OXIDATION OF SEWAGE

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 124, 26 May 1923, Page 6

OXIDATION OF SEWAGE

TO THE JSDIIOIt. Sir, —Being at present in Dunedin, I am compelled to reply to "Baffled" by wire. I will, however, reply iully by letter on 2nd June. I have read article by "Baffled," published in your issue of 23rd May. Measurements stated are, absolutely correct, as is his statement that the tank has complete exclusion from air. The whole width of one end of the tank is entirely open, and the effluent discharges at least two feet above _ high water level, thus it cannot be diluted with fresh water as stated. It passes from ths tank into an open channel before entering a discharge drain into tha harbour. The Picton task-ia not septic, either in design or result,' and had my instruction* been carefully followed th» effluent would have been still better. Minor necessary alterations are now being attended to. I-invite "Baffled" to meet me in public, on my return in about ten days, and I will explain the vast difference between septic and oxidising treatment of sewage, and convince "Baffled" that his statements. of 28rd May are throughout both incorrect and misleading. I invite criticism, but "Baffled would do well to be sure of his subject before again assuming a noin de plums. —I am, etc., MONTGOMERIE NEILSON. 26th May.