Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1906-01-02
The Ice Question.
REPORT ON SAMPLES AND PERSONAL
INSPECTION BY PROFESSOR ROBINSON.

As we stated last week, in consequence
of the stir regarding the quality Of tn
river ice. and the order of the local b0art
of health, several samples were takei
and sent to Professor Robinson OF Bruins
wick . member Of the state board o.
health, for analysis. These samples
with one exception, were taken from thu
several fields where ice has been takel
from the river in years past, and bor'
nothing to show whence they were takeI
except the number on each sample. Pro
fessor Robinson made analysis, and or
Friday visited South Paris and personal
ly inspected the situation. His report Ii
given below. That it may be fully In
telligible, the places where the severa
samples were taken are indicated below,
Park Street bridge.
No. 4, from the channel of the river
east of Riverside Cemetery and above
the SANDY"
No. 5, from the channel in front of Gal
Lodge.
No. 8, in the upper cove.
No. Z, near the mouth of the two pri
vate sewers which discharge into The
river below Park Street bridge.
BRUNSWICK, MAINE, Dec. 20, 1905.
DIR. LITTLEFIELD,
CHAIRMAN BOARD OF HEALTH, S. PARIS
Dear Sir:
have analysed the six samples OF ICE
you sent me Dec. 22d, and have visited
the ice fields from which they were
taken, and inspected the conditions from
sanitary standpoint. The following il
my report and conclusions:
The samples were numbered 2, 3, 4. 5,
o, Z, respectively.
The question l was asked to decide
was whether the ice showed signs OF
sewage or other pollution. Sewage pol
luton in a water or ice is indicated by
increase in number and character OF
bacteria; increase in chlorine; presence
of uitrites: increase in ammonia and
organic matter.
without giving figures as to amounts
which would be of themselves meaning
less except to experts, would say that
numbers 2 and 8 showed no signs OF
sewage pollution, and No. I showed I'M
mistakable signs of II, while 0, D, and 4,
although not badly polluted showed that
the water they came from was affected
by drainage material which did not ap-
pear in 2 and 8. In this was most ap-
parent, in 9 next, and in 4 least.
The impurities in and 4wOuld not be
enough to condemn them as would be
those in Z, but from my inspection of
surroundings. and knowledge that 3, g.,
4 came from below Z, and not great
distance below, feel quite sure that
there is an element Of risk connected
with using such ice for domestic pur-
poses which ought to be avoided.
1t should be borne in mind that when
pollution flows into q water, especially
into a river water, with rapid current, II
does not distribute itself uniformly at
once, but goes in streaks gradually
broadening as they progress. 1t is thus
perfectly possible to take samples for
ANALYSIS at given time and place which
do not show pollution. Hence IT in
spection shows source of pollution it
should be guarded against even though
single analysis may not reveal It's
presence.
In this particular case inspection
shows a source of pollution-the houses
lust below the bridge-and analysis
shows the presence of it in the water at
that point with unmistakable though
diminishing traces below, this makes,
from a sanitary standpoint, the duty
clear to remove the source OF possible
pollution or not use the ice in such
way that filth disease could be caused
by it.
The question whether pollution may
not flow back from the dam where tue
river evidently receives a good deal OF
drainage, is an important one, and one
not thoroughly investigated at this time,
but these samples did not indicate such
a thing, because No. 4, which came from
the point nearest the dam, was better
than 5 which came farther up.
If have not made my statements
clear or you wish for further informa-
ton please let me know.
Yours very truly,
FRANKLIN G. ROBINSON.
Prof. of Chemistry.