider donating blood as they take so much, and if they really did want to take nearly a pint, perhaps 550 ml, that is too much. 450 ml is over 100 ml less than a pint.

Maybe I should say to them I weigh just under a tonne. If they are going to use an illegal definition of a pint which they have made up, then I can make up anything if I were to go and donate blood, surely?

]]>