The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1909-01-30

ing On this natter plL INST Attct go
/ ing ali Of the document submitted 70 nm
in manuscript BY DR.. Remsen. Dr. KAY
mond suggested WHAT DO you think q
/ it, and here il his reply Is what ne says
As regards II. S.stisties effected b yoH VIA
such care. 7 car oniy say that they require Fe1
careful Interpretation ] @ not Sc EcW az
conclusion can be drawn from them win rsEasd
70 the relative danger attending Tie ass q Is
two kinds d gzses
he was their own expert who had been
making these investigations or analyses
for the Brooklyn board Of health he
went over the evidence, and that IS the
! conclusion he came 70. In the letter
which accompanies the analyses which
he made for the Brooklyn board Of health
he says:
Concerning the question q Tx danger 10 hesitA
resulting frern the use q these gsses. IL Is. q
course. known than he principal dangerous cor
stituent Is carbon mcn0x6e Tor ghzt Is esmI3cny
called czTb0nic exidef- Both these szses oout2rz
considerable Quantities q tbs constitu ent-
Both II Inhaled would produce BAD efieclss al1,
Z inhaled 20 2 sIfsCieHt extent both EoHid Gauss
death. I Do rot 1hiRs. however. t'zt the dlfsr-
eEcs N the percentages 81 tie mouoxce present n
the tso sases = matter q any Hnpaftancs lro-i
sanitary stardfDiat- Wkcthsr Cne gas or tte ofber
is used. tnsge Is 6anSer connected With - escape
( IL an tnbG1zed condition into soors occupied ~
human beings But long before enough Of ether
10 Iqo5aee bad effects eould accumulate n ron
4 would reecsSsrfly h detected ~ Us odqT, I9r
both specimens submitted 20 ne bad. as far As I
could judge. equally bad oder4
In case the ocerpsafs q the RON would b
asleep At SINE q tie escape O. the s2s i
possible that fatal effect might he Feacnfa lev
minutes carrier Ia the caze RI water gas than -
that Of coal gas. bm il Is highly improbable th4t,
/ IN either ease. there world b leak IN the psIes
sufficiently bad % lead 70 ssri7us results without
attracting attention during the waking heaTs
q MN NAV tr
1 DO not consider fle usc Ct water Ezs a. al
dangerous Il It be used with the zane prccauicns
as are observed in the Use o. ordinary eeal as
YoGTs respectfully, IRA kE4lsEN
That is taken from the report II The
! commissioner Of health OF the City OF
/ Brooklyn. dated 1875
Bir Silns-Twenty-six years ago.
Mr. Love-Yes, sir. I will say that THIS
report was q natural eutgroWth of thu
use Of the carburetted water gas n New
York City. practically on Manhattan
Island, which was being distributed by
the Municipal Gaslight Company. That
was the starting point There was con-
siderable opposition Of course. 70 the
work OK that company They were en-
cr0aching very seriously on the sales %
tho old coal. gas companies. and part OK
this work, I have rot the slightest doubt,
was undertaken and performed in q per-
fectly honest. conscientious manner, but
lots Of the work az that tine-the feeling
was very bitteT-was done simply because
IL inteTfered with another mans busi-
ness.
Nr. Sims-The contest between two com
panies seeking TO occupy the same held2
Mr. LOye-Exactly- NOW. certain
opinions have been offered this commit
tee regarding the quality OF Carburet1ed
water gas and the probable effect on
human life. I may say that coal gas was
discovered in I7s7. and Sir Humphrey
Z Davey, who lived a. that time. and VINO
was the greatest chemist Of his day, Cd
iected % coal gas because he vas AFRAID
II was going 20 be injurious to the public
II We had stopped right there there would
have been no coal gas, to say nothing
about other processes which have been
developed along that line Prof. Chand-
le-. who IS at the present time professor
OF chemistry II the Columbia University
OF New York. was. about the time q
this agitation, in about 1850 70 1855. presi-
dent Of the New York City board %
health The articles appearing in tbs
daily press had naturally aroused the
public 10 some little anxiety As 20 what
was 10 be apprehended from this new
gas. The matter was brought 10 the al
/, tentiOn Of the board OF aldermen They
referred the matter n the board OF
health. of which Prof. Chandler vas then
the president, and It was Investigated by
him. and the conclusion he came TO vas
this:
There are no facts which give any
substantial foundation for the apprehen-
sions Of the petitioners that this sas IS
IN any way more dangerous than the gas
~ ra-.r-a- g.
That was the conclusion he came "a.
and that, so far as the board Of health
Of New York was concerned. was the end
OF f. Prof. Morton, who was the presi-
dent Of the Stevens Institute Of Tech
nol0gy, al Hoboken. was q man very
eminent IN his profession-chemistrv and
physics-and man who did great deal
OF work IN this particular line When
the question first came up President Nor
ton was rather inclined 10 be on the other
side-that Is. I mean. On the side looking
upon carbonic oxide in gas as very init
rious; that is. water gas should not be
allowed. he wrote in the Sanitary Engi-
neeT Of the 18th OF January. 1880. IS fol-
lows:
7 am quite ready "a admit that when
the subject first came 20 my notice my
impression was that water gas was so
practically dangerous (en account OF the
large amount Of carbonic oxide in it,
that it should not be admitted into gen
eraI use; but further consideration mo6i-
fed this view 10 the belief that Il would
be a question Of economy ard efficiency
simply whether water gas did or did not
become the gas Of the future
! have here q copy OF .he hearing be-
fore The committee on manufactures OF
the Massachusetts, legislature. The petit
toners in that case. as stated BIZ Dr.
Barker already. asked for the repeal OF
q law practically fixing the maximum OF
I carb0nic oxide il the gas distributed IN
the State Of Massachusetts TO 10 per cent.
This is the report CO THAI hearing. and
quote from page rs a letter from DR.
Edward Franklin. professor OF chemistry
Of the Royal College OF Chemistry in Lon
don, whose opinion had been asked IN
this matter of water gas He says
Having beer called upon 10 express
my opinion as 10 the adaptability of
water gas for lighting and heating pur-
poses. I hsve no hesitation n saying that
Il may be used with safety. both IN
public buildings and private houses. I
should be delighted 10 substitute this
pure and powerful Illuminating agent for
the gas with which my house in London
is at present supplied. although It IS
used IN ali the bedrooms"
have one more quotation that I would
Ike 20 bring before the committee That
is from Prof AdOlph Wurtz. who IS a
member OF the French Institute, pro
fessor Of the School Of Medicine and
Science in Paris. Speaking on this point
he says:
no doubt the danger OF poisoning ex-
ISIS with all gases containing carbonic
oxide. and coal gas Is not exempt from
, the latter. as II can contain IS much as
I = per cent OF its volume. But I think
, that the danger. which could only havs
sad consequences In exceptional cases.