Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]
This page requires JavaScript
No. | Name of town or district. | Name or number of tank. | Dates between which the tank was in use. | Length of time during which the tank was used. "Weeks. | Rate of flow of sewage through the tank. Gallons per day. | Quantity of sewage passed into the tank. Gallons. | Quantity of sludge left in the tank. Tons. | Percentage of moisture in the sludge left in the tank. | Percentage reduction in the amount of sludge effected by septic action. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
37 | Reigate | ||||||||
38 | Rochdale | 1 | 2 years | 200,000 (3 months} 160,000 (afterwards) | 130,000,000 | 200 ofpressed sludge of 60 per cent, moisture | 89.8 | 26.5 | |
39 | Salford | ||||||||
40 | Sheffield... | ||||||||
41 | Southport | ||||||||
42 | Swinton and Pentlebury | ||||||||
43 | Wolverhampton | l | 31 May, '99, to 16 Oct., '00 | 68 | 250,000 (average) 50,000 to 500,000 | 330 | |||
44 | Wednesbury | ||||||||
45 | West Bromwich | ||||||||
46 | Worcester |