EDITORIAL 769 



question, and so, as a compromise, or as a mitigation of the sur- 

 render, if you please, the emasculated section that laps from 

 p. 55 over onto p. 56 of Bulletin j8j, U.S. Geol. Survey, on "Ex- 

 plosive Mine Gases and Dusts with Special Reference to Explosions 

 in the Monongah, Darr and Naomi Coal Mines," is all that found 

 its way to the printer. Whether the intervention of unknown 

 critics between governmental investigators and the public is whole- 

 some or unwholesome no doubt depends on the competency of 

 the criticisms, the spirit in which they are made, and the degree 

 of insistence of the officer in charge as to how far the author must 

 accept or must bow to them. In cases permissible to cite — and 

 this seems to be one — the scientific public may be glad to know in 

 concrete detail how the system works in actual practice where no 

 unfriendly relations are presumed to enter to bias the course of 

 procedure. The blue-penciled matter is as follows, and may be 

 compared with the substitute just cited: 



Practical Suggestions Springing from These Analyses 



Final conclusions can, of course, only be reached after the most complete 

 investigation possible, but meanwhile it is important to make all practical 

 advances in the improvement of conditions on which so many lives depend, 

 and every suggestion springing from the investigation is likely to have some 

 value, both in mine control, and in further investigation. To this end, the 

 suggestions of the foregoing observations in the mines, and in the laboratory, 

 will be frankly stated, subject to modifications as further investigation and 

 practical experience require; particularly as these observations and analyses 

 give rise to a very definite suggestion as to a possible mode of reducing the 

 liability of dusts to explode. This suggestion grows out of the striking differ- 

 ence which the analyses disclose between the charred, uncharred, and fresh 

 coal dusts, with regard to the respective percentages of shale in them, particu- 

 larly as shown on the opposite sides of the .props in the Monongah mine. 

 These differences indicate that the proportion of shale present in the dust 

 exerted a marked influence upon the degree of coking, and the extent to which 

 the dusts participated in the explosions. They suggest that the principle 

 which seems to be involved, might be applied to effectually reduce the danger 

 of a general explosion throughout a mine, if not to render such general explo- 

 sion practically impossible. Even if a local explosion is inevitable at times 

 from the sudden issue of gas, or from some other unavoidable incident, it is 

 important to prevent the general extension of the explosion throughout the 

 mine. In the cases in hand, this seems to have been a most serious phase of 

 the disasters. If a moderate amount of fine shale mixed with the coal dust 



