The message
from (paghat) contains these words:


You seem to be exhibiting Scottish Faery Logic. In your present state of
mind you construct a world view wherein Stephen can't possibly know what
the gardens are like because he HAS been to them,

Stephen has already demonstrated that he doesn't actually know the
location of the gardens he says he visited. He went to great lengths to
pretend they are not beside the sea. Anyone interested can look up those
gardens, and their detailed location maps, and see for themselves.They
can also re-read the thread and count the number of times you falsely
imputed claims to me, which I did not make, and descended to your usual
sexual vulgarities to discredit my simple statement of facts. Such
tactics only discredit yourself

Janet

Janet Baraclough wrote:
paghat wrote:
You seem to be exhibiting Scottish Faery Logic. In your present state of
mind you construct a world view wherein Stephen can't possibly know what
the gardens are like because he HAS been to them,

Stephen has already demonstrated that he doesn't actually know the
location of the gardens he says he visited. He went to great lengths to
pretend they are not beside the sea. Anyone interested can look up those
gardens, and their detailed location maps, and see for themselves.They
can also re-read the thread and count the number of times you falsely
imputed claims to me, which I did not make, and descended to your usual
sexual vulgarities to discredit my simple statement of facts. Such
tactics only discredit yourself

Gosh. Who to believe? The rhody expert and the gardener who does her
research, or the woman who insists they wrong about everything because she
believes that anything within a half-hour drive of the sea is by the sea?

Yes, anyone who has followed this thread does know who has discredited
themselves.

Give it a rest.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Have an outdoor project? Get a Black & Decker power tool::
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/

The message
from "Warren" contains these words:

Janet Baraclough wrote:
paghat wrote:
You seem to be exhibiting Scottish Faery Logic. In your present state of
mind you construct a world view wherein Stephen can't possibly know what
the gardens are like because he HAS been to them,

Stephen has already demonstrated that he doesn't actually know the
location of the gardens he says he visited. He went to great lengths to
pretend they are not beside the sea. Anyone interested can look up those
gardens, and their detailed location maps, and see for themselves.They
can also re-read the thread and count the number of times you falsely
imputed claims to me, which I did not make, and descended to your usual
sexual vulgarities to discredit my simple statement of facts. Such
tactics only discredit yourself

Gosh. Who to believe? The rhody expert and the gardener who does her
research, or the woman who insists they wrong about everything because she
believes that anything within a half-hour drive of the sea is by the sea?

Clearly you didn't bother to look up the maps.

Janet.

Janet

Janet Baraclough ranted:

Garbage. If you were ever here, you never looked at a map.
Stephen has already demonstrated that he doesn't actually know the
location of the gardens he says he visited. He went to great lengths to
pretend they are not beside the sea. Anyone interested can look up those
gardens, and their detailed location maps, and see for themselves.
The Botanic Gardens is about 500 yards from the sea.

You are very vague about what you call near the sea, and very inaccurate
in your estimates. To be more precise:

RBG of Edinburgh, 1.5 miles from the firth of Forth, not very close.
Glendoick Gardens, 1.8 miles from the firth of Tay, even further.
Branklyn Garden, 3 miles from the firth of Tay, much further.
Invereww Gardens, 100 meters from Loch Ewe, close.
Arduaine Gardens, borders the Sound of Jura at one point, but no rhodies
there, very close.
Younger Botanic Garden (Benmore), 2 miles from Holy Loch, not the least
bit close.
Crarae Gardens, 1000 feet from Loch Fyne, not very close.
Brodick Castle & Gardens runs down to about 100 meters from the firth of
Clyde, quite close.

None of these gardens is "on
a high hilltop", and I have not claimed they are. The opposite is the
case. Inverewe, Arduaine, Edinburgh, Benmore and Brodick are all at sea
level.Stephen repeatedly claimed they are "not beside the sea" and
actually lied about the location of Arduaine which he claims is at
Inverary.

None are at sea level or they would disappear at the highest tides.
Inverewe Gardens is the most exposed to the sea.
Arduaine Gardens in on a 239 ft. high slope of An Cnap overlooking the
Sound of Jura seimi-sheltered to the west by the 300 ft. tall Luing and
Garvellachs.
The RBGE has an elevation of 134 meters.
Younter Botanic Garden at Benmore features a 450 foot high view point.
Brodick Castle & Gardens is situated on a sheltered plateau above the
firth of Clyde, but the gardens extend down near the highway along the
shore.

And Arduaine Gardens is not very near any place, but it is 16 mi. west
of Inveraray (43 mi. by road) & 20 mi. south of Oban, so Inveraray is
closest to Inveraray (not Inverary) if you look at a map.

West Scotland's salt-laden coast is famous for its
rhododendron gardens .

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

Inverewe Gardens, main rainfall 64 in.
Arduaine Gardens, mean rainfall 60 in.
Younger Botanic Gardens at Benmore, mean rainfall 90 in.
Crarae Gardens, mean rainfall 60 in.
Brodick Castle & Gardens, mean rainfall 80 in.

We're not talking "salt breezes". Scotland is a narrow patch of land
beside 3000 miles of ocean; winds are ferocious here especially in the
west. 70 mph is commonplace and 100 mph not exceptional.

Every one of these gardens has some protection from the prevailing
westerly winds:

The RBGE is 1.5 miles inland and 134 m. high and nestled amongst large
trees.
Glendoick Gardens is 1.8 miles inland and nestled amongst large trees.
Branklyn Garden is 3 miles inland and nestled amongst large trees.
Inverewe Gardens (NT) the rhododendrons and azaleas are grown amongst
large trees in areas naturally sheltered behind "wind- and
salt-barriers" of Griselinia littoralis and other plants about 100 m
from the Southern tip of Loch Ewe where it is nestled.
Arduaine Gardens is nestled amongst large trees near the Sound of Jura
but is elevated and slightly shelterd from the westerly winds by the 300
ft tall Luing and Garvellachs.
Younger Botanic Gardens at Benmore is 2 miles from the sea and nestled
amongst large trees. It is elevated and has much protection to the west.
Crarae Gardens is protected from the westerly winds on the east side of
a hillside nestled amongst large trees and is situated about 1000 feet
from Loch Fyne.
Brodick Castle & Gardens is protected from the westerly winds by the
3,866 foot tall Goatfell.

Stephen repeatedly claimed they are "not beside the sea" and
actually lied about the location of Arduaine which he claims is at
Inverary.

Wow, such an unfriendly accusation.

PS It is Inveraray that is in Argyll.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Visit my Rhododendron and Azalea web pages at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhody.html
Also visit the Rhododendron and Azalea Bookstore at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhodybooks.html
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA Zone 6

The message
from Stephen Henning contains these words:

To be more precise:

Here's an example of your "precision":

Brodick Castle & Gardens runs down to about 100 meters from the firth of
Clyde, quite close.

Brodick Castle & Gardens is situated on a sheltered plateau above the
firth of Clyde, but the gardens extend down near the highway along the
shore.

You don't seem to know which, do you? Here's a picture; the garden is
below the castle and adjoins the sea

http://www.arransites.co.uk/images/bro_castle2.jpg


The "highway", is a narrow road, immediately adjoining the sea. It's
just wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other.The oldest and most
famous rhododendron area called the Planthunter's Walk, is at the bottom
of the garden alongside the road from which it's separated by a metal
rail. last year we spent weeks cutting year back rhododendrons
overhanging that rail and obstructing the narrow road. On the other
side of the narrow road, literally, is the sea. Salt water, tidal, with
seals, the occasional whale, shark, submarine etc.


And Arduaine Gardens is not very near any place, but it is 16 mi. west
of Inveraray (43 mi. by road) & 20 mi. south of Oban, so Inveraray is
closest to Inveraray (not Inverary) if you look at a map.

Very precise; but unfortunately, meaningless.

West Scotland's salt-laden coast is famous for its
rhododendron gardens .

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

The rain, and wind, come from 300 miles of Atlantic ocean and are
heavily salt-laden.

Brodick Castle & Gardens is protected from the westerly winds by the
3,866 foot tall Goatfell.

Wrong. Goatfell is 2866 ft tall and lies directly north of the
castle and gardens; so does not protect them from the prevailing wind,
which is from the south-west.

Because Brodick Castle is so exposed to the wind, it's the site of
weather station for the Meteorological Office.

Janet

In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:


The rain, and wind, come from 300 miles of Atlantic ocean and are
heavily salt-laden.

Next you'll be asserting water can be lit on fire! Salt is NOT evaporated
into clouds & precipitation NEVER salinizes soils. Scotland is almost as
good as the Pacific Northwest for rhodies because they require acidic
soils & areas of heavy rainfall wash salts OUT of the soil which results
in acidity. In LOW-preciptation regions soils become saline. And
rhododendrons will no longer grow.

And also as in the Pacific Northwest rhodies can be grown just about
anywhere in Scotland EXCEPT along salty shores or saltmarshes. Your
insistance to the contrary only works if the fairies are busily trumping
science with their lovely magic spells. So you really might as well be
repeatedly posting personal testimonies on how you can too set fire to
H20.

In Scotland saline garden soils are caused by immediate proximity to
shores or lochs, from irrigation gotten from brackish groundwater of the
lochs, & from chemicalized agricultural methods. If you can cite something
factual & scientific as evidence that the Atlantic ocean leaps up & jumps
300 miles inland, cite that wondrous evidence that rainfall occurs
differently in Scotland than in any other place on Earth.

But please, no more of these fairytales about your allegedly busy life
spent in all the gardens of scotland where every raincloud brings an
imaginary salty deluge that delights those fairy-rhododendrons magically
grown as barriers against the sea. I'm beginning to suspect you never
leave the house at all. The depth of your current devotion to a bunch of
nonsense really should be beneath you.

-paghat the ratgirl
--
Get your Paghat the Ratgirl T-Shirt he
http://www.paghat.com/giftshop.html
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot." -Thomas Jefferson

The message
from (paghat) contains these words:

In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:


The rain, and wind, come from 300 miles of Atlantic ocean and are
heavily salt-laden.

Next you'll be asserting water can be lit on fire! Salt is NOT evaporated
into clouds & precipitation NEVER salinizes soils.

Wrong.


http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/env...#salt%20source

I haven't said Scottish soil is saline. It clearly isn't because
it's fertile. However, plants (and everything else) are constantly
salted-upon, because of weather conditions here. Because of the high
rainfall, salt doesn't accumulate to a harmful degree as it does in dry
climates like Australia's; but seasalt rain does contribute to our
acid-rain problems.


Scotland is almost as
good as the Pacific Northwest for rhodies because they require acidic
soils & areas of heavy rainfall wash salts OUT of the soil which results
in acidity. In LOW-preciptation regions soils become saline. And
rhododendrons will no longer grow.

I haven't claimed the soil is saline. The original post to which I
replied, said that ericaceous plants do not grow beside the sea. They
do, here.

And also as in the Pacific Northwest rhodies can be grown just about
anywhere in Scotland EXCEPT along salty shores or saltmarshes.

Wrong. There are many parts of Scotland where they can't grow.
They do grow along the west coast shore. Perhaps your personal
understanding of "shore" is limited; not all shores and seabords are
sand beach or saltmarsh.

In Scotland saline garden soils are caused by immediate proximity to
shores or lochs,
from irrigation gotten from brackish groundwater of the
lochs, & from chemicalized agricultural methods.

What saline soils? You clearly know nothing of gardening, irrigation
or agriculture in Scotland.

If you can cite something
factual & scientific as evidence that the Atlantic ocean leaps up & jumps
300 miles inland,

No part of Scotland is more than 40 miles from the sea. (There is no
"300 miles inland", anywhere in Britain.). Salt blows in, on wind and
rain, during storms.

But please, no more of these fairytales about your allegedly busy life
spent in all the gardens of scotland

That fairy tale is your own. Look up the websites in my post to
Stephen, he has misled you.

Janet.

Janet Baraclough wrote:

The rain, and wind, come from 300 miles of Atlantic ocean and are
heavily salt-laden.

Next you'll be asserting water can be lit on fire! Salt is NOT evaporated
into clouds & precipitation NEVER salinizes soils.

Wrong.


http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/env...#salt%20source


If what you got out of that page is that salt can be evaporated into the
clouds, and that rain in coastal areas contains salt, then we can clearly
see how little you understand about even the most simple science.

The bottom line is rhodies will not grow in a saline environment, no matter
how much you want to argue with the experts. And the gardens you are using
as proof that the experts are wrong all work hard to protect their rhodies
from the saline that could otherwise easily create problems.

You can stop trying to be right. You can stop trying to prove that accepted
science is wrong. Every time you post, you demonstrate how little you know,
and how difficult of a time you have dealing with being wrong. Save us all
the pain of watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your pit of
humiliation. Stop now, because you obviously don't have the temperament to
deal with any further embarrassment.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Have an outdoor project? Get a Black & Decker power tool::
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/

Warren, you're not as informed as you think you are.
http://landresources.montana.edu/LRE...stry_Web.pd f

According to the site above, from University of Montana, the composition of
rainfall is nearly identical to seawater with some additional molecules
picked up in the atmosphere. Furthermore, rainfall is NEVER simple H20 -
because it also picks up many gases that are present in the atmosphere and
transports them.
However, more pertinent to the ongoing argument is the fact that strong
winds (as in hurricane or near-hurricane force winds) which Scotland is
subject to every year,send salt spray MILES inland - not a few feet, or even
a few hundred feet. This can be verified in any google search.
I think that the issue has been clouded by all this talk about what hits
the leaves of the plants. It is clear that the initial post had to do with
what happened at the ROOTS of the plants in question. It is VERY evident
that rhododendrons cannot have their roots soaked in salt water that sits on
them. Constant movement of water through the root zone will wash the salts
through them or out of them - but it has to be water that is relatively low
in salts, and the plants have to have excellent drainage. A plant sitting in
a low spot with salt water swirling around its base is a goner - no
question. A plant on a hillside hit with a strong blast of very salty water
but subsequently flushed with plenty of water that moves through and out of
the root zone will probably be fine. Janet is not claiming that Scottish
rhododendrons are living in salt marshes. What she IS claiming is that they
live in rather close proximity to the sea in rather salty environments in
Scotland - albeit in regions of very high rainfall.

"Warren" wrote in message
...
Janet Baraclough wrote:

The rain, and wind, come from 300 miles of Atlantic ocean and are
heavily salt-laden.

Next you'll be asserting water can be lit on fire! Salt is NOT
evaporated
into clouds & precipitation NEVER salinizes soils.

Wrong.


http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/env...#salt%20source


If what you got out of that page is that salt can be evaporated into the
clouds, and that rain in coastal areas contains salt, then we can clearly
see how little you understand about even the most simple science.

The bottom line is rhodies will not grow in a saline environment, no
matter how much you want to argue with the experts. And the gardens you
are using as proof that the experts are wrong all work hard to protect
their rhodies from the saline that could otherwise easily create problems.

You can stop trying to be right. You can stop trying to prove that
accepted science is wrong. Every time you post, you demonstrate how little
you know, and how difficult of a time you have dealing with being wrong.
Save us all the pain of watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into
your pit of humiliation. Stop now, because you obviously don't have the
temperament to deal with any further embarrassment.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Have an outdoor project? Get a Black & Decker power tool::
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/

The message
from "Warren" contains these words:

Janet Baraclough wrote:

The rain, and wind, come from 300 miles of Atlantic ocean and are
heavily salt-laden.

Next you'll be asserting water can be lit on fire! Salt is NOT evaporated
into clouds & precipitation NEVER salinizes soils.

Wrong.


http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/env...#salt%20source


If what you got out of that page is that salt can be evaporated into the
clouds, and that rain in coastal areas contains salt, then we can clearly
see how little you understand about even the most simple science.

You're incompetent. That page makes it perfectly clear; quote

*"Where does the salt come from?

*Soil salt can come from three main sources:

* 1. From the breakdown of parent rock: A very slow process.
* 2. From geological inundation by the oceans: Only on discrete parts
of Australia.
* 3. From wind blown salt, usually 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). In most of Australia, this is the source
*of stored salts. " end quote.

Presley has given another cite telling you the same thing.

You can stop trying to be right. You can stop trying to prove that accepted
science is wrong. Every time you post, you demonstrate how little you know,
and how difficult of a time you have dealing with being wrong. Save us all
the pain of watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your pit of
humiliation. Stop now, because you obviously don't have the temperament to
deal with any further embarrassment.

I suggest you apply that to yourself, Stephen and Paghat. You jumped
on the wrong bandwagon, Warren; your heroes are not the experts they
pretend and now you've been hoist on their own petard of lies and
deliberate misrepresentations.

Janet.

Janet Baraclough wrote:

Seasalt rain does contribute to our acid-rain problems.

Salt does not make things acidic, it buffers the acidity and raises the
pH of acidic solutions. So if you have acid rain, you do not have
saline rain. The reverse is true, acid rain causes salt depletion.


Look up the websites in my post to Stephen, he has misled you.

Which one, the one on the increased salinity of Australia's arid regions
by rainwater or the picture of Brodick Castle with no rhododendrons or
azaleas in it. We are not talking about property boundaries, but about
where rhododendrons and azaleas thrive.

Just because you can raise rhododendrons and azaleas and own some swamp
land doesn't mean that they thrive in swamp land. Let's use some logic
here.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Visit my Rhododendron and Azalea web pages at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhody.html
Also visit the Rhododendron and Azalea Bookstore at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/rhodybooks.html
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA Zone 6

The message
from Stephen Henning contains these words:

Janet Baraclough wrote:


Look up the websites in my post to Stephen, he has misled you.

Which one, the one on the increased salinity of Australia's arid regions
by rainwater

No, that was in a post to Paghat, showing her that she was wrong in
saying ocean rain does not contain salt. Look up the websites in my post
replying to you.

or the picture of Brodick Castle with no rhododendrons or
azaleas in it.

Yes there are. You said

I spent most of the month of May visiting Scotland's famous rhododendron
and azalea gardens and none grew rhododendrons nor azaleas near the open
sea or near the beaches. The rhododendron and azalea gardens I visited
we

Brodick Castle & Gardens, Isle of Arran (on an island on the Firth of
Clyde, but it is situated high not near the sea)


http://www.arransites.co.uk/images/bro_castle2.jpg

Now, the picture clearly shows that Brodick Castle's garden IS near
the sea, and is not "high". Those are contrary to your claims. Now, you
say the picture "does not show rhododendrons or azaleas in it". But you
agree above, it is a famous rhododendron garden and you visited it to
see them.

How strange, that you don't know Brodick Castle's most famous rhodo
area is the section at the bottom of the garden adjoining the coast
road, and that the dense greenery lining the road, clearly visible in
the picture, right beside the sea, is a wide variety of rhododdendrons.


The other websites I mentioned, give the true locations and elevations
and descriptions of the other gardens you wrongly described as "high
up", "not near the sea" or not "growing rhododendrons and azaleas near
the sea".

Just because you can raise rhododendrons and azaleas and own some swamp
land doesn't mean that they thrive in swamp land.

? I don't own any swamp land or claim rhododendrons and azaleas
thrive in swamps.

Let's use some logic
here.

Okay. Why is it, that you make so many glaring errors of fact ,
description AND location about gardens you claim to have visited very
recently?

Janet

Janet Baraclough wrote:
The message
from (paghat) contains these words:

In article , Janet
Baraclough wrote:


The rain, and wind, come from 300 miles of Atlantic ocean
and are heavily salt-laden.

Next you'll be asserting water can be lit on fire! Salt is NOT
evaporated into clouds & precipitation NEVER salinizes soils.

Wrong.


http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/env...#salt%20source

I haven't said Scottish soil is saline. It clearly isn't because
it's fertile. However, plants (and everything else) are constantly
salted-upon, because of weather conditions here. Because of the high
rainfall, salt doesn't accumulate to a harmful degree as it does in
dry climates like Australia's; but seasalt rain does contribute to
our acid-rain problems.


Scotland is almost as
good as the Pacific Northwest for rhodies because they require
acidic soils & areas of heavy rainfall wash salts OUT of the soil
which results in acidity. In LOW-preciptation regions soils
become saline. And rhododendrons will no longer grow.

I haven't claimed the soil is saline. The original post to which I
replied, said that ericaceous plants do not grow beside the sea.
They do, here.

And also as in the Pacific Northwest rhodies can be grown just
about anywhere in Scotland EXCEPT along salty shores or
saltmarshes.

Wrong. There are many parts of Scotland where they can't grow.
They do grow along the west coast shore. Perhaps your personal
understanding of "shore" is limited; not all shores and seabords are
sand beach or saltmarsh.

In Scotland saline garden soils are caused by immediate proximity
to shores or lochs,
from irrigation gotten from brackish groundwater of the
lochs, & from chemicalized agricultural methods.

What saline soils? You clearly know nothing of gardening,
irrigation or agriculture in Scotland.

If you can cite something
factual & scientific as evidence that the Atlantic ocean leaps up
& jumps 300 miles inland,

No part of Scotland is more than 40 miles from the sea. (There is
no "300 miles inland", anywhere in Britain.). Salt blows in, on
wind and rain, during storms.

But please, no more of these fairytales about your allegedly busy
life spent in all the gardens of scotland

That fairy tale is your own. Look up the websites in my post to
Stephen, he has misled you.

Janet.

Salt *does* *not* rain from the sky.

--

Travis in Shoreline (just North of Seattle) Washington
USDA Zone 8
Sunset Zone 5

The message
from Stephen Henning contains these words:

RBG of Edinburgh, 1.5 miles from the firth of Forth, not very close.

The RBGE has an elevation of 134 meters.
Younter Botanic Garden at Benmore features a 450 foot high view point.

And the YBG garden goes down to 15m above the sea.

RBGE is on a raised beach a few hundred yards from the sea at Leith
(an Edinburgh port). The elevation is 20 to 40 m, not 134 m as you
claim. Figures from their own website below.

www.rbge.org.uk/rbge/web/hort/four.jsp

http://www.nts.org.uk/web/site/home/...056&NavId=5110

is a map showing the garden's true location at the edge of the
water, NOT as you claim "Crarae Gardens, 1000 feet from Loch Fyne, not
very close"..


http://www.nts.org.uk/web/site/home/...053&NavId=5110 gives a map of Arduaine Garden, right on the coast and a maximum 100 ft above sealevel, NOT 239 ft as you claim.

The websites quoted belong to the Royal Botanical gardens (owners of
Benmore and Edinburgh Botanical Garden) and The National Trust for
Scotland, owners of Arduaine, Inverewe and Crarae.

http://www.nts.org.uk/web/site/home/...103&NavId=5122 for sea-location of Inverewe

azaleas in flower by the sea at Inverewe.
http://www.gardens-guide.com/gardenp...0_inverewe.jpg

Janet.

When you argue with fools bystanders can't tell you apart.
Azalea and every ericacious plant I have thusfar encountered will not
grow submerged in seawater.
15M would not be under the sea in a storm surge, if it was it would
have been washed out to sea.
A little salt spray? perhaps with adequate rainfall to leach it out,
otherwise no go.