Hide Articles List

28 articles on this Page

- - _-__- . WHIGH SCHEME ?…

News
Cite
Share

WHIGH SCHEME ? -0 SWANSEA SEWERAGE PROBLEM AND ITS SOLUTION. THE DICKSON PROCESS. (BY A CORRESPONDENT). THE latest criticisms of the Dickson t Sewage Process published in your contemporary tail to throw any new light upon the points at issue, in place of facts and argument we are now- treated to a personal tirade against anonymity in general, and against eewago anonymity in rti{;ular ground- less mnuendos ahout "-substantial pecuniary considerations for companies and individuals," partisanship, "utter untrustworthiness," etc., etc. No num- ber of such remarks constitute an argu- ment. The introduction of personali- ties is usually the feign of a weak case, and materially detracts from their author's reputation for courtesy. The question of who is right and who is wrong, is of very small importance com- pared with that of What is right and what is wrong. Personal. Since, however, the personal point has been raised, it may be advisable to state, once and for all, that the present writer, who did not ask for anonymity, has no interest whatever, other ■than scientific one, in the pro- cess which he introduced to the notice of the Swansea Corporation. He has made an exhaustive, and to sumo extent an experimental, study of the Dickson l'rocess, and has been to Ireland to make investigations. Further, he took the trouble to inquire from those who Dwa the Dickson patents, as to what would be the cost of that process for treating Swansea. sewage, and the figures given to him ( which do not necessarily bind the owners) were published in these. columns. It is therefore a very simple matter for every fair-minded person to decide upon which side the "utter unworthiness" lies, and as to who is "ignorant to an amazing degree" of tho financial side of the question. Points in the Controversy. When the abortive attempt to pour cold water upon thy Dickson scheme, by assorting that the Dublin plant and process were experimental," was frustrated, and the assertion itself was condemned to join other "terminological inexactitudes," in the logical limbo of "error," the question of sewerage, or drains, was developed to coyer the re- treat. The Dickson Process is a means of disposing of sewage sludge, and has nothing whatever to do with sewerage. In this connection it may be here pointed out, that the sewers required ror one scheme would not necessarily he required for another. It is quite pos- sible that the most economical method of disposing of the sewage of Morriston, and of other outlying large communi- ties. would be to instal a Dickson plant in their immediate vicinity; in any case the idea deserves consideration. As has already been stated, the cost for inland communities would be greater than for those on the sea-board, but for Swansea the sole cost would be the difference be- tween the interest on capital expendi- ture and the profit derived from the sale of the fertiliser. Estimates. The writer never gave any estimate of hks own of the cost of the somewhat nebulous Mumbles scheme; he merely struck an average between two very widely divergent estimates supplied to him by the authorities in Swansea. Such divergence does not appear to grow less with time. A month ago the critic gave Mr. Midgeley Taylor's revised esti- mate of £235,000; he now gives the Borough Engineer's of £344,500-nea.rly 50 per cent, higher!,When experts differ to this extent in such a short time, it stands to reason that any estimate of comparative costs must to great ex- tent be conjectural. The latest "official" estimates of the relative costs cannot be criticised in the total absence of de- tails, but if that of the Dickson Process is based on the assumption that it would involve a capital outlay of £1 per bead of population, it may bo disregarded. lnfallibility is rarely found in municipal affairs, and the experience of the Swan- EOPR ra.tefMiyedis in regard to their schemes will make them think twice be- fore giving adherence to official esti- mates. The Dublin Scheme. It seems unkind to flog a dead horse, but the latest subterfuge to justify the assertion that the Dublin plant is an experimental one, cannot be passed rithout a brief notice. "The deputa- tion did not see at Dublin a complete alant for receiving crude sewage and fully treating it." No one ever stated that they did. What they did see was a complete Dickson plant for treating the Sludge of Dublin. The full treatment of the crude sewage (i.e., .sludge and emuent) at Dublin has never been con- templated, because the effluent can be reach iv passed, without danger to health, into the estuary of the Liffey. As these articles have been written without, fear or favour, in the full belief that every statement made is true in substance and in facb, the writer has no objection of any kind to declaring his identity, but he niust add the proviso that the new line of attack adopted by his critic, viz., personalities, be aban- doned once and for all. Personalities tend to engender heat, not light; tho former is not wanted, the latter is.

FROM THE DISTRICTS. -....

Advertising

News & Views1 Sil . -i- -i

[No title]

FOOTBALL FRACAS. I -J

BRITOHFERRY STRIKE. I

STOMACH TROUBLES.I

I MATE WASHED OVERBOARD.I

Advertising

A NOVEL OATH.

RUCBY TEAMS.

TEN YEARS RECORD.

j CONFERENCE IN LONDON. I

NO PISTOL SHOTS. I

ONE _WORD WITH YOU. I

I SWANSEA POLICE COURT. I

1 ECZEMA COVERED CHILD'S FACE…

Advertising

18111 Mill JL \j.rot- IT -I…

WITHDRAWAL DAY. I

EASY MEASUREMENT. I -.——

LAHOõRf!ASiOR;g- CALLS.I

[No title]

- _----"7_",-=! LOCAL FUNERALS.

' MANY SORROWS.

[No title]

Advertising