THE POLLUTED SEA.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16817, 8 June 1926, Page 8

THE POLLUTED SEA.

DANGERS OF WASTE OIL. A .MENACE TO SEASIDE RESORTS Though oil pollution continues to he 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 towarits improvement. Chi pollution menaces not only our own coasts, but also other areas, and far-reaching steps arc needed (writes Sandford D. Cole in the Manchester Guardian). Existing legislation in various countries is directed only against harbour pollulion, 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 ruie against the discharge of oily water and waste from ships Ihe principal cause of pollulion will remain.

11, was in one sense a pity that the United Slales Congress three or four years ago asked the President lo call a conference of maritime nalions or the subject. Anyone who presses for something to be done is met with the answer that Iho United States Government is intending to call this conference, and so we must wail. That is the stock reply to Questions in Parliament. It was tediously repeated only a few days ago. "The British Government has staled its readiness lo co-operate," said the last annual report of Ihe. Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, referring to Ihe American proposal; bill in the meantime neither the British Government nor shipowners in general Wo anything. A few shipping companies have, given a lead by filling separators in some of their ships, but this lias 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inquiry published less than a year ago by tlic Board of Trade showed that in some places oil pollution was serious, and repealed references to ils continuance may still be noted.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 Ihe damage caused lo bird life by the discharge of oil from ships was commented on. Instances were quoted of dead and dying gulls covered with oil and lar being washed up. Tile careless discharge of oil refuse from ships on Ihe high seas as well as in coastal waters was Ihe menace again, which the United Stales Congress desired that means of prevention should be taken, and our own Board of Trade report named the discharge of oil from the tanks or bilges of oilburning 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 Hie coasts. Reference is sometimes made to olhcr j sources of pollulion, such as subiner- j ged wrecks 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 ship- | owners is that, if international regulations are adopted, the discharge of oily j 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 Qttinj of separators on ships is undesirable.

The Right Remedy.

Separators, however, arc 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 installation of separating apparatus in oil-carrying and oil-burn-ing ships. The experimental stage is past, and efficient separators arc 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 mailer to a committee (distinct from that representing Uritish 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 arc 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 Hie surface of Ihc Wandle, which Hows into Ihc Thames, accidentally became coaled wilh oil, which caught lire and gave rise to llames 15 feet high. This risk is no small matter. At sea the only mess spreading or sinking, is detrimental lo llsh, and, as In birds, the Hoard 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 cruelly to birds is Ihc most distressing feature of present conditions. At the recent annual meeting of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Mr 11. dc Vere Stacpoole spoke strongly about the large numbers of sea birds which became clogged with oil and, drifting helplessly, starve Io death. He urged all who wished to have this nuisance abated to combine and press for international action. Alternatively, I would suggest that strong expressions of public opinion might cause our own Parliament to legislate so as to ensure thai 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.