Salt water damage to azaleas

It's just too bad that you're so ignorant that you don't even understand what it's really saying. You have totally misinterpreted what it says. It's actually quite amusing that you're using it to prove you're right, when if someone actually reads the whole thing, and understands what it says, they'll see that it doesn't prove your mistaken beliefs at all.

It's so sad that you dug so hard, and ignored so much just to find something that you thought backed-up your odd-ball theory. It's even sadder that what you found really doesn't back-up your odd-ball theory because you really don't understand what you're reading.

And you have the nerve to suggest that *other* people have poor reading comprehension skills?

Sad.

Go out and pour some more salt water on your azaleas. That may be the only way you'll understand how wrong you really are. Although based on history, you'll ignore all the dead ones, and claim that the one that survived is proof that salt water doesn't harm them.

Janet Baraclough expounded:

Get this, Janet. That was a quick web search I grabbed for a sample. I actually attended a lecture by Cary Wolinsky (a personal friend of my mother's) who did an extensive article for National Geographic about the salt problems in Australia. A little bit more indepth than a BBC reporter's article. You are the one who needs to 'get that'.

The more you go on the less credible you get.

Janet Baraclough expounded:

You know, I just realized how bad you've actually become. Now we should discuss ignorant Brits? Descending to insults is the last bastion of a true loser.

The underground salt deposits are from ancient seas, Janet. The water table has risen and brought the salts to the surface. But since that doesn't fit your little theory that salt falls in rainwater you're ignoring it.

Janet's usually not this nutty. I suspect something has gone wrong in life & she's venting in a trolly manner so as not to have to deal with life, or is so sensitized from bad stuff in life that at this point she cannot abide being so damned wrong about ANYthing no matter how wrong she gets. Just guessing, but emotional breakdowns CAN be like mini-psychotic breaks. They generally pass.

-paghat the ratgirl

The message from Ann contains these words:

You still haven't read the Australian Govt Dept of Agriculture website, have you? That is ONE source (as I have repeatedly quoted). The MAIN source of that underground salt, according to that website, is salt from rain.

The water

No, I have not disputed how salination works, Ann; the exact opposite. The fact you think I have, shows that you haven't read either my post or the site it quoted. Just read the WA Agricultural Dept website, then say which of THEIR figures and statements you disbelieve.

Janet

The message from Tom Jaszewski contains these words:

Ask Paghat; it was she who referred to America's " increasingly imbecilic population".

Janet

The message from Ann contains these words:

Oh, right; "a personal friend of Ann's mother", the ultimate scientific accolade. Clearly the genes inherited from your mother did not enhance your comprehension skills, so it appears Colin Wolinsky was not quite as intimate with her as you imply.

What are you asking us to believe, Ann..that because the lecturer was a personal friend of your mother, you somehow know more about Australian salination than Australian Govt agricultural research? Even if you hung upon his every word just because he was a friend of your mother, you have still failed to grasp the simplest basic point. Ancient oceans are ONE of the sources of the underground salt in Australia. Just ONE. Not the only one.

Why don't you address the scientifically researched facts given in the WA Ag Dept website, and explain to us which ones you think they got wrong? Please provide cites for the scientific, peer reviewed research in Australia, which has brought you to that conclusion.

Janet

Janet Baraclough expounded:

Sorry, Janet, I'm just a stupid American who can't/won't follow your twisted rantings - and come to your erroneous conclusions. But do continue to insult and ridicule, it makes you ever so much more believable.

I think Paghat's right, you've lost it completely. I believe people like Stephen and Cary (did you google his name? Do you know who he is? And never mind the insults, just look it up), both of whom have been to the places they describe and who've studied what they've reported extensively, before I'll believe anything you dig up.

You mean you're NOT a Scot???

-paggers

The message from Ann contains these words:

I believe people

"What I dug up"?

In the dispute with Stephen, "what I dug up", was the official websites of the gardens. By official, I mean the websites constructed and run by the public bodies which own and run them. The websites provide maps, elevations, descriptions and pictures which refute Stephen's descriptions of the coastal gardens' locations, elevations, and proximity to sea. I can't influence those websites in any way, so my credibility, or my opinion, is neither here not there. Stephen's claims simply don't match the irrefutable geography. Photographs prove that.

In the discussion about salty precipitation (which Paghat claimed does not exist), "what I dug up" was Australian Govt research by the Western Australia Dept of Agriculture, proving it does.

These are incontrovertible sources of information, Ann. Not my opinion, not something I invented. If you prefer to believe Stephen, that reflects on you. Where Carl's lecture is concerned, I think it unlikely that you fully understood him or paid full attention, just as you failed to grasp or pay full attention to the content and authenticity of the website I cited.

Janet.

Janet Baraclough expounded:

Incontrovertial - that's debatable. But you'd believe it, because of your 'grasp'. There's quite a lot to the environmental devastation brought to Australia by the Brits. And quite a lot of science that won't see the light of day because of the Australian government. But that's a fight for another thread.

You fail to grasp - that I prefer to believe people who've been there and studied situations. Who is Carl? Oh, you didn't 'grasp' his name, did you? Didn't pay full attention, did you? Get insulting, get it right back, honey.

Give it up, Janet, you've killed the horse and beaten it to a pulp.

The message from Ann contains these words:

Do you imagine the West Australia Dept of Agriculture has not been to Australia or studied its situation? I'm very surprised you find a talk by a Boston-based photographic journalist, more scientifically significant than their peer-reviewed research.

Janet

I think everyone is willing to say that the West Australia Dept of Agriculture knows their business. What we're saying is you're not understanding what you're reading. You're taking it so out of context that you think it says just the opposite of what they're really saying.

In the very first paragraph it states: "Increased recharge raises the water table, bringing naturally stored salts from depth to the surface."

So their point is that the salt problem that rainfall causes is the rise in the water table, not the salt content of the rain itself. While the source of the salt is believed to be the rain water, the amount of salt in the rain is essentially insignificant unless you have no flushing action, and you wait 20,000 years.

They're not saying that it rains salt water. Their saying that because of geological conditions salt in the soil isn't being flushed by the rain water.

Ann's expert is saying the same thing your expert is saying, but you aren't understanding what your expert is really saying, and you're hearing essentially the opposite of what they actually are saying. You are misunderstanding what you are reading.

The message from "Warren" contains these words:

That's new; you directly contradicted them earlier. See below, salt in rainfall.

What we're saying is you're not

I think we're at cross purposes here.

The misunderstanding is yours.

Earlier, I said that rhododendrons and azaleas in Scotland are well-used to frequent heavy salting from rainwater. (AT NO TIME, have I claimed this salinates Scotiish soil. On the contrary, I made it clear, in our climate conditions it does not).

Here's the exhange between me and Stephen:

J> > West Scotland's salt-laden coast is famous for its

S> How can areas with 60 to 90 inches of annual rainfall be salt laden?!?!?!

J> The rain, and wind, come from 3000 miles of Atlantic ocean and are heavily salt-laden.

Paghat replied

The message from snipped-for-privacy@netscape.net (paghat) contains these words:

I cited the Australian site, as proof that coastal precipitation A) does contain salt and B) does deposit that salt on land. Note, I described, above, heavily salt-laden rain and wind. NOT salt evaporating into clouds; that was another of Paghat's red herrings. . You responded

If what you got out of that page is that salt can be evaporated

Here's what the website states: (speaking of wind blown salt in rain water from the ocean).

"Salt in rainfall can range from about 20 kg/ha/per annum (usually inland with low rainfall) to more than 200 kg/ha/per annum (usually coastal with high rainfall)."

Rain in coastal areas, like mine, can be very heavily salted. Research in Australia (and America, quoted earlier in the thread by Presley), proves that. Both you and Paghat denied that was possible; you were wrong.

Shelterplanting, which is essential here due to very high winds, only breaks the windforce. It can't keep the all-year heavy (and salty) rainfall off plants below or in the lea of the windbreak. ALL plants here, are going to have salty rain dropped on them several times a week (or, for weeks on end in winter). That includes the azaleas and rhododendrons which thrive here. Janet.

Tell us about how switching from drinking rain water to drinking sea water is going since you have proved they are the same. By the way I bear no responsibility for your demise or funeral costs, try billing that to the Australian Government agency you are quoting.

The message from Stephen Henning contains these words:

Straw man. You're posting rubbish that you made up ..again. Here's another example of your fantasies

""Inverewe Gardens (NT) (on Loch Ewe, a saltwater estuary, but the rhododendrons and azaleas are either grown in walled gardens or on high ground."..Stephen Henning 6 August 2005

Janet

I have a very similar situation yet not quite the same depth or duration of exposure. All my camellias handled the salt water intrusion find as did most of my azaleas. A few, however, lost most or all of their leaves. 2 of them are already starting to regrow leaves but several more show no regrowth. That said, the stems remain green upon cutting, seemingly indicative of a healthy plant. Would you expect them to deteriorate given no leaf regrowth ? It was been 4 weeks.