Library 2nd copy PLON 66 114 PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY OF THE PORT OF LONDON ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH To 31st DECEMBER, 1958. 114 PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY OF THE PORT OF LONDON ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH JOHN GREENWOOD WILSON, M.D., F.R.C.P., D.P.H., F.A.P.H.A. (Hon). To 31st DECEMBER, 1958. Telegraphic Address: "PORTELTH LONDON' Telephone Number: MONarch 3030. The governing body of the City of London, the Corporation of London, was originally constituted the Sanitary Authority of the Port of London by Section 20 of the Public Health Act, 1872. The cost of administration was met from the Corporation's private funds for close on fifty years, when it became rate (and grant) aided. By the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, the term "Port Sanitary" was changed to "Port Health". The limits of the Port Health District of the Port of London are still as originally defined by a Treasury Minute dated 1st August, 1883. They commence at high water mark in the River Thames at Teddington Lock, in the County of Surrey, and extend down both sides of the said River Thames to an imaginary straight line drawn from the Pilot mark at the entrance of Havengore Creek in the County of Essex, to the Land's End at Warden Point, in the Isle of Sheppey, in the County of Kent, such point being the north-western limit of the Port of Faversham, and extend up and include both sides of the River Medway to an imaginary straight line drawn from the south-east point of land westward of Coalmouth Creek, thence across the said River Medway to the western-most point of the piece of land which forms the eastern side of Stangate Creek, or, in other words, the north-west point of Fleet Marsh and thence in a southerly direction to Iwade Church in the said County of Kent, and thence in a north-easterly direction to Elmley Chapel in the said Isle of Sheppey, a supposed direct line from Elmley Chapel to Iwade Church, being the western limit of the Port of Faversham, and the said Port of London includes the Islands of Havengore Creek aforesaid, called Potton and Rushley Islands, and so much of the said Creek and Watercourses as extends from it to the town of Rochford, and also includes all other Islands, Rivers, Streams, Creeks, Waters, Watercourses, Channels, Harbours, Docks and places within the before-mentioned limits contained. The Port of London Authority with which the Port Health Authority works in close cooperation, was established as the administrative body of the Port of London including the docks and tideway of the River Thames, by Act of Parliament in 1909. The limits of its jurisdiction are about the same as, but not quite so extensive as thxrae crf-the Port Health Authority. SECTION I-STAFF (As at 31st December, 1958) TABLE A Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Date of Appointment Any other Appointment held J. Greenwood Wilson, M.D., F.R.C.P., D.P.H., F. A.P.H. A.(Hon.) Medical Officer of Health July, 1954 Medical Officer of Health, City of London. Medical Inspector of Aliens. H.M. WILLOUGHBY, V.R.D. & Bar, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.P.H., D.T.M. &H., Surgeon Capt. R.N.R.(Retd.), Late Q.H.P. Deputy Port Medical Officer of Health and Medical Officer in charge at Denton Hospital May, 1929 Medical Inspector of Aliens. J.A. Jones. M.B., Ch.B., D.P.H., Late Lieut.Col. R. A.M.C. Assistant Port Medical Officer April, 1935 ditto P.J. Roden, L.M.S.S.A., Capt. R.A.M.C. (Retd.) Assistant Port Medical Officer (part-time) February, 1958 ditto D.T. Jones, B.Sc., M.B., B.Ch.,Major R. A.M.C.(T.A.) ditto March, 1958 ditto Marion Ravell, M.D., M.B., B.S., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.P.H. Assistant Port Medical Officers (Locum Tenentes) March, 1956 - C.D. MacCarthy, M.B., B.Sc., B.A.O. March, 1956 — A.W. hagger, M.B., B.S. March, 1956 — R.G. Dewhurst, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., D.R.C.O.G. March, 1956 — R.G.W. Moore. M.B., B.S. March. 1956 — J.E.H. Lahaise, M.B., B.S., D.T.M. & H. Assistant Port Medical Officer (part-time) August, 1957 Medical Inspector of Aliens. H.A. Madwar, L.R.C.P., L.R.C.S., L.R.F.P.S. ditto December, 1927 W.T.G. Boul, M.B.E., M.D., M.B., Ch.B., D.P.H. Infectious Disease Consultant March, 1957 - ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF (Port and City of London) H.F. Blunt Food Administrative Officer May, 1924 — W.L. McLorg General Administrative Officer February, 1927 — R.C. Ratliff Finance and Establishment Officer March, 1930 — J.E. Stout Senior Assistant August, 1930. — C.W.R. Betts ditto April, 1926 — E.V. Smith ditto October, 1938 — R.H. Lott First Class Assistant May, 1947 — F.B. Osborn ditto May, 1952 — Miss M.L. Gurney General Grade Clerk May, 1939 — Mrs. I.R. West ditto September, 1956 — Miss I.H. Hamblin ditto October, 1957 — A.W. Bourne Messenger March, 1956 — T.A. Woods ditto 2 November, 1955 - Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Date of Appointment Any other Appointment held INSPECTORIAL T.L. Mackie, M.I.N.A. Chief Port Health Inspector and Supervisory Engineer of Launch Service November, 1934 — P.W. Coombe, F.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector December, 1924 — T.G. Edwards ditto June, 1929 — D.E. Madelky ditto September, 1932 — g. Dring ditto May, 1936 — A.H. Marshall ditto March, 1953 — E.H. Johnson Port Health Inspector August, 1929 — C.E. Wright ditto July, 1931 — J.S. Beattie ditto May, 1931 — L.N. Tope ditto August, 1946 — P.A. Traynier ditto October, 1950 — A.C. Good ditto September, 1951 — T.C.H. Rogerson ditto October, 1951 — W.M. Walker ditto October, 1954 — H. Butlin ditto July, 1955 — A.W. Buchan ditto July, 1955 — F. Spencer ditto March, 1957 — MEAT SORTERS G. Slmmonds Meat Sorter May, 1955 — J.W. Goods ditto October, 1957 — RODENT INSPECTORS W.G. Stimson Rodent Inspector February, 1946 — C.W. Moody ditto February, 1929 - E.C. Watkins ditto June, 1929 — S.A. Croft ditto June, 1929 — C. Stockton ditto June, 1940 - D.J. Davis ditto August, 1941 — F.D. Cartman ditto September, 1943 — G. Lamont ditto March, 1945 - RODENT CONTROL SCHEME H.A. Baxter ditto June, 1945 — G. Clark ditto January, 1949 — A.L. Southwood ditto January, 1949 — A.T. Evans ditto January, 1953 — C.E.W. Eastman Rodent Operative April, 1954 — A. Barlow ditto January, 1956 — J. Cook ditto July, 1956 LAUNCHES AND HULKS P.J. Wilkins Navigator (Senior) November, 1928 - W.S. Stimson Navigator (i/c Woolwich Station) March, 1944 — J.R. Steen Navigator (Deputy Senior) March, 1926 — W.G.A. King Navigator September, 1939 — C.R. Simons ditto August, 1938 — H.J. Mason ditto August, 1946 — S.J. Crutchley, D.S.M. Engineer (Senior) June, 1939 — E. Alewood Engineer January, 1947 — K. Gittens ditto January, 1955 — W. Simmons ditto May, 1955 — A.R.L. Potter Deckhand July, 1945 — B. Osenton ditto December, 1953 — W. Lawrence Acting Deckhand October, 1955 — J. Mackley ditto January, 1957 — G.W. Heywood ditto September, 1957 - B. Jacobs Deckboy April, 1956 — D.W. King ditto April, 1957 — G. Cunningham ditto September, 1957 — R. Dossett ditto March, 1958 — K.B. Frost ditto September, 1958 — J. Shelton ditto November, 1958 — F.B. Morris Steward (part-time) October, 1957 — A.R. Burge Shipkeeper August, 1945 — A.C. Croft ditto October, 1950 — L.C. Parish ditto May, 1958 — Launches— Date acquired "Howard Deighton" 1931 "Frederick Whittingham" 1934 "Alfred Robertson" 1938 "Alfred Roach" 1948 Hulk— "Hygeia" 1935 3 January 1959 To The Worshipful The Port and City of London Health Committee Gentlemen, I have the honour to submit my Annual Report for the year ending 31st December, 1958, as Medical Officer of Health for the Port of London. A letter from the Secretary, Ministry of Health, dated 31st December, 1958, contained a reminder that the Medical Officer of Health should prepare his Annual Report on the lines indicated in Form 20 enclosed with Circular 33/52 of the 6th November, 1952, adapted as maybe necessary to the special needs of the administration of the London Port Health District. Paragraph 5 of Form Port 20 reads as follows — "The information required by Sections I, V, VI, VIII, XIV and XVI, which has been given in an earlier report and has not since changed, need not be repeated each year. A recapitulation of all information should be made in the Report for the years 1952 and 1955 and thereafter quinquennially. For the intermediate years, only the changes which have occurred during the year covered by the Report need be mentioned in those Sections; if there is no change, "NO CHANGE" should be entered." This Report has been prepared in accordance with the above directive. The following is a summary of the principal items mentioned in this Report:— Shipping. The tonnage of vessels (Foreign and Coastwise) entering the Port of London during 1958 was 39,223,322 tons as compared with 36,810,935 tons during 1957. 15,403 vessels arrived from Foreign ports and of these 1,706 were visited by the Boarding Medical Officers at Gravesend. Radio-telephony equipment has now been fitted in the Hulk "Hygeia" and the two launches in the Lower River as a preliminary to participation in the proposed "Thames Navigation Service". Communicable Diseases. 809 cases of notifiable and other infectious disease were reported as having occurred on 186 vessels during the year, of which 194 cases were dealt with in the Port. 82 cases were admitted to the Port Isolation Hospital. The Boarding Medical Officers and Port Health Staff on numerous occasions afforded medical assistance to shipping for 'humanitarian' as opposed to strictly 'quarantine' purposes. A folder giving information as to Social Services available to the seafarer and his family was issued by the Authority. Rodent Control. During the year a total of 4,597 rats, 2,381 in ships and 2,216 inshore premises, were destroyed in the Port of London. In addition, 3,596 mice were destroyed, 1,039 in ships and 2,557 on shore premises. 71 rats were examined for plague with negative results. International Deratting and Deratting Exemption Certificates. The number of Deratting Certificates issued was 132, the method of deratting in 111 instances being "1080". The convenience and efficacy of this method are outstanding. 1,074 Deratting Examption Certificates were granted. Imported Foods. The total amount of foodstuffs seized and condemned as unfit for human consumption and either reconditioned or disposed of for animal feeding or for industrial purposes under guarantee or destroyed outright either by burying or burning was 4,133 tons 18 cwts. 3 qrs. 3 lbs. as compared with 3,409 tons. 6 cwts. 3 qrs. 14 lbs. in 1957. Transport of Refuse by Lighters. The Byelaws made in 1948 were amended during the year. The modifications made should lead to fewer complaints but legal proceedings will have to be considered for any contraventions. Clean Air Act 1956. Much time and thought have been given to making the requirements of the Act and the subsequent Regulations known to both British and Foreign shipping and particular attention was given to offering helpful advice to Masters and Engineers of ships. There is every indication that the policy adopted by the Port Health Authority is achieving satisfactory results and the shipping industry has been co-operative. The reduction in the amount of black smoke emitted has been encouraging and it was found necessary on only one occasion to take legal proceedings. Radiation Hazards. The policy to be adopted is being considered in collaboration with the Port of London Authority. Meanwhile Port Health Inspectors are to attend specialised courses of instruction. 4 Visitors and Students. The reception of visitors and the training of overseas students is at times an onerous task but is a most inspiring and effective contribution to international health and welfare. Finally, I wish to record my appreciation of the collaboration and assistance rendered by Her Majesty's Customs, the Port of London Authority, the Shipping Federation, the Pilots, members of the staffs of Shipping Companies and Merchants, the staff of the Central Public Health Laboratory, the staff of the Port Health Authority, and indeed all those who have so generously helped me in every aspect of the work of the Port Health Authority throughout the year. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, J. GREENWOOD WILSON. 5 SECTION II- AMOUNT OF SHIPPING ENTERING THE DISTRICT DURING THE YEAR TABLE B Ships from Number Tonnage Number Inspected Number of ships reported as having, or having had during the voyage infectious disease on board. By the Port Medical Officer By the Port Health Inspector Foreign Ports 15,403 28,621,948 1,706 10,706 178 Coastwise 12,186 10,601,374 8 1,923 8 Total 27,589 39,223,322 1,714 12,629 186 SECTION III- CHARACTER OF SHIPPING AND TRADE DURING THE YEAR TABLE C Passenger Traffic Number of Passengers—Inwards 89,433 Number of Passengers—Outwards 106,471 Cargo Traffic Principal Imports All types of produce and merchandise. Principal Exports Principal Ports from which ships arrive. The Port of London trades with all parts of the world. SECTION IV -INLAND BARGE TRAFFIC Numbers and tonnage using the district and places served by the traffic. These barges are of all types and are registered annually with the Port of London Authority. They number approximately 7,000 and their tonnage is some 500,000 tons. The traffic of these crafts extends throughout the length of the Port while a number of them are employed carrying goods and merchandise via the canals to all parts of the country. SECTION V- WATER SUPPLY 1. Source of supply for— (a) The District — No Change (b) Shipping — No Change 2. Reports of tests for contamination — No Change 3. Precautions taken against contamination of hydrants and hosepipes — No Change 4. Number and sanitary condition of water boats and powers of control by the Authority — There were fourteen water boats working in the Port during the year. Water boats are registered annually by the Port of London Authority and such registration is made conditional upon the report of the Medical Officer of Health of the Port as to the fitness of the craft for the carriage of drinking water as also upon the purity of the water thus carried. To this end sampling is carried out from time to time. SECTION VI— PUBLIC HEALTH (SHIPS) REGULATIONS, 1952 1. List of Infected Areas (Regulation 6) —No change. 2. Radio Messages—No Change. 3. Notifications otherwise than by Radio (Regulation 14(1) (b)) — No Change. 4. Mooring Stations (Regulations 22 to 30) —No Change. THE THAMES NAVIGATION SERVICE Last year it was reported that the Port of London Authority were considering plans for a navigational information scheme in the Port of London to facilitate the passage of vessels up the River Thames, and that the Port and City of London Health Committee had agreed in principle to co-operate in this project. As a first stage, radio telephones were, fitted in the Hulk "Hygeia" and the launches "Howard Deighton" and "Alfred Roach" at Gravesend, and six months experience has shown the value of this means of communication. The two launches cover an area extending 35 miles down the river from Rainhara Creek and it is now possible for messages to be passed to them immediately and for a more efficient service to be provided. The Port of London Authority navigational information scheme, to be called "The Thames Navigation Service", will come into operation on 1st May, 1959. The Port of London Authority Operations Room at Gravesend will keep contact with ships coming up the Thames on radio frequencies allocated in accordance with international agreement. Radar equipment will be 6 installed at the Operations Room and in the River Service launches working in the lower reaches of the River. These launches will be in communication with the Operations Room by radio telephone. The Operations Room will be in direct telephone communication with the Dockmasters' offices at each of the five dock systems. The radio telephone set in the Operations Room on the River Service frequency will be fitted so that it can be switched to the Port Health frequency giving direct communication between the Operations Room and the two Port Health launches. The Port Health Authority are taking a tenancy of two rooms in the Operations Room building for the use of the Boarding Medical Officers so that maximum advantage may be taken of the improved information system. SECTION VII- SMALLPOX 1. Name of Isolation Hospital to which smallpox cases are sent from the district. Long Reach Hospital is situated on the south bank of the River Thames about eight miles above Gravesend. The hospital consists of 10 ward blocks capable of accommodating 170 patients but, except in cases of emergency, only three ward blocks (2 of 20 beds and 1, a cubicle ward of 10 beds), total 50 beds, are kept available for immediate use. The hospital includes residential quarters for the staff and a laundry, although the administration and staffing is carried out from Joyce Green Hospital, Dartford. 2. Arrangements for transport of such cases to that hospital by ambulance giving the name of the Authority responsible for the ambulance and the vaccinal state of the ambulance crews. A case or cases of smallpox would be removed from the vessel by this Authority's Ambulance launch and conveyed ashore via the pontoon at Denton and from thence conveyed by road ambulance direct to Long Reach Hospital. The Port Health Authority would be responsible for the vaccinal state of their Ambulance Launch crews while the vaccinal state of the Road Ambulance personnel would be the concern of the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board under whose jurisdiction both Joyce Green and Long Reach Hospitals fall. 3. Names of smallpox consultants available. Dr. W.T.G. Boul Dr. H.S. Banks Dr. J.V. Armstrong Dr. W.J. Coughlan Dr. J.P. Marsden 4. Facilities for laboratory diagnosis of smallpox. Facilities are available at the Virus Laboratory at the Central Public Health Laboratory at Colindale. SECTION VIII-VENEREAL DISEASES Venereal Diseases are not compulsorily notifiable but efforts are made by the Boarding Medical Officers and the Port Health Inspectors to bring to the notice of all seamen using the Port the facilities available for free treatment under the Brussels Agreement. SECTION IX-CASES OF NOTIFIABLE AND OTHER COMMUNICABLE DISEASES ON SHIPS TABLE D (i) Cases landed from ships Disease Passengers Crew Number of Ships concerned Chickenpox 9 9 15 Diphtheria - 1 1 Dysentery 1 3 3 Fever of Unknown Origin 3 4 7 Gastro-Enteritis 1 1 2 German Measles 5 — 2 Glandular Fever — 1 1 Infectious Hepatitis 2 3 5 Influenza 1 34 15 Malaria - 6 4 Measles 10 2 7 Miscellaneous 6 27 22 Mumps 2 5 7 Pneumonia 3 6 9 Poliomyelitis 1 — 1 Pulmonary Tuberculosis 7 37 36 Typhoid Fever — 3 3 Whooping Cough 1 - 1 52 142 141 7 TABLE D (ii) Cases disposed of before arrival Disease Passengers Crew Number of Ships concerned Chickenpox 24 3 16 Dengue Fever 1 1 2 Dysentery 2 4 5 Gastro-Enteritis 343 63 6 Fever of Unknown Origin 1 1 2 German Measles 18 2 7 Glandular Fever 1 1 2 Infectious Hepatitis 4 3 7 Influenza 20 6 4 Malaria 7 4 4 Measles 59 — 16 Miscellaneous 2 20 9 Mumps 10 3 11 Pneumonia 3 1 4 Poliomyelitis 1 — 1 Scarlet Fever — 1 1 Smallpox — 1 1 Pulmonary Tuberculosis - 1 1 Typhoid Fever 1 3 4 497 118 103 TYPHOID OF THE LUNG In February 1958, a ship arrived in London from Mombasa and reported the landing of a seaman at Las Palmas with a diagnosis of typhoid fever. Routine measures of investigation and disinfection were at once started. Shortly afterwards a cablegram was received by the Shipping Company in London stating that the man had been ultimately diagnosed as suffering from an amoebic Liver Abscess. Two months later another ship of the same line arrived in London and in the course of routine enquiries it was learned from the Ship's Surgeon that the man landed at Las Palmas had been brought home in the ship as a case of Pulmonary Tuberculosis and possible Amoebiasis and was being sent to the Seamen's Hospital, Greenwich, for X-ray and investigation. Later, Dr. M.J. Andrews, Medical Registrar, Seamen's Hospital, reported that on admission to hospital the man was found to have numerous salmonella typhi in his sputum and a chest X-ray showed a left pleural effusion with some underlying consolidation. The case was diagnosed as one of typhoid of the lung — a very rare complaint. Treatment was continued over a period of five weeks and at the time of discharge the patient was feeling perfectly well and considered to be non-infectious. I am very much indebted to Dr. M.J. Andrews for the very full report he provided on this interesting case. DENTON HOSPITAL Although Denton Hospital has been taken over by the South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board under the National Health Services Act, the Port Health Authority continue to exercise, through Dr. H.M. Willoughby, the Deputy Medical Officer, and the Assistant Port Medical Officers, the medical supervision of cases admitted to the hospital. Consultant advice on difficult cases is available through Dr. J. Pickford Marsden, PhysicianSuperintendent of Joyce Green Hospital, Dartford, who whenever necessary transfers cases there for special investigation and treatment. The nursing and administrative control of Denton Hospital lies with the Dartford Hospital Management Committee. The number of cases admitted to the hospital in 1958 was as follows 8 Bronchitis 1 Influenza and Tonsillitis 2 Chickenpox 18 Malaria 4 Chickenpox (contacts) 2 Measles 2 Dermatitis 1 Miscellaneous 2 Dysentery 1 Mumps 6 Fever of Unknown Origin 1 Pneumonia 3 Food Poisoning 1 Pulmonary Tuberculosis 1 Glandular Fever 1 Quinsy 1 Infectious Hepatitis 1 Salmonella Carriers 11 Influenza 13 Shingles 2 Influenza and Pneumonia 2 Tonsillitis 4 Influenza, Pneumonia and Typhoid (Convalescent) 1 Schistosomiasis 1 TOTAL 82 ANTHRAX AT KING GEORGE V. DOCK Imported Hides, Skins and Bones from South Africa A dock worker employed in the discharge of cargo from the s.s. "Kenya Castle" reported on the 17th December to the Dock Medical Centre with a skin eruption. He was referred to the Royal Albert Dock Hospital where the case was considered to be Anthrax, a diagnosis which was confirmed later by the Dermatologist at the Seamen's Hospital, Greenwich. Immediately on receipt of this information contact was established with the Medical Section of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, (the Department primarily concerned with industrial diseases on shore), the National Dock Labour Board, the Port of London Authority, the Union Castle Line and Mr. Spencer, the Port Health Inspector of the district concerned. Full investigations were started at once and arrangements made for close co-operation with the various organisations interested in this kind of disease. Mr. Spencer recorded the nature and distribution of the suspected cargo and all dock workers engaged in handling the cargo were given explicit instructions to report any symptoms of the disease. It was agreed to treat the spaces of the ship involved and the cargo stored in the quayside shed with a 5% solution of formaldehyde. The holds were sprayed heavily and sealed as for a fumigation. The bales of hides lying in the shed were similarly sprayed in situ. In this connection the knowledge and experience of the Port Health Inspector was of considerable assistance. The treatment of the holds continued overnight and the loading of the ship proceeded normally next morning after all parties were satisfied that appropriate measures had been concluded. The ship left port on schedule. In his comprehensive report, Mr. Spencer records that no further case of Anthrax came to light and he expresses appreciation of the ready assistance shown by all officials and the Shipping Company. HEALTH EDUCATION Folder on Social Services available to the Seafarer and his family The Port of London Health Authority had under consideration for some time a suggestion that there should be issued to ships regularly visiting the Port of London a booklet on health education and social services. In discussions on the subject it was clear that, as the complexities of the Welfare State are not fully understood by the average citizen, they are still less likely to be so by the average seafarer and, least of all, by tanker crews because of the quick turn-round of these vessels. At the same time the difficulties of preparing a health education booklet which might appeal to some and be rejected by others came to be realised — it was difficult to strike an average line between the conveying of helpful information to those who wanted to know and giving the impression of "talking down" to seafarers. These considerations are the more important in view of the steadily rising standard of living of seafarers over a number of years past. It was therefore decided in the first instance to limit the information to details of help that could be obtained on a variety of problems from the Health and Welfare State in case of need. With the kind co-operation of the Chief Officer of the Welfare Department, London County Council, and other interested organisations, suitable information was collated for inclusion in a folder which was printed in black and red on a suitable thin board so that it could be retained on a ship for easy reference. Distribution of the folders, over 3,000, has been greatly facilitated by the kindness of the Seafarers Education Service and College of the Sea, and the British Sailors Society who arranged for the folders to be included in the book parcels issued to ships visiting the port of London. The Port Health Inspectors have also been issuing the folder. 9 There is, of course, great difficulty in assessing the ultimate benefit to seamen of a folder of this kind, but it is gratifying to know that it has been well received by organisations primarily concerned with social welfare. For instance, a Senior Officer of the Welfare Department of the L.C.C. Wrote: "Whilst I know that you had in mind a more comprehensive publication for which there "was a real need, and, if I may be permitted a personal view, I rather think that this attractively presented outline of the available "welfare" services with its homely approach to the "subject is likely to be most useful and more than repay the time and labour spent on produc- "ing it . The National Citizens Advice Bureau Committee thought the folder was most valuable, as did the Welfare Offficer of a Shipping Line. Again, the Admiralty Welfare Officer, in a letter asking for some copies, remarked "As such problems often arise among seamen serving in our Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, for "whose welfare I am responsible, I feel that this pamphlet might be extremely useful in my "work". In the "Municipal Journal" for 15th August 1958, an appreciative comment appeared as follows:— "Helping the Seaman" "Family problems originating with the absence of the father for long periods are most "familiar in wartime, but they may also make demands on welfare authorities and voluntary "bodies in peacetime. Recognising this, the Port of London Health Authority has issued "a short, helpful pamphlet to give seamen information about where they can get advice on "solving domestic problems of all kinds". "Matters covered include financial aid; homelessness of wife and children; aged parents "in need of care and attention; moral problems; need for "home helps'; need of hospital or "doctor's services; and legal advice. "This idea might well be copied by other port authorities and by councils whose populations include a large proportion of families of men habitually away from home for long periods "— servicemen, for instance. It could certainly do much to prevent what start as relatively "minor troubles from developing into major disasters". MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AFFORDED TO SHIPPING BY THE PORT HEALTH STAFF The Boarding Medical Officers and indeed all the Port Health Staff are always willing to afford medical assistance to shipping for "humanitarian", as opposed to strictly "quarantine", purposes. Some examples of this are given below. The value in emergency of the radiotelephone equipment on the Hulk "Hygeia" and the two launches at Gravesend is noteworthy. Medical Cases— (1) On the 6th June 1958, at the request of the Surgeon and Master of the s.s. "Duquesa", Dr. J.A. Jones arranged for the removal of a female passenger suffering from a possible intestinal obstruction. The time was 16.35 hours and with high water at 16.53 hours the ship was running for tide. In an attempt to expedite matters an accommodation ladder had been rigged. The "Alfred Roach" was being used as holiday relief and, as the River was quite choppy", the Navigator was very doubtful if his launch would hold at the gangway due to its position. To ensure the safety of the patient Dr. Jones asked the Skipper of the tug in attendance to 'lie' at the gangway. The patient was then carried down the gangway in a Neil-Robertson stretcher, on to the tug, and then repassed over to the "Alfred Roach". (2) At 21.45 hours on the 17th June 1958 Dr. J.A. Jones received a request for assistance. Dr. White law of Greenhithe had seen a patient in a ship anchored off White's Wharf, Greenhithe. He had diagnosed peritonitis and arranged admission to Joyce Green Hospital. The difficulty was getting the man ashore. Dr. Jones therefore arranged for the launch "Alfred Roach" to effect the removal and the case was landed at Terrace Pier, Gravesend, there being no safe landing at Greenhithe owing to the state of the tide. Accident case - cabin cruiser "Clarinda". At 23.20 hours on the 19th October 1958, Dr. Dilwyn T. Jones, Duty Boarding Medical Officer on the Hulk "Hygeia", received a telephone message from Denton Hospital to the effect that a man in a yacht anchored near the hospital jetty had injured him arm. Dr. Jones at once proceeded in the "Howard Deighton" to the hospital jetty where he was directed to the yacht which proved to be the "Clarinda", a cabin cruiser on passage from Torquay 10 to Thames Ditton. The skipper had injured his arm by allowing it to be caught between his own yacht and the barge on to which he was trying to put a rope. Rough examination showed probable fracture of the right ulna and radius. First-aid measures were carried out and the man transferred to the "Howard Deighton". Meanwhile, radio-telephone messages were passed to the Hulk "Hygeia" requesting an ambulance and also asking the P.L.A. to send someone down to see to the proper mooring of the yacht as the only person now on board was a young boy. The patient was then taken to Terrace Pier, Gravesend, where an ambulance was waiting to take the man to hospital. Dr. Jones in his report says "This case was a perfect example of the usefulness of the new radio-telephone sets, not only in arranging for the care of the patient but also for the care of his boat". Radio requests for medical advice (1) m.v. "Seriality". At 09.00 hours on 15th October 1958, Dr. J.A. Jones received a radiotelephone request (via North Foreland) from the Master of the m.v. "Seriality" for medical advice. The cabin boy had developed 'sickness' during the night and at the time of the request had a temperature of 103° and pulse 100. Skin hot and dry. Face flushed. Complaining of general aches and pains. Vomited once. Sore throat. Throat inflamed and small 'ulcers present. From this description Dr. Jones made a diagnosis of acute follicular tonsillitis. However, as the ship was at the time only ten miles from Dover and as the Master was most anxious to avoid any risk to the patient, Dr. Jones advised him to land the boy at Dover. At the Master's request Dr. Jones telephoned the Owners and they agreed to telephone their Dover Agent and ask him to make all arrangements for meeting the ship and arranging for the boy to be admitted to hospital. (2) m.v. "Saimaa". At 17.30 hours on the 19th October 1958, the North Foreland W/T Station rang up the Hulk "Hygeia" to ask for advice on a case suspected to be suffering from appendicitis on the Finnish m.v. "Saimaa". The patient had had severe abdominal pain for 4% hours, severe vomiting and high temperature. This was obviously an acute case. The ship was on passage through the Channel to Casablanca and was at the time in question some seven miles off Dungeness. Dr. Dilwyn T. Jones, the Boarding Medical Officer on duty, advised the ship to put back to Folkestone immediately and in the meantime to apply the appropriate first-aid measures. Dr. Jones obtained the expected time of arrival of the ship at Folkestone and passed the information to Lloyds' Agent at Dover. Lloyds' Agent seemed to think, however, that it would be better if the ship put in at Dover and he agreed to contact the ship to this effect and to make all necessary arrangements for an ambulance to meet the ship. Dr. Hugh Willoughby, Deputy Medical Officer, has given an account of an incident during a "quiet Sunday afternoon" at Gravesend: "At 15.00 hours there was violent blowing of "Q" by at least two tugs and a pilot cutter and it appeared obvious that an incident had occurred on one of four tugs on the lower tier off the Terrace Pier. A passing Pilot Cutter stopped for me to jump on board — a time saving factor compared with casting off the "Howard Deighton" — and rapidly put me on board the s.t. "Sun XIX" between which vessel and her neighbour a small sailing yacht had missed stays and got wedged. The occupants, a man and two women, were got out of the submerged craft by the greatest of good luck, but were as near death from drowning as any I have seen. One of the women was breathing but the other woman and the man were blue and pulseless. In less time than it takes to write down, teams from the tug's crew got on to artific ial respiration under my direction and after 40 minutes of very hard work, relieving the teams at 5 minute intervals, signs of life were restored in the man and the second woman and eventually consciousness was restored. I have never seen two such apparently dead people return to life from near drowning. The main difficulty was to get the volunteer resuscitators to work slowly and get sufficient air entry with each 'stroke' — a matter which with three lives at stake required my dodging from one to the other ! Eventually all three vomited copiously and got rid of not only gallons of Thames water, but also the remains of a substantial lunch! I cannot speak too highly of the Master of the "Sun XIX" and his men without whose untiring efforts it would have meant certain death to two at least of the victims. 11 An hour later the three patients were placed in an ambulance, after landing on stretchers in the "Howard Deighton", for admission to the Gravesend and North Kent Hospital for treatment for shock from which all three were suffering in high degree. I should add that the victims were submerged before rescue for at least 3-4 minutes, apart from the grave risk of being squashed between the two tugs. The yacht was only a small half decked sailing dingy built mainly of plyboard. Later I telephoned the hospital and learned that all three were progressing favourably. Two were detained and one allowed home in the care of friends". SECTION X - OBSERVATIONS ON THE OCCURRENCE OF MALARIA ON SHIPS Seventeen cases of malaria were reported on ships during the year under review as compared with seven cases during 1957. Seven of the cases were passengers, who had embarked at West African Ports; they had fully recovered on arrival in London. The remaining cases were seamen. The Ministry of Transport have issued a Notice which gives the following advice on the prevention of malaria:— General Precautions "(i) Ships calling at malarious ports should lie as far off shore as possible, as mosquitoes may be carried long distances by wind from the shore. (ii) Communication between the ship and the shore should be cut down to an absolute minimum, or even forbidden, between the hours of dusk and dawn. This applies especially to loading barges, fruit boats, etc., which are likely to carry infected mosquitoes from the shore to the ship. (iii) If possible, portholes, doors, ventilators, etc., should be mosquito-proofed. This measure should be completed a day or so before arriving in a malarious area, and kept in operation for at least four days after leaving. Failing this, mosquito nets should be supplied to each member of the crew and to every passenger. (iv) No one should be allowed ashore except for very urgent reasons, and no one should be allowed to remain ashore after dusk. (v) No one should be allowed to sleep on deck, unless provided with a suitable mosquito net, which must be used in a proper fashion to prevent mosquito bites. (vi) All lights not absolutely essential for the working of the ship, should be screened, as these are liable to attract mosquitoes from long distances. (vii) After sunset all persons should wear sufficient clothing to protect the whole body from mosquito bites (long sleeves, long trousers, two pairs of socks, etc.). Fans are useful in helping to keep mosquitoes away, but are not a certain protection. The exposed portions of the body (wrists, behind the ears, ankles, back of neck, etc.) should be smeared with culicifugcs after dusk. The best is dimethyl phthalate (DMP). It must be remembered, however, that the effects of these substances only last for about three hours or so, and that the application must then be renewed. (viii) Cabins, bathrooms, etc., should be sprayed before bedtime and in the early morning. Special attention should be given to all dark corners, the inside of wardrobes, spaces under bunks, behind baths, etc. Insecticides containing DDT or Gammexane and pyrethrum are especially useful. Sticks of incense burning in cabins will also tend to keep mosquitoes away. (ix) Curtains and other materials hanging in the cabins should be well shaken and any mosquitoes destroyed before turning in. (x) Bathing should be carried out during the hours of daylight and not after dark. (xi). All persons feeling "off colour" should report to the Medical Officer at once, as this may be a premonitory symptom of a malarial attack, and early treatment is absolutely essential. Drag Prophylaxis When a vessel is proceeding to a malarious area it is advisable to use drugs for suppressive treatment. 12 It must be remembered that such suppressive treatment does not prevent a person contracting malarial infection. While the drug is being taken regularly in proper dosage, clinical attacks will be held in abeyance, the severity of attacks will be reduced, and the mortality rate be very low. Persons who have become infected but have not developed symptoms during the time while the suppressive drug was being taken, may develop malaria some days, weeks or months after the drug is stopped. It is necessary, therefore, to watch for such attacks. All persons should be warned that they have been exposed to the chance of infection, and that, if they fall ill at a later date, they should inform their medical attendant that the ailment from which they are now suffering may be of malarious origin. The taking of prophylactic drugs should not be left to the individual, but should be supervised officially. There should be an official muster for this purpose (preferably after some meal), and a responsible officer should be entrusted with the duty of seeing that all persons on board receive and swallow the prescribed dose of drug. For this purpose a nominal roll should be kept to ensure that no one escapes." MOSQUITO CONTROL AT THE ISLE OF GRAIN The larvicidal control of mosquito breeding within the perimeter of the B.P. Refinery at the Isle of Grain was continued throughout the breeding season of 1958. As in previous years the operation was directed by the Refinery Medical Officer and the field work was carried out by an employee of the Oil Company. Mr. P.A. Traynier, the Port Health Inspector for the area, continued to be associated with the control operations. The measures used involved the regular inspection of all areas of ground water with the identification and charting of any mosquito larvae found, followed by the spraying of such breeding waters with a solution of dieldrin. Anopheline larvae were found once during the season and dealt with as routine spraying progressed. SECTION XI.— Measures taken against ships infected or suspected of Plague The Fourth Schedule to the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1952, under the heading "Additional measures in respect to the quarantinable diseases" — Part I — Plague, reads as follows "(1) The Medical Officer may — (a) require any suspect on board to be disinsected and place him under surveillance, the period of surveillance being reckoned from the date of arrival of the ship; (b) require the disinsecting and, if necessary, disinfection of the baggage of any infected person or suspect, and of any other article on board and any part of the ship which the medical officer considers to be contaminated. (2) If there is rodent plague on board, the medical officer shall require the ship to be deratted in a manner to be determined by him, but without prejudice to the generality of this requirement the following special provisions shall apply to any such deratting — (a) the deratting shall be carried out as soon as the holds have been emptied; (b) one or more preliminary derattings of the ship with the cargo in situ, or during its unloading, may be carried out to prevent the escape of infected rodents; (c) if the complete destruction of rodents cannot be secured because only part of the cargo is due to be unloaded, a ship shall not be prevented from unloading that part, but the medical officer may apply any measure which he considers necessary to prevent the escape of infected rodents." Plague being primarily a disease of rats all vessels are inspected immediately on arrival at their berths in the docks and river for the presence of any mortality among the rats on board which is not attributable to any known cause, such as trapping, poisoning, etc. Incidentally one of the"Health Questions"on page 1 of the "Maritime Declaration of Health" requires the Master to answer "Yes or No" to the question "Has plague occurred or been suspected amongst the rats or mice on board during the voyage, or has there been an abnormal mortality among them?" 13 Any dead rats are immediately sent to the Central Public Health Laboratory at Colindale for examination for bacillus pestis, each rat being accompanied by a label on which is given precise information as to where the rat was found in order to arrive at a focus of infection should the examination prove positive. The information,is, of course, far more vital when the rat has been found ashore than when found on board a ship. In the event of a positive result the "additional measures" referred to above would be put into operation — the discharge of the cargo would be promptly stopped and arrangements made for the vessel to be fumigated throughout with hydrogen cyanide, with the cargo in situ, the vessel being moved to an approved mooring. Following the initial fumigation and collection of dead rats resulting therefrom further samples of such rats would be submitted for examination and the discharge of cargo would be permitted under observation. The destination of the cargo would be forwarded to the Medical Officer of Health of the district to which it was proceeding, together with an explanatory note. If any of the cargo had already been discharged overside into lighters before the discovery of plague infection, the lighters would be fumigated immediately. On completion of the discharge of cargo from the vessel a second fumigation would be carried out, again using hydrogen cyanide, to destroy the residual rat population, if any. SECTION XII—Measures against rodents in ships from foreign ports (1) Procedure for inspection of ships for rats. The Port Health Authority employs fifteen Rodent Operatives working in conjunction with and under the supervision of the Port Health Inspectors. The Rodent Operative's first duty is the examination of ships in his area which are due for inspection under Article 19 of the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1952, relating to the granting of Deratting and Deratting Exemption Certificates. His second duty is to visit all ships arriving in his district, to search for evidence of rats, paying particular attention to vessels which have arrived from plague infected ports and to visit such vessels during the discharge of cargo. The Rodent Operative's third duty is the examination of shore premises for signs of rat infestation paying particular attention to premises adjoining the berths of vessels from plague infected ports. Some seventeen years ago the Port Health Authority instituted a Rodent Control Scheme in all docks and premises of the Port of London Authority on behalf of that Authority and in the premises of the tenants of the Authority on behalf of the occupiers. (2) Arrangements for the bacteriological examination of rodents, with special reference to rodent plague , including the number of rodents sent for examination during the year. As described in Section XI above, all rats for examination for plague, either by post mortem and subsequently, if necessary, by bacteriological examination, are promptly sent to the Central Public Health Laboratory at Colindale. The bodies are placed in polythene bags which in turn are placed inside metal boxes, sealed and labelled so that there is no risk of the escape of any rat fleas during their transit to the Laboratory. The boxes are, of course, delivered by hand. The rat population of the Port is now so small and is under such strict control that it can be said to be almost certain that the arrival of a plague infected rat, even should it manage to get ashore, would be highly unlikely to have any serious significance. In other words, an epizootic could not be introduced into the Port for the simple reason that there are insufficient rats to enable the spread of infection. Nevertheless, seventy-one rats were sent to the Laboratory and were examined for plague with negative results. (3) Arrangements in the district for deratting ships, the methods used, and if done by a commercial contractor, the name of the contractor. (a) The burning of sulphur at the rate of 3-lbs. per 1,000 cubic feet of space for a period of not less than six hours. (b) The generation of hydrocyanic acid gas by various methods. For the destruction of rats a concentration of HCN at the rate of 2-ozs. per 1,000 cubic feet of space is required with a minimum of two hours contact. 14 (c) "1080" and "Warfarin". The employment of "1080" has been used regularly throughout the docks for some time with highly satisfactory results both on shore and in ships. An increasing number of ships have been deratted by this method in preference to the use of cyanide, resulting in a considerable saving of time and cost to the shipowner. Although satisfactory results have been obtained from the use of "Warfarin" a suitable bait has yet to be found, particularly in granaries, with which to mix the poison, so that rats will take it continuously in preference to grain and other forms of cereal on which they are normally feeding. (d) Trapping. Trapping is seldom employed save for the destruction of isolated rats which have escaped a major poisoning operation or which have not yet established themselves. (e) Methyl Bromide. This is a very effective and lethal fumigant which has been used in this Port as an insecticide, particularly in the dry fruit industry. It has considerable penetrating powers and is not difficult to disperse after an operation. It is also possible to use this gas as a rodenticide and where there is an infestation of rodents and insects the combined problem can be solved with one operation. One such operation has been so successfully carried out aboard a large freighter that the result entitled the ship to an International Deratting Certificate — the first to be issued in this Port. Methyl Bromide was also used successfully under a "tent" to eradicate a particularly persistent mouse colony in one of the dock grain warehouses. The following are the names of the firms approved for carrying out the deratting of ships:— Messrs. Associated Fumigators Ltd. Messrs. Fumigation Services Ltd. Messrs. London Fumigation Co. Ltd. Messrs. Ridpests Ltd. Messrs. Scientex (Southern) Ltd. Messrs. Insecta Laboratories Ltd. RODENT CONTROL ON LIGHTERS The control of rodents on lighters is of major importance in the comprehensive rodent control scheme for the Port of London, for it is by transporting rodents from place to place inside and outside the Port area that rodent-borne diseases could be communicable on a major scale. The suppression of rats and mice on a very large number of lighters was carried out successfully throughout the year. The lighterage industry have again been most co-operative and given the Port Health Authority excellent support; indeed, it is only due to the ever increasing assistance and support from the industry that the high standard of rodent control on these craft is maintained. Rat-proofing measures have been adopted by most of the lighterage firms, and although there are still some shortcomings in this respect, improvements continue to be made as co-operation becomes even closer. The method of rodent destruction to be employed on lighters is determined after initial inspection, one of the following methods being employed — sulphur dioxide, hydrogen cyanide, methyl bromide and poison baits. As a routine check and in compliance with international requirements, specimens of rats caught are sent to the Central Public Health Laboratory for bacteriological examination. Records for 1958 include:— Numbers of lighters inspected 2,714 Numbers without evidence of rodents 2,388 Numbers with negligible evidence of rodents 228 Number of lighters treated for rodents 98 Number treated voluntarily for insects by owners with Methyl Bromide, which would also exterminate any rodents present 110 Total number of dead rodents recovered from lighters after treatment 797 PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS (APPLICATION TO SHIPPING) ORDERS 1951-56 Since 1951 the Port Health Authority has been issuing Rodent Control Certificates to coastwise shipping as provided for by the terms of the Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) Order, 1951. During the year 1958 the Port Health Authority issued 98 such Certificates. 15 TABLE E Rodents destroyed (bodies recovered) during the year in ships and in shore premises (1) On vessels Number of Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Black Rats 122 220 219 113 241 108 168 228 174 434 145 199 2371 Brown Rats — — 10 — — — — — — — — - 10 Rats examined — 2 4 3 8 2 2 11 3 5 1 6 47 Rats infected with plague — - - - - - - - - - - — - (2) In Docks, Quays, Wharves and Warehouses Number of Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Black Rats 146 104 95 79 105 127 94 198 101 201 105 77 1432 Brown Rats 100 49 144 64 51 62 54 38 44 69 74 135 784 Rats examined — 4 2 1 — — 2 2 2 5 3 3 24 Rats infected with plague - - - - - - — — — — — - - Mice: 3,596 mice were also destroyed; 1,039 in ships and 2,557 in shore premises. TABLE F Deratting Certificates and Deratting Exemption Certificates Issued during the Year for Ships from Foreign Ports No. of Deratting Certificates Issued Number of Deratting Exemption Certificates Issued Total Certificates Issued After Fumigation with After Trapping After Poisoning After Trapping and Poisoning Total HCN Other Fumigants. (state Method) 1. 2. 3. 4. 4(a) 5. 6. 7. 15 1 Zinc Phosphide 1 Nil 132 1,074 1,206 Methyl Bromide "1080" 111 1 Warfarin 3 SECTION XIII — Inspection of Ships for nuisances TABLE G Inspections and Notices No. of Vessels Number of vessels visited by Port Health Inspectors . 13,640 Number of vessels on which sanitary defects were found, and details reported to the Master, Owners and/or Ministry of Transport 771 Number of Statutory Notices served Nil Number of vessels on which sanitary defects were remedied 761 Summary of Structural and other Defects Inadequate ventilation 20 Defective Lighting — Natural 1 Do. do. — Artificial 3 Defective Heating 9 Condensation 15 Leaking Decks 21 Leaking Ports, Decklights, etc. 16 Leaking Sideplates 1 Deficient or Obstructed Floor Drainage 18 Water lodging on top of Peak Tanks 2 Defective Bulkheads 5 Do. Floors 21 Do. Doors 13 Do. Bunks 13 Do. Clothes Lockers 3 Do. Food Lockers 9 Do. Food Storage 20 Do. Cooking Arrangements 20 Defective or Uncleanly Drinking Water Storage 3 Water Closet Obsolete 7 Do. Defective 30 Do. Foul or Choked 15 Do. Inadequate Flush 13 Wash Basins Defective 20 Do. Foul 3 Neglected Paintwork or Distemper 31 Absence of Washrooms 1 Misappropriation of Crew Spaces 7 Verminous Quarters 109 Dirty Quarters 561 Miscellaneous 73 Total 1,083 16 SECTION XIV- PUBLIC HEALTH (SHELLFISH) REGULATIONS, 1934 The Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934, confer powers on a local authority whereby on receipt of a report of their Medical Officer of Health that the consumption of shellfish taken from a laying is likely to cause danger to public health, they may make an Order prohibiting the distribution for sale for human consumption of shellfish taken from the laying either absolutely or subject to such exceptions and conditions as they think proper, having regard to the interests of the public health. Two such Orders have been made. The first in 1936, covering the public and private layings bordering that part of the foreshore of the Estuary of the River Thames between Canvey Island and Shoeburyness; and the second, in 1957, covering the foreshore or waters bordering on that part of the Estuary of the River Thames or any tributary there of, between Garrison Point, Sheerness, and Warden Point in the Isle of Sheppey. SECTION XV- MEDICAL INSPECTION OF ALIENS 1. List of Medical Inspectors of Aliens holding warrants of appointment on 31st December, 1958. Dr. J. Greenwood Wilson, Dr. H.M. Willoughby, Dr. J.A. Jones, Dr. D.T. Jones, Dr. P.J. Roden, Dr. J.E.H. Lahaise, Dr. D.J. Avery, Dr. J.B. Maguire 2. List of other staff engaged on the work. Clerical staff at the Central Office. 3. Organisation of the work. All vessels carrying aliens are intercepted on arrival at Gravesend and the aliens are examined by the Medical Inspector of Aliens who is, in fact, the Boarding Medical Officer on Duty. Complete liaison exists between the Port Medical Staff and the Immigration Staff at Gravesend and should any doubtful cases arrive, the Medical Inspector is immediately communicated with by telephone and an opinion given. 4. Nature and amount of alien traffic. (a) Total number of arriving vessels carrying aliens 2,262 (b) Total number of aliens (excluding transmigrants, seamen and airmen) — (i) Arriving at the port 23,918 (ii) Medically inspected 13,916 (iii) Medically examined 139 (c) Certificates issued 6 (d) Transmigrants landed and medically inspected Nil 5. Accommodation for medical inspection and examination is provided on Tilbury Landing Stage, though in practice, the majority of aliens are inspected in the ship on arrival and any necessary chaperonage is provided by nursing sisters or stewardesses borne in the ship. SECTION XVI- MISCELLANEOUS Arrangements for the burial on shore of persons who have died on board ship from infectious disease. No change. FOOD INSPECTION The total amount of foodstuffs seized and condemned for human consumption and either reconditioned or disposed of for animal feeding or for industrial or technical purposes under guarantee or destroyed was 4,133 tons 18 cwts. 3 qrs. 3 lbs. The following is a summary showing the method of disposal of the foodstuffs seized:— Method of disposal Weight Comparable Weight (1957) Tons cwts. qrs. lbs. Tons cwts. qrs. lbs. Burnt 233 15 2 9 282 13 1 14 Boiling down 82 1 0 26 229 18 3 23 Buried 2,535 3 3 7 1,850 16 0 1 Animal feeding 411 16 3 16 78 7 2 5 Other districts 517 15 3 13 111 5 3 3 Refining 272 18 0 20 143 4 1 13 Manufacturing etc. purposes 73 16 3 12 50 16 3 19 Reconditioning - 17 2 4 644 2 0 11* Re-exported 5 12 3 8 18 1 3 9 TOTAL 4,133 18 3 3 3,409 6 3 14 * Includes two large consignments of meat damaged following ship collision. Of the 4,133 tons listed in the table above, the principal items and methods of disposal were as follows:- 17 Burnt 913 cartons and cases and approximately 14,540 cans fruits, juices, pulps, vegetables, meats and fish (burst, blown, leaky, crushed and pierced), 121 cartons, boxes and cases and a quantity of loose collected oranges (wasty and dock water damaged), 54 tons bananas and banana waste (wasty), 3 tons 15 cwts. ships' rejected stores, 9 tons 7 cwts. grapefruits (wasty), 316 cases and bags and a quantity of loose collected onions (wasty), 8 bags flour (wet damaged), 136 cases elderberries (old stock and weevily), 139 cartons chocolate (wet damaged), 282 boxes figs (decomposed and out of condition), 21 boxes apples (dock water damaged), 567 bags coconuts (green and putrid), 21 cases tea (dock water damaged), 461 crates and cases tomatoes (infested and wasty), 1 cask red pepper and 3 casks sauerkraut (out of condition), 40 cases hazelnut kernels (infested). Boiling down 15 cartons lard (crushed and dirty), quantity carcase meat and offals (various reasons for condemnation). Buried 1,254 tons bananas and banana waste (wasty), 1,750 bundles prunes (wet and mouldy — seized and destroyed under Magistrates' order), 1,005 cartons and cases and approximately 5,758 cans fruits, juices, pulps, vegetables, meats and fish (burst, blown, leaky and crushed), 347 boxes apples, oranges and pears (oil damaged, dock water damaged, wasty), 14,370 bags onions (wasty), 239 tons potatoes (wasty), 4 casks chutney (dirty), 65 boxes grapefruits (wasty), 5 cases and 187 bags tea (loose collected, dock water damaged, sweepings, wet damage, oil damage), † Animal Feeding 1,554 bags flour (ships' rejected stores, dirty, out of condition, wet damaged), 39% tons ships' rejected stores, l½ tons ships' rejected stores meat, 11 bags haricot bean sweepings, 21 tons bananas, 6,737 packages potatoes (wasty), 800 fores beef (mis-shapen and tainted), 60 bags onions (wasty), 20 bags pea sweepings, 698 half bags beetroots (wasty). † Other districts 1,241 bags coconuts (decomposing — for sorting), 31 bags hazelnut kernels sweepings (for sorting), 21,895 cases apples (lead and arsenic spray contaminated — see separate report), 30 barrels herrings (slight decomposition — for sorting), 8 cartons butter (dock water damaged), 305 cartons lard (damaged for sorting), 36 tons meat (dirty and iced), 588 bags onions (wasty — for sorting), 113 bags rice and a quantity of loose collected rice (dirty — for cleaning), 50 cases tea (wet damaged), 280 cartons and 21 cases canned red peppers (blowing — for sorting), 68 cartons canned cherries (blowing — for sorting, 601 cases canned apricots and apricot pulp (blowing — for sorting). † Refining 3,575 bags sugar sweepings and damaged sugar, 50 tons (approx.) sugar salvaged from sunken barge. † Manufacturing etc. purposes 122 bags flour (rain water damaged), 224 bags and cases tea, (dock water damaged, loose collected and sweepings), 105 cartons and cases and a quantity of loose collected lard (dirty), 99 bags shelled almonds (paint powder damaged), 86 casks tallow. Re-export 10 cartons canned herring 'tid bits' (prohibited preservative), 48 bags nutmegs (old and dry). Reconditioning 19 crates and cases butter (dock water damaged) N.B. All items under headings marked t were released with agreement and under supervision of local Medical Officers of Health. DOCK STRIKE - PERISHABLE FOODS On Monday, 30th May 1958, the stoppage in the Pool of London still was not complete and working continued in some docks in varying degrees, thus providing an opportunity for the removal of as much perishable cargo as possible. During the first week of the strike a complete survey of all perishable cargoes was made by the Inspectors with an assessment of the degree of spoliation risk, and constant surveillance was exercised on all perishable cargoes not stored in refrigerated conditions, a detailed daily report being made in respect of each dock. Arrangements were made for the condemnation by a Justice, if necessary, of any cargoes condemned by your Inspectors as unfit for human consumption. Contact was made with the Docks Officer of the Transport and General Workers Union who promised to co-operate in the removal of unsound food by calling for volunteer labour for the task, and an agreed form of condemnation was issued to your Inspectors, a copy of which was to 18 be forwarded to the Union when requesting assistance. In fact, this arrangement, being dependent upon the response to such an appeal for volunteer labour, did not prove of such value as anticipated. Daily reports were requested by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as to the position regarding perishable foodstuffs, and daily bulletins were supplied to the Corporation's Information and Press Officer for dissemination to the press. Commodities at greatest risk of spoilation were potatoes and onions, and to a lesser degree fresh fruit such as apples and oranges. The survey showed that 9,427 tons of perishable food was, in varying degrees, in danger of spoilage, in addition to which a further 9,286 tons, mostly in refrigerated ships' holds, would cause little concern as to deterioration for some weeks. Constant liaison was maintained with the Port of London Authority in regard to the movement of shipping, and whilst there was a steady decline in the tonnage of foodstuffs for which anxiety was felt, owing to departures of ships to other ports, the tonnage of foodstuffs held in the docks in refrigerated conditions owing to incoming shipping increased to over 30,000 tons, nearly 20,000 tons of which consisted of frozen and chilled meat. The greatest difficulties experienced by your officers were due to the fact that the lower layers of foodstuffs stored in the dock sheds were decomposing and hastening the decomposition of layers above, which process could not be halted without the labour to remove stocks still sound. No reliable estimates as to damage could be given in these circumstances. During the whole period of the strike there were instances of volunteer dock labour offering their services for the removal of small quantities of foodstuffs in danger of deterioration, and in this connection I would'mention the success achieved by personal negotiation by some of your Inspectors on the spot. Mr. Dring at the East India Dock secured volunteer labour, on his certificate that a cargo of 7 tons of shell eggs was in danger of deterioration, for the discharging of of 3 tons from ship, and removal of an additional 4 tons from shed, out of the dock. No food was condemned until the 13th June when 14 tons of potatoes were removed by the Port of London Authority from the Docks, and from that date onwards as circumstances permitted condemnation and removal continued, the total quantities being as follows:— Condemned as unfit for human consumption to be used for animal feeding 48/ tons potatoes Condemned as unfit for human consumption and destroyed 156 tons potatoes 2½ tons grapefruit 2 tons oranges 1 ton coconuts 81¼ tons onions Total 29¼ tons INSPECTION AND SAMPLING OF TEA ON IMPORTATION Circular FSH. 16/58 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, dated 28th November 1958, notified local Authorities and Port Health Authorities- that after 31st December 1958, H.M. Customs & Excise would discontinue sampling tea on importation for adulteration and unfitness under their permissive powers in Section 229 of the Customs & Excise Act, 1952, and that the powers of local authorities to inspect food for these purposes remained unaffected. In fact, this function always has been carried out by H.M. Officers of Customs & Excise, and the powers of control under the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations and Food and Drugs Act, 1955 have not in the circumstances been generally exercised by other authorities. Meetings have been held at Guildhall at which were present representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, H.M. Customs and Excise, Government Chemists, the Port and City of London Public Analyst, Tea Warehousekeepers and the trade, and helpful discussions have taken place as to both past procedures and those to be adopted in the future. Under H.M. Customs control some 5,000 samples annually have been taken for analysis, but what proportion of this would fall to be taken by the Port Health Authority and the City of London it is difficult to say. In the Port of London about 85% of imported tea is discharged overside for upriver wharves and warehouses, and in the City of London there are six warehouses and wharves at which tea is received. Agreement has been reached regarding procedures for inspection and sampling which should ensure the minimum of delay and interference in a trade which is sensitive to such influences. In view of the satisfactory results of analyses in recent years, available information indicates that sampling may be carried out in future on a smaller scale than was formerly considered necessary. APPLES FROM THE LEBANON - CONTAMINATED WITH LEAD AND ARSENIC SPRAY On 29th January, 1958 a report was received from the Wiltshire County Council that a sampling of Lebanese apples had shown amounts of lead in parts per million of up to 18, and parts per 19 million of arsenic of 5-12. Bearing in mind that the Food Standards Committee set up by the Ministry of Health had recommended that the permitted amount should not exceed 2 parts per million of lead and 1 part per millionof arsenic it will he seen that these amounts were excessive. The County Council had ascertained that these apples had been imported through the Port of London but the importing vessel had finished discharge. Instructions were, however, issued to all Port Health Inspectors to watch for further importations from the same source. On 30th January 1958 the Ministry of Health telephoned that the m.v. "Balkis" was due to arrive with Lebanese apples and that the Public Health Departments of Westminster and Stepney were sampling Lebanese apples from Covent Garden andSpitalfields. From the P.L.A.'s list of ships due to arrive it was learned that the m.v. "Balkis" had been in East India Dock for several days and the information was passed to the Port Health Inspector on the dock who, although he had not seen anything unusual on arrival of the ship, immediately detained the remainder of the cargo and took samples. In the meantime information was received both from Stepney Borough Council and Westminster City Council of the results of their sampling. Stepney Borough Council had roughly the same figures as the Wiltshire County Council, but Westminster had results all below the recommended limits and they had given permission for the apples to be sold. On 31st January 1958 details of the apples discharged from the "Balkis" were obtained and merchants contacted by telephone to ascertain details of the disposal of the apples in order that local authorities could be warned. Most of the apples had by then been sold in very small amounts to unknown buyers, but it was possible to notify the Medical Officers of Health of Southampton, Chatham and Liverpool of apples consigned to their areas, and the Medical Officer of Health of Southwark of the possibility of some having gone into his area. On 3rd February 1958 the Public Analyst reported that all our samples were below the limits of 2 parts per million of lead and 1 part per million of arsenic, and the apples were consequently released from the dock. It was then known that the m.v."Briseis" was due in the West India Dock with approximately 20,000 cases of Lebanese apples oil board worth £40,000 and it was arranged for them to be detained whilst samples were drawn for analysis. This was done on 5th February. Although there were only two varieties of apples — Ted and Golden Delicious — there were 46 different brands, and samples of all were brought to the head office at Guildhall. After visual examination of these samples, it was decided to send 17 samples to the analyst, these being the most obviously affected by the spray residue which appeared as a fine dust on the calyx and stalk depression of the apples. On 6th February 1958 the first ten results were received and thpse showed that only three were within the recommended limits. Instructions were given for the release of these three parcels and the merchants informed. The owners of the other parcels were informed that release would be granted if they could arrange to have the apples cleaned at suitable premises and provided the local Medical Officer of Health would supervise the cleaning — such cleaning to be: washing in turbulent water and wiping with clean cloths. The results of the remaining analyses were received the next day and of these seven, only one was below the recommended amount and the corresponding parcel was accordingly released. As the apples released were those on which very small amounts of residue had been visible, it was felt that those brands of which samples were held at the office with even less amounts* of residue visible could also be released. The nine merchants interested in those marks under detention, totalling approximately 5,700 cases, were informed of the need for proper cleaning under supervision. Between the 6th and 14th February 1958 a considerable amount of work was involved in checking with local authorities that premises selected were suitable for cleaning and ensuring that the work would be supervised. The last of the apples were released on 14th February 1958. The Ministry of Health were kept fully informed of the action taken so that they could make official representations to the Lebanese Authorities and to the British Representative in Lebanon. Reports received subsequently from other Local Health Authorities showed that although apples were released as having been reasonably satisfactory, some of them were found on sampling and analysis to have been contaminated by arsenic and lead in excessive amounts. This emphasises the difficulties inherent in inspection of this type of import, contamination varying in degree from mark to mark and case to case. Within the limits of any practicable inspection it was inevitable that a certain amount of unsatisfactory fruit would be included in parcels released as free from contamination to any significant degree, but local Health Authorities were fully informed as to the extent to which the contamination was likely to occur. tt is gratifying to know that no further trouble was experienced during the rest of the year. 20 TRANSPORT OF REFUSE BY LIGHTERS In the Annual Report for 1957 it was mentioned that complaints were received occasionally from the Port Health Inspectors, the River Police and the Port of London Authority about the failure of the lighterage industry to conform with the Byelaws made by the Port Health Authority in 1948 relating to the transport by barge of refuse and other offensive cargoes. At a meeting between members of the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners and Officers of the Port Health Authority, the representatives of the Association emphasised that the requirements for covering refuse as prescribed in the Byelaws were not reasonable, even to the extent that it was practically impossible to comply with them. Following experiments conducted in 1957 by Messrs. Wm. Cory & Son Ltd., the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners suggested that Byelaw 2 of the 1948 Byelaws requiring the use of close-fitting hatches and overall waterproof sheeting securely fastened to the coamings should be amended. The views of the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners were considered and accepted by the Port and City of London Health Committee and the amended Byelaws came into operation on 1st October 1958. The effect has been to substitute the following provisions for Byelaw 2 in the principal Byelaws of 1948: "FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUISANCES ARISING FROM REFUSE IN OR UPON ANY SHIP, BOAT OR VESSEL A person who shall remove or transport or cause to be removed or transported in or upon any vessel, within the District of the Port Health Authority, any refuse, shall :— (a) Remove or transport, or cause to be removed or transported, such refuse in a sound, suitable and watertight vessel provided with permanent coamings and provided with stout waterproof sheeting in good repair and capable at all times of completely covering the refuse and capable of being properly and securely attached to such coamings. (b) Except during the process of loading or unloading properly and securely cover and keep covered or cause to be so covered and kept covered all such refuse with stout waterproof sheeting properly and securely attached to the said coamings of the vessel so as to prevent any such refuse from being spilled or from falling or being blown into the air. (c) Not load or cause or permit to be loaded any refuse adjacent to the permanent coamings of the vessel above the level of the said coamings". It has been agreed by all concerned that these basic provisions are quite reasonable and, while it is yet too early to predict the full advantage of the modification, complaints are less frequent. However, any failure to comply in future must be met with by legal enforcement if the object of the Byelaws is to be attained. HOUSEBOAT BYELAWS Houseboat Byelaws were made by the Port Health Authority in 1924 but as they relate mainly to cleanliness and the prevention of .infectious disease and nuisances, they are, in practice, of little use in tackling the fundamental problem of getting rid of the unsatisfactory houseboat. Action can, of course, be taken under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, but here we are restricted to actual nuisances and experience has shown that it is difficult and costly to the Authority to deal effectively with even the worst type of boat. Before the war the Port Health Authority and the Port of London Authority prepared draft joint byelaws which would provide for the registration of houseboats, the deployment of houseboats at specified places, the limiting of the number of occupants, and general sanitation, including requirements for lighting, ventilation, cleanliness, freedom from dampness and nuisances. However, the outbreak of the war and subsequently the post-war housing conditions deferred any possibility of bringing the Byelaws into effect though they have in recent years been considered carefully from time to time by the various interested parties. In 1937, when the Byelaws were first submitted to the Ministry of Health, and immediately after the war, the houseboat situation, particularly in the Lower Reaches of the Thames, was at its worst. But since that time there has been a great improvement, mainly due to the powers exercised by the local riparian authorities under the Essex County Council Act, 1952 which prohibits the mooring of a houseboat unless the local Council's consent is obtained. This has resulted in the numbers of houseboats in the Lower Reaches being reduced by over 78% with greater powers of supervision by the authorities over those remaining. Throughout the Port, the numbers are down by 58% since 1945. The stage has now been reached when consideration must be given as to whether it is necessary to proceed with the byelaws in their proposed form, particularly so as it is understood there is a possibility of any byelaws made jointly with the P.L.A. being challenged as to their 21 legality. It is clear, however, that the Port Health Authority should at least possess adequate byelaws to deal with the really unsatisfactory houseboat, for while it is true there are few of these at the present time, there nevertheless remains the possibility of sub-standard houseboats being moored anywhere along the River. Furthermore, the introduction of new byelaws consistent with modern conceptions of public health would certainly lead to raising the standard of sanitation aboard houseboats already moored in the Thames. HOUSEBOATS AT BENFLEET The Essex County Council Act, 1952, provides that the mooring of any houseboat within the County shall not be lawful without the consent of the Council of the district in which the houseboat is situated, and that the Council may require the owner or occupier to remove or demolish any houseboat not authorised by them. The Port and City of London Health Committee are, however, still responsible under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, for the sanitary supervision of houseboats coming within the jurisdiction of the Port Health Authority, although under the Essex County Council Act, 1952, the local Council in Essex are now responsible for the licensing and drawing up of conditions under which they are prepared to grant licences to houseboats. The duties of the Committee in regard to the sanitary supervision of houseboats are safeguarded by Section 212 of the Essex County Council Act, 1952, which provides inter alia that no consent shall be given to the mooring of any houseboat within the Port of London without the previous written consent of the Corporation of London as the Port Health Authority of the Port of London. During the year the 3enfleet Urban District Council granted temporary consents, subject to the approval of the Port Health Authority, to sixteen houseboats. No objection to these consents was raised by the Port and City of London Health Committee. CLEAN AIR ACT, 1956 The Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations, 1958 These Regulations came into force on the 1st June 1958, but their general contents had been known some weeks earlier. In anticipation of the "appointed day' , a conference was held on the 21st May 1958 to which representatives from the various shipping interests were invited to discuss the best ways and means of implementing the forthcoming Regulations. At this conference it was agreed to allow a lapse of time before taking any legal proceedings for smoke offences in order to give the shipping industry time to study their new obligations and for shipping on the high seas to be warned. The 'moratorium' would also give time for further propaganda to Masters and Engineers as to their responsibilities and also enable foreign-owned shipping to be advised of the necessity to conform with the new legislation. Further, it was felt that although a carefully considered policy, patiently and systematically applied, would not effect any dramatic result, in the long run it would be more likely to ensure lasting success and maintain good relations between the shipping industry and the Port Health Authority. Following the meeting and the subsequent issue of the Regulations,the Port Health Authority took active steps to make known to Masters, Engineers, and Shipowners the new requirements. The first step in the campaign for 'educating' Masters and Engineers was the preparation by the Port Health Authority of a small card pointing out that Dark Smoke from vessels in the Port of London is restricted by law; the penalties; an appeal to keep clean the air in the Port of London, and also that the Port of London includes the Docks and the River Thames from the Nore to Teddington — it is often overlooked that the stretch of the River below Gravesend is still within the Port of London. These cards were distributed by the Port Health Inspectors as they visited ships in the course of routine inspections, so providing an opportunity for a talk on the subject of smoke prevention with the personnel on board. To assist in making known to foreign shipping the necessity to restrict smoke emission, a letter was sent to the Consuls-General of twenty-one countries whose ships visit the Port of London. The letter was as follows: 6th \ugust, 1958. "Dear Sir, Clean Air Act, 1956 The Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations, 1958 "The above-mentioned Act and Regulations make it an offence to emit smoke, except for minimum periods, from vessels in ports in this country and apply both to British and foreign shipping. 22 "I am, of course, most anxious to avoid taking any legal action against shipping using the Port of London and it would I feel be helpful to us both if you could make known to Owners and Masters of ships registered in your country, in whatever way you consider best, the legal requirement to restrict smoke emission while in the Port of London and, indeed, in any port in the United Kingdom. "If I find a case of smoke emission from one of your Country's ships, such as may compel me to consider taking legal action against the Owners or Master, I will send you a copy of the official intimation so that you may be aware of the offence. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that this will not be necessary. "May I take this opportunity of thanking you in advance for your co-operation. Yours faithfully, J. Greenwood Wilson, M.D., F.R.C.P., Medical Officer of Health, Port and City of London." Replies received showed that in nearly all cases the Consuls-General communicated the text of the letter to their home governments for circulation to shipping Departments and Companies. Further, on the 19th June 1958, Mr. Town Clerk on the instructions of the Port and City of London Health Committee, wrote to the Chief Examiner, Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, pointing out that the Committee were of opinion that it would be helpful if the examination department of the Ministry introduced into the curriculum for Engineroom Officers of the MerchantNavy, details of the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The following reply was received from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. 18th July, 1958. "Dear Sir, "I have given careful consideration to your letter of the 19th June 1958, and the need to spread knowledge of the Clean Air Act. "How best to do this is frankly a little difficult, the examination syllabuses are already overcrowded and cover all aspects of combustion. The causes of smoke were highlighted during the war years by the Examiners for the safety of convoys, and after the war for maximum efficiency to save fuel. "These efforts however were of a passing character difficult to sustain. It is felt, therefore, a more permanent effort to reach all the engineroom staff is required, and the Ministry will ask the Technical Colleges to explain the requirements of the Clean Air Act so far as Shipping is concerned to young engineers preparing for the Ministry's Second Class examinations and also the Ministry's Examiners in the ports to highlight the subject as opportunity arises. Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) STEWART HOGG, Chief Examiner of Engineers. E.H. Nichols, T.D., 8.A., LL.B. Town Clerk, Corporation of London, Guildhall, London, E.C.2." In October 1958 a special 'briefing' meeting was convened for the Port Health Inspectors to discuss and decide the final details of procedure to give practical effect to the Act and the Regulations in the light of the experience so far gained. At the meeting the Port Health Inspectors were made familiar with the administrative procedure (including the use of relevant printed documents) to be used in following up their observations whether by Ringelmann Card or 'Telesmoke'. They were also advised on the personal approach to apparent offenders, collection of data, and the service of Statutory Notices. The most important issue was to decide immediate policy. It was concluded that it would be wiser vigorously to attack BLACK SMOKE first and to continue to discourage DARK SMOKE by all means available short of legal action unless the incidents were of a serious nature. In all cases the details of the incident were to be recorded on the appropriate form and sent to the Central Office for scrutiny and final decision. The Regulations state that "in no case shall BLACK SMOKE be emitted for more than 3 minutes in the aggregate in any period of 30 minutes". As to the Act itself, Sections 1 and 2 are probably those which levy most responsibility on vessels. They are also the sections that list the conditions and circumstances that provide a defence' in the event of a prosecution. These are indeed, a formidable list that will tax the knowledge and experience of any Port Health Inspector involved in legal proceedings. 23 Although it is true that the new statutory provisions are of more help to the Port Health Authority in suppressing smoke from all classes of vessels than the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, which because of its relatively unwieldy procedure has enabled many of them to escape, it would be unwise to imagine that they will be easy to apply. Indeed, suggestions that they are complicated and not easily understood have been made in debates in the House of Commons and the Minister has said that he would be willing to consider amendments to them after they had had a fair trial by Port Health Authorities. A sound practical knowledge of shipping operations as well as of fuel and marine installations is essential to success in administering the new Regulations, particularly in estimating the gravity of the offence, and in judging it in relation to the allowed 'defences'. It is quite obvious that these are capable of abuse, especially if claimed by an outward bound ship that cannot be intercepted and boarded by the observing Port Health River Inspector, even while it is still within his normal district range. This unhappy position can be the more aggravated when offending ships are in the outer Estuary, still within the "official" limits of the Port Health Authority, but remote from the normal range of the Inspector's district. However, should the vessel be inward bound, there is the opportunity to take suitable action at the terminal berth and there is the consolation that most ships return to London. There is another troublesome aspect of these 'defences' particularly for the casual observer (e.g.-from Riparian Authorities) who may make invidious comparisons between the Dark Smoke emissions of different vessels and may even level unfair criticism of the Port Health Authority's administration in relation to the functions of the Clean Air Act. The same attitude has been adopted by the Master of a ship when taken to task by the Port Health Inspector for a proven offence. Rightly or not, one of these 'defences'is applicable for the next seven years. The Clean Air Act provides that an Owner of a vessel can apply to a Port Health Authority for an 'exemption certificate'to protect him from prosecution on the grounds that the installation cannot be improved and the Authority may grant it for a specified period. Further, it is recommended that all Port Health Authorities should accept these certificates. The adoption of this policy could give a ship a relatively free hand and could quite unreasonably lead to abuse of the privilege through indifference and carelessness in respect of fuel and operational behaviour. No such certificates have yet been produced in this Port and none have been granted. It would appear that they could cause confusion in any particular port and would certainly lead to unhealthy criticism between the ports. (This particular point about the danger of applying different standards at various ports in the issue of 'exemption certificates' has been referred to the Association of Sea and Air Port Health Authorities.) Without an 'exemption'certificate, the ship can be held responsible for every offence and, unless a satisfactory defence is proved, legal proceedings have some chance of success against the offender. Thus on ships without an exemption certificate more care is likely to be taken to prevent unnecessary smoke emission. At present there is every indication that the policy adopted by the Port Health Authority in respect to vessels is achieving satisfactory results and the shipping industry is co-operating generally. The reduction in the amount of black smoke emitted has been very encouraging and it has been found necessary on one occasion only in 1958 to take legal proceedings for this offence. Other incidents of black smoke emission have occurred from time to time but for short durations and no legal action has been considered. On the credit side there are positive cases of progress in relation to boiler installations, diesel replacements, and more smokeless fuels. These include the introduction of the supplementary air furnace door, diesel engines for locomotion and ship propulsion, coal to oil conversions on harbour craft, and coal to coke where practicable. Experience confirms that unless Port Health Inspectors are conversant with the details of stokehold practice and are intelligent in respect of boiler installations and fuels, implementing the Act and the Regulations will be more difficult. So far a great deal of effort has been spent wisely and it remains to press forward relentlessly if results convincing to the public are to be achieved. PROSECUTION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT, 1956 The first prosecution taken under the Clean Air Act, 1956 was heard at Grays Magistrates Court on the 16th January 1959 when the Corporation of London as the Port of London Health Authority prosecuted Clan Line Steamers Ltd. under Sections 1 and 20 of the Act, for the emission of black smoke from ss. "Clan Mackinlay" in Tilbury Dock on the evening of 2nd October 1958. Evidence was given that black smoke and 'sooty smuts' were emitted for a period of nearly an hour, which not only drew the attention of a Sergeant of the Essex County Constabulary to what he thought was a fire, but also resulted in complaints from 31 local residents of damage done to washing, clothing, etc. 24 The defence pleaded guilty but asked for extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration. It was stated that technical faults had developed which necessitated the lighting up of a boiler from cold and this led to the commission of the offence. The case was found proved but in view of the extenuating circumstances a fine of £25 was imposed with 10 guineas costs. Although the case was heard in 1959 all the work preparatory to its hearing was undertaken in 1958 and that is the reason for referring to it in a 1958 report. RADIATION HAZARDS There is no doubt that active consideration will have to be given to radiation hazards from nuclear-powered ships visiting the Port of London in the future and when this time arrives it will be important for the Port Health Inspectors on the River and in the docks to be equipped with the appropriate apparatus for taking measurements of radioactivity in the vicinity. The stage has not yet been reached when it is essential to go into detail, but the Port Health Authority are in close collaboration with the Port of London Authority concerning the problems that may eventually arise. Meanwhile, as a first step, arrangements were made towards the end of the year for the Port Health Inspectors to attend a Course of lectures at the Sir John Cass College on "Radio-activity and its hazards in biology and medicine" — a course which was conducted very successfully in the early part of 1959. It may well be that another course of instruction will be arranged to extend the knowledge already gained and so keep the Inspectors in touch with further developments in this important field. EXPORTED CATTLE PROTECTION ORDER, 1957 AND AMENDING ORDER SHIPMENT OF CATTLE FROM EAST INDIA DOCK This new trade from London to Hamburg was under consideration for several months and during this time close relations between the Port of London Authority and the Port Health Authority were maintained. At first the selected site in the East India Dock lacked all the amenities essential to the reception and shipment of live animals ; nevertheless, a clear policy was discussed and agreed by the P.L.A., the Building Contractors, and the Port Health Inspector of the district. In this connection proper sanitary provisions dominated the proposals, involving careful consideration of the site paving and piped drainage. In the circumstances nothing short of new concrete surfacing and new trapped drains were acceptable and the combination to afford an effective watershed with unobstructed flow into the sewer during the regular hosing of the site after each shipment. These requirements were met in full to the satisfaction of the Port Health Authority. The lairage and runway were completed with adequate fencing and a sufficient standard of sanitation obtained, both ashore and afloat, in the interests of the Operators and the cattle. When the scheme came into operation there were two properly equipped ships in service plying between London and Hamburg. Although the ships vie re serving separate trading interests at the time, arrangements were concluded for both to use the, same site since the trade was then in an experimental stage. The scheme provided that the cattle would arrive by road transport of a specific type and reach the dock at a predetermined time after having been rested and examined in an approved lairage by an appointed. Veterinary Officer. Detention of animals deemed unfit for shipment is decided by a Veterinary Officer who exercises the powers vested in him by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Operations showed that the cattle can be quietly ushered from the transport, down the fenced runway and on to the ship. Admitted that it is the prerogative of the Authorised Veterinary Officer to control the humane aspect, the Port Health Inspectors nevertheless exercise a moral responsibility at the dock with a view to reporting any shortcomings at once. According to a request from the traders, each consignment must, for the purpose of the import regulations at Hamburg, be accompanied by a statement as to: (a) Sanitary condition of exporting shore establishment; (b) Sanitary condition of lairage and exits to ship ; (c) Freedom of the shore establishment from communicable disease. A statement in these terms was issued by the Port Health Authority for each shipment. The export of cattle from the East India Dock, which started in January 1958, was discontinued after three months for commercial and technical reasons, but it is understood that there is every likelihood of the trade being resumed early in 1959. 25 DISPOSAL OF DEAD YOUNG WHALE On the 15th April 1958 the P.L.A. and the Thames River Police reported a decomposing whale in the River, and the Port Health Inspector for the River District arranged for the whale to be made secure on the foreshore at Millwall pending a decision as to the best means of disposal. Arrangements were finally made for the launch "Alfred Robertson" to tow the whale to Erith where, with the kind assistance of a firm of refuse contractors, the monster was lifted ashore and buried in a refuse dump. The whale was about 15 feet long and estimated to weigh about 15 cwts. Three dead porpoises were also dealt with similarly. PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, 1936, PART X - CANAL BOATS Nineteen inspections of canal boats were made during the year and three canal boats were found to have a total of four defects, as follows: No. of defects Cabin in need of painting 3 Dampness in cabin due to defective deckhead 1 The Owners and/or Masters of the defective craft were in each case notified and requested to remedy the defects. In eight instances the Certificate of Registration was not on board. The Owners and/or Masters were informed of the requirements of the Act in this respect. No new Registrations were made during the year. DANGEROUS DRUGS During the year ten certificates authorising the purchase of scheduled Dangerous Drugs were issued under the Dangerous Drugs Regulations, 1953, Regulation 13 (2) of which is as follows (a) The master of a foreign ship which is in a port in Great Britain shall be authorised to procure such quantity of drugs and preparations as may be certified by the medical officer of health of the port health authority within whose jurisdiction the ship is or, in his absence, by the assistant medical officer of health, to be necessary for the equipment of the ship until it reaches its home port. (b) A person who supplies a drug or preparation in accordance with a certificate given under this paragraph shall retain the certificate and mark it with the date on which the drug or preparation was supplied and keep it on his premises so as to be at all times available for inspection. HELICOPTER STATION FOR SOUTH BANK The Press for 26th June 1958, reported that work on a new helicopter station on the south bank of the Thames at Battersea was to start in August and was expected to be ready for use in 1959. As the station will consist of a T-shaped landing platform extending over the river between Battersea railway bridge and Wandsworth Bridge, there was the possibility that if the station were to be used for international air traffic, the responsibility for health control would fall to the Port and City of London Health Committee. Enquiries as to the proposed helicopter station were made of the Ministry of Health who have replied that it appears that it is purely a temporary measure so far of a private firm, Westland Aircraft Ltd. The site is expected to be used for a period up to 7 years, primarily for advertising purposes. The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation do not think that the traffic will call for any health control at the present time. FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1926 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS REGULATIONS, 1955 Twelve samples of Feeding Stuffs were submitted to the Agricultural Analyst. In each case the sample was found to be within the limits of variation permissible under the Regulations. 26 VISITORS AND STUDENTS Facilities were again afforded during the year to students of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Royal Institute of Public Health, the Army School of Health, the National College of Food Technology, and the Institute of Education to see aspects of port health work relating to their studies. Public Health workers were also received from a number of countries, including British Guiana, Ceylon,France, Ghana, Holland, New Zealand, West Germany and the U.S.A. In addition, assistance was given to public health officers from the Admiralty, the City of Rochester and the Borough of Nuneaton, and a party of members of the National Society for Clean Air were enabled to visit shipping in the Tilbury Dock. The training of students and the care of visitors inevitably involves the Port Health Inspectors and other staff of the Port Health Authority in additional and at times onerous work, and it is gratifying to note the remarkable goodwill and patience which has been shown. We have always felt that the training of students, particularly from the under-developed areas, is a most inspiring and effective contribution to international health and welfare; its ultimate value cannot be measured but we do know that many students have returned to their homes full of praise and enthusiasm for our work in the Port of London and that this has borne good fruit in a more helpful attitude towards British shipping and commerce. 27 APPENDIX I MEDICAL INSPECTION- From 1st January to 31st December, 1958 GRAVESEND Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total No. medically inspected 135 126 178 159 142 102 130 150 156 147 150 139 1,714 No. of passengers 497 463 1,076 499 954 3,290 3,336 3,074 2,081 596 796 553 17,215 No. of crew 57 3 506 517 804 614 313 475 785 377 773 1,130 336 7,203 No. of Foreign Arrivals 1,089 1,028 1,192 1,164 1,126 978 1,233 1,202 1,103 1,084 1,168 1,096 13,463 APPENDIX II INFECTIOUS DISEASES Disease 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 (a) Cases reported- Cholera (including suspected cases) - - - - - - - - - - Plague do. - - - - - — - - - - Yellow fever do. — — — — — — — — — - Typhus fever do. 5 — - — — — - - - - Smallpox do. 2 4 6 - 1 1 1 - - - Scarlet fever 3 7 3 — 2 — 2 2 2 1 Enteric fever 82 9 7 8 8 6 8 5 3 7 Measles 80 58 74 56 97 31 64 67 91 71 German Measles 3 17 67 13 6 7 5 3 7 25 Diphtheria 1 - - 2 - - 1 - - 1 Erysipelas - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - - Pulmonary tuberculosis 43 41 53 67 46 43 35 32 39 45 Other diseases (including Chick epox) 124 114 130 128 184 347 368 212 1,328 659 TOTALS 343 251 340 274 345 435 484 322 1,470 809 (b) Admitted to Hospital- Cholera (including suspected cases) - - - - - - - - - - Plague do. — - - - - - - - - - Yellow fever do. — — — - - — - - - - Typhus fever do. 3 — - - - - - - - - Smallpox do. - - - - - 2 - - - - Scarlet fever — - 1 - - - — - 2 - Diphtheria - - 1 - - - - - - 1 Enteric fever — 6 - 1 1 - 3 - 2 3 Measles 8 5 12 3 16 21 12 20 35 5 Mumps 3 1 13 4 2 1 10 5 3 7 Dysentery 1 - 1 1 - 6 6 - 1 4 Other diseases (including Chickenpox) 34 56 35 35 48 32 53 63 271 114 TOTALS 49 68 63 44 67 62 84 88 314 134 28 APPENDIX III RETURN OF RATS CAUGHT AND DESTROYED DURING THE YEAR 1958 Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total London Dock— Warehouses 42 67 28 18 19 53 33 138 45 110 46 23 622 Vessels - - - 7 10 - - - - - - - 17 St. Katharine Dock— Warehouses - - - 3 - - - - - 10 - - 13 Vessels - - - - - - - - - - - - — Surrey mercial Dock— Warehouses 5 11 5 12 — 2 — 1 — 6 12 54 Vessels - - 10 - - - - - - - - - 10 Regent's Canal Dock— Warehouses - - - - - - - - - - - 6 6 Vessels - - - - - - - - - - - - - East India Dock- Warehouses - - - — - — — — 1 5 — — 6 Vessels - - - - - - - - - - - - — West India Dock- Warehouses 60 4 23 20 16 30 32 5 26 34 16 10 276 Vessels 9 - 102 3 - - - 73 - 33 - 36 256 Millwall Dock— Warehouses 25 30 10 30 8 12 28 10 29 14 28 2 226 Vessels - — - — — — 13 20 — — — — 33 Royal Victoria Dock— Warehouses 99 26 24 46 54 45 27 55 15 45 48 147 631 Vessels 5 8 6 15 15 - - - 12 3 17 — 81 Royal Albert Dock— Warehouses 6 10 27 7 22 37 5 9 4 11 14 5 157 Vessels 7 20 46 9 129 1 6 31 7 8 15 99 378 King George V. Dock— Warehouses 3 5 6 1 13 — 9 8 — 14 10 - 69 Vessels 2 14 1 9 - - 4 - 31 - 8 - 69 Tilbury Dock— Warehouses 6 11 10 13 12 12 12 11 24 27 11 7 156 Vessels 80 71 40 50 3 31 20 57 87 192 10 37 678 River— Vessels 19 107 24 20 84 76 125 47 37 198 95 27 859 TOTALS 368 373 368 256 397 297 316 464 319 704 324 411 4,597 29 APPENDIX IV— General Summary and Analysis of the Sanitary Inspections, etc., in the Port of London for the year ended 31st December, 1958, Foreign Going Steam- Inland Navigation— Continued Sail— Inspected 10,706 Inspected 3 Defective 194 Defective Nil To be cleaned 439 To be cleaned Nil Sail- Lightersr- Inspected Nil Inspected 770 Defective Nil Defective Nil To be cleaned Nil To be cleaned 24 Canal Boats Coastwise Inspected 19 Defective 3 Steam— To be cleaned Nil Inspected 1,890 Defective 20 Shore Premises To be cleaned 39 Inspected 9,844 Sail- Defective 78 To be cleaned 321 Inspected 9 Sick Seamen referred to Hospital 45 Defective Nil To be cleaned 2 Water Barges Inland Navigation No. in district in good condition on 31st December, 1957 14 New Barges Nil Steam— Condemned Nil Use discontinued Nil Inspected 243 Previously withdrawn and since resumed Defective 2 work Nil To be cleaned 57 No. in district on 31st December, 1958 14 Inspections Dock and River No. Nationalities No. American (U.S.A.) 185 Total Inspections 1st January to 31st December, 1958:— London and St. Kats. 990 Arab 1 Argentinian 32 Regent's Canal 568 Belgian Brazilian 63 21 Foreign Going 10,706 Surrey Commercial 1,667 British 8,528 Coastwise 1,899 East India 239 Bulgarian 7 Inland Navigation 1,035 Chinese 2 Shore Premises 9,844 Costa Rican 3 Total 23,484 Danish 152 Dutch 1,372 Eire 12 Finnish 181 French 74 Number of Vessels inspected in the Launches:— West India 1,187 German 980 Mill wall 721 Ghana 4 Royal Albert 1,440 Greek 63 Guatemala 1 Honduras 3 Icelandic 4 Royal Victoria 838 Indian 24 "Alfred Roach" 1,201 Iranian 3 King George V 908 Israeli 33 "Howard Deighton" Italian 65 River— Upper 549 Japanese 87 "Frederick Whittingham" 1,289 Lebanese 1 Liberien 61 "Alfred Robertson" River—Middle 740 Monrovian 24 Pakistan 1 In Docks, etc. 11,150 Panamanian 64 Polish 45 River—Lower 1,201 Portuguese 3 Rumanian 1 Russian 121 River—Medway 985 Spanish 97 Swiss 3 Tilbury 1,607 Swedish and Norwegian 1,226 Tonga 1 Turkish 24 Yugo Slavian 68 Total Vessels 13,640 Total Vessels 13,640 Shore Premises 9,844 Shore Premises 9,844 Shore Premises 9,844 Total 23,484 Total 23,484 Total 23,484 30 The River distance between the Western and Eastern limits of the Port is about 68% miles. POWERS The principal Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments affecting the work of the Port Health Authority of the Port of London are: ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES AND REMOVAL OF REFUSE Public Health (London) Act, 1936. ADMINISTRATION Public Health (London) Act, 1936 Order of the Local Government Board dated 30th June 1898, assigning further powers to the Port Sanitary Authority of London Sanitary Officers Order, 1926, S.R. & 0. No. 552. Sanitary Officers (London) Regulations, 1951. S.I. No. 1021. Sanitary Inspectors (Change of Designation) Act, 1956. AIRCRAFT Public Health (Aircraft) Regulations, 1952 and 1954. S.I. 1952, No. 1410; 1954, No. 674. ALIENS Aliens Order, 1953. S.I. No. 1671. Ministry of Health Instructions to Medical Inspectors, 1955. ANIMALS Export Cattle Protection Order, 1957, S.I. No. 170. Export Cattle Protection (Amendment) Order. 1957. S.I. No. 1254. CANAL BOATS Public Health Act, 1936. CONSTITUTION OF THE AUTHORITY Public Health (London) Act, 1936. CREW ACCOMMODATION Public Health (London) Act, 1936. Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations, 1953. S.I. No. 1036. DANGEROUS DRUGS Dangerous Drugs Regulations, 1953. FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926. Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations, 1955. S.I. No. 1673. FOOD Public Health (Preservatives, etc. in Food) Regulations, 1925 to 1948. S.R. & 0. 1925, No. 775; 1926, 1557; 1927, No.577; 1940, No. 633; 1948, No. 1118. Public Health (Imported Milk) Regulations 1926. S.R. & 0. No. 820. Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations, 1937 and 1948. S.R. & 0. 1937, No. 329; S.I. 1948, No. 886. 31 APPENDIX V DOCKS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY Dock Group Docks Water Area Acres Lineal Quayage Miles I London 34 3 St. Katharine 10 1 Regent's Canal 11 ½ II Surrey Commercial 135 8 III West India 97 4 East India 23 1 Millwall 35 2 IV Royal Victoria 85 4 Royal Albert 84 3 King George V 64 3 V Tilbury 106 4 FOOD (Contd.) Food and Drugs (Whalemeat) Regulations, 1949 and 1950. S.I. 1949, No. 404; 1950, No. 189. Food and Drugs Act, 1955. Food Hygiene Regulations, 1955 and 1957. S.I. 1955. No. 1906; 1957, No.2157 Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1957. S.I.No. 1066 Antioxidant in Food Regulations, 1958. S.I. No. 1454. FUMIGATIONS Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Ships) Regulations, 1951. S.I. No. 1760. Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Buildings) Regulations, 1951. S.I. No. 1759. HOUSEBOATS Public Health (London) Act, 1936. City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1933, Part III, Sections 6 and 7. INFECTIOUS DISEASE Public Health (London) Act, 1936. Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1952 and 1954. S.I. 1952, No. 1411; S.I. 1954, No. 675. Public Health (Infectious Disease) Regulations, 1953. S.I. No. 299. RATS AND MICE Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1952 and 1954. S.I. 1952, No. 1411 ; S.I. 1954,No. 675. Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949. Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) Order, 1951. S.I. No. 967. Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1956. Poison Rules, 1958, SHELLFISH Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934. S.R. & 0. No. 1342. Order dated 23rd April, 1936 made by the Port Health Authority under the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 in respect of a "prescribed area" in Essex. Order dated 25th July, 1957 made by the Port Health Authority under the Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 in respect of a "prescribed area" in Kent Medway (Shellfish)Regulations, 1935, S.R. * 0. No. 1221. SMOKE ABATEMENT Public Health (London) Act, 1936. Clean Air Act, 1956. BYE-LAWS Bye-laws have been made by the Port Health Authority: 1. For preven.ing nuisances arising from barges or vessels carrying offensive cargoes. 2. For removing to hospital any person suffering from dangerous infectious diseases, and for the keeping therein of such persons as long as may be deemed necessary. 3. With respect to houseboats used for human habitation within the limits of the Port ol London. 32