Millions from Waste

by Frederick Arthur Ambrose Talbot

During the past few years no effort has been spared to improve the health and well-being of the community. Laws innumerable have been passed compelling the mitigation of nuisances and the removal of menaces to hygiene. These efforts are laudable, but, while they have achieved the desired end, they have been directly responsible for many other shortcomings. The greatest of these is waste, more especially in so far as it affects the household.

Probably no other factor has contributed so materially towards the factor of heavier domestic prodigality than the provision of the portable dust-bin, and the introduction of systematic and regular collection of the flotsam and jetsam contributed thereto. The very convenience which the dust-bin or ash-barrel represents has served to accentuate household extravagance. “Throw it in the dust-bin!” is the popular slogan in domestic circles. Consequently this receptacle has become the harbour for much domestic refuse which, under previous conditions, would never have been so summarily discarded.

This disposition to be wasteful might have been checked, or at least the errors of the domestic circle might have been rectified very considerably, but for one disturbing element. We became such devout worshippers of hygiene as to become insensible to all reasoning. A few years ago the practice was to discharge the contents of the ash-barrel upon open waste land. A small army of workers, even the nomadic element of the community, turned to and raked over the spoil from our homes very diligently. In this way immense quantities of odds and ends in infinite variety which otherwise would have been lost found a market as raw materials for many industries. Even the ultimate organic residue fulfilled a mission of utility and one in consonance with the laws of Nature, because, in the process of decomposition, the nitrogen and phosphoric acid contents of the dump suffered release to feed the soil to raise sustenance for man and beast.

But ransacking the garbage heap was declared to be a degrading and health-menacing occupation and practice. Indeed, the whole system of household refuse disposal was held up to obloquy. Reform was achieved by the energetic advocacy of another means wherewith to cope with such waste. It received widespread support because it fully coincided with all the requirements of hygiene, while, furthermore, it was simple, expeditious, effective and apparently cheap.

This was destruction by fire along so-called scientific lines. The new idea arrested public fancy mainly for the reason that its champions laid emphasis upon the fact that it presented the possibility of obtaining energy to generate electric light and power and to drive tramways for nothing. Municipalities became affected with the incineration fever. Steam was necessary to drive the electric plant which had been acquired. Why not cut down the coal-bill by making use of the fuel properties possessed by household refuse? The contents of the domestic dust-bin are so varied, ranging from waste-paper, grease-laden bones, fragments of fat, cinders, rags and vegetable odds and ends as to present, in the aggregate, a readily combustible mass possessing distinct calorific value. By utilizing the garbage, which has to be collected, in this manner, the coal-bill might be reduced by so much.

So argued the advocates of the new idea, and their reasonings proved so specious as to gain the day. The prospect of being able to get “Something for nothing” was so alluring as to silence effectively all adverse criticism. Of course, it was futile to gainsay that cremation could be rivalled as a prompt, simple, and completely sanitary means of coping with the refuse which accumulates in every city and big town. Forthwith destruction by fire became the widely-accepted means of getting rid of the unsightly and unsavoury contents of the dust-bin.

Yet the coming of the dust-destructor proved to be a distinctly retrograde step in the science of economics. It contributed to increased improvidence in the home, because the ash-barrel became the receptacle for a still wider assortment of organic material than ever before, and in greater bulk.

It must be conceded that not all of the garbage which suffered this fate was destroyed to futility. A certain volume of steam was certainly raised wherewith to drive the electric generators, but the amount of energy obtained in this way was out of all proportion to the quantity and value of the material incinerated. In certain cases the destructor was not harnessed to the power station. The ratepayers have not experienced any sensible relief in regard to the fuel bills. Even incineration of household refuse, despite the proportion of its combustible contents, cannot be conducted satisfactorily without the consumption of a certain volume of coal. And the process precipitates a certain quantity of further refuse, in the form of clinker and ash, the economic disposal of which has provoked another and even more perplexing problem.

When necessity, which knows no law, compelled us to economize in every direction, and particularly in connection with food, we found it expedient to turn round to ascertain whether or not we might be able to effect tangible savings to minimize the disconcerting influences of stringency. The domestic dust-bin was the first factor in the domestic circle to undergo sensational overhaul. Material which had hitherto been consigned to this dead end only too freely and perfunctorily, was more closely scrutinized to see if it could not be induced to yield further useful service before suffering complete abandonment by the housewife. Contemporaneously with this manifestation of individual private effort the civic and municipal authorities were compelled to display unwonted activity. The whole problem of refuse disposal had to be viewed from quite a new angle.

Upon investigating the issue of household refuse at close quarters, and under the microscope of concentrated interest, the country’s wastage in this direction was found to exceed the wildest speculations of the critics. For the first time illuminating statistics became available. According to the National Salvage Council, the official department created to stimulate the public mind in matters pertaining to this question, the quantity of refuse “made” by householders throughout the country during the year may be set down at 9,450,000 tons.