View report page

26
satisfy themselves as to the nature of the complaint until after a
consultation which took place on the 5th inst.
In view of the result of the analysis of the water in the last case
I caused samples to be obtained from the two other wells mentioned
in the first part of this report, and forwarded the same to Mr.
Stokes, and his certificate is as follows:—
Analytical Laboratory,
Vestry Hall, Paddington Green, W.,
30th August, 1893.
On the 25th of August I received from you two samples of. well
water. These I have now carefully analyzed, and I find them to

Of the total solid matter there were in sample 101a 10 grains, in
sample 102a 17 grains of volatile matter. The oxygen required to
oxidise the organic matter in sample 101a in three hours was 0.033
grains. The oxygen required to oxidize the organic matter in
sample 102a in three horn's was 0126 grains. The microscope
showed sample 101a to be fairly free from living animalculæ, while
sample 102a was swarming with anirralculæ. On consideration of
these facts I am of opinion that the water 101a is a moderately
good sample of drinking water. In its present state no ill effect
could be anticipated from the use of such a supply. There is no
evidence of any sewage contamination. Sample 102a is quite unfit
for drinking purposes; it is evidently largely contaminated with
sewage or surface drainage, and should certainly not be used at all
for drinking purposes or for cleaning out any vessels that may be
used to contain food.
ALF. W. STOKES,
Public Analyst.
The sample identified in the certificate as 101a was obtained
from No. 2 well, said to be a tube well, depth unknown. It is
situated on the premises of a cloth worker's, &c., 136, Old Street.
It is the only source of water supply on the premises, where about
20 persons are employed. All the water, however, from the well
passes through a filter before it can be used.