Solution to Pollution
(Page 4 of 5)
May/June 1970
By the Mother Earth News editors
All discharge water from this system is pure enough for irrigation and percolation to replenish subsurface waters. All the nutrients that now are passed along to cause algae trouble in our lakes are retained in the dried fertilizer.
RELATED CONTENT
Gases that were drawn off as the sewage digested can be used to augment the incinerator fires or turn dynamos to electrify whole cities. It may even be used as fuel for internal combustion engines where - just like natural gas - it contributes only a tiny fraction of gasoline's pollution to the air.
This system of anaerobic sewage disposal was designed by my friend, Russell P. Howard. Mr. Howard is a mechanical draftsman and consulting engineer. His anaerobic design is nothing but a glorified and refined septic tank and will work . . . as every septic tank demonstrates. A similar idea, the Imhoff tank system, has been employed in Germany for years. In Milan, Italy enough gas is generated by this method to provide electricity for the entire city.
A few sanitation plants in this country have tried the anaerobic bacteria disposal system - but never on a 100% basis. In 1940, I visited a plant in Pasadena, California, where they had an installation of closed tanks for many years. Only about 10% of the sludge there was processed in gas-tight tanks but, still, enough gas was collected to run five internal combustion engines of 200 to 800 horsepower. In addition, there was a four-inch standpipe to the northwest of the plant which had been burning sewage gas 24 hours a day for fifty years! An incredible waste.
Russell Howard and I have been fighting this madness for 37 years. We've appeared before the Board of Public Works and submitted detailed proposals to the City Engineers of many towns. I personally was active for years as Chairman of Health in the People's Lobby of Los Angeles. And what has been the result of these efforts? Here's a typical example:
In 1933, Russell Howard submitted plans for a sewage plant of his design to the city of San Francisco. This proposal was presented through the competent engineering firm of Lindgren and Swinnerton after Edward Hussey, Consulting Engineer of Oakland, had recommended that the Howard system be adopted.
There was no action. Millions of dollars have since been spent on waste disposal equipment by San Francisco and Oakland and 90% of their raw sewage is still dumped into the Bay and the Ocean. Much of the other 10% is hauled by the S.P. Railroad to Visitation Valley for "cut-and-cover" land fill and the resulting rodent infestations that such disposal encourages.
Has the Howard system been rejected because it costs more? No. It is one-third less expensive than other equipment. It also puts almost a complete stop to the garbage disposal racket which is one of the biggest political plums in America. (Los Angeles' last election for mayor showed - through Proposition A - what a lucrative business it is to pick up garbage.) Apparently the Howard, or a like, system will continue to be shelved until enough citizens demand an accounting of their tax dollars and an end to senseless pollution.
Page:
<< Previous 1 |
2 |
3 | 4 |
5 |
Next >>
