|
Toward the Establishment
of a Universal Foot Pressure Standard:
A Report of the Banff
Boards of Scientific
Enquiry (I and II)
Danylo Burdenko
The purpose
of this overview is to provide an historical context
for the development of the Universal Foot Pressure
Standard. This report concludes with details of
the two Banff Boards of Scientific Enquiry in
August 2002, and outlines the internationally
agreed upon model for the standardization of the
shoe and monopodal pirate adaptation device [MPAD]
industries, and consequences for such standardization.
[This
paper is also available in PDF format]
Introduction
In recent podiatric history, several
key concerns have been raised by members of national
boards of enquiry (Public Record, 1987, 1990a, 1990b,
1996, 2001). The root of these concerns has inevitably
sprung from the rampant inequality and injustice,
not to mention abhorrent disregard for solid scientific
principles, present within the North American shoe
industry—a strong carry-over from distant
years of British colonial rule. Citing qualitative
research opinion (Everyone, 2000), many boards of
enquiry provide strong evidence for the necessity
of reform. What follows is an academic review of
relevant literature and events pertaining to the
development of this scientific discussion. It is
followed by a discussion of the outcome of the dialogue
and decisions of the first two boards of scientific
enquiry for shoe and monopodal pirate adaptation
device [MPAD] affairs—including their description
of a universal model of measurement. This paper
will conclude with an outline of the implications
of adopting this new model as a true international
standard.
Review of Literature
It is of little wonder that the
North American continent remains the last bastion
of imperial measurement, considering the grounded
relationship between shoe size and the individual’s
academic well being. Conjecture (1973) tells us
that “not only is the relationship between
individuals and their footwear indicative of sensible
intellectual development, but it remains the key
stagnation of heuristics in adaptive metric and
scientific deduction—so vital for growth and
development in children” (p. 86). Indeed,
time has shown that North American children, even
those in Canada, are often confused in early scientific
pursuits as a result of a systemic mixture of measurement
systems. A respected scientist of the podiatric
arts noted in his address to the National Board
of Enquiry of Canada:
[L]ost in the bipolarity of
a country torn between its commitment to metric
science and the imperial measurements of our largest
trading partner to the south, children—our
very own children— study the Système
international [S.I.] in school, yet in the
home learn their weight in pounds Avoirdupois,
their height in feet, and most peculiarly of all,
their shoe size in a system of inaccurate length
only loosely based on imperial inches but more
accurately measured in accordance with the 14th-Century
British barleycorn standard. (Public Record, 1990a)
Again and again the literature
sustains the sentiments and concerns outlined above.
Of interest however, is the number of similar arguments
made by concerned groups interested in bridging
inequalities presently dividing the footed and monopodal
world. Taking the lead in this area were several
such groups within Scandinavia, as early as 1993
(Concerned Group, 1993a, 1993b, 1994). Much of the
world followed within five years of this initial
charge for equality (Concerned Group, 1995a, 1995b,
1996, 1997) – with the only possible exception
being a group of “scientists” from Belgium
claiming that notions of inequality within the footed
theatre were merely post-Dickensian psycho-revisionism
(“Scientists”, 1995).
Preparation for a Model of
Conversion
In a 2002 conference held in the
German provincial city of Saarbrücken, members
of various Non-Governmental Organizations [NGOs],
Trans-Governmental Scientific Organizations and
Commissions [TGSOCs], and Public Interest Groups
[PIGs], consolidated their perspectives under the
banner of “equality, universality and scientific
accuracy in the shoe and monopodal pirate adaptation
device industries.” The results of the conference
were two fold: first, they agreed to meet biannual-septavialy
(seven times within every two-year period); and
second, to develop a standard unit of shoe and MPAD
measurement (Saarbrücken Conference Notes,
2002).
The latter result prompted the
creation of two boards of scientific enquiry, both
of which convened their first meetings in the Canadian
resort city of Banff in August 2002. The first of
these boards was charged with the responsibility
of devising a convenient, equitable, universal and
scientific model of shoe and MPAD measurement. The
second prepared a plan for worldwide implementation.
The Universal Foot Pressure
Standard
Several notions of standardization
were discussed during the August 2002 board meeting:
mass, magnetism, polarity, thread count, Doppler
effect, tensile durability, and blood-gas, among
others. At the conclusion of the third plenipotentiary
session, the membership appeared evenly divided
in their support of two predominant measurement
schema: pH values (logarithmic measure of hydrogen
ion concentration, or -log[H+]), suggested by representatives
of the French and Luxembourgish scientific communities,
and kPa (kiloPascals) propagated by a large group
including participants from much of South America
(less Argentina) and those of Canada, Iceland and
Bangladesh.
Debate raged on for a further
two sessions. At its conclusion, however, an impassioned
speech made by the representative of Paraguay received
torrents of applause—ultimately reflective
of a consolidation of popular opinion. With overwhelming
support, 88.6% of the members present voted in favor
of a new universal standard based on the pressure
placed by an individual’s foot (adaptive pirate
device, stilt or crutch) upon the floor. The Universal
Foot Pressure Standard [UFPS] was born. The Banff
Boards of Scientific Enquiry concluded with a luncheon.
With this agreement, scientific
communities the world over race toward an efficient
and scientific way of calculating and converting
world shoe et al. device sizes into the UFPS.
Implications for the Future
of Podiatric Sciences
The decision of the second of
the Banff Boards of Scientific Enquiry included
several recommendations for the implementation of
the UFPS. Though verbosely described within its
Official Report (2002), it was decided that shoe
et al. device sizes should be tackled in an order
considerate of the greatest need for scientific
advancement. What follows is a list of target dates
for global standardization of non-standard sizes:
• North American –
January 2003
• Mexican – February 2003
• European – March 2003
• Japanese – April 2003
• British – May 2003
• Australian – June 2003
• Korean – July 2003
Other implications were identified,
including the need for training and possible retooling
of both the shoe and MPAD production and dissemination
industries. Total costs at this point are incalculable,
though early estimates suggest figures surpassing
1,350,000 Dutch gilders. Certain “members”
of the Belgian “scientific” community
outlined their concerns surrounding the tertiary
cost of updating children’s school textbooks
and mercantile signage. A representative of the
Hyderabadi Woman’s Coalition for Standardization
addressed their concerns by stating, “is not
the ideal of standardization sufficient justification
for such expenditure?”
In expectation of a new era of
scientific standardization, members of the world
scientific community continue to ascribe their loyalty
to the banner of the 2002 Saarbrücken Conference:
Equality, Universality and Scientific Accuracy
in the Shoe and Monopodal Pirate Adaptation Device
Industries!
References
Banff Board of Scientific Enquiry
(II). (2002). Official report of the Banff Board
of Scientific Enquiry (II). Banff, Canada:
Banff Board of Scientific Enquiry.
Concerned Group. (1993a). Norway.
Concerned Group. (1993b). Sweden.
Concerned Group. (1994). Iceland.
Concerned Group. (1995a). Hungary.
Concerned Group. (1995b). Italy.
Concerned Group. (1996). Denmark.
Concerned Group. (1997). Honduras.
Conjecture. (1973).
Everyone. (2000).
Public Record. (1987). Belize.
Public Record. (1990a). Canada.
Public Record. (1990b). France.
Public Record. (1996). Thailand.
Public Record. (2001). France.
Saarbrücken Conference Notes. (2002).
“Scientists”. (1995). Belgium.
|
