THE WEKA STREET TIP

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 9 June 1945, Page 7

THE WEKA STREET TIP

ITo the Editor I Sir—Although I am not a resident of Weka Street nor of the Wood area I cannot help but feel sympathetic towards those 180 petitioners who have to endure, willy-nilly, an unsavoury and disgusting state of affairs right at their back doors. If they are' dissatisfied, as they have good reason to be, with the apathy of the Council and the evident inertia with which that body received the latest petition, then it is time they took more active measures to obtrude their grievance and their demand for considerate treatment. The complaint of such a large group of citizens cannot be denied, ignored or minimised by a few, who, if they make only occasional observations are not in any position to make a just judgment on the matter. Some weeks ago one of Councillors made the futile remark that smells do not cause disease. True, sir, they don’t, but he did not add that such smells come only from putrescent pathological conditions, themselves the foundation of possible disease, where bacteria, flies and rats can be fruitful and multiply. »For example, let us suppose the not possible condition where a typhoid or dysentery germ is introduced into the tip; somewhere in that vast cesspool it is sure to find suitable conditions of warmth and moisture in which to multiply. Then it needs only a single fly to carry a single typhoid germ to the vicinity of Weka Street, fall inadvertently into John Citizen’s milk jug and so with the consequent bacterial multiplication set to train & minor epidemic of typhoid fever, with probably fatal issue among John Citizen’s children. As a result John Citizen would be censured severely for his faulty domestic hygiene, biff of coujjse no one would blame the Council’s tip.

Now what to do about this tip? In England there is a Ministry of Health recommendation which requires any person depositing at a refuse tip any “fish, animal or other organic refuse” to “forthwith cover it with'earth or equally suitable substance at leasj two feet in depth.” This, unfortunately, apparently does not pertain in New Zealand. The scheme detailed by the City engineer obviously since it causes a nuisance, does not work efficiently—otherwise there would be no complaints. It is sheer economic waste to scatter gallons of insecticides, lime etc., on the tip when these are not efficacious, and the four inches of soil as a covering is ludicrous, compared with the British requirement mentioned (1 quote from Frazer and Stallybrass’s ‘ Public Health,” 1940). Clearly more thorough treatment of any tipped organic matter is required, treatment which is in accord with the spirit of the British regulation. Biit surely in the year 1945 in a community which boasts a cathedral and is proud to call itself a city, a refuse tip for the disposal of offensive putrescible material is an anachronism. Undoubtedly the most efficient and satisfactory method of disposal of such refuse is to burn it in a properly constructed destructor. If Nelson wishes to be progressive, here is an excellent opportunity in the provision of a sanitary convenience which is necessary now and will become increasingly so in the future. The City Council has recently built a crematorium at Wakapuaka; now may they further their good work to establish a destructor for other organic wastes, which would be of greater benefit to a much larger section of the community. I am, etc., “THOUGHTFUL”. Nelson 6th June.