Oct. 19, 1888.] 



SCIENTIFIC NEWS. 



4i7 



that all these objections were raised without foundation. 

 It had been proved beyond doubt by competent authori- 

 ties that the method was the best and only safe one to 

 prevent the propagation and spread of infectious diseases. 

 Yorkshire was one of the first to enter the field and 

 show the world the shrewdness of its inhabitants' 

 Leeds had its first destructor built in 1877, and 

 it appeared to have sufficiently satisfied the Cor- 

 poration of that town, as a second was built in 1879. 

 In 1881 the system was taken up with great spirit, 

 but in 1883 no new destructors were adopted, a circum- 

 stance probably accounted for by threatened injunctions 

 in some of the towns where the furnaces were in opera- 

 tion. After an examination of the evidence of the best 

 medical authorities, one was led to imagine that it 

 could not be possible to obtain a verdict against the use 

 of furnaces for burning refuse if constructed upon 

 experienced principles. At t recent Local Government 

 Board inquiry Inspector Tidy stated he considered the 

 destructor, with the cremator, an enormous advantage in 

 sanitary work. Professor Wanklyn, in a report on the 

 subject, gave the results of his investigation, and stated 

 that "at these temperatures, and in presence of the 

 accompanying air, all septic poisons are destroyed, and 

 organic compounds are resolved into carbonic acid, water, 

 and nitrogen gas ; only the minutest traces of empyreu- 

 matic products could survive and pass away through the 

 shafc into the general atmosphere. No harm to the 

 health of the community is to be expected or feared from 

 these products." Considering the valued opinion of medi- 

 cal authorities, why did they hear objections to the system 

 on sanitary grounds ? Why did they have agitation and 

 threatened lawsuits? He attributed the objections to 

 reasons which might be summed up as follows : — 1st. 

 Supposed depreciation of property in the neighbourhood 

 where destructors are erected. 2nd. The traffic in refuse 

 to the destructor depots. 3rd. Prejudice and individual 

 causes. The first objection might be explained in assum- 

 ing that people would not live where they were subjected 

 to a nuisance or injury to health caused by noxious gases 

 emitted from the burning; but it had been proved by ex- 

 perience that houses were equally well let in the neigh- 

 bourhood of such furnaces, and that people who lived 

 near them did not leave their homes to find a more 

 ozonised atmosphere. The second objection might be 

 formed with substantial reason in some towns, where 

 the collection of refuse was let by contract. But the 

 contract could be let under stringent regulations or even 

 with more satisfaction done by the local authorities them- 

 selves. They could show by the evidence of medical 

 men that where destroyers had been started the death- 

 rate had been reduced. He described destructors which 

 had been patented, and the cost of some of those which 

 had been constructed. Taking the results generally, a 

 chimney 160 ft. high was found very suitable, and its 

 internal dimensions should be determined in accordance 

 with the number of cells employed, and the probable 

 rate of refuse treatment. A chimney this size with 

 moderate foundations and good levels on site, could be 

 built with a 6-cell destructor for about ^'3,000 ; but if 

 they took the cost of several which had far exceeded 

 proportionately that expenditure, the system would show 

 itself favourably against other methods. Another im- 

 portant financial feature was formed by the high tem- 

 perature produced in burning refuse, where sufficient 

 power was found to do useful work after leaving the 

 cells. At Leeds, Bradford, and Heckmondwike it was 



utilized during the daytime to grind the clinker into 

 mortar, which was a good source of revenue to the Cor- 

 porations. Batley proposed to work their sewage 

 machinery as done at Ealing. There was no town, with 

 the exception of Warrington, that used its power to the 

 fullest extent. The amount of power available depended 

 upon the construction of the furnaces, the quality ot 

 refuse, and regular method in working. Taking an 

 average basis, Leeds was capable of producing 120-horse 

 power from their 20 cells in winter, or if they calculated 

 the consumption of 31b. of coal to each horse and coal 

 at 10s. per ton, they saved the actual value of ^500 

 per annum in heat alone. He had shown how they 

 had collected and burnt the refuse, and utilised 

 the products of combustion, but there was another 

 part of the system which must be taken into account. 

 The refuse consisted of mineral and organic matter, 

 with moisture ; the former was not combustible, and 

 would not reduce in bulk, but when acted upon by 

 the heat it changed its form, and was fused into hard 

 clinker. The organic matter with carbon, left a small 

 residue of ash, and the moisture was evaporated entirely 

 during the process. The component parts of the clinker 

 were naturally hard, and when in a fused state were 

 serviceable for many purposes. When broken up and 

 mixed with lime or cement, it would stand as concrete 

 for the best foundations ; it was used extensively for 

 forming road bottoms, and some towns obtained good 

 saleable mortar by grinding it with lime and water in a 

 mortar pan. In the year 1886 Leeds received ^394 

 for mortar, Bradford ^1,204, and Bolton ,£,1,757. The 

 fine ashes produced from refuse furnaces were ex- 

 tensively used for bedding granite stones in roadways 

 and pleasure ground foot paths, and the fine dust from 

 the flues had found a market with farmers. If a town 

 could utilise the whole of the clinkers, fine ashes, and 

 flue dust, it would not only pay for the cost of burning 

 and the repayment of capital expended on the plant, but 

 would also produce a revenue to aid the necessary cost 

 of collection. He did not see why this point of per- 

 fection should not be reached. Referring again to the 

 question of situation, he observed it was said that destruc- 

 tors should be erected outside a town, and some distance 

 from dwellings, but his experience was that the greater 

 number of complaints were received in those towns 

 where the furnaces were thus situated. He believed 

 that if a destructor of the latest type could be built 

 during a night, unseen, and put to work without the 

 knowledge of the surrounding inhabitants, no one would 

 detect any difference, and no one would complain. 

 Would health towns like Buxton and Bournemouth 

 tolerate anything said to approach a nuisance ? At the 

 latter town it was considered a support to health, and 

 a sight to be seen by its visitors. The destructor was 

 erected within a stone's-throw of houses whose rents 

 were from £^400 to ^500 per annum, and worked with- 

 out inconvenience to the occupiers. In conclusion he 

 advised them to induce their committees to select 

 a site where there was ample space, not only for the 

 furnaces with their probable extension, but have suffi- 

 cient ground to enable the workmen to perform thsir 

 duties with the best results, and due consideration for 

 their comfort. Let them also provide good stores -;nd 

 ample water supply, and prevent as far as possible, 

 sanguine inventors from experimenting with them, 

 either at their own cost or the Corporation's, and thus 

 miss the probable chance of failure. 



