# Comment: You vastly undercalculated that (on purpose?)

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Volume of Pacific ocean via (see in situ)

### You vastly undercalculated that (on purpose?)

Let's multiply your number times the 964 days since 3/11/11 and we lose 3 of your zeros. 0.0000000446%

Much different, however... That's the percentage of the entire ocean COMPRISED of 100% contaminated water. I'm thinking (correct me if I'm wrong here) that people would consider ocean water too dangerous at much less than 100% concentration. Let's stick with 1 drop in a gallon instead. That's 75,708 drops to a gallon and we lose another 5 of your zeros. 0.0033780254%

That's closer to what people would call 'dangerously contaminated' but it still doesn't give the full picture.

Oceans have currents and marine life that both dramatically change the game.

Currents can be thought of like a train. Let's picture painted cars as contamination. If a train passes you and you toss a gallon of paint on a small group of cars, those painted cars will stay together for the remainder of their trip. The chance of someone down the line seeing a painted car depends on their timing. Most people looking at the track will miss the few painted cars. However, if you continuously sprayed every car a little bit for 2 1/2 years, the chances increase to the point that virtually every person looking at the track will see a painted car.

Combine this with the way marine life concentrates radiation poisoning in their food chain and the problem gets much worse. Remember, in the ocean, if you kill off a major player in the food chain, say a coral reef or something, that multiplies the problem many times.

That the ENTIRE PACIFIC OCEAN is already possibly .003% contaminated is quite a different problem than you insinuate.