Is the term "square hectare" really redundant? Surely a piece of land that is 100 m by 100 m can be descried as a "square hectare"? After all, it is a square.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Frysinger Sent: 14 June 2008 16:27 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:41089] Square hectares The June 06 issue of Science contains a fascinating series of articles written by Andrew Lawler on the Indus people. I spotted a glitch in the first one that stimulated the following note to the author, with copy to the editors at Science. Jim Dear Mr. Lawler, I am reading your fascinating article, "Boring no More", on the Indus people and I have just come across a jarring phrase. You speak of the Mohenjo Daro covering "at least 200 square hectares". "Square hectares" is redundant, as would be "cubic liters". The former is a unit of area and the latter a unit of volume. Certainly this must have been just a "slip of the pen". I am rather amazed that a technical editor at Science did not catch this error. Otherwise, thank you very much for your fascinating articles in this series. I look forward to learning more about these ancient people and their civilization as I read your articles. -- James R. Frysinger 632 Stony Point Mountain Road Doyle, TN 38559-3030 (H) 931.657.3107 (C) 931.212.0267
