Influences Affecting Refuse Disposal
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Director of Cleansing, Glasgow, Mr. Gavin C. McArthur, M.B.E., J.P., dealt with refuse disposal in the light of present experience and possible future developments. •
Much of what he said does not concern the subject of road transport, but there are certain points which deserve mention, particularly in reference to recent analyses of refuse in Glasgow, as compared with others carried -out in 1936. The figures given are for the summer of the latter .year and for that of 1943, respectively;—Fine dust, 29.7, 43.7; small cinder, 8.4, 18.2; large cinder, 6.7, 9.2; vegetable and putrescible, 20.4, 4.3; paper, 20.3, 1.6; rags, 1.9, 0.8; bottles and jars, 0.7,. LI; bones, 0.4, 0.1.
These changes can be mainly attri
buted to controls placed upon paper and textiles and the general practice of _ colleCting separately waste paper, waste food, hones, etc.
According to the author, Mr. Dawes has stated that in post-waryears salvage would' have to be related to international finance and the problem of supplies. There must be no going back to ttie practise of burning paper while ships went overseas to fetch it.
As regards kitchen waste, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, it will be necessary to collect such material for some years to come. ft must be remembered, of course, that any loss sustained by local authorities in the recovery of such materials would, necessarily, have to be refunded by the State.