Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[PinkLucy]

Toronto's road salt quickly flows into Lake Ontario, and I'm aware of no significant salinity concerns in Lake Ontario - which isn't a surprise given the short residence time.

The price of salt: How road salts are affecting our Great Lakes — Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

Around Lake Ontario, winter-weather forecasts bring out road salt. This means crunchy sidewalks, dog booties and salt-stained shoes. It also means severe impacts for Lake Ontario’s watershed and its aquatic life.

www.waterkeeper.ca

Hold the salt: Experts concerned about runoff into Lake Ontario after storm | CBC News

As residents and commuters recover from the treacherous freezing rain that hit Toronto Wednesday evening, conservationists are worried about the thousands of tons of salt dumped on our roads that will eventually drain into Lake Ontario.

www.cbc.ca

TVO Today | Current Affairs Journalism, Documentaries and Podcasts

www.tvo.org

There's plenty more

 

[nfitz]

There's plenty more

That's one individual though, and a bit of a crackpot sometimes. Long-term data shows we are no where near the levels of a few decades ago, despite the increase in population. I've not seen significant concerns from professionals. Compare to the Lake Simcoe watershed, where there ARE concerns.

Here's long-term data - we are well below 1970s levels, and it appears to have been relatively static for years.



Obviously more of a concern where there are local creeks, and such. But City of Toronto streets and sidewalks along Queens Quay aren't feeding local streams! So how is this relevant?

 

[Allandale25]

Some neat history here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1107451625520680961

 

[PinkLucy]

There are multiple people quoted in those articles, not just one "crackpot". And if we're better than when we were bad, does that still make it ok?

 

[WislaHD]

Toronto's road salt quickly flows into Lake Ontario, and I'm aware of no significant salinity concerns in Lake Ontario - which isn't a surprise given the short residence time. Of course we should try and minimize as much as possible; but to a great extent, it's the lesser evil.

Lake Ontario is fortunate to be a large lake. Most of our road salt ends up on forest floors, farm fields, and our water systems. It dissolves leaving the chloride to enter nearby water systems through runoff and leaching.

Chloride tests in Credit Valley in Mississauga found that in the winter, chloride levels exceeded 5,000 milligrams per litre. At Cooksville Creek, it was 18,000 milligrams per litre. The average chloride level in oceans is 20,000 milligrams per litre.

'You can taste it': Road salt making GTA rivers, streams as salty as seawater | CBC News

Environmental researchers in the Greater Toronto Area say road salt runoff is making some local waterways as salty as seawater.

www.cbc.ca

"In 2011, well before the Flint disaster, Michigan’s Mackinac Center for Public Policy pegged the total damage done by road salt as high as $687 CDN per tonne. In Minnesota, damage estimates ranged between $1000 CDN and $5000 CDN per tonne. Canada uses at least seven million tonnes of salt per year, according to 2009 estimates by Environment Canada. Using the Mackinac Center estimate, that’s $4.8 billion in damage per year — $1 billion more than the $3.6 billion damage caused by the Fort McMurray wildfire."

Also evidently, road salt is killing people too.

"Salt was a key contributor to the deadly 2006 collapse of the De La Concorde bridge in Laval, killing six people. After the Algo Centre Mall in Ontario’s Elliot Lake collapsed in 2012, killing two people, forensic analysts said the building’s steel supports looked like they had spent decades marinating in sea water."

How Canada's addiction to road salt is ruining everything

Bringing down bridges, melting cars, poisoning rivers; it's hard to think of something salt isn't ruining

nationalpost.com

I doubt that most people are more concerned about some stains on boots than more injuries and deaths!

It's not just stains, but genuine wear and tear. I think most people should be more concerned about roads, bridges, and large-capital infrastructure, but I threw that in there to add a little bit more personal impact.

 

[nfitz]

There are multiple people quoted in those articles, not just one "crackpot". And if we're better than when we were bad, does that still make it ok?

If it saves lives, yes that makes it okay. I don't see any "experts" quoted, despite the headlines.

The best environmental solution for the planet, is to eradicate human life completely. Obviously we aren't going to do that. There needs to be trade offs, and protection of human life is paramount. Better a million dead frogs than a dead human.

 

[Northern Light]

That's one individual though, and a bit of a crackpot sometimes. Long-term data shows we are no where near the levels of a few decades ago, despite the increase in population. I've not seen significant concerns from professionals. Compare to the Lake Simcoe watershed, where there ARE concerns.

Here's long-term data - we are well below 1970s levels, and it appears to have been relatively static for years.

View attachment 177091

Obviously more of a concern where there are local creeks, and such. But City of Toronto streets and sidewalks along Queens Quay aren't feeding local streams! So how is this relevant?

Note that your chart shows rising levels of chloride from the mid 90s to about 2013 or so. Levels that that have increased from already unacceptably high levels.

Levels in some streams and rivers are already toxic to a number of aquatic species.

Pollution levels in Toronto harbour are higher than those shown in your chart, for a number of different variables.

If you wish to verify the data, as per the excellent piece leading @WislaHD post.............you might consult some members of the U of T faculty........... .

 

[nfitz]

Note that your chart shows rising levels of chloride from the mid 90s to about 2013 or so. Levels that that have increased from already unacceptably high levels.

Yes, it rose a bit again, but didn't hit the 1970s. Looks like most stations peaked again in 2007 or so, and have generally dropped since.

Levels in some streams and rivers are already toxic to a number of aquatic species.

From salt on Queens Quay? I don't believe it!

 

[Northern Light]

If it saves lives, yes that makes it okay. I don't see any "experts" quoted, despite the headlines.

The best environmental solution for the planet, is to eradicate human life completely. Obviously we aren't going to do that. There needs to be trade offs, and protection of human life is paramount. Better a million dead frogs than a dead human.

You post this drivel and wonder why some people here are hostile to you? This statement can only be described as ill-informed, myopic, short-sighted and arrogant.

PS....your experts from the article you didn't bother reading:

"It's really quite worrying," Carl Mitchell, an associate professor of environmental science at University of Toronto, said in an interview.

Also................. Amanjot Singh, a senior engineer with CVC. (Credit Valley Conservation Authority)

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, it rose a bit again, but didn't hit the 1970s. Looks like most stations peaked again in 2007 or so, and have generally dropped since.

From salt on Queens Quay? I don't believe it!

From road salt applied in the GTA.

Queen's Quay is in the GTA.

Managing salt use here is one portion of the solution not the entirety of it. FFS

 

[nfitz]

You post this drivel and wonder why some people here are hostile to you? This statement can only be described as ill-informed, myopic, short-sighted and arrogant.

If your response to my argument that road salt on Queens Quay is not impacting streams and rivers, is to resort to personal attacks and insults, then surely that only proves that I'm right!

I checked those articles again. They are not talking about Queens Quay. Queens Quay is not even in the Credit Valley watershed!

Please stay on-topic and please apologize for the personal attack.

From road salt applied in the GTA.

Queen's Quay is in the GTA.

Managing salt use here is one portion of the solution not the entirety of it. FFS

I said above that we should minimize salt usage, but that it's the lesser evil (the other being dead humans from slip and trip).

Where am I wrong? How is this ill-informed, myopic, short-sighted and arrogant?

If minimizing is not the solution, do you suggest then that we eliminate completely?

 

[salsa]

If your response to my argument that road salt on Queens Quay is not impacting streams and rivers, is to resort to personal attacks and insults, then surely that only proves that I'm right!

No it doesn't.

 

[nfitz]

Lake Ontario is fortunate to be a large lake. Most of our road salt ends up on forest floors, farm fields, and our water systems.

From Queens Quay? I don't think so. That's not how it works ...

Also evidently, road salt is killing people too.

"Salt was a key contributor to the deadly 2006 collapse of the De La Concorde bridge in Laval, killing six people. After the Algo Centre Mall in Ontario’s Elliot Lake collapsed in 2012, killing two people, forensic analysts said the building’s steel supports looked like they had spent decades marinating in sea water."

Road salt wasn't the primary factor in either of those failures. Both were engineering failures. In the former, there was a lot less structural steel in the structure than the design. It's disingenuous to point to road salt to either of these failures. Structures are design for road salt.

You ignored my question. I asked what evidence there was that Montreal was using less salt than Toronto? The last numbers I saw - which I admit was a while ago - the numbers were higher in Montreal (not a surprise given how much more snow, and longer winter, they usually get!).

 

[nfitz]

No it doesn't.

If one's argument is so utterly weak, that one has to resort to personal attacks, then what else could it mean? Nothing was said until that point that wasn't simple polite discussion.

So I'm wrong that we should minimize salt usage? Do you suggest we eliminate it entirely?

 

[Northern Light]

If your response to my argument that road salt on Queens Quay is not impacting streams and rivers, is to resort to personal attacks and insults, then surely that only proves that I'm right!

I checked those articles again. They are not talking about Queens Quay. Queens Quay is not even in the Credit Valley watershed!

Please stay on-topic and please apologize for the personal attack.

I said above that we should minimize salt usage, but that it's the lesser evil (the other being dead humans from slip and trip).

Where am I wrong? How is this ill-informed, myopic, short-sighted and arrogant?

If minimizing is not the solution, do you suggest then that we eliminate completely?

I will not engage in a full on flame war.

Simply, succinctly, and with as much restraint as I can manage, your posts here and elsewhere are consistently inflammatory and rude. I am clearly not the only one who thinks so.

You very quickly call others wrong, when they are in fact right. You demand evidence while providing precious little and misrepresenting that little which you do post.

My commentary on your last post is accurate, and far milder than the first draft, as I don't wish to draw mods into this discussion.

What you said was deeply offensive and not supported in academia, nor by any decent human being I've ever met.

Your attitude in all the time you've posted here has been consistently ascerbic and know-it-all. The former is ill-mannered and if you were to apologize for all for those instances here, you could occupy the next several
hundred pages, exclusively.

The former is unjustified as you consistently, misrepresent what others say/post, you consistently fail to show modesty or humility where your posts would seem to demand an abundance of both, you correct people who are more knowledgeable than you; and when they bring the evidence of same to your attention you dismissively march on.

So be it.

I will correct you wherever I see you posting erroneous information or falsely correcting actual facts.

I will endeavor not to openly condescend, but I'll have to be forgiven the occasional eyeroll.

Lets move on shall we?