During the snowiest time of the year, many must take solace in the fact that despite the assurance of general annoyances, as well as very real dangers, that oncoming snowfall provides, they can cover their properties with thick layers of de-icer to combat such a fatiguing onslaught. For clarity, a “de-icer” is simply a substance that lowers the freezing point of water and prevents the bond between ice particles and paved surfaces to form, consequently melting or preventing the formation of ice. Unfortunately, despite the allure of using salt to make our lives easier, or to eliminate the need to shovel snow drifts and ice skate down sidewalks, the effect they can have on us and our greater environment is far from applaudable.

Unsurprisingly, excessively mixing chemical cocktails on the sidewalks and roads of our communities does more than straightforwardly create slush. Mass amounts of de-icers harm our pets and other wildlife that walk on and ingest the mixture. It erodes vast amounts of public infrastructure and severely contaminates an abundance of fresh water sources. Ultimately, de-icers are not the cure-all solution for snow shoveling blues, and, just as one may have already guessed from living in a consumption-based society, deceitful marketing is just the tip of the iceberg for de-icing’s truly extensive destruction.

Although all de-icers basically have the same fundamental objective, there are many different types of these products on the market. While liquid de-icer has been found to act faster than granular products and speed up melting processes when used in combination with them, chloride-based de-icers such as rock salt and ice-melt salt remain the very popular alternatives across America. The principal difference between each type of de-icer regards the different chemical compositions of each, which work best at different temperatures and accordingly influences a product’s comprehensive literal and cost effectiveness. Whereas rock salt is essentially just sodium chloride, ice-melt salt instead uses a formula of sodium chloride with magnesium chloride or calcium chloride pellets. Besides the initial traction rock salts provide, unlike its de-icing counterparts, there’s generally about a 20 degrees Fahrenheit difference between the melting points of these two leading wintertime aids. For rock salt, the melting point is around 15 degrees Fahrenheit, while for ice melt salt with magnesium chloride, it’s closer to -10 degrees Fahrenheit. Lastly, for ice melt salt with calcium chloride, it’s around -20 degrees Fahrenheit. Even though several classes of non-chloride de-icers exist, its higher cost and lower availability results in its infrequent use on roads and sidewalks and higher utilization in airports. Further, although completely non-chemical products like sawdust and sand certainly exist to mitigate the issues born from snow and ice, not only are they less effective than other more enhanced products, they arguably create a whole separate issue requiring labor-intensive removal.

Regardless of the specific pros and cons that rock salts and ice melts may individually possess or even share, the single most significant factor which unites these two products relates to the dangers they pose. Firstly, and perhaps the most obvious, when just about every inch of public and private walkways are inescapably covered in de-icing products, pets and wildlife alike are immediately put at risk. In the case of pets, although there are certain booties you can buy which protect their paws from damage, though investing in this specific solution almost guarantees struggling with your dog to get them on and walk with them. While not always the greatest option, they can protect your pet’s paws from being cut on corrosive and jagged rock salts. For our less fortunate, bootie-less friends, however, the salts don’t only burn open wounds, but get stuck in paws and cause dryness, irritation and even bleeding. Even if they’re not ingested outside when a pet tries to lick the salt off, de-icers could just as easily be tracked back into the home and ingested then, which is especially dangerous if your pet develops a taste for the salt and tries to eat it from the bag kept at home. Although wiping your pets’ paws off immediately after getting home with a damp paper towel or cloth is indisputably the best option, ingesting de-icer can still happen to any animal when unknowingly eating snow or vegetation that’s been exposed to some of the product. Especially in the case of wildlife in more rural areas, it has been found by Emilie Snell-Rood, associate professor in ecology, evolution and behavior at the University of Minnesota, that “road salt is kind of like potato chips for animals.” As the de-icer attracts creatures like moose and deer, both of which are more active later in the day, the added risk of harmful, if not fatal, late night collisions is immediately introduced for both parties.

While of course the size of an animal, the specific type of de-icer and how much of it they ate all factor into how serious of a reaction they’ll have to its ingestion, at high enough levels, ice melts can rapidly elevate a pet’s sodium levels and lead to tremors or seizures. The most common issue for pets in particular that eat de-icers are an upset stomach, intense dehydration, vomiting, diarrhea or a possible ulceration to the mouth. Even “pet-friendly” de-icing products usually contain urea or magnesium chloride, both of which are two very common chemicals found in ice-melt salts and threatening to pets’ well-being. Despite a growing number of products being labeled and sold as pet-friendly to appease their consumer bases, veterinarians have found that several contain at least some ingredients that aren’t actually safe for pets. Both companies like Safe Paw Ice Melter, introduced by Gaia Enterprises Inc. in 1995, and Safe-T-Pet, introduced by Morton Salt Inc. in 2010, admit to have never done animal studies on their products. Although there are some products that have been found to be at least safer for pets, like urea — an ingredient actually found in fertilizers — a de-icer product that is 100 percent safe for animals everywhere still has yet to make its debut.

Apart from the adverse impacts de-icers can have on pets and other wildlife, they pose just as serious of an environmental concern when considering their effect on sidewalks and roads themselves, as well as the soil, plants and trees. A 2005 study conducted by Iowa State University focusing on the effect of chloride-based de-icers on concrete discovered that out of the five main de-icing compounds tested, calcium chloride had the most damaging effects on the overall strength of the concrete due to its chemical reaction with the salt. Essentially, during the experimentation, calcium chloride ions penetrated into the concrete deeper and faster than any other compound, which caused more direct structural damage. Despite their innately damaging effects, chloride de-icers are actually the most popular class of de-icers for their advertised low costs and widespread availability. Compared to chloride-based de-icers, acetate and agricultural de-icers actually showed significantly less structural damage on concrete, arguably connected to their high prices and general inaccessibility. Other studies conducted on chloride-based de-icers have also found that the long-term accumulation of the chemical in soil can result in reduced levels of soil’s permeability and fertility, as well as an increase in its alkalinity and density, which inhibits plant growth. Roadside vegetation, in particular, are impacted by de-icers when chloride is absorbed through its roots or begins to accumulate on a plant’s branches and leaves. Even moderate amounts of sodium exposure can cause symptoms for the plant similar to those of a drought, like stunted growth, brown and falling leaves or needles and dying limbs, according to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.

De-icers present another threat to the environment as they melt together with ice and snow, creating a highly saturated substance that finds its way into groundwater reserves, storm drains and other fresh water sources like rivers and reservoirs, where they continue to stay for the sole reason that there aren’t mechanisms to remove it. Primarily in more urban areas, the most significant reason chemicals like chloride are found in groundwater is due to the use of de-icing salts. While following seasonal distribution, concentrations of de-icer chemicals can further disrupt the natural circulation of surface water because of strong salinity stratification. More plainly, because water containing salt has a higher density than water that doesn’t, it will sink to the bottom of the body and result in chemical layering which disrupts its mixing patterns. Additionally, according to the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, compared to rivers and lakes, small ponds and streams are the most impacted by de-icers as the likelihood of dilution and dispersion of the salt is lower in those environments. As it’s extremely expensive to try and remove excess salinity in freshwater sources, it’s often left unrectified and poised to negatively affect any organism that consumes it. Even though de-icer at high amounts in water can produce an extremely unpleasant taste, organisms that live in the water, or people that swim in it, are exposed to new risks born from the increase in bacteria and toxins that come with ecological imbalances.

Besides getting into a situation where you’ve exposed your external body to contaminated water, it can also be accidentally swallowed, which produces a whole new host of problems for those with “low-sodium diets due to diabetes or other health issues,” according to Joshua Rapp Learn for Smithsonian Magazine. This is even more noteworthy if the body of water put at risk by de-icer usage happens to be a significant source for an entire population. Besides having an abundance of freshwater sources, Binghamton is intersected by two major rivers, the Chenango River and Susquehanna River, the latter of which is actually the population’s main source of drinking water. Due to this situation, it seems wise to at least consider how our use of de-icers can further adversely affect our natural water supply, as well as the habitat of countless aquatic and terrestrial animals.

While some contaminant levels are legally allowed to exceed recommended health guidelines, additional chemicals are wholly unregulated and still prevalent in our sources. In water safety tests conducted from 2004 to 2009, 13 chemicals were routinely found in Binghamton’s water supply to exceed established health guidelines. For reference, the national average is four. More recently, a February 2020 study of our drinking water found at least 10 different contaminants in it, all exceeding the levels health guidelines have prescribed as safe for consumption. This probably isn’t shocking to most Binghamton University students, as we are advised to avoid drinking the tap water and invest in a filtration system regardless of whether our residence is on or off campus. Even though de-icers may only be a marginal influence on the other factors at play here, this is undoubtedly exacerbating the problem at hand. Fundamentally, the seemingly mitigable hazards brought on by de-icers are as indiscriminate as they are immediately pressing. While the true severity of these super salts is almost unbelievable when looking at a single, isolated externality, when taken together, it’s clear that we must wean off our addictive dependency on deicers before reaching a level of destruction we can’t return from.

Miranda Jackson-Nudelman is a senior majoring in political science.