A correction from an LA Times story editorial

Solar power: A Friday editorial said that according to the U.S. Energy Department, enough sunlight hits a “100-square-mile” portion of the Nevada desert to power the entire country. It should have said “100-miles-square.”

The commentary: On square miles

I’d argue that “square miles” and “square kilometers” really have no place in popular journalism, because we have little connection to what they mean.

As humans, we never travel a “square mile.” We travel a mile. Or ten miles. If we’re thinking about an area of land, we’re probably mentally walking along two of its edges — which is what the LA Times and the U.S. Department of Energy were doing.

What you mean “we?” While the statement may be true (for some people), I’d argue that it’s an issue of mathematical/scientific literacy. Eliminating the use of area is to lower the bar of what we expect of journalists and readers of journalism. I never travel a cubic meter, either, but use of volume has its place — we don’t need to describe a liter as 10 cm on a side. We’re used to volume measurement, even if we in the US have an overall aversion to metric except when applied to some beverage containers. Why aren’t we used to areas — is it the name? Would “acres” be better, to avoid the “square” business?

The proposed solution includes giving an example, though, and giving a reference for scale is a good idea.