THE POLLUTED SEA.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19800, 27 May 1926, Page 15

THE POLLUTED SEA.

DANGERS OE WASTE OIL. A MENACE TO SEASIDE RESORTS. Though oil pollution continues to bo a nuisance on the coasts of Great Britain, the evil is not tackled. Seaside resorts naturally do not like being named among places where the water is contaminated, so there is a conspiracy of silence which hampers action towards improvement. Oil pollution menaces not only our own coasts, nut also other areas, and far-reaching steps are needed writes Sanford D. Cole in the Manchester Guardian). Existing legislation in various countries is directed only against harbour pollution, and is no more than a first move. Prevention at. the source of the trouble is the only real remedy, and so long as there is no international rule against th© discharge of oily water and waste from ships the principal cause of pollution will remain.

It was in one sense a pity that the United States Congress three or four years ago asked the President to call a conference of maritime nations on the subject. Anyone who presses for something to be done is met with the answer that the United States Government is intending to call this conference, and so we must wait. That is the stock reply to questions in Parliament. It was tediously repeated only a few days ego. “The British Government has stated its readiness to co-operate,” said the last annual report of the Liverpool Steamship Owners’ Association, referring to the American proposal; but in the meantime neither the British Government nor shipowners in general do anything. A few shipping companies have given a lead by fitting separators in some of their ships, but this has not been sufficiently followed. DEAD AND DYING GULLS.

If the trouble was disappearing this neglect might have been pardonable, but that is not the case. So far as our own shores are concerned the results of an exhaustive inquiry published less than a year ago by the Board of Trade showed that in some places oil pollution was serious, and repeated references to its continuance may still be noted. It was discussed, for instance, at a meeting of the Southern Sea Fisheries Committee at Bournemouth a few days ago, when the damage caused to bird life by the discharge of oil from ships was commented on. Instances were quoted of dead and dying gulls covered with oil and tar being washed up. The careless discharge of oil refuse from ships on the high seas as well as in coastal waters was the menace again, which the United States Congress desired that means of prevention should be taken, and qur own Board of Trade report named the discharge of oil from the tanks or bilges of oij-burn-ing or oil-carrying ships, either inside or outside the three-mile limit, as the principal source of pollution. The oily refuse pumped overboard may drift long distances to the coasts. Reference is sometimes made to other sources of pollution, such as submerged wreks of oil-carrying ships, but the real active cause is one to which closer attention should be given by shipowners. Apparently the view of British shipowners is that, if international regulations are adopted, the discharge of oily substances into the sea should still be allowed up to-within 150 miles from land. That was the suggestion of a committee whose report was adopted by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, and a further recommendation was that the compulsory fitting of separators on ships is undesirable. THE RIGHT REMEDY. Separatm-s, however, are the means by which pollution from ships may be prevented. and the best way of dealing by international regulation with the nuisance would be to make compulsory the installatuu. of separating apparatus in oil-carry-ing and oil-burning ships. The experimental stage is past, and efficient separators are obtainable. The waste products saved can be turned to account, and to enforce the use of separators would be no hardship. Probably at the International Conference of Shipowners this view would not find support. The last conference referred the matter to a committee (distinct from that representing British shipowners) which reported that the nuisance had been to a large extent overcome. So shipowners will do nothing:. Clearly, if all are to be brought into line, the regulations prohibiting the discharge of oil waste at sea —which will go on until ships are provided with separators—must be international. Until the nations take steps the filth may come ashore anywhere, and not only prevent bathing, but increase fire hazards. Only the other day the surface of the Wnndle, which flows into the Thames, accidentally became coated with oil, which caught fire and gave rise to flames 15ft high. This risk is no small matter. At sea the oily mess, spreading or sinking, is detrimental to fish, and, as to birds, the Board of Trade report pointed out that "once a bird has become entangled with oil it is liable to die a slow and painful death.” The cruelty to birds is the most distressing feature of present conditions. At the recent annual meeting of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Mr H. do Verc Stncpoole spoke strongly about the large numbers of sea birds which became clogged with oil and, drifting helplessly, starve ta death. He urged all who wished to have this nuisance abated to combine and press tor international action. Alternatively, I would suggest that strong expressions of public opinion might cause our own Parliament to legislate so as to ensure that the shame of_ polluting the seas shall not rest on British ships. If British shipowners realised this possibility they would undoubtedly bring pressure to bear on their foreign colleagues.