440
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
Union Jack showing everywhere at a loss to been the recent sewage or other pollution and themselves. The patriot looks impartially the greater the probability of the presence of The question on the despatcher and on the carrier of disease-producing bacteria.
raised at "D" is still a matter of con- cargo as complementary to his nation's
siderable scientific dispute. Our inform trade, without thinking how the questionation upon this point, e.g., bact-ria necessary of low or high rates affects either separately. for digestion, has, I think, advanced somewhat The newly appointed commissioners have to since the days of Pasteur. It would be well for look to the parts and to the whole, and to the author of the minute to carefully consider bring that dispassionateness to the finding the more recent investigations of Nuttal and of a compromise that cannot reasonably Thierfelder, Levin, Scholtelia and Bizzonero. be expected from the separate interests Polar bears in the arctic regions possess a involved. The Times, like ourselves, does thrive well with "E." No bacteriologist of any sterile intestinal canal, yet they appear to not envy them their task, nor does it pretend repate would conclude as to the presence of to be able to help with any suggestion. It bacillus coli before having carried out the main concludes that if they [the Commission crucial system of tests. WithFI agree, can suggest, for example, methods by which The authority for the s atem-ulat **(4** onght freights to and from our Colonies and our to be given. This is my experience in Houg, chief markets can be lowered or steadied kong, and is borne out by other competent observers as Dewar and Crookes (chemists) and their report would be invaluable.
Klein, Houston, etc. (bacteriologists). With will do good to look closely into these regard to "H" if the water is boiled ordinary bacteria are killed. I am acquainted with micro organisms which can withstand boiling for 16 bours. My own opinion in regard to the whole question of water examinations is the following: A water irrespective of source must be con- demned if it contains a very large number of bacteria per C.C. of whatever kind;
*
It
matters and others of a like nature. An inquiry has been long deman-led, and, for reasons which are not apparent, has year after year been postponed. It is satisfactory to know that there is every likelihood that the issues in dispute, which are of national magnitude, will be impartially examined".
HONGKONG SANITARY BOARD.
The
|
A meeting of the Sanitary Board was held on December 27th at the Board Koom. Hon. Dr. J. M. Atkinson (president) presided, and there were also present Lieut.-Colonel J. M. Reid, R.A.M. Dr. F. Clark, Medical Officer of Health, Hon. Mr. A. W. Brewin, Registrar General, Dr. H. McFarlane, Assistaut Medical Officer of Health, Mr. A. Shelton Hooper, Mr. H. umphreys, Mr. Lau Chu-pak, Mr. Fung Wa-chun and Mr.ent. G. A. Woodcock (secretary).
LAW OFFICERS' OPINION.
In reply to a letter from the Board asking whether the written opinion of Law Officers of the Crown can be submitted to a coufidential meeting, the Colonial Secretary wrote:-"I am directed to inform you that members of the Sanitary Board may be allowed to see the opinions of the Law Officers bearing on points with which it is the duty of the Board to deal on the distinct understanding that members of the Board must regard any such opinion somnunicated to them in their public capacity as strictly ounfidential.
Mr. HOOFER-I don't think it is a matter for discussion; but, before it passes, I just wish to enter my protest against it without stating any special reasons because I think they will reach the Government from another source. I don't see what authority the Government have to make anything confidential that takes place at this Board, having rules for our guidance. I am not going to discuss it.
The reply was laid on the table. ME. HUMPHREYS .ND THE
BACTERIOLOGIST.
j
་་
{December 29, 1906
evidence." The reference to the statements in my minute which the Government Bacteriologist has marked “D” “ E” and “F” requires no an- swer as there is practiesliy no disagreement. As regards my statement which he has marked "H" both the typhoid and cholera bacilli are killed at 6 10 C with an exposure of ten minutes, so the fact of some micro organisms being able to withstand boiling for several hours is of With regard to little practical significance. "G" Klein does not regard the mere detec
• tion of the ha cillu coli comm0 24 14 1.8 #n contamination, but its absolute proof of presenc in appreciable quatity is highly suggestive of sewage contamination, so also would be the presence of nitrates, nitrites, chlorides, and free ammonia, detected by chemical analysis; but there is this important difference, that in the case of a chemical analysis the impurities en umerated are just the same in the water standing in the well as in the water flowing into it, whereas in the bacteriological analysis the water from a well having but 7 colonies per C. C. in the water flowing into it may havo 495,0: 0 after standing 3 d ys. If this latter number be used for deciding upon the potability of the waters, good water would be con- demned, while if the water were pumped out as it ought to be the true sample would be satisfac.
i
tory. It is clear therefore that for shallow if it contains bacillus coli in 1 c.c. if it weils a bacteriological analysis is untrustworthy ferments ginccse, lactose, etc., if it gives the and misleading, because the number and species enteritivis change in milk. The presenes of of the bae eria in such wells are used as a basis liquefying organismus is al-oof great importauce, for indicating the amount of sewage conta- I rely upon no single test, reaction or ple- mination whereas they may be nearly all the Frankland says nomenon, and place but little weight upon the result of self multiplication. mere quantitative, estimation of the micro that owing to the facilities afforded by growth organisms in any sample of water. The sapiples
ou the sides of a well it is only by pamping of well water which I have examined recently out for sometime that a sample representing were so impure as to auswer to the very cou. the bacterial condition of the water gaining demnatory fest, necessary from a bacteriological access to the well is obtainable. "It is there- standpoint. In the case of a water supply how. fore imperative that in the examination of ever the condition of affairs is some that "differ- well water for micro organisms attention
Here all the findings of bacteriology.
should be given as to whether the chemistry, and topography must be considered well has been recently pumped or disturbed. before it is condemned. I am in agreement, how- Cor unused for a longer or shorter period. ever, with the statement by the Fourth Report; Unless these circumstances are duly taken into of the Royal Commission on Water Supplies consideration the most misleading an I erroneous and Sewage Disposal of 1904, that typical cone'usions as to the bacteriological condition of bacillus coli iu l'e.c. of a sa : pie, of water is the ctual source of supply will be arrived at. It sufficient to condemn it for potable purposes, is needless to point out also that no well should and an indication of sewage pollution. If the
be closel on a bacterioscopic report which pollution be a recent one the presence of bucilus indicates sewage contamination as result coli affords a much more delicate test of pollu-, of the presence of the bacʻitas coli communis tionthan any chemical examination which can be unless
the chemical analysis corroborates made.
it, for the reason that sewage contamination is readily detected by chem cal analysis; but if the bacterioscop e report states that the bacilli of typhoid, cholers, or other malign- aut bacilli are present, the well should be closed at once irrespective of the chemical analysis which would fail to disclose the presence of such bacteria. It is however exceedingly rare that a water containing such malignant bacteria esoe pes on a chemical analysis, for the reason that they are almost in variably associated with considerable sewage contamination, which as already stated is readily detected by the presence of an abnormal amount of nitrates, nitrites, ohlorides, and free ammonia.
The PRESIDENT minuted that he agreed
with Dr. Hunter's views.
In reply to Dr. Hunter Mr. H. Humphreys further minuted :-In the Government Bacterio. logist's report on my minute of 10th December. 1906, he leaves unchallenged three of my most important statements, viz : --Thos 1 having reference to: (1) The rulings of th English Courts. (2) Shallow wells in England being unable to pass a bacteriologics tes... (3) No evidence being hitherto forthcoming as to sickness from polluted well water in Hongkong The members of the Board will probably agree; A minute by the bacteriologist, Dr. Hunter, (1) that the rulings of the English Court where with relerence to the well in Stanley Street the evidence of the various experts is sifted to which has occasioned considerable discussion, the bottom cannot be lightly disregarded; (2) was read: It is now generally recognised by that if no shallow well waters cau pass a bacterio- experts on water analysis that bacteriology is logical test, the adoption of each a test for the most direct and delicate test of the safety shallow wel's here is equivalent to their foregone of a water for drinking purposes. By it we universal condemnation and (3) that where no
• obtain exact information not alone as to the evidence of ill effects has been forthcoming constitution of a water but as to its potentiality such an heroic measure is unnecessary. Concern to cause disease, Bacteriological methods are ing another important statement in the minute than chemical examination. the Government Bacteriologist asks that the Klein. Houston, and others have shown that by authori y be given for the following:- That bacteriological methods, it is possible to detect the bacillus coli communis is often found in smaller degrees of sewage pollution than by water above suspicion of pollution and where chemistry. With ***
"A" of the minute (Mr. chemical analysis shows it to be pure, its pre. sence in such cases having no significance.” Humphreys') I agree entirely. I bave never
because it contained My authority is Thresh, Lecturer on public condemned 8 water acillus coli communis. I am thoroughly justified Health, London Hospital Medical College, etc.. however in regarding any water as suspicious on page 147 of Water and Water Supplies." which contains the bacillus coli communis io In this connection I would further quote from With that the same authority hallow wells present the 1o.c. or any such small quantity. part of the minute marked "B"I disagree. Frasest difficulty In these cases I lay mors stres upon the situation and construction Here again, regard a sample of water as suspicious if it contains a large number of of the well than upon the bacterio-copic results ;
that considering the fact bacteria
of whatever kind, and and again, 0.0. per especially so if the number of species represented illuess had been attributed to the use of these was large. With “C” I am in entire agree (shallow well) waters and that the analytical ment yet the higher the number of bacillus coli results were so satisfactory, no magistrate would in any sample of water the heavier will have condemn any of the wells on the bacteriologica
more
delicate
|
DO
!
1
*
Mr. HUMPHREYS said he would like to offer some remarks on Dr. Hunter's minute.
The › RESIDENT-Certainly.
Mr. HUMPHREYS, dealing with various points in Dr. Hunter's report, pointed out that it was the experience in England and elsewhers that bacteriological experts and analytical experts very seldom agreed, and when they came to think of it, it was not aureasouable. A bacteriological examination of a well in the morning might be totally different to a similar examination in the evening.
The PRESIDENT-Isn't that the same with analytical examinations?
Mr. HUMPHREY--Not a bit of it.
The PRESIDENT- Before and after rainfall there would be a difference.
Ar. HUMPHREYS-In the case of raiufall there might, but not otherwise. Proceeding he said that Dr. Hunter oudeavoured to belittle his (Mr. Humphreys') authorities. There could b. no question that Professor Franklin was the greatest living expert on water bacteriology, and Dr. Thresh, lecturer on Public Health, at London Hospital. He had every respect for Dr. Hunter's opinion, but when that opinion conflicted directly with that of those two experts he might be pardoned if he declined to accept
{