The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1909-01-31
WATER GAS AND COAL GAS
HEARING BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE.

Mr. Mcore-in q newspaper which /
read this morning is an account Of two
deaths from coal gas in the district which
1 represent in Philadelphia Our popu-
lation there IS more than a million and
/ half These we're accidental deaths. ap
parently, due either TO ignorance in the
use Of the gas OF TO other causes. pos
! sibly negligence. I an going 10 ask you
whether you have any statistics showing
( the number Of deaths that have occurred
through mOnOxide in the Jurisdiction that
comes under your observation
/ Mr.. L0ve-No. sir. Years ago COM
menced pretty careful examination, and
I chased down a great many cases. ana
/ the newspapers had It Wei, here is
another death BY carbon monoxide, due
+ 70 water gas I found that II was not
a case Of carbon nOnoxide az all I found
a great many cases In which II was due
20 coal gas. At the same time, in the
early history OF the water gas contro-
versy. there was a great deal OF coal
/ gas used. more coal gas than anything
else in New York City, and I carried
+ that out for a year or two. but I finally
dropped It.
I Mr. TaylOT-These men slept in room
where they had a coal stove without any
/ pipe TO il. and the fumes from the burn
I ing coal In the stove overcame them and
/ killed them
Mr. LOve-That is as old as history, to
commit suicide by starting a coal FIRE
and putting lid over il
Mr. TayiOT-These nen came in TO get
out Of the cold; they did not try 70 CON-
mil suicide
Mr. Murphy-Do you know whether
I there has been any increase in fatal
accidents since the substitution OF the
heavier oils for naphtha in the water gar
prOcess2
Mr.. Love-You mean the increase OF The
consumption Of the heavier oils over
naphtha?
Mr. Murphy-No. mean has there been
any increase in the fatal accidents; has
there been any change. any increase OF
decrease in the number Of fatal accidentsz
Mr. LOve-After the introduction OF
water gas2
Mr. Murphy-No; I mean after the
heavier oils were substituted FOR naptha .
Mr.. Iove-The heavier oils have nothing
TO do with f. They are merely used for
carburetting material They do not pro-
dUce carbon mOnOxide. That exists IN the
blue gas.
swered my question. asked you whether
L = 80
or decrease since that time
] Mr.. Love-I 90 not
Mr.. Slms-Let me ask you this. as you
are a competent witness to testify Say
you have person in room. Il makes
no difference about the size. The same
volume Of coal gas goes into that room.
and then another person IN another room
Of the same size, with the same volume
I OF gas containing exceeding p per cent
Of carbon monoxide Which would pro-
duce death first in the least time.
Mr.. Love-I think very likely the water
gas would
Mr. Sims-Now. as a rule does Il not
/ produce death in half the tine. OF less
than half the time, it would take coal gas
( 70 produce death under similar condi-
tons?
Mr. Love-No. sir: I do not think YOU
can put il down on numerical basis
ike that
Mr.. Sims-But on the average IL * less?
Dir. LOve-Oh. yes; it would be less in
the case Of coal gas
Mr. Sims-In other words. the exposure
Of the person TO the inhalation Of gas
exceeding % per cent with carbon mo-
loxlde would produce death OF fatal In
jury in less time than the Inhalation OF
coal gas.
Dir. Love-I think it viii result little
quicker.
Mr.. sims-Now, then. as practical re-
suit, must II not necessarily follow that
from the same accidents. the same leak
ages the same caTelessness. g city served
ey water gas. carburetted water gas
would have greater number OF fatalities
than Ike city served by coal gas2
Mr.. LOye-It might.
Mr. Sims-It IS natural?
Mr. Lowell is a natural inference from
the conditions.
Mr. Slms-Then. therefore. there e rec-
essarily greater danger to life and health
IN using water gas than an exclusively
coal gas with the same care and the
same exposure and the same conditions?
Mr. Love-I think that IS a natural in
ference
ar Sims-But you are not ready IN
state that that is sufficient to exclude the
use Of water gas from this or any other
city?
Dir. Love-I think the advantage az
water gas far surpasses any disadvsr-
tages II may have. We do not think OF
wiping out the use Of matches because
they bum ID more children every year
than are ever injured by water gas.
We never think Of going back 70 the old
flint and steel We never think OF doing
away with nitroglycerin. but it kills more
people every year than the water gas
We never think OF going back from the
trolley cars 10 the old horse cars because
more people are killed By the trolley
cars every year than are ever killed By
water gas.
Mr. Sims-That is simply matter or
policy for the House TO determine for It.
SELF. but the bill before Us is to limit
the carbon mOuoxide here 20 % per cent.
which. it has been testified here. would
practically mean the prohibition of the
use OF water gas. Therefore. in consid-
ering this BILL it IS Just a question OF
prohibiting the use or permitting It.
Mr Love-Exactly.
Nj ms-Conseouently, anything bear
ing on that question is proper for the
committee to consider.
Mr. MOore-If that is your view. then
il would mean the dismautling Of certain
establishments and the tying up Of
capital?
Mr. Love-It would practically stop the
manufacture OF water gas in Washington.
and all over the world where water gas
is made to-day
Mr.. Notwithstanding that We all agree
that Il is a desirable thing 70 save life
wherever possible. and to prevent de-
struction OF life by Tnonoxide OF any
other gas. have you any suggestion 10
make 20 the committee as to how the
loss OF life might be iessened by legisla-
ton while continuing the use Of water
gas?
Mr.. Love-I do not think legislation
can ever 90 IL I think you have 10 fur
nish brains TO the people; that Is. they
must know something about the use OF
these gases. coal gas as well as water
gas I could not suggest anything in the
way Of legislation.
Mr.. Moore-Then you regard the matter
Of saving life purely as a matter Of e1u-
cafinn % The r,aarle9