View report page

couraged in the City. All grades of oil are capable of operating continuously without the emission
of smoke, and from the existing legal point of view the plant owner has complete freedom of
choice to use any grade of oil. The co-operation of all oil distributors (a very competitive trade)
might possibly be sought to minimise as far as practicable pollution from sulphur in recommending
to customers the use of those residual fuels oils with a sulphur content not exceeding 3%,
despite any increased cost to the customer.
20. The Air Pollution Control Regulations in Los Angeles limit the sulphur content of fuel oil
to 0.5%. Conditions in that area are very different to our own however both topographically and
meteorologically. No coal and very little coke is burnt, and soot and ash is thus not a problem.
It is also probably true to say that were it not for an abundant supply of alternative fuel in
natural gas, such a regulation could not be possible.
Mr. Remembrancer would say:—
21. Having read the observations of Mr. Engineer and the Medical Officer of Health, and also of
having had the advantage of many conversations with them on this subject it seems to me that
the problem can be reduced to certain essentials. In my opinion they are:—
(i) that most authorities accept that living in towns has a deleterious effect on health;
(ii) that smoke and sulphur are probably strongly contributory causes. Smoke of course has
many other evil secondary effects such as sun starvation, damage to buildings, loss of
amenities etc., but for our present purpose these must be left out of account;
(iii) in the present state of scientific knowledge it is not known whether smoke by itself, or
sulphur by itself, or these two in combination with each other or one of them in combination
with some other cause is the root cause of the trouble. It may be that there is
a balance in nature, the disturbance of which has disastrous effects but the cause of
this possible disturbance has yet to be isolated;
(iv) the smoke nuisance has been attacked by our own legislation and by the Clean Air Act.
The reduction of smoke nuisance will reduce not only the secondary effects to which I
have referred in (ii) above, but also will assist those who are investigating these
matters with some hope of isolating the true causes of the deleterious effect of living
in towns;
(v) it can be argued that an attempt to remove sulphur pollution would contribute to this
investigation but our technical knowledge at this stage is wholly insufficient to enable
us to attempt it. The slight reduction that might possibly be made in the City would be
expensive and in the small area concerned would virtually be valueless from the point
of view of research and probably from the health point of view;
(vi) there are very many specialised agencies who are investigating the subject of sulphur
pollution, its effects and how to stop it. While I would wish that the City should play a
useful part in this work, at the present stage I cannot see that it is possible for the
City to do anything useful by legislation. The form of any such legislation would be
most difficult to substantiate on the evidence available.
22. I have discussed this problem informally with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government
and it is clear that the Ministry are as anxious as the Corporation for some definite trend to
appear in the views of the research workers. Other areas, such as Manchester and Salford, are
also anxious to do something towards sulphur control as soon as possible, but the only immediate
project that the Government have in mind is the possibility of washing by an ammonia producing
apparatus major sources of sulphur emission. To this end they have a pilot plant at Nottingham
with apparatus designed by Simon-Carves, Ltd. This apparatus, however, would not be suitable
except for very large heating plants, as it is necessary to install a plant which is virtually a
small chemical works. The Government's research is being centralised at the Warren Spring
Laboratory, and their principal Medical Adviser is Dr. Lawther of St. Barts. The Ministry seem
to be taking the view that because it is not yet certain that sulphur alone is harmful, no cause
has yet been made for an all-out drive against this particular contaminant.
23. The views that we set out above are intended to summarise for the benefit of Your Worshipful
Committee the results of the exhaustive review that we have given to this question. We have
reluctantly come to the conclusion that the time is not yet opportune for the City to be able to
take some pioneering lead as it did in the question of smoke abatement. We recommend, however,
that the situation should be watched and when and if an opportunity occurs we should bring before
you a further report. It should be mentioned, however, that such a report may not be possible for
some time.
We have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servants,
(Sgd.) PAUL C. DAVIE,
Remembrancer.
(Sgd.) J. GREENWOOD WILSON,
Medical Officer of Health for the
Port and City of London.
(Sgd.) F.J. FORTY,
24 City Engineer.