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 Shoreditch]
This page requires JavaScript
148
London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1928, Section 28.
(Powers now given by the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, Section 224.)
Five cases which might possibly have been dealt with under the above Act
came to the notice of the department during the year under review. Enquiries
were made into each of these cases with the following result: In two it was found
that they were not suitable for action under the Act; in two the patients were removed
by order of the Court to St. Leonard's Hospital; and in one satisfactory arrangements
were made for the necessary cleaning of the premises at which the patient resided.
Schools.
The sanitary condition of the public elementary schools in the Borough is satisfactory.
Smoke Nuisance.
During the year under review the inspectors continued to pay attention to the
possibility of nuisance due to smoke from chimneys of factories and workshops.
Observations were made in 66 cases, the usual period of observation ranging from
five to thirty minutes. In two instances intimation notices were served.
According to the latest information there are, in the Borough, six brick shafts
and eight steel shafts from factory boilers.
Rat Suppression.
During November, 1936, the annual Rat Week was held and an effort was made
to educate the public concerning the danger to health and the economic wastage
which is occasioned by rats. Posters were exhibited throughout the Borough.
It is not sufficiently realised by members of the general public that the Rats and
Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, places upon the owner the onus of clearing rat-infested
premises. The sanitary inspectors offer considerable assistance to owners in the
matter of advice regarding the most suitable methods of suppression in connection
with any particular type of building.
The work done during the year is summarised in the following table, but it should be realised that the items tabulated do not embrace all the work done by the inspectors in connection with rat suppression.
Districts. | Totals. | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ||
Complaints dealt with | 22 | 7 | 19 | 26 | 25 | 10 | 3 | 17 | 12 | 141 |
Drains tested | - | 2 | 16 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 55 |
Found defective | - | - | 3 | 6 | 8 | 1 | - | - | 4 | 22 |
Found satisfactory | - | 2 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 4 | - | 33 |
Premises where egress of rats was ascertained | - | 1 | 11 | 26 | 22 | 3 | 11 | 4 | 78 | |
Premises reported freed from rats | 20 | 7 | 19 | 26 | 24 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 6 | 126 |
In addition to the above, rat poison was deposited in sewers four times during
the year.