We have often looked at desalination technology as a source for future ideas of mitigating any possible environmental impacts of salt from winter maintenance or water softening operations. With the advent of nano-technology, high hopes were pinned on the potential for this branch of applied science to contribute a solution. Now a team has created a salt-removing gadget so small that hundreds of them could fit onto a penny. Ion Channel Polarization or ICP has been around for years, but never applied to desalination. With ICP, a liquid with charged and neutral ions, such as seawater, is run through a channel. Along the channel is an electrical potential that repels charged particles. This causes the liquid to split, creating one stream with charged particles and another with neutral particles. A review on the research can be found at ScienceMagazine .
Data may be just another “four letter word” to some. And for some advocates, data gets in the way of a good story. That’s what’s been happening as evidence unfolds about the bogus “salt hypothesis” where blood pressure-based computer modeling projecting health benefits from cutting back on dietary salt have been crushed by peer-reviewed studies showing worse outcomes and questioning even the physiologic possibility of modifying salt intakes .
Well, data is happening in other areas, too.
Recently, the American Heart Association journal Circulation published an analysis of 30 million Medicare beneficiaries’ data (repeat, 30 million Americans’ actual experience, not a computer projection). The data clearly documented that (surprise!) heart attack rates are in decline – just the opposite of what computer projections and prominent public health “experts” have claimed.
Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Yale University of Medicine and principal investigator for the study told the Wall Street Journal that the findings “breathtaking” and attributable to evidence-based prevention strategies. The same results are found in the general population, he claimed.
Of course, the new data came after the fear-mongers’ success in enacting a government takeover of healthcare arguing the current situation was deteriorating. And consider a second point: these same big-government-knows-best “experts” are telling us we have a crisis in salt intake causing, according to recent headlines, a half million heart attacks a year based on their computer projections – when salt intake levels are unchanged over many decades and now we know that heart attack rates are in decline.
As Jeff Stier of the American Council on Science and Health notes: “This isn’t consistent with their storyline that we need more government intervention like fast food bans to keep us healthy.”
So, who to believe? The “experts” or the data?
Today, at the National Press Club, American Highway Users Alliance released a study by IHS Global Insight estimating the economic impact of snowstorms in sixteen U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. The study found that "hundreds of millions of dollars in economic opportunity are lost each day that a state is shuttered by impassable roads."
“Lost wages of hourly workers account for about two-thirds of the direct economic impact of a major snowstorm,” said James Gillula, Managing Director of Global Insight and the principal researcher of the study. “Among all workers, hourly wage workers can suffer the most painful economic losses and the indirect economic effects of their lost wages can ripple through the economy.”
The study, the Highway Users noted, gives needed perspective on the true costs of what is often thought of as harmless and fun. For state and local authorities, they suggested, it could serve as a wakeup call for bigger snow removal budgets.“Although snow days often conjure happy childhood memories, this study makes it crystal clear that they have a tangible and serious negative impact on real working people and a wide range of businesses,” said Greg Cohen, Highway Users President and CEO. “The shocking losses estimated by this study should light a fire under state and local authorities nationwide to get serious about investing in quicker and more effective snow and ice removal. When roads are left unsafe or impassible, it is like money being thrown down the drain.”
This study highlights the economic necessity of snowfighting and the fact that one successful day of snowfighting can more than repay the entire costs of a year of snowfighting in economic benefits. As we exit one of the most devastating years for snowstorms in recent memory and a difficult year economically, the press is covering this story with gusto, as they should. State and local authorities cannot afford to sacrifice commerce and safety as they make budget decisions for next year.
The last official day of "winter" certainly lived up to its billing, dumping 7 inches of snow in the northern suburbs of Dallas, TX. The area thus records its snowiest winter in history. Savor the picture. It may have to last you until next November..
On January 11 of this year, you announced an ambitious program dubbed the "National Salt Reduction Program." This program was patterned after the Food Standards Agency salt reduction program in the UK, which you characterized as a success. Considering the economic, social and infrastructural problems that New York City faces, you clearly believe that a population-wide reduction of salt intake is a very high priority issue. Yet, the issue of population-wide salt reduction remains deeply mired in controversy. The majority of meta-analyses on the subject do not conclude that population-wide salt reduction is warranted. Some even state that there may be an unintended consequence resulting from such an action.
As you are so devoted to this program, I believe that you should have an opportunity to openly demonstrate the depth of this commitment. It would certainly not be the first time that political leaders have stood up to demonstrate the courage of their convictions. In 1991, in an effort to stave off international criticism regarding Peru's polluted fishery, President Alberto Fujimori dined on local ceviche in front of news cameras to demonstrate his faith in the quality of their fish. It is of no consequence that he came down with cholera the next day - the important thing is he had the courage to stand up for what he believed in.
As a public leader, I feel that you should have the same opportunity and hope that you would demonstrate the same degree of courage. I propose that you go on a 1,500 mg sodium/day diet, as recommended by the CDC and I will maintain my 3,500-4,500 mg sodium/day level for a full month. During that time, we should have our blood chemistry (renin, aldosterone, cortisol, etc.), blood pressure, arterial pulse wave velocity (a measure of arterial stiffness) and urinary sodium levels checked weekly. I would further invite Drs. Larry Apell, Chairman of the Dietary Guidelines Sub-Committee on Electrolytes and Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, two individuals who have repeatedly stated that humans do not require more than 500 mg of sodium/day to join in this demonstration by consuming that 500 mg sodium/day for one month as well and undergo the same tests.
Finally, I propose that Dr. Mehmet Oz use his good facilities to manage the clinical tests and report the results on his television program.
Mr. Mayor, I have no doubt that you wish to do what is right. I do as well, however, we are operating from a totally different set of peer-reviewed data. A task as simple as the one I suggest may well resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction and will set the salt and health debate upon a course that should benefit all citizens.
Yours sincerely,
Morton Satin
Technical Director
Salt Institute
Alexandria, VA 22314
This year has brought an avalanche of salt reduction papers in the medical journals, together with supporting editorials and letters from well-known and influential anti-salt activists. The effort appears to have been coordinated and I would not be at all surprised if WASH (World Action on Salt and Health) and CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) were associated with it.
The rather odd thing is, despite all the published text calling for stronger regulatory action to reduce salt due to all the projected morbidity, mortality and health care costs this would result in, not a shred of actual new evidence was published. The papers published were simply statistical models based upon evidence we know was highly flawed. Obviously, the laudatory op eds and letters that followed were more a show of desperation trying to shore up the flimsy house of cards.
I sent a letter to the Annals of Internal Medicine criticizing the current state of affairs, where leaders in public health policy appear to have become so political that they no longer demand evidence to develop public policy. It is a sorry state of affairs when academics resort to statistical models with fancy nine dollar words instead of simply going out and getting the data which is easily available. The letter can be seen here . Scroll down the page to the letter and click the "more" link to see the full content.
Caught up in this frenzy of scientific folly and compulsion to regulate, New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced Bill A10129 stating that no restaurant should be allowed to add salt to the food they prepare. I blogged this item and he is apparently rethinking his position coming out with the inevitable statement that he was totally misunderstood by all – that’s not what he meant…..he really meant…..not too much salt…..maybe not on Tuesdays or Thursdays…..only at Happy Hour……or no more rice in the salt shaker…… or something equally stupid!
In fact, Ortiz was highly criticized by Bloomberg for his bill with Bloomberg saying he was only working with manufacturers to gradually reduce salt over time. You know, “slowly, slowly, catchee monkey.” That way no legislation has to be developed and if it all goes south and people start exhibiting signs of cardiovascular illness, metabolic syndrome or stress or reduced cognition or alzheimer’s (all possibilities described in the medical literature), then no one has to take responsibility for it. He can simply say “We were only suggesting salt reduction – it was the industry that actually did it!”
Growing up in Montréal was a gastronomic delight. Like most other cities in North America, there was a great variety of ethnic foods, but this city's French flavor seemed to demand more of its restaurants. One day my older brother dragged me over to see a new restaurant that had just opened. It was the city's first pizzeria and he thought that the sign in the window was hilarious. There in all its colorful neon splendor was a large sign that blared "Genuine Italian Pizza - Just like in New York!!" On a smaller printed sign in a corner of the window I read the ingredients: anchovies, capers, mozzarella, prosciutto and then glanced up to my brother for an explanation of each. Real Italian pizza - just like in New York.
Earlier this week, New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced Bill A10129 stating that “No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises.” The penalty for each infraction will be $1,000.
How would such a bill affect New York's famous pizza? Could they still say real Italian pizza - just like in New York? Salt is an integral part of almost every ingredient in pizza. Salt has to be added to the dough in order to condition it so that it will be pliable enough to be stretched, tossed in the air and twirled into a pizza. Omit the salt and the dough will contract back into a ball of tough rubber. Salt has to be added to the tomato sauce in order to moderate the mild bitterness that is normally found in all tomatoes. That is why a slice of fresh tomato tastes so much better with a smidge of salt. Mozzarella, like all other cheese is cured with salt. Both anchovies and capers are packed in salt (at least the best ones are). Salt is also used to cure prosciutto and is the reason that trichinosis has never been found in this type of Italian ham. Can anyone imagine Italian sausages and any type of edible olives made without salt?
Without salt, all dressed would mean a crustless pizza topped with the emperor’s clothes. Is that real Italian pizza? Of course not - so why change it? What's wrong with Italian pizza? Is it making Italians ill? Does pizza give Italians hypertension?
In fact, Italians eat far more salt than we do here. Aside from olives, which can only be consumed if the bitterness is removed by soaking in brine for almost a month, there is Parmesan - the king of cheeses, which happens to be cured for 20 days in saturated salt brine baths, Gorgonzola cheese whose blue mold will only grow in a high salt medium, bacalla or salt cod, bottarga or salted tuna row, and anchovies, capers, salami, etc. etc. etc. Yet, Italians have amongst the best cardiovascular figures in the world because they eat a balanced diet, replete with salads and vegetables. In fact there have been several publications attributing the decline of disease to the consumption of vegetables and fruit. In North America, of course, there is full access to vegetables and fruits, however, our leaders prefer to hype approaches based on magic bullets, such as salt reduction, instead of promoting a balanced diet that every nutritionist knows will be far more effective. Assemblyman Felix Ortiz' bill is just such an example. Had Ortiz looked into the matter a little more deeply, he would have learned that salt is an essential nutrient and that the medical and scientific literature demonstrates that low salt intakes can lead to a cascade of negative health impacts including increased stress, reduced cognition and metabolic syndrome.
But man does not live by pizza alone. How will a ban on salt affect other foods in New York? How would New York's famous deli's such as Katz' or the Stage fare? Pastrami, corned beef and dill pickles will have to go by the wayside - no question. A Reuben sandwich will be no different than a skinless frankfurter without any meat in it. Well, maybe New York can live without deli's.
What about Italian restaurants? There may not be pizza but what about prosciutto e melone? Perhaps that can be changed to melone e melone and be served as a dessert instead as an appetizer? Spaghetti bolognese might work if the bolognese sauce and the parmesan cheese are left out; but plain spaghetti boiled in unsalted water will have to fill both sides of the menu page. You might try Chinese or Japanese foods, but without the vast array of soy-based sauces, what will they taste like? How’s about....Mexican....Tunisian.....Indian....? There must be something? Hmmm....got it! New York will no longer out be dubbed the Big Apple. Henceforth, New York will be known as the Big Boiled Egg.
What does the future hold for New York? Don’t be surprised if you see notices affixed to the walls of post offices declaring, “The authorities are offering a reward of $50,000 leading to the arrest of the owners of Pizza Romano, the illegal restaurant operation that has openly defied Bill A10129. Every time police close in on them, these fly-by-night operators close up shop and open elsewhere. They can be easily identified by the sign in their window, “Genuine Italian Pizza – Just Like in Montreal!!””
Years ago, when “GAO” stood for “General Accounting Office,” that arm of Congress focused its reviews on how well government agencies were spending taxpayers’ resources. A new GAO report suggests FDA should expend more resources on substances earlier determined to be safe, some, like salt, of proven safety since before the founding of FDA or even the founding of the United States. GRAS has been a prime achievement in wise use of taxpayer monies in that it has allowed the agency to accept substances in foods which had been used safely for centuries, enabling FDA to focus on substances with unproven food safety.
Salt was the original, archetypical GRAS substance.
No one should doubt the safety of salt. The petitioners would have FDA regulate the amount of salt allowed in each serving of food. There is no evidence that this would produce either of the benefits the petitioners assert. No studies have been done that show that those consuming diets incorporating low-salt foods result in lower overall salt consumption. Evidence shows that salt appetite responds to an individual’s physiologic need. Neither is there any controlled trial of whether diets lower in salt or sodium produce better health outcomes. Nearly every one of the few studies that have been done show either no benefit or even increased risk. In fact, the two controlled trials reported to date both show worse outcomes for those on lower sodium intakes.
GAO should go back to serving the taxpayers in assessing whether government agencies are using good judgment in prioritizing limited resources on real problems. The GRAS status of salt is a PR sideshow unworthy diverting FDA from its vital mission of ensuring the safety of America’s food supplies. GAO would be well served to ask why NHLBI continues to fund PR-oriented studies offering computer models of blood pressure impacts of low-salt diets when that question is well-studied and by NHLBI continues to frustrate efforts, including those of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, to have the federal government conduct a meaningful controlled health outcomes study of whether lower sodium diets would improve public health. Until that study is done, FDA is right to prioritize its resources to questions where evidence suggests the public will get better bang for its buck.
It remains hard to believe, when the daily newspapers are screaming for action to curtail population sodium intakes, that until this month, only one controlled trial has ever examined the actual health outcomes of salt reduction . Sure, we've seen computer models based solely on blood pressure projections that predict fewer heart attacks and lower cardiovascular mortality. But this fantasy has been "mugged by reality" as the data begin to appear in the peer-reviewed literature.
This month's Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology published the results of a second health outcomes study of low salt diets in a vulnerable population. The first study found low-salt diets caused more hospitalizations and greater mortality among congestive heart failure patients. This new study, by a Chinese research team headed by Dr. Jie Dong, "Low dietary sodium intake increases the death risk in peritoneal dialysis." It's conclusion:
This study revealed that low dietary sodium intake independently predicts the high overall and cardiovascular mortality in dialysis patients.
The researchers suggested a J-shaped curve as described by Dr. Michael H. Alderman in his presidential address to the International Society of Hypertension . Dong et al termed it "another example of 'reversal epidemiologic phenomenon," continuing:
In the case of dialysis patients, harm may outweigh benefit ... Low sodium intake is significantly related to overall and CVD mortality. Sodium restriction did generate undesirable effects in previous studies including increased insulin resistance, activation of the renin-angiotensin system and increased sympathetic nerve activity. ... We reveal for the first time that low sodium intake is not necessarily a good thing....
Saline drip
Hyponatremia is a far more serious condition than was originally thought. While reviewing some of the standard therapies associated with symptoms, I came across some facts that caused me to do a double take. As anyone who has ever been admitted to hospital for treatment knows, the intravenous saline drip is standard therapy and the fastest way to deliver fluids and medications throughout the body. Normal saline drip is the commonly-used term for a solution of 0.91% salt (sodium chloride). The amount of saline infused depends largely on the particular needs of a patient, but on average is typically between 1.5 and 3 liters a day for an adult. So, in order to maintain an average adult in optimum health during a hospital stay, somewhere between 13.7 – 27.3 grams of salt per day is administered. Of course, that doesn't even include the salt that is consumed along with the food. If the hospital dieticians were able to provide meals that corresponded to the current recommended levels, this would add an additional 6 grams of salt for a total of somewhere between 20 and 33 grams of salt a day. And don't forget, every four hours or so, they come by to check on your blood pressure.
I wonder how hospitals will comply with the salt intakes recommended by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee? After all, the Dietary Guidelines recommend 4 - 6 grams of salt per day, about 1/5 of what is currently administered in hospitals!!
Today's NY Times (free subscription) carries an opinion column by science editor John Tierney, "Salt Wars." It recounts the exchanges between medical experts over the advisability of asking the general population to reduce dietary salt and hits both of the key issues, which are:
- Is salt reduction even possible or is "salt appetite" a hard-wired physiological response by the body to its need for this necessary nutrient?
- If population salt reduction were achieved, would public health be improved?
The most interesting aspect of this debate among medical professionals is that those advocating for population salt reduction want to skip over these two questions. Tierney blows the whistle on them, quoting America's leading salt reductionist, Dr. Larry Appel, conceding that the data a "murky" and that there is no evidence of any change in American salt consumption, up or down, in recent decades. Said Appel: “We just don’t have great data on sodium trends over time. I wish that we did. But I can’t tell you if there’s been an increase or decrease.”
To oblige Dr. Appel, while the data on any putative benefit of salt reduction is clearly all over the map with some studies supporting a benefit but more finding no benefit or even heightened risk, the data on the immutability of salt appetite is rather consistent and compelling -- government policies do not move salt consumption among people eating normal amounts of sodium (the U.S. intake is absolutely dead center among nations around the globe).
Recognizing the volatility of the issue, Tierney invited his readers to comment:
You’re welcome to weigh in on any of these issues, especially the question of what scientists really know about the effects of restricting salt. Should Washington follow New York City’s lead in pressuring food companies to take salt out of their products? Or has New York gone beyond what the evidence warrants, as argued by Elizabeth Whelan of the American Council on Science and Health ?
We have heard a lot in the media lately about salt and health. In fact, there has been an unceasing parade of talking heads and cranks that have emerged from the woodwork to repeat the urban legends on blood pressure and cardiovascular deaths that will result from our continued consumption of salt. The fact that cardiovascular disease death rates have plummeted in the last 30 years seems to be lost on these soothsayers. Another fact they conveniently ignore is that the Mediterranean countries that have such excellent cardiovascular figures eat far more salt than we do here in America and at that countries, which consume the highest levels of salt, such as Japan and Switzerland, also have the longest life expectancies. Oh well, how can actual evidence ever compete with a good scare story?
We're beginning to hear about the importance of reducing salt in the diets of young children. Unfortunately, much of what we hear does not coincide with what is being demonstrated in the medical literature.
In particular I refer to a review paper very recently published in Pediatrics, the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in November 2009. The article is titled Hyponatremia in Preterm Neonates - Not a Benign Condition . In this paper, authors Michael Moritz and Juan Carlos Ayus state that hyponatremia, or low sodium levels in the neonates pose a significant risk for future childhood development. These risks include reduced neuromotor abilities from infancy through later years as well as impaired growth and mental development. Hyponatremia has also been found to be a significant factor for hearing loss, cerebral palsy, intracranial hemorrhage and increased mortality - all because of low sodium levels in the blood resulting from decreased salt intakes.
Furthermore, the authors quoted research carried out in Israel demonstrating that low sodium levels lead to hyponatremic neonates weighing 30% more than their peers maintained at normal sodium levels and that hyponatremia in infants was predictive of increased salt appetite in adolescence and later years. So, once again, contrary to the urban legend of salt consumption leading to obesity, the evidence is exactly the opposite – it is low salt levels in neonates that lead to obesity.
The authors then went on to stress that the emerging literature also suggests that hyponatremia in adults can have very deleterious effects and may be an independent predictor of mortality in hospital patients, those with community acquired pneumonia, with congestive heart failure and liver disease. Chronic low salt levels produces neurologic impairment that affects both balance and attention deficit conditions in the elderly - effect similar to alcohol ingestion. These data were able to explain why low-salt levels are such an important cause of falls and bone fractures in the elderly. This is clinical evidence, not urban legend.
Nutrition and nutrition-related policy initiatives are not things to be trifled with and it's certainly not anything to be left to in competent activists and minimally-trained physicians parading around as nutritionist-wannabes. Neither should they be matters of gratuitous opinion. Nutrition is a key to health and any policies regarding nutrition have to be based upon strong, clinical evidence.
The USDA's Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children or WIC program provides food and nutritional information to low-income people who are at nutritional risk - yet, to qualify for the program, WIC foods must contain little or no added salt . Just look at the regulatory requirements for WIC-eligible foods. In particular, there is great concern over products such as vegetables and instant preparations containing vegetables that are required to be made without salt. Not only does this increase the chances for hyponatremia, but because children are so sensitive to the natural bitterness in vegetables, it is unlikely that they will eat them without the addition of salt, thereby robbing of the natural goodness these products contain.
Here again, falling victim to anti-salt propaganda, government bureaucrats in charge of this program have backed away from their responsibilities and blindly gone along with the urban legends and myth-information regarding salt, rather than heeding the published evidence in the medical literature.
As a result, the low income women, infants and children, who are most at nutritional risk have had these risks compounded by the additional risks related to low salt intakes and hyponatremia - risks leading to poor neuromotor development, impaired growth and mental development, hearing loss, cerebral palsy, brain hemorrhage and increased mortality – now how's that for government assistance?
Click the image to see the Vlog or check out the full SaltGuru video .
Water softeners virtually eliminate energy-wasting, service life-shortening scale accumulation on gas and electric water heaters, according to a new study by Battelle Memorial Institute on "Benefits of removal of water hardness (calcium and magnesium ions) from a water supply." Testing electric water heaters over an equivalent 15 months of service found 64 times more scaling on unsoftened water than softened water (14 grams/year softened versus 907 g/yr for unsoftened). For gas water heaters, the scale reduction was even more dramatic. Over more than two years' equivalent service, heaters fed with unsoftened water accumulated 74 time the amount of scaling as those fed softened water (7 g/yr for softened versus 528 for unsoftened). Instantaneous gas heaters fed unsoftened water declined in thermal efficiency from 80 to 72 and, even when delimed, only recovered 62% of the lost efficiency. The thermal efficiency of all water heaters using softened water was unimpaired.
For gas storage and instantaneous water heaters, the use of a water softener to eliminate or minimize the scale forming compounds in water will result in the efficiency of the water heater remaining constant over the life of the unit. In contrast, gas storage and instantaneous water heaters using unsoftened water had a noticeable decrease in efficiency over the testing period resulting in higher natural gas use.
The increase in total energy consumption (as a result of a reduction in heat transfer efficiency) is related to hardness: higher water hardness will lead to greater energy consumption without the use of water softener, and consequently greater energy costs."
The report calculates the percentage of lifecycle energy cost savings using softeners ranging from 3.1% for "moderately hard" water with 5 grains hardness per gallon to 6.6% for "hard" water with 10 grains hardness, 14.5% for "very hard" water with 20 grains hardness and 24.2% for water with 30 grains hardness.
Yesterday's mail brought an imaginative marketing packet from the Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island (near Jacksonville, FL) keyed to the theme "Salt." The packet extolled the excellence of the featured restaurant, "Salt," complete with a sampling of the restaurant's red salt from Hawaii, gray salt from France, pink "Himalayan" salt and black salt, again from Hawaii. Completing the packet was a copy of Mark Kurlansky's best-seller Salt: A World History, and a chef's apron emblazoned "Salt." I'll wear it with pride for all my backyard BBQ entertaining.
Kudos to Ritz marketers.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is notorious for his advice: "don't waste a good crisis." The National Journal (subscription required) recounts how presidents have evolved in their appreciation that blizzards are national emergencies in the magazine's current article "For presidents, snow has become a reliable catastrophe. It used to be something that you just had to live with ."
President Obama has declared a disaster to facilitate a federal bailout of DC area snowfighters. Last year, he was joking about how well Chicago handled snow and ice. Now he lives in Washington, DC and can appreciate that failed snowfighting is no joke. The article continues:
Where snow falls, disaster follows. Legally, that is. Presidents have turned increasingly to disaster designations over the past 60 years, and snow has become an ever-more-popular entry. But they ignored it at first. It wasn't until January 1977 that snow, by itself, made the disaster cut. That was in Buffalo, N.Y. (no winter wimps there).
Carter started something, and since then snow has become a reliable catastrophe. Last year alone, there were 17 disaster declarations linked to severe winter storms.
It used to be something you just had to live with. When Eva Clark of Pittsfield, Mass., sent Grover Cleveland views of her city after the Blizzard of 1888, along with pictures of the same streets in summer, the president replied, helpfully, "The storm must have been severe to have so filled the streets of Pittsfield with snow, but the views in summer show so delightful a change that you will soon be enjoying the pleasures of your shady home."
Even in the face of real disaster, presidents shrugged. After 98 people died when the roof of Washington's Knickerbocker Theater collapsed in 1922, Warren Harding said, "The terrible tragedy, staged in the midst of a great storm, has deeply depressed all of us and left us wondering about the revolving fates."
Fortunately, we don't have to accept that snowfall equals disaster. Ask your local professional snowfighter!
Add comment