View report page

138
No. 10. Cockles. — Twelve of the cockles were used, only the exterior being
employed. The result is this. All cockles contained the bacillus coli communis
and the spores of bacillus enteritidis. In one (possibly two) cockle we isolated,
besides, a microbe, which, so far as was possible in the two days, answers to the tests
of the typhoid bacillus, but, of course, this time is not sufficient to make a definite
statement on the subject.* I may say, however, that typhoid blood agglutinates the
emulsion of the bacillus in question as 1 in 100, better, of course, as 1 in 50.
Yours truly,
E. KLEIN.
* All further tests made show that this microbe is the bacillus typhosus. Its characters in all culture media
are exactly those of the typhoid bacillus.— 13th January, 1903, E. K.
This report simply confirms what was visible on inspection. The small
amount of water in the Creek (taken at the end of the ebb tide) was
practically sewage.
The only effect of depositing cockles in this Creek would be to allow
them to exchange the sand of the place where they were originally collected
for the sewage mud of Leigh.
Numerous other outbreaks of disease have been traced to cockles.
Dr. F. J. Allan, Medical Officer for the City of Westminster, in a Report
dated 17th October, 1902, makes the following reference to a group of cases
occurring in that district:—
Enteric Fever.—The marked decline which took place in Enteric Fever
cases in London in August was not maintained, the cases rising from 287 to 473,
a figure in excess of that recorded last year. In Westminster there have been no
less than 26 cases, and the manner in which a number of these contracted the
disease suggests a possible explanation of the increase in London generally. It
will be observed that 14 of the cases were notified in the Wards of Covent Garden
and Strand. Two other cases were notified at the end of the month subsequent
to the date of this Report, and I am informed that a case has also occurred in the
Borough of Holborn, and is connected with this group; a fourth case of bowel
complaint in a brother of one of the above patients came to my knowledge, but
the medical men in attendance did not feel justified in notifying it as a case of
typhoid fever.
All those attacked were young persons, and on enquiry it was elicited that all
of them had been to Southend-on-Sea or Southwick (a small seaside village between
Brighton and Worthing) for a fortnight; of these 18 cases 7 had been to the former
place only, 1 to Southwick only, and 10 to both places. All those who went to
Southend bought and ate cockles from itinerant vendors, and with one exception (a boy
who went to Southend also), those who went to Southwick picked up mussels and
ate them—in some cases taking them to their lodgings to be cooked, but in a good
many instances the mussels were eaten raw. In the one exception, although the boy
did not eat mussels at Southwick, he had eaten cockles at Southend, and the
interval between so doing and falling ill was not too long to preclude the cockles
as the source of the disease, but he had been constantly in the water bathing or