Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

EDITORIAL
DURING the month of January, quite
a stir was caused amongst patrons
at the Dandenong Municipal Baths, on
account of unfavorable comments
made by a metropolitan newspaper in
regard to the subject mentioned, the
outcome being that samples of water
from the Baths were taken for an
alysis, and consequently there was re
duced revenue from the Baths. It
was stated that a report would | be
available in ten days. The Baths Com
mittee .has endeavored ' to expedite
matters in obtaining the analyst’s re
port, which has been unduly delayed
from the ten days originally stated
util upwards of ten weeks. The re
port was received by the Shire secre
tary (Mr. McAlpin) on Tuesday, 16th
inst. On the. 28th February, however,
a preliminary report was received
from the Secretary of the Pubic
Health Department, signed by Dr.,
Merrillees, as follows : “Tim. Dande
nong Swimming have been ex
amined and samples of the water
analysed. The bacterial contents are'
now under investigation. In this
case the load is small and the bath
large. The water at the lower end is
not so good as the main part, .but the
difference is small. There should be
a bacterial count, which is being done,
before an opinion can be formed.” As
already mentioned, a detailed report
was received on Tuesday last, but it
does not lend a great deal of support
to the newspaper comment referred
to. Extracts are appended: “The
analysis of the above shows that there
is no grave pollution suggested by the
chemical analysis, but that the bac
terial count is so erratic that there is
a suspicion that the Baths became pol
luted to a dangerous extent as the
load is suddenly increased. Short of
a purification plant;-there is nothing
to suggest to the Council except tHat
there, be greater care taken in the
cleanliness of the bathers by insisting
upon showers before bathing. The
habit of using gowns and towels after
use by another person, without steri
lising, is to be gravely deprecated.
The -complete remodelling of the
baths is strongly recommended.” .No
doubt the recommendations made will
receive careful consideration by the
Baths Committee, but there is cer
tainly nothing of an alarming nature
in the report. If states clearly “there
is no grave pollution-suggested by the
chemical analysis.” As a fact.it gets
to “suggestion” and “suspicion” td
indicate that ■ something may •be
wrong, and winds up with a couple of
recommendations —favoring a filtra
tion. scheme and re-modell ng the
Baths!
$