Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they respond to the specific conerns

In the reading material, three solutions of reducing salinity were discussed in order to portect fish and bird populations. However, the professor disagrees with these solutions in the lecture for the following reasons. For the first option relating to direct removal of salt fom the salton sea, the professor disputed by pointing out that the solid material left behind might be toxic. According to the reading, the water would be evaporated in special desalination facilities while salt and other materials would be left behind. However, some toxic materials, for example, might be released into air and would be harmful for human health if people breath in. For the second solution discussed in the reading, the professor explains that it would not be practical. This solution involves building pipelines or canals to deliver ocean water into the lake and thus to dilute the salt level. But this idea failed to consider the cost of building such facilities. The ocean is at least one kilometer away and building a canal or pipeline with the lengths is extremely expensive. The local government would not have the money or resources to afford these projects. The last proposal to control the lake's salinity is to contruct walls. This would sound like a good plan if it were not for the fact that there are a large number of geological activities in this area, highlighted by the professor. She went on to give an example of earthquake. The walls would not survive a major earthquake and then the high salinity water in the special section would flow into the freshwater again. All of the efforts would end up in vain. In summary, the professor concluded that these solutions are not practical or feasible to reduce the salinity in Salton's sea and protect the animal populations in the river.
Submitted by Cricci on
What to do next: