Just Number Psychology

So, I'm at work and, while waiting for a program to run, decide to bop on over to CNN's website to see what the latest developments in the ongoing nuclear drama were. The one article cited extremely high levels of radioactivity, indicating levels in the area of 1000 millisieverts.

As may have come through in prior writings, I'm a bit of a geek. I work with computers, so, it's almost a requirement. Part of being a tech-geek is understaning the concept of "units". Along with that is understanding what the various unit-modifiers mean. Now, while I'm not advocating the US going out and switching from our current measurment system to metric, I do appreciate (and understand) base-ten unit modifiers. So, when I see someone say the equivalent of "one thousand thousandths" (or one million millionths, for that matter), it makes my OCD senses tingel.

When I see that kind of units-abuse,  I have to wonder, "is the author just stupid or are they scare-mongering by using (apparently) bigger numbers?" I've had other geeks try to suggest that said authors might be trying to indicate precision, but that gets blown out of the water the moment a reporter couches things in terms of estimates or "about".

The vast majority of readers out there aren't going to know that 1000mSv is equivalent to 1Sv. Few people know what an Sv is to even begin to understand what an mSv or μSv might mean. Worse, since many of the readers of CNN will be US readers with little to know background in the metric system, there won't be any automatic "milli equals one thousandth of something". No. All that most readers will see is "there's a thousand of these thingies happening every hour. That sounds like a LOT!" and, granted, it is, but no more than one of the base-unit would be.

Pepsi Math: Oh, the Madness

The Pepsi math's still bugging me:

290cal / 20oz =14.5 cal/oz
230cal / 16oz = 14.375 cal/oz.

Yet, their info panel says that a serving size is 8oz and said serving size contains 110cal (or, 13.75 cal/oz.). It's a tiny thing. It might even be a genuine error. But I loathe unexplained inconsistencies.

Probably just some marketer's backhanded way to get people to call in (or the labeling department's way of seeing if anyone actually reads the labels). ARGH!

Math Skrilz: Pepsi Can Haz

Dear Pepsi:

I may be wrong, but 230 is not twice 110. Today I bought a 16oz bottle of Mt. Dew. As is often my want, I looked at the nutrition label (soda and nutrition???). Your bottles are kind enough to define the  FDA and caloric numbers base both on a standard baseline and as occurs at the purchased dosage.

I've tried Mt. Dew in 16oz., 20oz. and 1l. sizes. The baseline nutritional information always is based on 8oz serving (what the fuck is up with that, by the way). However, in reading the column for a 16oz dosage, your numbers seem to be off. 16oz is twice 8oz. Therefore, all of the numbers should simply be ${BASELINE} x 2; somehow, instead of the expected 220Kcal, your bottle lists 230Kcal as the associated caloric intake. Is this some kind of "new math"?