Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:58:24 04/24/02 Wed
Author: Patrick
Author Host/IP: dialupD243.logn.uswest.net / 63.230.11.244
Subject:

Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name
In reply to: Michael 's message, "Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name" on 10:48:19 04/24/02 Wed

I don't think its a whole lot. 10 parts for every billion other parts. The ratio percentage is .000001%. (Its easy, just divide 10 by a billion, and multiply by 100 to get the percentage). If I haven't blundered the math, there are 18 grams in one mole of water (by definition, a mole is the formula weight of the molecule). In one mole, there are 6.023x10e23 molecules (by definition; also, "e" means exponent, so 23 means 23 zeros, by comparison, a million only has 6 zeros; a billion has 9). Times this huge number by the ratio percentage (i.e. .000001) = 6.023x10e17. This might seem like a big number, but relative to the number of water molecules, it is not. So, subtract this number from 6.023x10e23. We get = 6.022994x10e23 water molecules left. Not a big change. Divide this number by 6.023x10e23 to get a percentage (shown in the next sentence). This means that within 18 grams of water, 99.99989999884% of it is pure and all water.

By comparison, 50 pbm is 99.9995 percent pure. Now, if you take the ratios of these percentages themselves, we get .9999%, or a 1% change for every 18 grams. Is this 1% going to do much? It's just so small! 99.9998 is not much different than 99.9995! Either way, it's virtually pure.

(This also assumes that arsenic is evenly distributed and doesn't sink to the bottom being more heavy, or rises to the top because of a lower density.)

So, if it's not a function of purity, what is it? Money?

Later.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name -- Michael, 19:35:13 04/24/02 Wed
- Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name -- Patrick, 00:12:48 04/25/02 Thu
  - Re: Why environmentalists (tree huggers) get a bad name -- Michael, 11:23:44 04/26/02 Fri