HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Nature Climate Change - S... » Reply #7

Response to pengu (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 12, 2015, 12:17 PM

7. I can wrap my head around that

using your numbers that' s 356 Quintilian gallons give or take a zero,( I'm not a mathematician). That would mean you would need 20,368,000,0000,0000,000 pounds of baking soda to see a significant difference by laymen logic. Half it for less significant results and it's still a humongous number.I know that one store alone in one chain carries 20 pounds of it weekly in the us alone.That would be another huge number. I understand at glance that number would still fall painfully short I can't find how much baking soda is on the planet . Apparently google doesn't have that number or I'm user defective. Here's the thing I was only talking about putting back what we take out. Every shell fish we take out of the ocean is a little less calcium carbonate then there was. I don't know what effect it will have but it's not going backwards. Then add to it that locally by adding calcium carbonate helps balance the PH in that area. Helping whatever shell fish are in that area not necessarily the whole ocean. I say it's a start. Now as far as sodium bicarbonate, I don't know the details on the difference in affect between calcium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate on ocean water and animals. I know what most people know that if you want to balance PH in pools and aquariums you use baking soda. I am sure there is a detail in there somewhere that will bite me in the ass. But my general thought is still the same we're just going to watch it happen and do nothing because the numbers are too big, WTF???

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.