> I'm assuming neutrinos are sparse in nature, which is 50,000 metric ton pool of water was needed to detect the neutrinos emanating from the sun. No, that's n

> I'm assuming neutrinos are sparse in nature, which is 50,000 metric ton pool of water was needed to detect the neutrinos emanating from the sun. No, that's not the reason. The reason is that they barely interact with anything, including detection equipment. > even a 99.99% loss / non-detection rate shouldn't be problem. "Two water-filled detectors of this type (Kamiokande and IMB) recorded a neutrino burst from supernova SN 1987A. Scientists detected 19 neutrinos from an explosion of a star inside the Large Magellanic Cloud – only 19 out of the octo-decillion (10^57) neutrinos emitted by the supernova." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector)