TOWN REFUSE

Evening Star, Issue 18543, 28 January 1924, Page 6

TOWN REFUSE

PAPER BY MR H'Clffim TWO-TIN SYSTEM FOR HOUSES STUFF. The paper road by Mr W. D, M’Curdio (city engineer) at the BaoltetJ Conference in Dunedin lost week is pithy and authoritative, and it deals with mattens that affect health and life, so ECapology is needed for presenting It in full: — Up to date tha most economical vehicle for the collection of town refuse from houses or streets seems to be the horsedrawn vehicle. The awkward places that have to be negotiated and the very short distances which occur between stop increase the cost of mechanical traction so much that competition with the horse in this particular business cannot be undertaken aa yet. except at a loss. In other places other animals are used. In Asiatic countries camels and bullocks, in somo of the Mediterranean countries bullocks, asses, and horses, and in tlid Netherlands big dogs are employed for traction. From a sanitary point of view it is much to bo desired that all these animala should be banished from the streets and mechanical traction alone allowed. The .cleanliness of the streets we walk on and the air wo breathe would bo improved beyond recognition if horses and dogs were banished, as one must hope they soon will be, from all populous towns.

The collecting and removal of street refuse 1 , the most malignant elements in which _ are the excrements of horses and dogs, is a problem that has been worrybig municipal engineers ior generations. There arc several systems in uso. Whichever system, is in use is always, in your own particular town, the worst of the lot. The ideal method of dealing with horse droppings' would be to compel every owner of a horse to stop polluting the streets. This is not such a difficult thing to do as seems at first sight; but till public opinion is roused to the dauger of the pollution now put up with progress in the way of prevention will bo slow, and will depend on the gradual displacement of the horse by mechanical traction.

In the matter of pollution of tho streets by dogs, public opinion is extremely backward. Some time ago a member of Parliament related as a joke that when he was in a town in Switzerland the people were taking a plebiscite on the question of whether dogs should bo allowed to pollute the streets or whether they must be kept in hand. This joke was ono of the most successful of tho evening, enjoyed beyond measure by the whole House. With tho minds of our legislators in such an insanitary state, wo have, my friends, a tough row to hoe to got our towns purified. Wo shall succeed, however. Wo shall yet put a stop to the pollution of the ground we walk on and tho air wo live and move in by forbidding the making of the streets a public convenience for the owners of dogs and horses. To go into details would bo to name Cleopatra as she is called in Rome. In some -cities, in tho busy sections, droppings are picked up by little boys, with little brooms and shovels, and deposited in covered receptacles under the pavement. In others, men, with brooms and shovels, pick up droppings, .and put them in pillar boxes along the kerb lino; sometimes a gust of wind whisks everything out of tho shovel on to the pavement. In other cities pony carts are used, into which a man or a youth loads all droyipings as he picks them up. When he has a full load ho moves_pff to the place of deposit; in others the droppings arc collectea by the man with the broom, who places them at the gutter in heaps, and patrol carts continuously on the move pick up and remove everything. Each of these systems has its advantages and its drawbacks, and each depends on the number of people employed, and their conscientious activity for the degree of cleanliness attained in the streets.

The best method of disposal of this street refuse is to use it as manure in public or private gardens. In the collection of house refuse _ tho problem is the same everywhere. Vehicles must patrol the town,, and collect the refuse from door to door, in streets of all sorts of grades and curvatures and formations. Tliis is where the horse beats the mechanical vehicle; when the cost of the day’s work is totted up, and but for the fact that he pollutes the streets, there would bo no hurry in getting rid of him.

Having collected tho load, _tho great burning problem everywhere is how to get rid of it in a sanitary fashion. There is no manner of doubt that tho most sanitary way of dealing with house refuse is to burn it in a furnace, making what use you can of tho immense amount of ashes or clinker that result from tho burning. Every town has its own particular problem in dealing with its own house refuse. The following fable shows an interesting comparison) of how house refnaa in different phtccs is made up

English Approx. Average. North Island Town. Dunedin.

Tho unburnablo material is ash, crockery, etc. The moisture is the water that may be dried out of any given weight of tho refuse as it arrives by heat. Tho burnable material is all organic matter, such as cinders, leather, old clothes, bones, paper, etc, A comparison of tho figures shows tho effect of the lignite fuel used in Dunedin in tho manner in which it raises the proportion of unbumahlo material, making the refuse as it arrives a mixture that may smoulder but will not properly burn. To bring Dunedin refuse up to a fair burnable refuse there would require to be added about 15 per cent, of some good coal. Tho result would bo that for every two tons burnt there would be left about one ton of ashes or clinkers, to bo disposed of in the most profitable market. Instead of carting tho unbumahlo material long distances to a furnace that cannot even heat it without expensive additions of coal, it has been proposed that householders should bo required to keep two tins, placing tho burnable material in one and the unbumahlo material in the other. The unburnable, being inorganic and indestructible, is quite sanitary, and may ho used for filling in the nearest hollows that require filling. Tho burnable material, being organic and perishable, Is the element in tho refuse that is dangerous. It should be taken to a suitable furnace and used as fuel, or it should be safely buried. It'has been objected to the two-tin system that tho intellect of the average citizen could not rise to the occasion; that if ho had enough sense to distinguish between the two tins ho would bum all the burnable stuff in his own fire, and thus save tho cost of the tin and tho mental anguish involved in the use of it. Ido not share this pessimistic view of the intelligence of the average citizen. In the United States citizens of a typo not to bo compared with ours are able to use three or more tins with success. In New York three tins are used—one for garbage, one for ashes, and on© for rubbish. ' Garbage is made up of kitchen waste, vegetables, meat, fish, bones, fat, and fruit. Ashes, include ashes, sawdust, floor sweepings, bottles, broken glass, crockery, old tins, oyster shells, etc. Rubbish includes paper, pasteboard, rags, old furniture, oilcloth, old boots, leather, faded flowers, and straw. Tickets are printed in different languages to suit tho origin of tho citizen. If these foreigners can riso to the dignity,- surely our people can do bettor if called upon. Let us try to got our people to sec that It is a selfish, degraded thing to pollute tho town with the excrement of dog and horses, and that it will be a profitable thing to burn the burnable rabniih at home or to put it in a tin by Itself.

HH 1 '*1 Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Un burnable ... 33.5 28.00 49.0 Water ... 53.5 52.40 56.8 Burnable ... 33.5 19.60 14.2