Well, a hectare is 100 square meters. So 200 square hectares would then
be 20 000 square square meters.
Jim
Martin Vlietstra wrote:
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
