Laura,

There is a HUGE difference between number "1" (which 1.05 is) and then "1 1/2" or "one and a half" which is 1.50 OR 1.5, whichever way you choose to write it.   Howver 1.05 is quite a lot smaller in BSA than 1.50 or 1.5.

At first I thought you must be talking about Taty’s BSA being 1.5 as in "one and a half" because that would have been rounding my calculation with Halls BSA calculator off by just a difference of 3 for argumanets sake here.  That is because that would be nearer to 1.50 or 1.5  than it would to 1.05m2.   (Some time ago we were all nit picking about were the decimal point was in some other matter.  I have learned since then---so I’m doing a little nit picking because it seems it what other’s have done in the past.)

If some Doctor is going to give my child this medicine based on him being 1 and a half meters square in total body mass, and he is only near to one meter square in total body mass (which 1.05 is nearest to---then he is basically overdosing him by nearly the amount you would give a child that has a body mass nearly 1/2 a meter more than my son has where BSA is concerned.  So I dispute that that is "nit picking" and would say that it is more like being "accurate" for the salke of avoiding side-effects here.    If Doctors had used this attitude in the past and termed it "nit picking" then frankly it is no small wonder my child did not grow for three years.  Despite what you have said, it does matter.  Would you give your daughter med’s based on the above when you know they could have got those doses a little closer had they nit picked a little?  I thought you were a nit picker anyway myself!   

I can only assume that it is because it is me doing the nit picking.