Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Back Pages

How big is that?

Neville Goodman
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (522): 69.
Neville Goodman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

If you want to convey something's size, try a familiar comparison. There was a story about a hapless biology teacher who had reached the birds and bees lesson. Faced with a class of pubescent girls and needing to tell them how big the testicles were, she ventured that they were about the size of a peewit's egg. ‘Well, now we know how big peewits' eggs are,’ came a stage whisper from the back. Doctors usually go for fruit. Tumours are the size of almonds, grapes, tangerines, oranges or grapefruit. These sizes are a bit inexact: would those be the small delicious green seedless grapes, or the big black seeded grapes with tough bitter skins?

We also like sports fields, comparing the alveolar surface area to a football pitch, and the total surface area of the nephrons to three cricket pitches. I have no idea if these are even vaguely correct, but you get the idea.

It's not just in medicine that we need comparisons. How else can anyone convey how much rain forest is lost each year or how much of the UK has turned into car parks since Labour came into power? Most land areas used for comparison are, like the Isle of Wight (380 sq km) or Belgium (30 500 sq km), roughly rectangular. This probably explains why Wales, which at 20 800 sq km is a bit less than a Belgium, is a standard unit of measurement, whereas England and Scotland are almost never used. England has too many awkward bits, and Scotland's islands make it useless.

Frankly, in the scale of these things, there isn't much difference between 20 000 and 30 000, and I bet there are a fair number in Britain who don't have a clue how big Belgium is, so we might just as well stick with Wales. The next order of magnitude takes us to France, which is 547 000 sq km. The US has enough states for quite a range of units. For all I know, Americans use the full range, but there's little point our measuring things in Marylands (25 000 sq km) instead of Waleses. The Texas is universal currency; at 695 000 sq km it is considerably bigger than France.

So how about a comparison I saw for the Venus Express, a European spacecraft launched in November. It is apparently ‘little bigger than a fridge’. So once you've decided what sort of fridge — dinky job for a student bedsit or enormous American thing with double doors that spits ice cubes — it's then a bit bigger. An ovarian tumour the size of a melon is much more imaginable.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2006.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 56 (522)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 56, Issue 522
January 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How big is that?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
How big is that?
Neville Goodman
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (522): 69.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
How big is that?
Neville Goodman
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (522): 69.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Who Is My Patient?
  • Working with vulnerable families in deprived areas
  • What is the collective noun for a group of patients?
Show more The Back Pages

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242