![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Epitome of Current Medical Literature:
JAMA
Published in NZMJ 1911 May;10(38):32.
The elaborate experiments which were carried out by Winslow
and Phelps on the purification of the sewage of Boston led to the conclusion
that the septic tank treatment affords no particular advantage. On the contrary
they say: Since November, 1906, when the distribution system was put in order,
crude sewage has been treated on one of our trickling beds with perfect success.
The effluent from this filter was less frequently putrescible than that from the
bed which received septic effluent. On the whole, then, it may be said that
apart from the advantages that may also be obtained by simple sedimentation
(four hours or less), the septic tank has little to recommend it. The slightly
increased digestion of sludge is in a large degree counterbalanced by the added
difficulty of treating the septic effluent. The prevailing opinion among
students of the sewage disposal problem is that there is no substantial gain
from retaining sewage in tanks until decomposition has set it, but that on the
contrary the practice is often distinctly disadvantageous as compared with
mechanical sedimentation for a brief period.—JOURNAL OF THE A. M. A.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |