How Do We See The Invisible (sub-atomic particles) In The Visible Region?

How is the invisible to the naked eye made visible to the naked eye?  Today, with the advancement of technologies many can view the invisible into the visible region through a microscope.  An electron  microscope allows us to see molecular frameworks with the use of electrons -- amazing.  Other forms of measurement involve indirect detection like looking for a "green fluorescent protein"(GFP) tag which lights up when a given expression or event occurs.  Of course, in the last case, the sample has to be exposed to light in order for the GFP tag to fluoresce.



The radioactive decay of the element Radon can be made visible through the use of a "Cloud Chamber."  Recently, I ran across a video demonstrating the visibility of radioactive decay and could not stop thinking about how cool the demonstration was.  Therefore,  I decided to share the demonstration with you.  Additionally, I will draw parallels with the "trails" that are visible after flying aircraft leave the sky.

Visualizing Radiative Decay!

Most of us have an idea of what radioactivity is - right?  Something along the lines of 'sub-atomic' particles being given off which are highly energetic?  Sound familiar?  Maybe not.  Lets consult our good friend 'Wikipedia' to help us out with a definition of 'radioactive decay'.  Here is an excerpt:

Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which the nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting radiation, including alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, and conversion electrons. A material that spontaneously emits such radiation is considered radioactive.

Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay,[1][2][3][4] regardless of how long the atom has existed. For a collection of atoms however, the collection's decay rate can be calculated from their measured decay constants or half-lives. This is the basis of radiometric dating. The half-lives of radioactive atoms have no known lower or upper limit, spanning a time range of over 55 orders of magnitude, from nearly instantaneous to far longer than the age of the universe. A radioactive source emits its decay products isotropically (all directions and without bias)[5] in the absence of external influence.

Couple the description above to the picture below to get a full visualization:

Source: Inductiveload

How does a person measure radiation decay?



Hollywood offers a visual representation commonly depicted in movies surrounding the release of a 'nuclear weapon' or threat of exposure to radioactive compounds like the following shown below:

Source: Associated Press

A common instrument used to measure the amount of radiation that is being emitted off of a given sample is the 'Geiger Counter' and is shown below:

Source: TimVickers 

The instrument can sample a range of intensities.  But, what if the radiation that we are trying to measure is that of the natural background from the sky.  The background radiation is supposedly orders of magnitude than a release of a 'nuclear weapon' (which is true).



How does a scientist measure background radiation?



How about using a cloud chamber?



An instrument that is commonly used to measure radiation is called the 'Cloud Chamber' or 'Wilson Chamber' after the founder -- the Scottish physicist Charles Thomson Rees Wilson.   The structure of a cloud chamber is relatively simple.  A chamber is couple with a heater/cooler which has access to introduce a radioactive source into the interior space.  This will be demonstrated in the video below.  A picture of a cloud chamber from 'Wikipedia' is shown below:

Source: Cloudylabs

They are easily constructed and instructions for science projects involving the construction of a 'Cloud Chamber' can be found here.



As I mentioned in the introduction, I found a video which showed precisely and beautifully the radioactive decay of various elements.  The video on 'YouTube' is titled "Large Diffusion Cloud Chamber With Radon Gas Double-Decaying" and is broken down into frames below.  During frames, I commented or narrated on the content in each frame.  The overall message to take home from viewing the frames below is that the video allows us to see atoms precisely in their position from the 'alpha decay' leaving the nucleus.  The demonstration is absolutely amazing.



One more note is that the chamber is cooled at the bottom and heated slightly at the top to produce a temperature gradient.  The temperature gradient is similar to the temperature gradient in the sky as one goes to higher altitudes.  Therefore, after I show the video frames, I will draw an analogy with the "trails" from condensation commonly seen after an airplane flies across the sky.



First, lets start with a frame from the video which shows the chamber without any radioactive compound inserted.  As shown below, this is the natural background radiation that each of us are experiencing without noticing it at any given moment.



Background Radiation:

Relatively few interactions compared to the expected large amount of a concentrated decay like a 'nuclear weapon' or a 'radioactive source'.




Point Source:

Right after exposure to the cloud chamber.  Notice initially, there is a huge force of alpha decay pushing out from the source toward the other side of the chamber.  The pressure wave of alpha decay resembles the shape of the source -- a half spherical shape -- as shown below.



Point Source - 3 seconds after:

Notice the exponential diffusion of particles throughout the chamber. After a series of collisions producing further alpha decays, the motion becomes unpredictable -- as shown below.


Point Source - 9 seconds:

Still going.  Actually, the secondary decay is occurring at this moment.  The picture below shows the extent of the energetic alpha particles still colliding with more nuclei to produce (secondary) radioactive decay -- as shown still below.



Point Source - 19 seconds:

Crazy!  I wonder how long the team had to wait until the entire chamber came back to equilibrium.  The state of equilibrium would have resembled the 'background' still frame above.

Visualizing Temperature Gradients!

In the last section, the amazing demonstration of 'alpha' radioactive decay was made clear using a cloud chamber filled with ethanol gas.  I pointed out before presenting the 'still frames' of the diffusion of radiation that there exists an equivalent analogous situation that occurs on the 'macroscale'.  Not only does the event happen on the scale of everyday occurrences, the event is visible to a large audience of viewers from the ground.



The idea of 'chemtrails' is a popular conspiracy put forth to account for the seeming long white trails which follow an aircraft traversing the sky.  Here is an excerpt to describe such phenomenon taken from the 'Wikipedia' page on 'Chemtrails':

Chemtrail conspiracy theory is an unproven suspicion that long-lasting trails, so-called "chemtrails", are left in the sky by high-flying aircraft and that they consist of chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public.[1] Believers in the theory argue that normal contrails dissipate relatively quickly and that contrails that do not dissipate must contain additional substances.[2][3] These arguments have been dismissed by the scientific community: such trails are normal water-based contrails (condensation trails) that are routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.[4] Although proponents have attempted to prove that the claimed chemical spraying does take place, their analyses have been flawed or based on misconceptions.[5][6]

Because of the widespread popularity of the conspiracy theory, official agencies have received many inquiries from people demanding an explanation.[2] Scientists and government officials around the world have repeatedly needed to confirm that supposed chemtrails are in fact normal contrails.[7]

With the corresponding visual description taken also from the 'Wikipedia' page for 'chemtrails' shown below:

Source: No machine

The conspiracy theorists are fascinating in their endeavor to seek an answer to this phenomenon.  Implying that the government is actively pursuing dumping chemicals into the environment in order to create such trails is non-sense.  Any particle growth with water vapor in the atmosphere will diffract light -- look at clouds.



The real culprit in the case of the so called 'trails' across the sky come from 'contrails' -- short for condensation trails -- made up of water vapor that has crystallized.  Here is the description from 'Wikipedia' for 'contrails' below:

Contrails (/ˈkɒntreɪlz/; short for "condensation trails") or vapor trails are line-shaped clouds sometimes produced by aircraft engine exhaust, typically at aircraft cruise altitudes several miles above the Earth's surface. Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. The combination of water vapor in aircraft engine exhaust and the low ambient temperatures that often exists at these high altitudes allows the formation of the trails. Impurities in the jet exhaust from the fuel, including sulfur compounds (0.05% by weight in jet fuel) provide some of the particles that can serve as sites for water droplet growth in the exhaust and, if water droplets form, they might freeze to form ice particles that compose a contrail.[1] Their formation can also be triggered by changes in air pressure in wingtip vortices or in the air over the entire wing surface.[2]

Depending on the temperature and humidity at the altitude the contrails form, they may be visible for only a few seconds or minutes, or may persist for hours and spread to be several miles wide, eventually resembling natural cirrus or altocumulus clouds.[1] Persistent contrails are of particular interest to scientists because they increase the cloudiness of the atmosphere.[1] The resulting cloud forms may resemble cirrus, cirrocumulus, or cirrostratus, and are sometimes called cirrus aviaticus. Persistent spreading contrails are thought by some, without overwhelming scientific proof, to have a significant effect on global climate.[3][4] Persistent contrails are sometimes called chemtrails in reference to the conspiracy theory regarding the undisclosed spraying of chemical or biological agents by various high-flying aircraft.

Again, as I just mentioned -- the crystals grow from water vapor attaching themselves to a 'seed molecule' and growing to the point of diffracting light.  I will give you a little known fact about 'contrails' that is not commonly known by the world.  This is in regards to the aircraft that you see at airshows.  Now that you know that the condensation has a role to play with 'contrails' -- you might be wondering the following question -- regarding air shows with fighter jets:



How do the jets make 'contrails' at a precisely given point in space in the sky?



The answer lies in the fact that the gun bay in a fighter jet where the ammunition is stored is emptied out -- for show jets.  In the space (gun bay), there is an oil container filled with oil.  There is a delivery system (via veins or tubes) that deliver the oil onto the exhaust of the jets to produce a 'contrail'.



Bet you did not know that!

Conclusion!

The ability to view the invisible is absolutely amazing.  In the paragraphs above, the size of the particle that has been shown to be visible spans from the sub-atomic of a radon nucleus to the particles (aggregates of ice crystals) in the sky.  When we look up and see a cloud, that is evidence of a particle grown from a 'seed molecule' with water vapor.  The diffraction of light gives way to the opaque (cloud) that is seen in the sky above.



Whereas, on the sub-atomic scale, the ejection of an alpha particle decaying off of a nucleus is seen as the trail from the thermal gradient.  Each is a representation of an indirect interaction.  Science offers us an explanation to a wide range of such situations.  Further, with these explanations, better decisions regarding science policy are possible in government.  Ranging from the international level to the local level, science plays a large role in the decisions.  If it does not, maybe in the future it should.  Having examples like the two above, give us an idea regarding the safety of radiation and chemicals in the sky.



Until next time, Have a great day!

Flint Michigan Rations Water, What About Astronauts?

Last Sunday, I was catching up on reading a few old newspapers laying around my house as the rain fell down outside the house.  As you know, I wrote a blog post earlier in the year about the volume of rain in a given period (hours).  An article caught my eye about the rationing of water (bottled water) in the town of Flint, Michigan, due to the polluted water supply.




Specifically, the amount given to a family wast 40 (16-oz) water bottles for a 24 hour period for a family of four.  My mind started to wander and think about another blog post I wrote about the excessive use of water by "Bel Air" residents (32,000 gallons per day) compared to the average Los Angeles resident.  Of course, from there, my thoughts migrated to the amount of water required for space astronauts.  In the paragraphs below, you will find the result of a short trip of mental wandering on my part.

What Is Your Daily Water Consumption?

How much water does a person use per day?  Of course, the amount of water used per person on a daily basis differs greatly than the "true" amount that is needed.  Not all of us cannot be such conservationalist.  Just kidding, I am guilty of taking an occassional 30 minute show (if we are being honest here).    In the case of the residents in the town of Flint, that luxury does not exist.




According to the New York Times article titled "For Families In Flint, A Daily Struggle To Avoid Tap Water," each family is on a rationing of water that is dispersed from the local fire station.  The excerpt that caught my eye was the following:

Local fire stations stock the water, but residents have to pick it up and cart it home every day or every other day. Families go through prodigious amounts of bottled water: A family of four can easily use up a case of 40 half-liter (16.9-fluid-ounce) bottles in a 24-hour-period — just for drinking and cooking. While health officials say the water is safe for bathing, laundry and dishwashing, many families don’t trust the advice.

Mrs. Ollie has trained her sons, 6-year-old Kingston and 4-year-old Jase, to take sponge baths using microwaved bottled water — no more playing in the tub. They must also use bottled water to brush their teeth. After dinner, she uncaps and empties dozens of pint-size bottles of water into a large pot that she heats on the stove to wash dishes. On weekends, she and her husband drive the kids and all the laundry to Mrs. Ollie’s parents’ home in Lansing, Mich., to shower and wash up.

How much water is 40 - 16 oz. water bottle in total?  Here is a conversion to gallons below:

A family of four is living on 5 gallons per day.  Wow.  Compare that to the 107 gallons that an average Los Angeles resident lives on per day.  Further, the average Bel Air resident lives on 32,000 gallons per day -- Oh My Goodness -- what is this world coming to?  From the description of the uses of the small amount of water, there might be another problem emerging.  Cooking a plastic water bottle to heat up water in a microwave is not good.  Do not heat plastic up in the microwave -- whatever you do.




How much does that amount of water weigh?




Weight is an important parameter along with plastic when considering helping out residents in need.  Below is the conversion of gallons to pounds for a 24 hour supply to a family of four:

Stocking the water takes resources (trucks, oil, emissions, etc.).  When I read this article, the first thought that came to mind was why are the residents of Flint not just given a water dispenser and a large bottle of water -- like the setup below:

Source: Costco Water Delivery Service

Handing out 40 bottles (16 ounce) to resident on a daily basis will generate a large amount of plastic waste (plastic bottles).  Do officials have a recycling plan for the plastic water bottles the residents are generating?  Is there a central recycling center that residents can return plastic bottles?  Using the 5 gallon jug above is reusable.  Upon delivery of a set of 2 jugs (5 gallons each), the used jugs could be returned and refilled to give out more water.  This would cut down on waste generation during a time of limited resources.




The water rationing (by authorities) does not include sewer (toilet) water -- which is still running in most areas.  Still, surviving on that small amount of water per day with a family of four is probably pretty difficult.  I started considering how much water is used per person per day in other cultures.  After a couple of refined questions into google's search engine, I found a website called 'CreditLoan.com' who offers a "visual economics" guide on the website.  After cutting and altering the infographic, the results are shown below for a few countries:

Source: CreditLoan.com

The diagram is explained on the website as follows:

The annual personal water use by country varies widely. In Canada, 88 percent of people have access to tap water. Canadians use 759 liters per day. In the USA, 100 percent of the people have access to tap water, using 570 liters of water per day. In Mexico, 90 percent of the people have access to tap water, with each person using 340 liters of water per day. In India, 19 percent of the people have access to tap water, with each person using 128 liters of water per day. In the U.K., 100 percent of the people have access to tap water, using 119 liters of water per day. In China, 69 percent of the people have access to tap water, with each person using 80 liters of water per day.

Some people in the world do not have running water?  Yes, that is correct.  My colleague whose husband is from India tells me about the village where she visited to see her new family.  Literally, there is no running water.  I was blown away.  Shows you how little I know.  But, I am appreciative of the resources that we do have here in the U.S. and am learning how to conserve more by the month.  I am a work in progress.




In the diagram above, there exists a spectrum of water usage listed in terms of most to least by country.  Here within the U.S., could produce another spectrum of usage.  On one end, users such as residents in "Bel Air" might be placed.  Whereas on the other side of the spectrum, we would list disaster areas -- such as Flint, Michigan.  Actually, if we are including all American establishments, we might not want to forget "Astronauts" who are living in space.  Astronauts form the far end of the spectrum of water usage per day.  Why, you might ask?

Astronauts Live In A Closed Water Loop?

In space, the concept about supplies can be stated: what goes up with the space shuttle, must come down with the space shuttle!  Yep, the space station, space shuttle, space instrumentation form a "closed loop."  What do I mean by a "closed loop"?  Well, everything is conserved to the highest degree.  Really?




Based on a search on google, I found a website produced by NASA -- which described the conditions of water usage in space.

"We have plenty of water on the Space Station now," says Jim Reuter, leader of the ECLSS group at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "The Russian module Zarya is packed with contingency water containers (CWCs) that were carried over from the Space Shuttle during assembly missions earlier this year. They look like duffle bags and each one holds about 90 lbs."

"But it's expensive to ferry water from Earth," he added. "We have to recycle. There's already a Russian-built water processor in orbit that collects humidity from the air. Here at Marshall we're building a regenerative system that will be able to recycle almost every drop of water on the station and support a crew of seven with minimal resupplies."

Right: Shuttle pilot Terry Wilcutt with 7 contingency water containers destined for the space station Mir.

The ECLSS Water Recycling System (WRS), developed at the MSFC, will reclaim waste waters from the Space Shuttle's fuel cells, from urine, from oral hygiene and hand washing, and by condensing humidity from the air. Without such careful recycling 40,000 pounds per year of water from Earth would be required to resupply a minimum of four crewmembers for the life of the station.

Here is the corresponding picture of the pilot with the "contingency bags" of water shown below:

Source: NASA

Every drop of water imaginable is recycled.  Even animals used in research?  Yes.  In the article, the statistic of about 72 rats can urinate and sweat the equivalent of one human being.  That is a pleasant thought.  And here I thought I was thinking deeply about water conservation -- not even close.  

The astronauts are trained to conserve water to the extreme compared to our usage on Earth.  NASA has designed recycling systems that mimic the water cycle found on planet Earth.  Here is an excerpt to describe the rationale during designing the system used in space:

"The water that we generate is much cleaner than anything you'll ever get out of any tap in the United States," says Carter. "We certainly do a much more aggressive treatment process (than municipal waste water treatment plants). We have practically ultra-pure water by the time our water's finished."

Mimicking Mother Earth

On Earth, water that passes through animals' bodies is made fresh again by natural processes. Microbes in the soil break down urea and convert it to a form that plants can absorb and use to build new plant tissue. The granular soil also acts as a physical filter. Bits of clay cling to nutrients in urine electrostatically, purifying the water and providing nutrients for plants.

Water excreted by animals also evaporates into the atmosphere and rains back down to the Earth as fresh water -- a natural form of distillation.

Water purification machines on the ISS partly mimic these processes, but they do not rely on microbes or any other living things.

"While you try to mimic what's happening on Earth -- which is so complicated if you really think about it -- we have to use systems that we can control 100 percent," said Monsi Roman, chief microbiologist for the ECLSS project at MSFC. ECLSS depends on machines -- not microbes -- because, "if a machine breaks, you can fix it."

The water purification machines on the ISS will cleanse wastewater in a three-step process.

The first step is a filter that removes particles and debris. Then the water passes through the "multi-filtration beds," which contain substances that remove organic and inorganic impurities. And finally, the "catalytic oxidation reactor" removes volatile organic compounds and kills bacteria and viruses.

Every Drop Counts

Once the water is purified, astronauts will do everything possible to use it efficiently. "On the ground, people flick on the faucet and they probably waste a couple of liters of water just because it's free and the water pressure is high," notes Carter.

Nature has solved a large amount of issues that scientists are only discovering as time goes on and technology improves.  There are "mimics" that are not fully optimized and work quite well by today's standards.  Imagine if scientists could one day really "mimic" natures ability to form filtration systems that work with a high degree of efficiency (removing debris, antimicrobial activity, high throughput, etc.)?  Nevertheless, the work that NASA has done to optimize the filtration system aboard today's space stations is amazing...




Quite impressive to say the least.  The amount of thought and design matches the large amount of "Research and Design" that is needed to fund the space program annually.  Of course, out of this research, products emerge that hit the market and improve our lives daily.  Yet, often, you will hear people who are not scientists or affiliated with science talk about the wasteful spending on space programs.  We learn a tremendous amount from this research about limits and life in general (growing plants in space - last year!).

Conclusion...

How much water do you use on a daily basis?  How can you optimize the amount of water that you consume and possibly waste?  Do you care even to do so?  These are questions that you might want to entertain.  Even if a person does not plan to reduce their consumption, thinking deeply or critically about the use of water in one's household is important.  The action alone will improve the lives of yourself and those around you.  Of course, in the process, you might end up driving your friends and family a little stir crazy.




Thinking about the situation in Flint (Michigan) has caused me to rethink how I tanke for granted the resources around me.  Although, one could argue that based on my post about water (which was brief), this has been on my mind.  Every time I see a rain fall event here in Southern California, I cannot help to think of the total volume of rain that is washed into the ocean (and not reclaimed).  Each time that I see a "broken water pipe" in the city and water running down the street, I think of the waste that is generated and how many of these 40 (16 ounce) bottles could be filled up and sent to remote areas.




In a future post, I will talk about a recent article that I have read discussing the amount of water that is actually reclaimed annually by various departments of water and power companies.  As you will learn, the amount is not trivial.  On the order of billions of gallons annually.  Stay tuned until then.  Until then, learn something new about water conservation in the world and leave the new found idea in the "comment section" below.  I love to learn new knowledge.  Have a great evening.

Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

Last Sunday, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece on a recent 'environmental disaster' in Brazil that has been unfolding over the last month.  The title of the article was "As Brazil Mine Spill Reaches Ocean, Its Catastrophic Extent Becomes Clear."  I was reading the article in a hurry and did not really get a chance to digest the entire piece.  What I mean is -- upon reading the article a second time through, I found myself astounded.  In between the first and the second reading, I realized that the reported values fit perfectly into the theme of blog posts on this site.



As I mentioned above, between the two readings a couple of events transpired.  I think honesty is a good practice -- to admit that I am not perfect.  After I read the article the first time in a rush, I e-mailed the author and asked him for more information.  Specifically, the first paragraph states the overall 'eye-catching' general consequences of the disaster:

Since millions of gallons of mining waste burst from an inland iron ore mine a month ago, 300 miles of the Rio Doce stretching to the Atlantic Ocean has turned a Martian shade of bright orange, and the deadly consequences for residents and wildlife are just beginning to emerge.

I posted a question on the author's twitter account to inquire into a more definitive quantity of waste water that was actually spilled in the disaster.  He responded by informing me that a more accurate estimate of the total volume was listed in the article.  I quickly read the article for the second time, looking for a volume listed.  This is what I found:

The dam near the inland city of Mariana that broke on Nov. 5 is operated by Samarco, a mining company owned by Brazilian mining giant Vale and Anglo-Australian mining giant BHP Billiton.

When the barrier burst, for unknown reasons, more than 60 million cubic meters of waste began flooding nearby communities and wound up in the Rio Doce.

Without talking about the long-term environmental effects (which will be covered in a later post), I wanted to focus on the magnitude of waste released from the damaged dam.  After exchanging correspondence with the author, I was looking for a reported/stated value of waste water expressed in 'units' of 'gallons' rather than 'cubic meters.'



Whenever you express a value, the importance of keeping uniformity (in reporting units of measurement) cannot be understated.  This is to avoid confusion.  In the situation described above, I was expecting to find a total volume of the mine spill expressed in units of 'gallons' rather than 'cubic meters.'  Regardless, the value was expected to be large based on the picture in the article -- which are shown below:

Source: LA Times -- Brazil's Rio Doce River

My curiosity started to run wild.  I could not get my head around the reported value of 60 million cubic meters.  What was the equivalent volume (60 million cubic meters) expressed in gallons?  Therefore, I decided to calculate the value in gallons using dimensional analysis.  Below is the the conversion based on the conversion factor of cubic meters to gallons (1 cubic meter = 264.172 gallons).

In the first line, the value of 60 million cubic meters is expressed in scientific notation.  The use of scientific notation allows large numbers -- extremely large numbers -- to be expressed more easily.  Regardless of notation, the number of gallons is HUGE.  The extent of the disaster is INSANE.  After I saw the number of gallons, I immediately started wondering how the number (15.9 billion gallons) compares to various volumes.  What volume would be sufficient to compare to the present 'man-made' disaster?

How many 'Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills' would compare to Brazil's mine spill?

Since the topic was a man-made environmental disaster, I immediately thought of the tragic 'Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill' back in 2010.    The oil flowed out of the well for 87 days and amounted to a total of around 210 million gallons.  That is why I was extremely surprised by the reported volume in the 'Times' article about the Mine Spill in Brazil.  I decided to compare the two volumes.  

Specifically, I wanted to know how many oil spills would be equivalent to 15.9 billion gallons of iron-ore waste.  First, I converted the value of the spill into scientific notation.  Then I divided the two volumes to obtain the number of equivalent oil spills.  Below are the results:

Wow!  Unbelievable.  I am blown away.  I cannot believe that the equivalent volume of the Mine Spill is comparable to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills.  That is a LARGE amount of waste water (iron-ore waste).  The volume was so large that I was still having trouble wrapping my head around the magnitude of the volume.  

As a result, I had to find another image to assist my inability to wrap my head around the value.  I found a photo from an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "Samarco May Not Shield BHP, Vale From Brazil Dam-Breach Repercussions."

Source: the Wall Street Journal

The volume of iron-ore waste started to make sense after viewing the above photo.  Based on the photo above, that large volume would have destroyed a large area of land -- such as that above.  As the picture portrays, the water must have thrashed the town houses, cars, and forestry in the path as the potential energy of the stored water (in the dam) rushed out.  Again, that damage must have been due to a large amount of water -- like 15.9 billion gallons.  WOW.



Still left rather unsatisfied.  I am having trouble visualizing 78 'Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills.'  In light of this feeling, I decided to compare the value of 15.9 billion gallons to a couple other volumes: 1) the Mercedes-Benz Superdome and 2) the world's largest pool.  These two volumes are extraordinary feats of construction.  Further, the two volumes have served me well in past posts using dimensional analysis.

To start with the Mercedez-Benz Superdome in Louisianna.  The volume reported on the 'Wikipedia' site of the interior of the Superdome is believed to be around 3,500,000 cubic meters.  Below is a picture of the Superdome:

How many of these Super structures will be required to hold a volume of 15.9 billion gallons?  Below are the results:

Again, the number is large -- HUGE -- beyond comprehension.  The last remaining super structure that is appropriate to compare such a volume is the World's Largest Pool.  The World's Largest Pool is located in Chile and is shown below:

Source: Huffington Post

This amazing swimming pool holds an astounding 60 million gallons of water.  That is enormous.  Although, based on the mentioned volumes above, the volume of the World's Largest Swimming pool is starting to look rather small.  To be complete, the calculation was carried out.  Here are the results:

Oh my goodness, 265 swimming pools would be required to hold 15.9 billion gallons of water.  This should be too surprising.  Imagine what your guess would have been at the beginning of the blog post after hearing the initial value that was reported of 60 million cubic meters?  Would your guess have been larger, smaller, or equivalent to the calculated value?

Conclusion:

As I mentioned in the introductory blog post for this website, my intention was to demystify numbers that were reported in the popular news.  Further, to give the reader or you a better understanding how how a scientist thinks.  These objects, structures, or volumes were what came to mind while reading the above articles.  

Does that last sentence sound crazy?



If so, relax, and do not stress yourself out.  The world is full of diverse people.  I might not think like you.  Furthermore,  what questions arise in my mind might be completely different than those that arise in yours -- even after reading the same article.



Who cares about the value reported?



That is another story completely (and another blog post).  We might have different interests, concerns, questions when reading content in the popular news.  What unites us in this situation is that we both live on the planet Earth.  If these tragic accidents keep occurring, the toll down the line (in years to come) could be deadly to everyone (not just the Brazilians).



The first step toward being concerned about possible issues (some of which I will bring up in the 'follow up' post on this disaster) is the understanding of the magnitude of the problem.  As I mentioned, the first time that I read through the article, I missed the HUGE magnitude of the disaster (volume of waste) due to different units.  This shows how narrow-minded I was -- I am looking for gallons.   I should have slowed down and read the article more carefully the first time around.  How often do you have the same happen to you?  Reading too quickly to miss the content?  These are questions that each of us need to answer based on our own actions.

I hope that the disaster down in Brazil has been brought into a different light for you after reading this post.  Have a great day!