View report page

137
parts of the Borough. In the case of 43 of the complaints received,
no nuisance existed at the time of inspection. 3,474 re-inspections
were made, making a total for the year of 7,655 inspections.
The slaughter-houses, bakehouses, cowsheds and dairies, the
common lodging-house, and the registered houses let in lodgings,
situated in the Borough, were all inspected during the year.
During the year a Departmental Committee of the Local
Government Board investigated and reported upon the value of the
Intercepting or Disconnecting trap which is generally required
to be inserted between the house drain and the sewer with the
object of preventing the entrance of sewer air into the drain.
Those who are opposed to the insertion of this trap contend :
(a) That it is a positive obstacle to the rapid discharge of drainage
contents into the sewer; (b) that it is a frequent cause of the
blockage of house drains, with all the attendant evils and dangers;
(c) that it is never clean, and contains sewage which may be
retained until an advanced state of decomposition is reached, and
may thus be the chief cause of bad odours in drains; (d) that it is
an insufficient safeguard, the trapping water being liable to be
forced by air pressure in the sewer; (e) that it forms no obstacle
to the passage of rats; (f) that the dangers of sewer air have
been greatly exaggerated; (g) that it leads to a splashing of the
sewage which is responsible for transmitting germs from the
liquid sewage to the drain air, and, therefore, adds to the number
of germs in drain air; (h) that it interferes with the proper ventilation
of the sewers; (i) that the experience of districts which have
dispensed with the trap shows that there is less odour of sewage
in its absence and (j) the trap necessitates a fresh-air inlet, which
often serves as an outlet, which is generally placed in close
proximity to the house.
The arguments in favour of the retention of the trap are as
follows : (a) Sewers are often defective, in which event the gases