3 ms·
Oh, it's not that bad. Some of them are reasonable, some of them not so much. The fact that it was enough to coat San Francisco Bay to a depth of 1/64th of an i
by hugh3 16y ago
Oh, it's not that bad. Some of them are reasonable, some of them not so much. The fact that it was enough to coat San Francisco Bay to a depth of 1/64th of an inch sorta put it into perspective for me. (This did not, I admit, need to be illustrated with a line-art drawing of the Golden Gate Bridge).
- ars 16y agoHow so? If I get to pick the thickness that I coat it with I can compare it to anything, from a small pool to the entire worlds oceans. So telling you San Francisco Bay tells you nothing at all. And they are wrong anyway. 184,000,000 gallons / (1/64 inch) = 677.6 mi^2, while the San Francisco Bay is 1600 mi^2 And just for fun: This could cover all the oceans of the world to a depth of .00000008045 inches. (Which is about 39 atoms thick.)
- hugh3 16y agoMaybe it's just that I can see San Francisco Bay out my window. But I can't visualise the whole of the world's oceans, nor can I visualise a swimming pool coated with half a mile of oil. But a thin layer of oil all across the Bay, that I can easily imagine.