her last name is spelled Litela.

BTW too much of anything can kill. Too much oxygen in the air can kill, drinking too much water can kill, etc. Hopefully, you get the picture, but I am not holding my breath.

On January 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm, huggybear said:

There is no right or wrong answer here.

Ummm – actually yes there is. If by action or lack of action you create a situation where a human life is needlessly threatened then YOU ARE WRONG. It’s not hard, try considering human life as the most precious thing on Earth – it’s an eyeopening experience.

If you think it’s okay to damage the environment in exchange for clear roads, that’s an opinion (And trust me — in Upper Michigan, where salt is regularly used to melt ice, many roads are lined with dead trees.)

The roads in upper Michigan are lined with dead trees because THEY DROWN. There’s no drainage up there because of the roads, especially US 2 – so they are standing in stagnant water and they DROWN.

And just as Jack Bogdanski is not an obstetrician, I’m guessing you are not an ecologist.

There’s no requirement to be an obstetrician nor a ecologist to point out governmental stupidity. In fact it helps if you’re not an ecologist. I’m a conservationist. We’re smarter than ecologists because we consider the value of human life.

You’re welcome to have an opinion, but that doesn’t mean your opinion is worth any more than anyone else’s.

Actually since I spent my life reclaiming deforested areas, my opinion is worth more than a lot of people’s when it comes to environmental matters. Especially the know nothing, do nothing, whine about everything, not in MY backyard watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) who sit on their hands and demand laws to enact their silly daydreams rather than getting off their dead asses and getting their hands dirty.

Huggybear, there is indeed a right and wrong answer here. It depends on your priorities and values.

In this case, Mayor Nickels admitted that placing the environment ahead of the lives and welfare of the people who live and work in Seattle was a mistake. Which is just another way of saying “We were wrong”.

Your “There is no right or wrong answer” is just fence sitting at best, and enabling bad decisions by not calling people on them at worst.

In this case, the Seattle administration made the wrong decision. Made, perhaps, with the best of intentions, but still the wrong decision.

And too much of anything can kill. For example, too much snow can kill people, vegetation, and wildlife. Too much water can kill as well. There’s always a balance, with a certain amount of leeway, all throughout nature. The Sound’s ecology might not tolerate a constant influx of salt, but for a few days every year or two? It probably can. I wouldn’t go out of my way to do it, but for weather conditions that are fairly rare of Seattle? Not a major problem. I’d worry more about oil getting dumped into drains.

Nature doesn’t practice moral equivalence; that’s a purely human characteristic.

the onus is on you to disprove commonly held wisdom…

It’s commonly held wisdom that salt kills things.

There is no right or wrong answer here. If you think it’s okay to damage the environment in exchange for clear roads, that’s an opinion (And trust me — in Upper Michigan, where salt is regularly used to melt ice, many roads are lined with dead trees.) but that does not make it “right.” And just as Jack Bogdanski is not an obstetrician, I’m guessing you are not an ecologist. You’re welcome to have an opinion, but that doesn’t mean your opinion is worth any more than anyone else’s.

I’m guessing that there’s something about road salt and the Sound that you don’t know and the Mayor of Seattle does. I’m guessing there’s a reason nobody with any credentials objected to the Mayor’s statement about salt and the Sound.

Blind, unquestioning deference to environmental activists … it’s the liberal way.

On January 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm, Tazed and Confused said:
bzzzztttt… wrong answer numbnutz… the onus is on you to disprove commonly held wisdom… It’s laughable to think that you expect others to disprove your nutzroots beliefs… ROTLMAO

Yes!! lgm has this tactic where “it” tries to hijack the thread by trying to make us go and find links to prove our points to “it”. Looks like we are finally catching on to that somewhat transparent attempt. If lgm wants to prove “its” point by linking, fine. Otherwise, “it” needs to STFU.

lgm said:

My guess is that there is a very good reason not to use salt. Please provide links to the contrary.

bzzzztttt… wrong answer numbnutz… the onus is on you to disprove commonly held wisdom… It’s laughable to think that you expect others to disprove your nutzroots beliefs… ROTLMAO

In other words, rock salt is a natural mineral, much like what is already dissolved in the waters of Puget Sound. There might be valid concerns in raising the natural salinity on the Sound around the Seattle area, but that would be a short event, thanks to the currents and surface run off.

It’s not that much of an issue, except to people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

On January 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm, WarEagle82 said:

HA!!

And if the Moonbats out there complained about putting sea salt back in to the sea we could just tell them it was a program to return captive salt crystals to their native habitat…

On January 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm, conservativesRus said:
sorry scrapper – I can’t resist.

O.K. Good post!

lgm – do you know the difference between road salt and table salt?

I’m guessing neither does the Mayor of Seattle.

When you learn that difference, please come back and report to us so we all can know why salt is bad for the oceans.