Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-09-20
WANT ANOTHER TEST.
Citizens Will Petition for q Second
Examination Of
WATER SUPPLIED ITO soUTHSIDERS.
Dissatisfaction Over the Result OF 9
Chemical Analysis.
FORMER REPORTS VERY DIFFERENT

As stated In last Mondays DlSPATCH
the citizens are not willing to accept the ex,
animation by Hunt s. Clapp, of the South
side water and q petition Will be presented
to the special committee of Councils to-day,
asking that new examination be made.
The petition has not been largely signed,
| but it bears representative names. The toi-
lowing is the petition:
| Being wholly unsatisfed with the recent
chemical analysis of the water taken from the
| Monongahela river under your direction by
Hunt q Clapp, we the undersigned citizens OF
| the Southside hereby petition your honorable
| body to order new analysis to be maze by the
| use OF the microscope, believing this to be the
only certain way of discovering all the impuri-
ties. organic and other matters which the water
| contains.
| Notwithstanding the fact that the people
are becoming weary of the water question,
and many of them don't want TO even hear
the fluid discussed, to say nothing of using
it; still it has been the talk of the week.
The opinions expressed in these columns on
Monday can be taken as about the general
drift of opinion. DR.. Mundorff, who has
always been interested in the water ques-
tion, and who has probably given it more
study than'apy other man on the Southside,
and whose views on the water now supplied
| to the citizens are pretty we'll known, was
called upon yesterday. He was asked for
statement in regard to the present exam
ination, and a comparison of it with q for
mer one made by Hunt & Clapp. He said:
THE DOCTORS OPINION.
The analytic chemists, Messrs Hunt and
Clapp, in their excellent report on the con-
dition of the water in 1887, say in that re-
port that the samples of water taken on the
Southside, taken as q whole, prove the
water to be in very dangerous condition
for potable purposes. They expressed
themselves thus after a preliminary ex-
PLANTATION as to the uncertainty that attaches
to the practice of regarding any one in
gredient of the water as the sole or chief
cause of the dangerous impurity of the sam
pie tested. However, to avoid too general
scope in their definition Of what constitutes
proper, as distinguished from excessive
quantities Of the separate ingredients of
good water, they quote the following SEN
tences from the best authorities: Potable
waters to be used by large communities
should not contain in parts per 10000
more than 10 parts of total solids, not over
0.01 parts of albuminoid ammonia, not over
l part of chlorine, nor .009 parts of nitrogen
existing as nitrites and uitrates.'
Turning now to the results obtained by
these well-known chemists, from their anal
ysis of the sample gotten at the mouth of
the inhuent pipe and as embodied by them
in their report on the water in 1887, we find
the free ammonia is set down at 0. 0202, and
the albuminoid ammonia at 0.0246, while
the total solids from this sample foot up
143. Reverting again to the report made
by them in this month (1S9O) to ascertain the
results of the ANALYSIS of the water at the
present mouth of the infuent pipe. we learn
that the free ammonia is found to be 0.096,
and the aibumlnoid ammonia 0.0104; the al
buminoid ammonia, by the way, from the
sample obtained at the reservoir this year
amounting to 0.0304 and those obtained
from the reservoirs in 1887 reaching O0266
and 0.019. The total solids in the sample
of water from the mouth of the infuent
pipe are set down at 100000. Thus it will
be seen at glance that when we compare
the numbers of the total solids obtained in
the past (1S87) and in the present (1s90),
they are very nearly the same; when we
compare the respective numbers for the free
and the albuminoid ammonia at the in
fluent pipe, we find the free ammonia in
larger quantity in the present sample and
the albuminoid ammonia less; the free am
mona representing, according to Messrs.
Hunt and Clapp, the amount of complete
decomposition OF the nitrogenous matter in
the water, and the albuminoid ammonia, the |
amount of change that the undecomposed |
nitrogenous matter in the water may un- |
dergo. But when we turn to compare the |
respective amounts of aibuminoid ammonia |
as found in the samples obtained from the |
reservoirs, we discover that the sample ana
lyzed in 1890 has the larger amount.
THE WATER IS IMPURE.
'The chlorine, as shown in both reports, |
shows that the water at the mouth of the |
infiuent Pipe in 1887 contained a much |
larger quantity than was found at the same
source in 1890, while in both years the guam
tity of chlorine in the reservoirs exceeded
that found in the water of the river at the
infiuent pipe. The quantity of organic |
matter and sulphuric acid cannot be con-
veniently compared, as some of the details
in the two reports are carried out after
different methods. The presence of nitric
acid is noted in both reports. and compari-
son of the quantities found at the mouth of
the influent pipe in 1887 and 1890 shows a
slightly larger amount in the analysis of
the recent date.
Judging the character Of the samples by
the quantity and Dature of the ingredients
in them and gauging them by the standard
of good water sanctioned in the report of
Hunt & Clapp of 1887, we must arrive at
the conclusion that the water is impure. 1t
is necessary only to compare the figures of
analysis given of the same components in
both reports to discover dangerous equal
ity in the respective figures examined. These
figures in both reports, indicating the pres
ence of grave contamination in the water
are shorn OF their true significance by the
diverging conclusions that the chemists
draw from their later work. For, while the
analysis of the first samples of water made
by them was sent to the Board of Health to
prove the water to be in very dangerous
condition for potable purposes the analy-
sis of the last samples presented to the Com
m1ttee of Investigation was found to prove.
in spite OF its fatal similarity, that the sam
Piles are within the limits OF what is recog-
nized as good potable water
EXERCISED PROPER CAUTION.
"But in justice to the experts of the Pitts
burg Testing Laboratory it should be borne
IN mind that only two samples or water
we're submitted to them, and in drawing
conclusions as to the purity or impurity of
'ur river water from an analysis OF these
samples, they simply exercised that pro-
verbal caution which analysists of their de-
served fame should do. Moreover, they s
present the analysis of the water in tabu-
ated form, which enables anyone that reads {
It to agree or differ with them as to the
oundness of their own conclusions. How
'ver, there is one thing that there will be
very little contention over, aud that is the I
manifest untairness OF taking the analysis ,
u two samples of water from the river at j.
llUh nj nd rix al, | 7