This is the e-mail that first raised the question:
Subject: [leads] De-icer
> Hello everyone,
> When you have time please look at the information about the Magnesium Anti and De Icer on http://www.dust-control.ca/deicer.htm.> It might be of use on course as well as on the road and could help reduce the amount of sand we use. I believe we can get it in a backpack style container to carry around the course with a wand/spray applicator.
Since I’m not the one shovelling and sanding the course any more (although I did spend 3 winters as Lead Snow Shoveller), don’t rely completely on this opinion, and consider that just about anything in quantity can be, “Bad for the environment,” but in my mind a product that is, “…The least harmful of common de-icers to vegetation and groundwater,” is still harmfull.
I understand our objective with this product is to create safer decks and platforms and to make de-icing an easier process. Another goal is to reduce the amount of sand we’re throwing into the woods to lessen that environmental impact. While this product mostly meets these goals, there is still an environmental cost incurred, and the Lead Guides should carefully weigh the work load benefits against the environmental costs (perhaps using a framework based approach to sustainability, does anyone know of such a tool?) before proceeding with this largely chlorine-based product. Evaluating this product’s MDS, there are a few funny points and a few more concerning ones:
“Thermal decomposition above temperatures of 570 degrees F may release chlorine gas.”
If it’s 570 degrees, we’ve got bigger problems than chlorine gas, and certainly no ice to worry about!
“May cause leather to shrink.”
This could be an advantage… form-fitted Watson gloves!
“Wash with mild soap and water, practice reasonable and ordinary hygiene.”
How is this product specific? Seems more like general common sense! I swear this isn’t taken out of context.
“Material can be corrosive to some metals… Avoid contact with eye, skin or clothing”
Ok, here’s some real devil’s-advocate stuff: If I can’t get this stuff on my skin, how is a plant going to like it? Plants can’t practice “reasonable and ordinary hygiene”. The product brochure claims it is far less corrosive than salt, but does not claim to be non-corrosive. The stuff is also largely chlorine based. Is throwing chlorine into the woods more, or less environmentally damaging than sand or salt? Plants and animals are known to exist in highly rocky terrain – how many are known to live in swimming pools?
Finally, I assume this product is only going to be used on decks and platforms and that sand will still be used on trails. For me, this negates the goal of creating less work. Schaffer writes, “It can’t be worse than dragging around sand buckets all day”. Can’t it? You might have to drag a bucket of liquid chlorine around all day along with that bucket of sand.
Perhaps “liquid chlorine” is a bit dramatic. MgCl2 doesn’t appear to be that different from NaCl. Magnesium and Sodium are even neighbours on the periodic table. So is this stuff really any better than salt? A google search reveals all sorts of information.
