On Jun 11 , at 10:42 AM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
> But I want to hear the estimates in *mass* units, kilograms and kg/s, not in > decimeters^3 or in liters or their time rates of flow. Why? To most of us who care about the effects of the oil spill on our environment here in Florida and other Gulf states, the volume of the oil is of much greater interest than its mass. The volume relates to how much of the Gulf (and later the Atlantic) will be covered with oil and the resulting threat to our shores, beaches and coastal marshes. Admittedly, the spilled oil degrades and decomposes some, is dispersed naturally or with artificial dispersants, some of the more volatile components evaporate into the air (are they any safer there? - another whole question) so the volume remaining is difficult to estimate and constantly changing. However, the amount of the spillage, as measured by its volume, is the most critical way to visualize that amount. I would further contend that a still more important figure would be the area covered by the oil. That is even harder to ascertain since it would depend on the thickness of the oil layer. However, it would certainly be more closely related to the volume than to the mass. Bill Hooper 1810 mm tall Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA ========================== SImplification Begins With SI. ==========================
