Ac 4369 ac PLON 79 CORPORATION OF LONDON PORT HEALTH AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH TO 31st DECEMBER, 1971. To be presented 2nd November 1972. CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION 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", and the Port Health district is further defined by the Act as the "Port of London as established for the purposes of the law relating to the Customs of the United Kingdom" and by the Public Health Act, 1936 as "the Port as established for the purposes of the enactments relating to the Customs". The Public Health (London) Act 1936 was repealed by the London Government Act 1963 but Section 89 (1) of that Act defined the Port of London as "the Port of that name established for the purposes of the enactments relating to customs or excise." In accordance with the provisions of the London Port Health Authority Order 1965 made under Section 41 (1) of the London Government Act 1963 the Corporation of London shall have jurisdiction as Port Health Authority- (a) as respects functions, rights and liabilities of a local authority under the enactments mentioned in Part I of Schedule I of the Order over all waters within the Port and over such part of the district of any riparian authority as comprises the whole of any wharf and of the area within the gates of any dock and the buildings thereon respectively, forming part of or abutting upon the Port. (b) as respects any other functions, rights and liabilities assigned to them, within the Port (The Port of London established for the purposes of the enactments relating to customs or excise.) The limits of the Port of London for the purposes of the enactments relating to customs or excise were 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 I wade 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. Following upon the extension of the area of jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority by the Port of London Authority (Extension of Seaward Limit) Act 1964 the area of jurisdiction of the Corporation of London as Port Health Authority was similarly amended by Section 31 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1965 which added at the end of the definition of "Port of London" in Section 89 (1) of the London Government Act 1963 the following words: "together with all such waters between the seaward limit of the Port as so established and imaginary straight lines drawn from latitude 51° 37' 00" north, longitude 00° 57' 19" east (Foulness Point in the County of Essex) to latitude 51° 46' 05" north, longitude 01° 20' 32" east (Gunfleet Old Lighthouse) and thence to latitude 51° 26' 36" north, longitude 01° 25' 30" east and thence to latitude 51° 24' 55" north, longitude 00° 54' 21" east (Warden Point in the County of Kent) as are for the time being within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions." The Port of London Authority with which the Port Health Authority works in close co-operation 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. PORT AND CITY OF LONDON HEALTH COMMITTEE (as at 31st December, 1971) Chairman Henry Duckworth, J.P., Deputy Late Chairman Christopher Selwyn Priestley Rawson, J.P. Aldermen Sir Denys Colquhoun Flowerdew Lowson, Bt., M.A. Alan Pearce Greenaway Lindsay Roberts Ring Robin Danvers Penrose Gillett, R.D. Commoners Edwin Stephen Wilson Richard Christopher Larkins Charvet, R.D. Arthur Patrick Mills Samuel Sheppard, O.B.E. Esmond Richard Roney Thomas Cuthbert Harrowing, Deputy Christopher Selwyn Priestley Rawson, J.P. Dudley Recknell Clack Ivor Bowen, C.M.G., M.Sc. Thomas Ernest Chester Barratt, C.B.E., M.A., LL.B., Deputy Eric Frederick Wilkins, C.B.E., Deputy Sir Stanley Graham Rowlandson, M.B.E., J.P., G.L.C. Matthew Henry Oram, T.D., M.A. Dennis Gordon Fisher William Ian Baverstock Brooks Leslie Joseph Walshaw Smith Alan Francis Gordon Stanham, Deputy Henry Wimburn Sudell Horlock, M.A. Anthony Noel Eskenzi Stanley Edward Cohen, C.B.E. Dr. James Cope Alan Towers Traill, M.A. William Samuels, Deputy William Allan Davis Cyril Edward Bay I is Cyril Henry Murkin Ronald Arthur Ralph Hedderwick Herbert Twyneham Pike, Deputy Col. Frederick Arthur Sudbury, O.B.E., E.R.D., J.P. Sir Thomas Kingsley Collett, Kt., C.B.E., Deputy Lady Donaldson, J.P. To:- THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COMMONS OF THE CITY OF LONDON IN COMMON COUNCIL ASSEMBLED My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have the honour, as Medical Officer for the Port of London, to submit my Annual Report for the year ending 31st December, 1971. This Report has been prepared in accordance with the directive issued by the Secretary of State and contains the full details required by form Port 20. The year was one of further considerable change. Following the phased contraction in the number of traditional up River wharves and dock berths, including the closure of Surrey Commercial Dock, the transfer of shipping lines to facilities further down River has continued. There has been an improvement and expansion of the accommodation down river to meet demands associated with the growth of containerisation, unitisation, and larger bulk carriers as well as of transferred shipping. The implementation in 1970 of Devlin phase II, which extended the length of the working day of the Port, so that ships loaded and discharged cargoes between 07.00 hours and 21.00 hours, from Monday to Friday and on occasions during Saturday and Sunday, has necessitated the attendance of Port Health Inspectors to cover these additional hours. The Public Health (Ships) Regulations 1970 came into force on 1st January, 1971 and necessitated certain amendments to procedures. These are also detailed in the body of the Report, but mention should be made of the fact that they no longer refer to "quarantinable diseases"; instead reference is now made to "diseases subject to the international health regulations". A definition of "free pratique" has been introduced, a revision of regulation 15 (dealing with signals) has been carried out and the substitution of "infected area" for "infected local area". The Regulations have also been widened to cover the requirements of an international certificate of vaccination against cholera. During the year Members of the Port and City of London Health Committee continued the traditional practice of keeping in touch with the work of the Authority by visiting areas of the Authority at different times of the year. One official Committee visit was made to docks in addition to the Annual River Inspection. A paper read by Mr. A.H. Marshall, F.A.P.H.I. on the occasion of the Association of Sea and Air Port Health Authorities of the British Isles Annual Conference at Southwark is added as an appendix. I wish to express my appreciation of the invaluable assistance which has been given by the numerous individuals and organisations whose work is so closely allied with ours in the Port. The co-operation which is displayed is of the utmost importance in carrying out the multitude of operations in which we are involved. I have the honour to be, Ladies and Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, W.G. SWANN, M.D., B.Sc., Medical Officer of Health, Port and City of London. 2 SECTION 1 - STAFF (As at 31st December, 1971) TABLE A Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Commenced Service Any Other Appointment held MEDICAL STAFF W.G. SWANN, M.D., B.Ch., B.A.O., D(Obst), R.C.O.G., D.P.H., B.Sc., D.P.A., F.R.I.P.H.H. Medical Officer of Health January, 1964 Principal School Medical Officer and Director of Social Services City of London Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants D.T. JONES, B.Sc., M.B., B.Ch. M.F.C.M., D.C.H., D.P.H., D.C.T. Deputy Medical Officer of Health March, 1958 Deputy Medical Officer City of London Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants A.E.L. de THIERRY, M.A., M.B., B.Chir., D(Obst), R.C.O.G., D.P.H. Medical Officer March, 1967 Medical Officer City of London Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants W.T. ROUGIER CHAPMAN, V.R.D., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Senior Assistant Port Medical Officer January, 1962 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants G.W. ASTON, L.M.S.S.A. Assistant Port Medical Officer October, 1962 ditto R.G.S. WHITFIELD, D.S.C., B.A., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. Assistant Port Medical Officer (Part-time) December, 1966 ditto R.F. ARMSTRONG, L.R.C.P., L.R.C.S., Ed., L.R.F.P.S., Glas. ditto June, 1963 ditto R.M. BEST, M.B., B.S., (Lond.) ditto April, 1964 ditto J.V.M. HESLOP. M.B.. Ch.B. ditto September, 1971 ditto K.C. MORRIS, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. ditto September, 1967 - J .A. JONES, M.B., Ch.B., D.P.H. Consultant in Infectious Disease and Quarantine Procedures April, 1935 - W.T.G. BOUL, M.B.E., M.D., Ch.B., D.P.H. ditto March, 1957 Medical Inspector of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants Occasional Medical Inspectors of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants. DR. D.J. AVERY DR. D.W. KEYS DR. W. STOTT DR. P.J.R. WALTERS VETERINARY OFFICERS G.S. WIGGINS, M.R.C.V.S., Veterinary Officer October, 1964 F.R.S.H. J.A. MORRIS, M.R.C.V.S. Veterinary Officer (Part-time) April, 1965 PUBLIC ANALYST Mr. W.B. CHAPMAN, B.Sc., M.Chem.A., M.Ph.A., F.R.I.C., F.I.F.S.T. DEPUTY PUBLIC ANALYST Mr. E.H.W.J. BURDEN, B.Sc., M.Chem.A., F.R.I.C., F.I.F.S.T. (Public Analyst services are provided for the Corporation by the Scientific Branch of the Greater London Council.) AGRICULTURAL ANALYST Dr. J.H. HAMENCE, O.B.E., Ph.D., M.Sc., M.Chem.A., F.R.I.C. DEPUTY AGRICULTURAL ANALYST P.S. HALL, B.Sc., M.Chem.A., F.R.I.C. 3 Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Commenced Service Any Other Appointment held ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF (Port and City of London) R.C. RATLIFF Chief Clerk March, 1930 — E.V. SMITH Deputy Chief Clerk October, 1938 — F.B. OSBORN, D.M.A., First Assistant Clerk May, 1952 — M.I.L.G.A., M.R.S.H. R.H. COLLINS, M.R.I.P.H.H., Principal Assistant January, 1963 L.M.R.S.H. Mrs. D.M. SHEPHERD Principal Assistant April, 1965 _ D.J. FLOOD Senior Assistant March, 1963 R.G. RUTTER Senior Assistant July, 1968 — S.C. DARLISON Senior Assistant April, 1964 — R.G. FARRELL Senior Assistant July, 1965 — Miss M.L. GURNEY First Class Assistant May, 1939 — R.G. HEMING First Class Assistant August, 1965 — J.G. COX First Class Assistant August, 1970 — P.J. JARVIS First Class Assistant July, 1971 — Mrs. I.H. HAMBLIN First Class Assistant October, 1957 — Miss M.J. GOOLD General Grade Assistant October, 1969 — Mrs. E.J.A. MORROW General Grade Assistant March, 1968 — Miss L. MOWBRAY General Grade Assistant November, 1970 — M.L. GORE General Grade Assistant June, 1970 — Mrs. J. LINE General Grade Assistant March, 1971 — 1 VACANCY ditto — — Mrs. J. GRAHAM Clerical Assistant (Temporary) August, 1971 - J.T. HADLEY, A.M.R.S.H. Senior Asst. (Diseases of Animals Act) December, 1964 — Mrs. W.A.A. SCOFIELD Clerical Asst. (Diseases of Animals Act) August, 1967 - Miss B. LOVATT Shorthand Typist November, 1969 — Miss L. SHARMA Shorthand Typist July, 1970 — Mrs. P. LAWSON Copy Typist August, 1970 - 1 VACANCY Shorthand Typist — — H.T. LLOYD Senior Messenger/Driver November, 1968 — J.A. LAMBERT Messenger/Driver November, 1968 — G.HAMMOND Messenger/Driver March, 1968 PORT HEALTH INSPECTORS A.H. MARSHALL, F.A.P.H.I. Chief Port Health Inspector March, 1953 — L.N. TOPE, M.A.P.H.I. Deputy Chief Port Health Inspector August, 1946 — A.C. GOOD, J.P., M.R.S.H. Divisional Port Health Inspector September, 1951 — P.A. TRAYNIER, F.R.S.H., M.A.P.H.I. Divisional Port Health Inspector October, 1950 _ W.C.B. GILHESPY, M.A.P.H.I. Divisional Port Health Inspector January, 1960 — A. GAME, M.A.P.H.I. Divisional Port Health Inspector August, 1961 — W.M. WALKER Senior Port Health Inspector October, 1954 — A.W. BUCHAN, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector July, 1955 — J .A. STOKER, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector June,1963 — P.G. PRITCHARD, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector June,1965 — J.C. STRACHAN, M.A.P.H.I. Senior Port Health Inspector June, 1968 — F. SPENCER Port Health Inspector March, 1957 — R.W. GWYER, M.R.S.H., Port Health Inspector March, 1960 — M.A.P.H.I. J.I. ECKERSALL Port Health Inspector June, 1966 G.J. BULL Port Health Inspector June,1967 — W.R. LEECH, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector June,1969 — J.D. EDWARDS, M.A.P.H.I. Port Health Inspector June, 1969 — A.E. TERRIBILE Port Health Inspector June, 1969 — A.M. GIBBS-MURRAY, Port Health Inspector June,1970 — M.A.P.H.I. 4 VACANCIES _ R.H. HEAD Meat Inspector January, 1964 — 1 VACANCY — — — K.B. WILSON Technical Assistant December, 1968 — (Authorised) DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT G.S. WIGGINS, M.R.C.V.S., F.R.S.H. Veterinary Officer October, 1964 - J.A. MORRIS, M.R.C.V.S. Veterinary Officer (Part-time) April, 1967 - R.J. HAYHURST, D.F.C. Senior Inspector October, 1964 — K.W. KING, A.M.R.S.H. Inspector April, 1966 - V.O. GUBBINS Inspector (Part-time) April, 1965 - STUDENT HEALTH INSPECTORS G.S. HAYNES Student Health Inspector September, 1968 - B.F. ADAMS Student Health Inspector September, 1970 — K.E. HOLLOWAY Student Health Inspector September, 1971 — A.J. REGAN Student Health Inspector September, 1971 — P.J. DURRANT Student Health Inspector November, 1971 - RODENT CONTROL STAFF Technical Assistants W.G. STIMSON, L.M.R.S.H. Chief Technical Assistant February, 1946 — C. STOCKTON Senior Technical Assistant June, 1940 — D.J. DAVIS Senior Technical Assistant August, 1941 — A.T. EVANS Senior Technical Assistant January, 1953 — H.A. BAXTER Technical Assistant/Class I June, 1945 — G.CLARK Technical Assistant/Class I January, 1949 — A.L. SOUTHWOOD Technical Assistant/Class I January, 1949 — C.E.W. EASTMAN Technical Assistant/Class I April, 1954 — J.W.R. KENNEDY Technical Assistant/Class I December, 1963 — P.F. CARTER Technical Assistant/Class I March, 1966 3 VACANCIES - - Rodent Control Scheme H. BROWN Technical Assistant/Class II August, 1966 — D.S. SOUTHWOOD Technical Assistant/Class II June, 1969 — A.D. FARRANT Technical Assistant/Class II June, 1969 - R.G. BUNGAY Technical Assistant/Class II September, 1969 — M. WHITLOCK Technical Assistant/Class II June, 1971 - 4 Name of Officer Nature of Appointment Commenced Service Any Other Appointment held LAUNCH CREWS C.R. SIMONS Navigator (Senior) August, 1938 — W.G.A. KING Navigator (Dep. Senior) September, 1939 — M.J. EAST Navigator September, 1954 — R.H. SIMMONS Navigator November, 1960 — W.M. McKEE Navigator January, 1967 — A. RUSSELL Navigator August, 1961 — W.T.S. PARKINSON Navigator June, 1966 — K. GITTENS Engineer (Senior) January, 1955 - R.N. WALKER Engineer (Dep. Senior) April, 1964 — W. SIMMONS Engineer May, 1955 — B.JACOBS Engineer April, 1956 — C. HOLLMAN Engineer December, 1969 — A.R.L. POTTER Deckhand July, 1945 — E.ALEWOOD Deckhand January, 1947 — D. KIELL Deckhand February, 1965 — P. RAYNER Deckhand November, 1960 — D. SIMMONS Deckhand December, 1963 — S. HOLMES Deckhand March, 1967 — V.T. COOK Deckhand January, 1969 — D.L. WEBSTER Deckhand September, 1968 — K.J. SPILLETT Deckhand October, 1968 — R.R. HOPKINS Deckhand December, 1969 — P. CORNELIUS Deckboy September, 1968 - I.J. ARROWS Deckboy December, 1969 — K.J. STAMMERS Deckboy December, 1969 — T.P. REGAN Deckboy December, 1969 — A.W. SPILLETT Deckboy May, 1970 — E. HAYES Deckboy June, 1970 — K. PLATT Deckboy August, 1971 - LAUNCHES - "ALFRED ROACH" "HUMPHREY MORRIS" "VICTOR ALLCARD" Date acquired 1948 1962 1965 Medical Officer of Health, P.O. Box 270, Guildhall, London, EC2P 2EJ. 01-606 3030. 5 SECTION II AMOUNT OF SHIPPING ENTERING THE DISTRICT DURING THE YEAR TABLE B Ships from *Number *Net 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 * * 965 11,412 37 Coastwise * * 31 1,131 4 Total * * 996 12,543 41 *Figures not available at time of going to press. SECTION III CHARACTER OF SHIPPING AND TRADE DURING THE YEAR TABLE C Passenger Traffic-foreign travel only Number of Passengers — Inwards 92,805 Number of Passengers - Outwards 88,707 Cargo Traffic Principal Imports All types of produce and Principal Exports merchandise 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 The trend of the last few years,which has seen a decline inthe lighterage industry on the River Thames, continued during the year. The Port of London Authority registered a total of 2,508 lighters, with an aggregate tonnage of 271,430 tons, during the year. These lighters, by way of creeks and canals, operate throughout the Port and its environs. They include general purpose cargo carriers and craft which are specially designed for the carriage of bulk liquid and refrigerated cargoes. Some of the lighters used for carrying refrigerated cargo are fitted with refrigeration plant and the bulk liquid carriers have steam heating coils incorporated in their tanks. Control of the carriage of food in lighters, barges and other vessels is provided by the provisions of the Food Hygiene (Docks, Carriers, etc.) Regulations 1960. A watch is kept on lighters used for the carriage of foodstuffs, so as to eliminate, as far as possible, any contamination of food during its transportation in these craft. During the year 152 general cargo lighters and 126 refrigerated lighters were inspected for cleanliness of the holds prior to loading food cargoes. SECTION V WATER SUPPLY 1. Source of supply for: (a) The district- All the docks in the Greater London area obtain their water supplies from the Metropolitan Water Board. Tilbury Dock is supplied by the Essex Water Company. The majority of the wharves are supplied by Public Water Authorities within whose area of jurisdiction they are situated though several wharves have their own deep wells. A few wharves have no water supplies available for shipping, in which case water required can be obtained from water barges.. 6 (b) Shipping- Ships not able to obtain water from the shore supplies indicated above, or ships lying at buoys in the river, can obtain supplies from water barges. Shipping at the Isle of Grain and Tower Wharf obtain their supplies from The Medway Water Board, Sheerness from the Sheerness Harbour Estate and the Havens from The Essex Water Company. 2. Reports of tests for contamination. The bacteriological examination of fresh water samples is carried out by St. Andrew's Hospital, while the Public Health Laboratory at Maidstone examines samples from the Medway area. There were seven reports of contamination in samples drawn from hydrants durinq the year which were discovered as a result of routine sampling. In each case the supply of water to shipping was withheld until a potable standard was achieved. There were two reports of contamination in samples derived from standpipes and forty-five reports of contamination in samples drawn from the ends of delivery hoses used to supply ships. The cause of the contamination of standpipes and supply hoses, which was also discovered during the course of routine sampling, was investigated as a matter of normal procedure. Included in the figures were twelve suspicious/unsatisfactory samples from the water supply at a jetty which supplies foreign going ships. The supply of water to ships was prohibited and a new supply line is being installed. When the work is complete and satisfactory samples are obtained the fresh water supply to ships will be resumed. No ship was supplied with 'unfit' water but ten samples from water barges were found to be unsatisfactory or suspicious. There were nineteen reports of contamination in the distribution supplies on board ships. These samples were drawn mainly from fresh water taps over galley and messroom sinks. The source of supply to these taps is derived from "domestic fresh water storage" contained in double bottoms and peak tanks. One sample of fresh water drawn directly from a storage tank was found to be unfit for drinking. The possible sources of contamination in the cases of the domestic supply were investigated. The most likely causes were considered to be the possible introduction of contaminated water or the incorrect use of engineroom pumps used in the filling or topping up of the fresh water gravity feed tanks or the transfer of fresh water for the purpose of adjusting the stability of the trim of the ship. In each case the standard practice of cleaning followed by chlorination of the tanks and supply lines was adopted. Due regard is paid to the co-operation this Authority has received from other United Kingdom and Continental Ports through the interchange of adverse fresh water sampling reports in respect of those ships where some degree of contamination in the fresh water on board was discovered subsequent to departure for another United Kingdom or Continental Port. This interchange of information enables follow-up visits to be made by the Port Health Authorities concerned and enables remedial measures to be taken before the ship sails. 84% of the samples were "satisfactory", "good" or "excellent" as shown in Table 2. The number of "unfit", "unsatisfactory" and "suspicious" samples, however, indicates the importance of continual checks on the fresh water supplies to shipping. 3. Precautions taken against contamination of hydrants and hosepipes. The supply of fresh water from shore to ships CODE OF PRACTICE "Equipment All components should be kept clean and maintained exclusively for this purpose. Equipment should be kept in a properly appointed store and transported to and from the watering point in a suitable and covered truck. No equipment other than that especially provided for this purpose should be used for supplying fresh water. All hoses should be lined with rubber internally. Every precaution should be taken to preserve the clean condition of the hose during the watering operation. Those components taken to the watering point and not required should be left in the truck. 7 Watering Points These points should be clearly identified by a number at the site and the hydrant-pit cover given a durable and conspicuous coat of paint. The permanent hydrant-pit covers should be watertight and, when the hydrant is being used, a closely fitting temporary cover should be available to allow for a standpipe and to shelter the hydrant-pit. All hydrant-pits should be effectively drained, rendered with a smooth and light-coloured surface, and always kept in a clean condition. The hydrant discharge should always be effectively capped when not in use. Operation Connections at the hydrant and on the ship should be supervised by an authorised officer. Standpipes should be used at the hydrant and hoses kept clear of quay and dock water. All connections at the ship must be made in order to avoid any possibility of back-syphonage from the ship installation to the shore mains supply. In any circumstances where a closed-connection must be made on the ship, an effective non-return device should be incorporated in the supply equipment to safeguard against backsyphonage. The water supply equipment should always be adequately flushed through before allowing the supply to enter the ship's filling lines. As far as practicable, the supply of fresh water should be supervised by an authorised person. Any contaminated equipment should not be used until it has been suitably cleansed." 4. Number and sanitary conditions of water boats and powers of control by the Authority. There are eleven water boats purveying fresh water to shipping within the District and all are maintained in a satisfactory sanitary condition. Fifty samples were drawn during the year from tanks, standpipe and delivery hose ends. The power to close, or restrict the use of water from a polluted source of supply, contained in Sections 140 and 141 of the Public Health Act 1936 was assigned to the Authority by the London Port Health Authority Order, 1965. TABLE 1 FRESH WATER SUPPLY SAMPLES - SUMMARY 1971 HYDRANTS STAND PIPES DELIVERY HOSE ENDS Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell. Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell. Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell TOTALS Surrey Docks 1 2 12 3 18 India Docks 4 2 6 66 1 2 2 6 13 102 Royal Docks 4 1 13 2 24 8 15 3 70 Tilbury Docks 1 45 14 2 8 1 1 6 4 2 84 River Districts 2 5 2 23 9 4 2 1 9 2 6 6 71 Medway 1 3 1 5 2 5 7 73 24 2 8 91 7 4 41 25 49 12 350 Water Barges TANKS STAND PIPES DELIVERY HOSE ENDS 1 3 4 14 1 4 2 6 2 11 2 50 GRAND TOTAL 400 8 TABLE 2 FRESH WATER SUPPLY SAMPLE TOTALS & PERCENTAGES Unfit Unsat. Suspic. Satis. Good Excell Totals Hydrants 2 5 7 73 24 111 Stand Pipes 2 8 91 7 108 Delivery 4 41 25 49 12 131 Hose Ends Water Barges 1 9 6 29 5 50 Totals 7 57 46 242 48 400 Percentages 1.75% 14.25% 11.5% 60.5% 12% 100% 84% Distribution aboard ships- Of 66 samples drawn in the crew and passenger accommodation and galleys on board ships:- 11 were excellent 23 were good 13 were satisfactory 19 were suspicious Storage aboard ships - Of 4 samples drawn direct from ships storage tanks:2 were good 1 was satisfactory 1 was unsatisfactory Port Installations - Of 123 samples drawn from dock offices, dock canteens, drinking fountains, etc:- 20 were excellent 85 were good 9 were satisfactory 9 were suspicious River Thames Passenger Launches- 68 samples were drawn under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1970 from licensed bar taps and storage tanks on board River Thames passenger launches:— 10 were excellent 22 were good 10 were satisfactory 22 were suspicious 4 were unsatisfactory Standards used in the Port of London— Quality Plate count per ml. Coliforms per 100 ml. Excellent Nil Nil Good Less than 100 Nil Satisfactory Less than 300 Nil Suspicious More than 300 Less than 5 Unsatisfactory More than 300 More than 5 Unfit — More than 5 and including faecal coli. SECTION VI - PUBLIC HEALTH (SHIPS) REGULATIONS 1970 1. List of Infected Areas (Regulation 6) - Arrangements for the preparation and amendments of the list, the form of list, the persons to whom it is supplied and the procedure for supplying it to those persons. This Regulation is complied with in such a way that Pilots, Customs Officers and Ships' Masters may be in no doubt as to their duties. The general areas in which quarantinable diseases may be found are set out in the Directions and Requirements printed with the International Maritime Declaration of Health. Any variation in these areas is notified immediately by telephone and confirming letter to Trinity House and the Collector of H.M. Customs & Excise. 9 The Directions and Requirements on pages 3 and 4 of the Declaration of Health (applying only to the Port of London) on December 31, 1971 were as follows:— "PUBLIC HEALTH (SHIPS) REGULATIONS, 1970 DIRECTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS These directions and requirements are made by the Medical Officer of Health for the Port and City of London in pursuance of the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1970 and compliance therewith is required by virtue of Regulation 36 of the said Regulations. TO THE MASTER OF ANY SHIP APPROACHING THE PORT OF LONDON FROM A FOREIGN PORT 1. You should ascertain the state of health of all persons on board. 2. If you have any doubts or difficulties over Port Health Regulations you should obtain advice direct from the Port Medical Officer, through the Thames Navigation Service (V.H.F. R/T). It is also possible for ships without V.H.F. R/T to consult the Medical Officer through North Foreland Radio Station. 3. You must complete, sign and deliver the foregoing Maritime Declaration of Health unless your ship has during the last four weeks been only to excepted ports, namely, ports within the territory of Belgium, Metropolitan France, Greece, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and has not met a ship from a foreign port other than an excepted port or has already been cleared at a port in the United Kingdom. Make sure that all parts, including the Schedule, are completed and that it is countersigned by the ship's surgeon if one is carried. 4. If:- (1) the answer to all the questions on page 1 is "no"; (2) your ship has NOT during the last four weeks been in any port in all Asia, Africa (including transit through the Suez Canal), the Americas (excluding the U.S.A., Canada and transit through the Panama Canal) or any area infected with plague, cholera, yellow fever or smallpox (a list of such places is available from the Port Medical Officer - See 2 above; and (3) your ship has not during the last four weeks met a ship from such a port or area, your ship will not normally be boarded by a doctor, and you need not send a radio signal to to the Port Health Authority, but you must show the following signals:— (a) between sunrise and sunset the international flag signal "Q" flown at the mast head or where it can best be seen from the shore; and (b) between sunset and sunrise a signal consisting of a red light over a white light. These lights should only be about 2 metres (six feet) apart and should be visible all round the horizon as nearly as possible. Such signals to be shown from No. 1 Sea Reach Buoy (or No. 1 Mucking Buoy if berthing up-river of that Buoy) until the ship is granted free pratique in writing by an authorised officer of the Port Health Authority or by an officer of H.M. Customs. 5. If the answer to any question on page 1 is "Yes" OR if your ship has, during the last four weeks, been in any port in all Asia, Africa (including transit through the Suez Canal), the Americas (excluding the U.S.A., Canada, and transit through the Panama Canal) or any area infected with plague, cholera, yellow fever or smallpox, or has met a ship from such a port or area, you will need health clearance by the Boarding Medical Officer and you must (A) send a RADIO MESSAGE to "PORTELTH LONDON" stating (1) the name of the Ship, (2) the expected time of arrival at No. 1 Mucking Buoy. If your ship is berthing or anchoring below No. 1 Mucking Buoy, give the expected time of arrival and the name of the berth or anchorage, (3) the age and sex of each person on board who is ill and your best estimate of what is wrong in each case. This message must be sent not more than 12 hours and whenever practicable not less than four hours before the expected time of arrival. (B) show the following signals:— (a) between sunrise and sunsetthe international flag signal "QQ" flown at the mast head or where it can best be seen from the shore; and (b) between sunset and sunrise a signal consisting of a red light over a white light. These lights should only be about two metres (six feet) apart, and should be visible all round the horizon as nearly as possible. Such signals to be shown from No. 1 Sea Reach Buoy (or No. 1 Mucking Buoy if berthing up-river of that Buoy) until the ship is granted free pratique in writing by an authorised officer of the Port Health Authority, or by an officer of H.M. Customs. (C) have a list of passengers and crew ready to hand to the Authorised Officer or an Officer of H.M. Customs giving addresses of immediate destination in the United Kingdom. 6.(a)If your ship is berthing up-river of No. 1 Mucking Buoy, and you require the attention of the Boarding Medical Officer(see para. 5), he will board, normally, in the Lower Hope Reach. To avoid delay to your ship you should: 10 (i) on sighting the doctor's launch, reduce speed sufficiently for it to come alongside, and (ii) between sunsetand sunrise show a white light over the port bow from No. 1 Mucking Buoy. Hand this Declaration to the doctor together with lists of names and destination addresses for all passengers and crew. You must not proceed up-river beyond Gravesend Pilot Station until your ship has been cleared by the doctor. (b)lf your ship is berthing down river of No. 1 Mucking Buoy health clearance may be given by radio telephone. If you desire this facility, speak to the Medical Officer through the Thames Navigation Service. 7. If your ship has been in any port in all Asia, Africa, (including transit through the Suez Canal) or the Americas (excluding the U.S.A., Canada and transit through the Panama Canal) during the last 14 days, OB any area infected with smallpox at any time during the same period, you must have ready for inspection by the Authorised Officer as soon as he boards your ship:— (a) a valid International Vaccination Certificate against Smallpox for each person on board (passenger or crew). or(b) a list, signed by you of all passengers and crew members, giving the date of last vaccination against smallpox for each person, as recorded in his certificate. (Provision of this list does not prejudice the Authorised Officer's right to inspect the actual certificates if he considers it necessary, but will help considerably to cut down delay in clearing the ship). NOTE: Regulation 18(1) of the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1970 states:- "On the arrival of a ship from any foreign port or from any infected area, or of a ship which has proceeded from an excepted port and which has met a ship which has proceeded from a foreign port other than an excepted port, no person other than a pilot, a customs officer, an immigration officer or an authorised officer shall, without the permission of the Medical Officer, board or leave the ship until free pratique has been granted, and the Master shall take all steps necessary to secure compliance with this provision." W.G. SWANN, Medical Officer of Health, Guildhall, London, EC2P 2EJ. Port and City of London." It is hoped to introduce, during 1972, a simplified "Guide" to Health Clearance in the Port of London in English, Spanish and German, which, whilst not covering all eventualities nor being a legal document will, it is hoped, be of assistance to Masters. 2. Radio Messages (a) Arrangements for sending permission by radio for ships to enter the district (Regulation 13) (b) Arrangements for receiving messages by radio from ships and for acting thereon (Regulation 14(1)(a) and (2). The Thames Navigation Service of the Port of London Authority has its Operation Room at Gravesend and keeps in contact with ships coming up the River Thames on radio frequencies allocated in accordance with international agreement. The Boarding vessels "HUMPHREY MORRIS", "VICTOR ALLCARD" and "ALFRED ROACH" are fitted with radio telephone equipment on the International frequencies, giving direct radiotelephone communication with shipping and with other river services including H.M. Customs. In addition, the Port Health Authority has its own radio telephone link between the Quarantine Station at Denton Hospital and the three launches. The London Port Health Authority is formally designated, by the Department of Health and Social Security, for the receipt and transmission of radio messages to and from ships prior to arrival in the District, under Regulation 12 of the Public Health (Ships) Regulations 1970. This is of particular importance, in view of the movement down river of the "centre of gravity" of the Port. More and more ships, including nearly all tankers, are berthing below Gravesend, and it is necessary that the Boarding Medical Officer on watch should be able to question the Master directly in order to determine whether action should be taken to clear the ship. Accordingly, a radio link has been set up from the Quarantine Station at Denton, which is connected by land line to the Operations Room of the Thames Navigation Service. By this means, the Boarding Medical Officer can talk to the Master before he enters the district and decide whether to allow him to go alongside, where further checks can be carried out by Customs Officers and by Port Health Inspectors, or to go down river and clear the vessel himself. Masters of ships approaching London from a Foreign Port, whether or not fitted with radio equipment for contacting the Thames Navigation Service, are still required to send a radio message to "Portelth London" giving expected time of arrival at Gravesend and particulars of any infectious disease on board. All such messages are received by the North Foreland Radio Station and then telephoned direct by the G.P.O. to the Boarding Medical Officer on duty at Denton Hospital. 11 At times when the Boarding Medical Officer is fully occupied, e.g. when there is a medical emergency or several ships to be visited urgently, or to avoid delay to a ship in exceptional circumstances, it is possible to check with the ship direct and with the co-operation of H.M. Customs arrange for "free pratique" to be granted immediately and without the ship being boarded by the Medical Officer. 3. Notifications Otherwise Than By Radio (Regulation 14(1)(b) In the event of a ship not being fitted with radio, display of the visual signals as set out in the Directions and Requirements would result in the appropriate action being taken. 4. Mooring Stations (Regulations 22 to 30) On arrival of an infected or suspected ship, or any other ship on which there has been during its current voyage and within the last four weeks before arrival, a case of disease subject to the International Health Regulations (cholera, including cholera due to the El Tor vibrio, plague, small pox, including variola minor (alastrim) and yellow fever), the medical officer may direct that the master take the ship to a "mooring station" so that the ship does not come into contact with other ships or the shore. It has been agreed with the Port of London Authority and the Waterguard Superintendent of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise that the Mooring Stations will be at suitable berths to be allocated by the Harbour Master as required. 5. Arrangements For— (a) Hospital accommodation for infectious diseases (other than Smallpox — see Section VII) Since Denton Hospital has been taken over by the South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board under the National Health Service Act, the Port Health Authority has continued to exercise, through the Senior Assistant Port Medical Officer, and the Assistant Port Medical Officers, the medical supervision of cases admitted to the hospital. The Nursing and administrative control lies with the Dartford Group Hospital Management Committee. Consultant advice is available through the Physician-Superintendent of Joyce Green Hospital, Dartford. Cases which are likely to require specialised treatment or laboratory investigation are sent direct, or via Denton Hospital, to Joyce Green Hospital or one of the larger hospitals in the Metropolis. If at all possible, cases of sickness are disembarked into one of the Port Health Authority's launches for conveyance to Denton Hospital, there to be admitted or else put into a waiting ambulance. Ships which are berthing at Tilbury Landing Stage can conveniently land sick cases there, either into a Port Health launch or into an ambulance. Should weather or other conditions make it inadvisable to land a case at Gravesend, the patient may be allowed by the Boarding Medical Officer to proceed up River in the ship to the dock, in which event arrangements are made with the Emergency Bed Service for the case to be removed by ambulance to a suitable hospital immediately the ship berths. (b) Surveillance and follow up of contracts In the event of a vessel arriving on which there has been a case of a major infectious disease, all persons on board are considered to be possible contacts. Each contact is interrogated and asked to give full details as to name and the proposed address in the United Kingdom to which he is proceeding immediately on disembarkation. If necessary these particulars, together with an appropriate note of the circumstances, are then forwarded to the Medical Officer of Health of the district in which the address of the contact is situated. The details obtained by direct verbal contact are written on carbonised paper so that one copy can be forwarded to the Medical Officer of Health of the area to which the passenger/crew member is proceeding and one copy retained for reference. Additionally, the contact is given a reply paid card(s) so that he can notify the authority of any change of address during the surveillance period. Each change is notified to the appropriate local authority. (c) Cleansing and disinfection of ships, persons, clothing and other articles Disinfection of infected quarters is usually arranged by the Port Health Inspector in whose area the vessel berths. If, however, the space requiring disinfection is large, a private firm is employed to carry out the disinfection under the supervision of the Port Health Inspector. By arrangement with the South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board and the Dartford Hospital Management Committee, the Disinfection Station at Denton Hospital is made available to the Port Health Authority for the disinfection of clothing, bedding, etc., and, if necessary, for the cleansing of persons. Arrangements have also been made for infected bedding from ships in the docks of the London Area to be sent to the disinfection station at Plaistow Hospital. 12 Very Large Crude Carriers (V.L.C.C.'s) Arrival figures of V.L.C.C.'s into the Port of London continued to increase over previous year, regardless of the fact that the Shellhaven refinery was severely damaged by fire during the latter half of the year. This necessitated the diversion of a number of vessels to other ports. Health clearance procedure continued without difficulty and this traffic produced no sickness of an infectious nature. Inspections of these vessels show that regardless of nationality they are of a very high standard and are well maintained. Summary of Movements 1971 (a) V.L.C.C.'s arriving after lightening at Lyme Bay — 5 (b) V.L.C.C.'s arriving after lightening at Seine Bay — 11 (c) V.L.C.C.'s arriving after lightening at Rotterdam — 25 Total Arrivals - 41 On seven occasions V.L.C.C.'s were lightened by vessels which then discharged in the port, the V.L.C.C. herself proceeding elsewhere, the lightening vessels presenting her Health Declaration on arrival in London. LIGHTER ABOARD SHIP DEVELOPMENTS ("LASH" SHIPS) This service continued throughout 1971 with little change in the pattern of trade. Twenty-five voyages were made by the same two vessels resulting in the import of some 100,000 tons to the Port of London. The main commodities continued to be woodpulp and linerboard but a consignment of 370 tons of rice became the first shipment of food for human consumption received through this service. Regular inspection of lighters upon completion of discharge for evidence of rodent infestation was maintained with negative results. The first vessel inaugurating a new Lash service is expected at Sheerness in March 1972. MEDICAL INSPECTIONS AT GRAVESEND The vessels cleared by R/T in the table below are mainly ships berthing below the Boarding Station. R/T clearance is given when it has been ascertained that all is well on board. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total No. of Vessels Boarded 75 73 85 82 79 69 93 86 82 99 95 78 996 No. of Vessels Cleared by R/T 14 13 12 11 21 21 20 36 26 21 34 25 254 No. of Passengers (Inc. Commonwealth and Alien Passengers) 57 19 42 96 3 15 9 9 4 13 1 1 269 No. of Crew Medically Inspected 15 4 11 13 11 7 4 5 4 1 _ 10 85 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 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 one of this Authority's ambulance-launches and conveyed ashore via the pontoon at Denton and from thence conveyed by road ambulance direct to Long Reach Hospital. 13 The Port Health Authority would be responsible for the vaccinal state of their ambulancelaunch crews, while the vaccinal state of the Road Ambulance personnel would be the concern of the ambulance authority, the Greater London Council. 3. Names of smallpox consultants available. Dr. W.T.G. Boul, M.B.E. Dr. A. Melvin Ramsey Dr. C.F.L. Hill (Bexley; Bromley; Greenwich and West Kent) Dr. G.D.W. McKendrick Dr. E. O'Sullivan Dr. J.C. McEntee Dr. J.C. Blake (Outer Kent) Dr. E.H. Brown Dr. J.D. Kershaw Dr. H.P. Lambert 4. Facilities for laboratory diagnosis of smallpox. Facilities are available at the Virus Reference Laboratory at the Central Public Health Laboratory, Colindale, N.W.9. SECTION VIII VENEREAL DISEASE Venereal Disease is not compulsorily notifiable to Medical Officers of Health, but efforts are made both by the Boarding Medical Officers and the Port Health Inspectors to bring to the notice of seamen using the port the facilities available for free treatment and the importance of obtaining skilled treatment as early as possible. A leaflet has been produced and is issued as appropriate. A copy is set out below. Small posters giving similar information are put up in suitable dock premises, with permission from the Port of London Authority, and in accordance with the requirements of the Indecent Advertisements (Amendment) Act, 1970. It is usually possible to arrange for a patient to be referred to the Seamen's Hospital or other suitable hospital in the vicinity of the ship. VENEREAL DISEASES ALBERT DOCK HOSPITAL Alnwick Road, E.16 Telephone 01-476 2234 Mon 2 pm - 4 pm Wed 2 pm - 4 pm Fri 2 pm - 4 pm DREADNOUGHT SEAMENS HOSPITAL Greenwich, S.E.10 Telephone 01-858 3433 Mon 5 pm Wed 5 pm Fri 5 pm GUY'S HOSPITAL London, S.E.1. Telephone 01-407 7600 Mon to Fri 9 am - 7 pm Sat 9 am - 12 noon SHEPPEY GENERAL HOSPITAL Sheerness Telephone Minster (Sheerness) 2116/7 Sat 11 am - 12 noon TILBURY HOSPITAL Telephone Tilbury 4510 Tue 9.30 am -12 noon Fri 12.30 pm - 3.30 pm THE LONDON HOSPITAL Whitechapel, E.1. Telephone 01-247 7310 Mon to Fri 10 am - 7 pm Sat 10 am - 3 pm WESTCLIFF HOSPITAL Southend on Sea Telephone Southend on Sea 44415 Mon 10 am - 1 pm Tue 10 am - 1 pm and 2 pm - 4 pm Wed 10 am - 12 noon Fri 4 pm - 6.30 pm SPECIAL TREATMENT CENTRE St. Bartholomew's Hospital, E.C.1. Telephone 01-606 7777 Mon 11 am - 1.45 pm and 4 pm - 6 pm Tue 11 am - 1.45 pm and 4 pm - 6 pm Thur 11 am- 1.45 pm Fri 11 am - 1.45 pm and 4 pm - 6 pm Sat 9.15 am - 11.15 am 22 Cobham Street, Gravesend Telephone Gravesend 3061 Tue 11 am - 1 pm Sat 9 am -10 am 36 New Road, Rochester Telephone Medway 43343 Mon 1.30 pm - 4.30 pm Thur 10.00 am - 1.00 pm No appointment necessary Treatment is free Complete Secrecy Ask at the outpatients for the Special Clinic ACT NOW - DELAY IS DANGEROUS 14 SECTION IX CASES OF NOTIFIABLE AND OTHER INFECTIOUS DISEASES ON SHIPS TABLE D Category: Cases landed from ships from foreign ports. No. of cases during the year. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Amoebiasis — 1 1 Chickenpox 1 2 3 *Enteritis/Gastro-enteritis - 2 2 Food poisoning (or suspected) - 2 2 Infective hepatitis - 2 2 Malaria - 3 2 Measles 1 - 1 Pneumonia 1 3 4 Rheumatic fever 1 — 1 Salmonellosis — 3 2 Tuberculosis — Pulmonary - 7 7 TOTALS 4 25 27 *One of these cases died in hospital. The P.M. investigations found that he died of malignant malaria. Category: Cases landed from coastwise arrivals. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Scabies — 1 1 Diarrhoea - 1 1 TOTALS 2 2 Category: Cases landed from River Craft. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned NIL NIL NIL NIL Category: Cases which have occurred on ships from foreign ports but have been disposed of before arrival. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Diarrhoea - 1 1 Gastro-enteritis — 14 1 Infective hepatitis - 1 1 Malaria — 1 1 Pneumonia — 1 1 Salmonellosis — 1 1 Tuberculosis — Pulmonary — 1 1 - Other — 1 1 Typhoid - 3 2 TOTALS - 24 10 Category: Cases which have occurred on ships arriving coastwise but have been disposed of before arrival. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Diarrhoea — 3 1 Tonsillitis - 1 1 TOTALS - 4 2 15 Category: Cases remaining on board after ship's arrival. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Food poisoning (or suspected) - 1 1 Gastro-enteritis - 3 3 Influenza - 1 1 Infective hepatitis - 2 2 Salmonellosis - 1 1 Scabies - 13 10 Shingles 1 - 1 Tonsillitis - 1 1 Venereal disease - 4 4 TOTALS 1 26 24 OTHER CONDITIONS ON SHIPS Category: Cases landed from ships from foreign Ports. Disease Passengers Crew No. of ships concerned Fractures/Bruises 5 5 10 Burns/Scalds — - - Cuts/Abrasions — 3 3 Coronary Disease (Fatal) 5 1 6 Coronary Disease (Non-Fatal) 4 1 5 Chest Pain 1 - 1 Cirrhosis of liver 1 — 1 Suspected Pleural Effusion — 1 1 Abdominal Pain - 4 Perianal Abscess — 1 1 Suspected Typhoid - 1 1 (Results Negative) Virus Infection — 1 1 Appendicitis - 2 2 Sudden death — 1 1 Feverish cold 1 — 1 Mental Illness — 2 2 High Temperature - 1 1 Death from apparent drowning 1 - 1 Collapse following operation - 1 1 Laryngitis - 1 1 Eosinophilia - 1 1 Tinea of arms and body — 1 1 TOTALS 18 28 46 Category: Cases landed from Coastwise arrivals. Disease Crew No. of ships concerned Fractures/Bruises 6 6 Burns/Scalds 2 1 Cuts/Abrasions — — Suspected Peritonitis 1 1 Foreign body in eye 1 1 Cerebral Haemorrhage 1 1 Perforated peptic ulcer 1 1 Stomach disorder 1 1 Minor Ailments 3 1 Hyperemesis Gravidarum 1 1 Bleeding per rectum 1 1 Body rash 1 1 Internal Bleeding 1 1 Abdominal pain 1 1 Bronchitis and cardiac arrhythmia 1 1 TOTALS 22 19 16 Category: Cases landed from River Craft. Disease Crew No. of ships concerned Haemoptysis 1 1 Fractures/Bruising 5 5 Cuts/Abrasions 4 4 Abdominal pains 1 1 Acute Tonsillitis 1 1 Unconscious following fall 1 1 TOTALS 13 13 INFECTIOUS DISEASES ON SHIPS ?Typhoid Fever A ship arrived at night on 25th July but prior to arrival it had been reported that two cases of typhoid fever had been landed en route to London. In view of this it was decided to take faecal and urine samples from all the crew and also to sample likely suspect food and also the water supply. Samples from the crew were taken on 26th July except for two members who had gone on leave from whom samples were obtained subsequently. Repeat samples were taken from the catering staff. Members of the crew who went on leave were kept under surveillance by their local medical officers. On 29th July it was reported that samples from two crew members were showing, respectively, Shigella Flexner and an unidentified Salmonella. By this time the vessel had sailed for Sicily. However, contact was made with the ship and the Medical Department of the Shipping Line, and the necessary treatment and preventive measures were set in train immediately. D iarrhoea/?Cholera A ship arrived on 10th August and no illness was reported. Subsequently the Master reported that illness had occurred but it had not been disclosed to him until after the ship berthed. The Boarding Medical Officer made enquiries and it transpired that three members of crew and the Master's wife, who was the Stewardess, had had diarrhoea during the voyage. The Stewardess's illness had lasted only twenty-four hours. The illnesses commenced within five days of leaving Spain. Accordingly, the Boarding Medical Officer instructed the Master to take the three members of the crew who still had diarrhoea to the Seamen's Hospital. Due to a misunderstanding, the Master went to the Albert Dock Hospital, where a Senior Port Health Inspector found him and his crewmen, shortly after the Casualty Officer had declared that on the basis of macroscopic examinations of stools, cholera could not be excluded. Consultations then took place as a result of which the following plan was put into operation:- (1) The three seamen were admitted to the Seamen's Hospital, Greenwich for investigation. (2) The rest of the crew were confined to the ship. (3) The dockers working the ship's cargo of steel were informed that a possibly infectious condition existed on board and were advised of the necessary precautions. They continued to work. (4) Faecal specimens were taken from all remaining crew members. (5) Suspect food stuffs and water were sampled and sent to the Public Health Laboratory at County Hall. (6) Disinfection measures particularly aimed at the fly population aboard the ship were put in hand. General cleaning was stepped up. (7) All fresh water on board was hyperchlorinated and pumped to waste. New water supplies were taken on from barges. (8) Patients bedding was disinfected. This thorough investigation made it possible to allow the ship to sail in the early hours of the next day (12th) for Karlstad in Sweden. Cholera was definitely excluded by bacteriological investigation of the patients, also on the 12th, and this information was passed to the Health Authority at Karlstad. Final bacteriological results showed only that the Master's son was excreting a Salmonella, but this could not be regarded as the cause of the outbreak. The samples of food and water were all negative. This information was also passed to Karlstad. 17 • This incident was an example of the "all or none law" which applies to quarantine work. Once the possibility of cholera was raised, medical staff had no choice but to act as if cholera were present, until proved otherwise. It is also an example of the way in which doctors and inspectors can carry out a complex investigation, and yet allow rapid turn round of a ship, by good communications and consultation. Gastro enteritis/?Cholera On the arrival of a ship on 24th October from Cadiz it was reported that an Assistant Steward had suffered several attacks of "diarrhoea" with stomach pains during the preceding 12 days. This despite some treatment with antibiotics during this time. In the circumstances it was decided to admit the man to Joyce Green Hospital for investigation. Unfortunately he was found to be drunk on admission and had rigors which were suspected to be due to delirium tremens. Consequently the examination of stool samples had to be delayed. In view of the history of the case and the previous ports of call of the ship it was decided to take faecal samples from all the crew. Samples of ship's water were also taken. The ship's Master had meant to sail within three days of arrival but fortunately had been delayed one day. This gave more time for investigations of the samples. Members of the crew who left the ship in London were "followed up" during this time. The results of laboratory examination of samples submitted proved negative for Salmonella, Shigella and Cholera and the water sample was satisfactory. These results came through on the day that the ship was due to sail as did the information that the member of crew was now well in hospital and examination of his samples showed no evidence of pathogenic organisms. Accordingly, the ship was given a "clean bill of health" and no further action was considered to be necessary. Malaria A ship arrived in London on 6th December and was held at Southend Anchorage. One member of crew was reported as being sick, so the Boarding Medical Officer went downriver and boarded the ship. He made a provisional diagnosis of malaria (malignant tertian). The man was landed to Joyce Green Hospital and the Ship then received pratique. On 10th December, whilst the ship was still anchored in Sea Reach a further case of sickness was reported and this second man was also provisionally diagnosed as a case of malaria (benign tertian). He, too, was landed to Joyce Green Hospital. Disinsection of the vessel was carried out and a daily surveillance routine established until the ship berthed at Shellhaven on 16th December. The provisional diagnoses were subsequently confirmed by the hospital. No further cases were reported but the ship was kept under supervision until she sailed. The origin of the illness would appear to have been mosquito bites in Port Harcourt on-21st November. This instance illustrates the problems inherent in such cases, where, despite advice and guidance men are not meticulous in attention to preventive measures. While human nature remains unchanged malaria will continue to be found on ships arriving in the U.K. Gastro-Enteritis probably caused by contaminated ship's stores Prior to the arrival of a ship in the Port of London on Saturday 4th December the Master radioed that three out of seven crew members were suffering from fever and diarrhoea. The ship had left Portugal on 30th November and the Portuguese authorities had declared the country free of cholera only a few days previously. Arrangements were made for the ship to be boarded by the duty Medical Officer and Port Health Inspector in the Lower Hope Reach. After careful medical examination and consideration of the epidemiological data available two of the three ill members of the crew were admitted to Joyce Green Hospital while the third member (the Master) remained on board. 18 Investigations on board were carried out into possible sources of infection and samples of cooked meats, milk and fresh water were taken. Arrangements were also made for faecal samples to be taken from the five members of crew left on board. The milk was of the "long life" type and had been obtained on the Continent one month before, along with the other stores. Fresh milk bought in Portugal had unfortunately all been consumed. The water aboard was a mixture of that taken on in Toulon and Avairo. The vessel was kept under daily surveillance until she sailed for Rochester, when the Port Medical Officer there was informed of the circumstances. On 7th December it was reported by the hospital laboratory that the sample submitted in respect of the Master was heavily contaminated with staphylococci, which can cause severe toxic food poisoning. The sample of unsmoked salami taken from the ship showed the same type of organism. It was also reported that a sample of the "long life" milk showed a heavy growth of coliform organisms, whilst the water sampled showed bacterial counts of over 1,000 per ml. The latter two findings, while not being pathogenic in themselves, are indicative of a high degree of contamination. The information was passed to the Port Medical Officer at Rochester as also was the fact that samples from the men in hospital had been found to be free from pathogens. The vessel left Rochester on 9th December. Details of the cases were passed to the Department of Health and Social Security together with information on the place and date of purchase of the food and the origin of the water in order that the facts could be reported to the respective countries of origin. This incident illustrates problems associated with small ships on short sea voyages. The ship can come from an area infected with a serious disease within the incubation period for that disease and can move on to two or three ports after landing a patient before laboratory examination of samples can provide evidence of the source of the illness. Efficient and rapid action at the port where the disease is first manifest must be followed by equally efficient and rapid communications with the other ports involved. SECTION X OBSERVATIONS OF THE OCCURRENCE OF MALARIA IN SHIPS Three cases of Malaria (seamen) were reported on ships during the year under review. This compares with one case in 1970. A notice giving advice on the Chief Precaution and Treatment of Malaria is issued by the Ministry of Transport and should be on board every British ship. MALARIA PREVENTION IN SEAMEN Arising from a report of a case of malaria occurring in a Seaman who missed six out of thirtyfive anti-malarial tablets whilst on a voyage which touched the West Coast of Africa and bearing in mind a similar case reported "a year before, it was decided to circulate all the major shipping companies advising them of the importance of ensuring that all crew members should take antimalarial precautions very seriously. Accordingly, in August a letter was sent in the following terms:— "Dear Sir, Malaria Prevention in Seamen Two cases of very serious forms of malaria have occurred recently in seamen who had been exposed to malarial mosquitoes for a comparatively short space of time and who were relatively careful about taking their anti-malarial pills. On one occasion the man had been ashore for only a few hours, and in the other case the man had missed only six out of 35 doses. It is apparent that the utmost importance must be attached to the education of all crew members to ensure that they take their anti-malarial therapy every day without fail. It should be emphasised in the course of this education that missing even a few days can result in contracting malaria to such a degree that the man's life may be threatened. I should be most grateful if you would consider setting the necessary educational work in progress on the ships of your Line. (Of course, the proper maintenance of anti-mosquito screens and other preventive measures should not be forgotten). Should there be any problems in which you feel I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know." Subsequently an article in the Communicable Disease Report No.CDR71/31 dated 6th August was received and dealt with the matter in a way which was pertinent to the letter circulated to all Shipping Companies. With the consent of the Editor of the Communicable Diseases Report, this article was circulated to those Companies previously written to and the article is set out below. 19 "PART I - SPECIAL REPORTS MALARIA During 1970, 101 cases of malaria were reported for inclusion in the Communicable Disease Report from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, including five deaths. It is the lethality of the disease rather than the likelihood of its spread which constitutes the danger, and is desirable that all physicians in this Country should be aware of the problem.Up to date in 1971 four deaths have occurred. It may be noted that in addition to intravenous therapy with antimalarial drugs in patients with cerebral malaria, a lifesaving measure is the use of dexa methasone (Woodruff, A.W. and Dickinson, C.J., 1968). No indigenous infection was reported in 1970. An analysis of the cases indicates the main type of circumstances in which patients contract malaria. Proper appreciation of the situation by the general practitioner and medical officer of health will enable adequate measures of prophylaxis to be recommended and early diagnosis and treatment of the disease to be effected. Detailed information was obtained in 68 of the 101 cases of malaria reported. Table 1 summarises the type of travellers who developed malaria on return to this country. As might be expected, the majority of cases occurred in long term (i.e. a year or more) residents abroad, and if service personnel are included, 57 per cent of the total come into this category. Only seven cases were in immigrants. About 10 per cent of the infections were probably relapses. It is worth noting that nine people apparently contracted the disease by being bitten by mosquitoes at an intermediate halt, and probably in such circumstances, the traveller thought it was unnecessary to take a prophylactic drug. Equally he might well deny having been ina malarious area when asked by his physician the question "where have you been?". Another type of case which may fail to be recognised is the school child who returnsfrom a short visit to parents in the tropics and exhibits fever during an epidemic of influenza at school. Table 2 gives the interval between return from abroad to the time of development of symptoms. About 10 per cent of cases show delayed incubation periods of six months or more. Fortunately this type of case excludes the malignant P. falciparum and, even if misdiagnosed at first, is unlikely to have severe consequences, for the other infections are almost never fatal. Table 3 shows the species of parasite concerned, and the probable place were the disease was contracted. The two most dangerous areas are seen to be West Africa and the Far East (particularly Malaysia). TABLE 1 Malaria cases reported to the Communicable Disease Report from England & Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland, 1970 CATEGORY P. vivax P. falciparum P. malariae P. ovale Not stated All types 1. SHORT VISITS ABROAD (a) School children visiting parents abroad 1 1 2 - 1 5 (b) Tourists 2 - 1 - - 3 (c) Business trips 1 4 1 — - 6 (d) Travellers in transit from non-malarious areas who call at malarious countries 2 6 1 - - 9 2. (a) Servicemen 9 1 — - - 10 (b) Other long-term residents abroad 10 13 4 1 - 28 3. Immigrants from malarious areas 1 5 - - 1 7 TOTAL FOR WHICH INFORMATION RECEIVED 26 30 9 1 2 68 20 TABLE 2 Interval — Return to UK to onset of malaria, 1970 P. vivax P. falciparum P. malariae P. ovale Not stated All types 1 month 2 14 1 - 2 19 1—5 months 11 3 2 - - 16 6 — 11 months 1 - 2 - - 3 1 Year + 3 - 1 - - 4 "Recent" 2 6 1 2 - 11 Not stated 19 26 2 1 - 48 TOTAL 38 49 9 3 2 101 Blood films from some patients in this series were sent to us for confirmation of the diagnosis of species. Misidentification was not infrequent; P. falciparum was mistaken for P. vivax (probably because the distilled water, used in staining, was not sufficiently on the alkaline side - pH 7.2 is optimum, and below 7.0 is very unsuitable — and the diagnostic Schiiffner's dots are then unstained), and P. ovale for P. vivax. It may be noted that prophylactic drugs are only fully effective against P. falciparum (and then only against drug-sensitive strains) the other infections are likely to relapse after long intervals. The epidemiology and nature of the disease varies so much from region to region that it is unwise to be dogmatic about methods of prophylaxis or treatment and local information should be sought wherever practicable. (Contributed by Professor P.C.C. Garnham and Mr. P.G. Shute, Malaria Reference Centre, Horton Hospital, Epsom, Surrey). Reference: Woodruff, A.W. and Dickinson, C.J. (1968) Brit. med. J. 3, 3." The response from shipping companies was encouraging. The Chief Medical Officer of the British Shipping Federation Ltd. was kept informed of the action taken and of the replies received. SECTION XI MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SHIPS INFECTED OR SUSPECTED FOR PLAGUE No ships infected with plague arrived during the year (one suspected case occurred in 1970). The Fourth Schedule to the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1970, reads as follows:— 21 TABLE 3 Malaria cases reported by type and country of infection, 1970 P. vivax P. falciparum P. malariae P. ovale Not stated All types West Africa 6 29 4 3 - 42 East and Central Africa 5 9 2 - 2 18 Africa (unspecified) - 2 - - - 2 Middle East 2 - - - - 2 India and Pakistan 3 - - - - 3 Afghanistan - - 1 - - 1 Far East 15 2 1 - - 18 Corsica 1 - - - - 1 Unknown 6 7 1 - - 14 TOTAL 38 49 9 3 2 101 Regulation 33 "SCHEDULE 4 ADDITIONAL MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO THE DISEASES SUBJECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS PART I - PLAGUE A. Infected ships and suspected ships (1) The Medical Officer may - (a) require any suspect on board to be disinsected and may 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 any rodent infected with plague on board the Medical Officer or other authorised 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 or when they contain only ballast or other material, unattractive to rodents, of such a nature or so disposed as to make a thorough inspection of the holds possible. A Deratting Exemption Certificate may be issued for an oil tanker with full holds; (b) one or more preliminary derattings of a 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 or other authorised Officer may apply any measure which he considers necessary to prevent the escape of infected rodents, including placing the ship in quarantine. (3) On arrival of a ship having on board a person suffering from pulmonary plague, or if there has been a case of pulmonary plague on board a ship within the period of six days before its arrival, the Medical Officer may - (a) carry out the measures set out in paragraph 1 of Part I of this schedule; (b) require any person on board to be placed in isolation for six days reckoned from the date of the last exposure to infection. B. Ships which have been in infected areas (4) The Medical Officer may- (a) place under surveillance any suspect who disembarks; the period of surveillance being reckoned from the date of the departure of the ship from the infected area; (b) regard as suspect any person not isolated for 6 days before departure from an area with an epidemic of pulmonary plague; (c) require, in exceptional circumstances and for well founded reasons, the destruction of rodents on the ship and disinsection, but he shall give the Master notice in writing of the reasons for the requirement." 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 pagel 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?" Any dead rats are immediately sent to the Central Public Health Laboratory at County Hall for examination for pasteurella pestis, each being accompanied by a label on which is given precise information as to where the rat was found in orderto pinpoint the focus of infection should the examination prove positive. 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. 22 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 per mitted 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 (i) Procedure for inspection of ships for rats The Port Health Authority employs an experienced and competent team of fifteen Technical Assistants, who exercise control measures on all ships and shore premises within the Port area under the supervision of the Port Health Inspectors. The Technical Assistant's first duty is to visit all ships arriving in his district as soon as possible after arrival and search for evidence of rodents. Priority is given to ships which have arrived from plague endemic areas. Further visits to these ships are made during the discharge of cargo to ascertain the degree of infestation on board, if any, and to ensure that reasonable measures are adopted to reduce the number of rodents on board to a negligible number and prevent any rodents escaping ashore. His second duty is the inspection of ships in his area for the specific purpose of issuing Deratting or Deratting Exemption Certificates or Rodent Control Certificates. His third duty is the inspection of shore premises and lighters for signs of rodent infestation. The Port Health Authority has continued to operate a Rodent Control Scheme inaugurated initially in July, 1941, covering all the docks and including all the premises of the Port of London Authority on behalf of that Authority and premises of tenants of the Authority on behalf of the occupiers. (jj) Arrangements for the bacteriological or pathological examination of rodents with special reference to rodent plague including the number of rodents sent for examination during the year. All dead rats to be examined for evidence of plague are promptly dispatched in cylindrical aluminium containers with a screw cap to the Public Health Laboratory at County Hall. Specimen rats are placed in polythene bags previously dusted with gammaxene powder to kill any parasites, labelled and placed inside the cylinder for delivery by hand. During the year forty-seven rats were sent to the Laboratory at County Hall and were examined for plague with negative results. A very unusual 'visitor' was trapped on board a vessel from Rangoon. It was sent to County Hall and examined for plague in the usual way. It was then forwarded to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Foods who confirmed that it was an Insectivore 'Suncus Murinus' (a common house shrew). The shrew has been preserved in their Library at Tolworth. (iii) 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 minimum period of 6 hours. This method is seldom used now in the Port of London. (b) The generation of hydrocyanic acid gas by various methods. For the destruction of rats a minimum concentration of H.C.N. at the rate of 2 ozs per 1,000 cubic feet of space is reauired with a minimum of two hours exposure. (c) Sodium-fluoroacetate ("1080 ") and "Warfarin". The employment of "1080" as a rodenticide has been regularly used throughout the docks for some time with highly satisfactory results. The prohibition on the use of "1080" and "1081" (Sodium Fluoroacetamide) except in ships and sewers, which was imposed in June 1965 was amended during the year 1970 to permit their use also in enclosed dock premises. A substantial number of ships have been deratted by "1080" in preference to the use of cyanide resulting in a considerable saving of time and cost to the ship owner. (d) Trapping. This method is seldom used except as an expedient to eliminate isolated rats and/or to secure specimens for the laboratory. (e) Methyl Bromide Methyl bromide is a gas at ordinary temperatures but can be liquefied by pressure, and it is in the liquid form in the cylinders in which it is usually distributed. 23 The gas is heavier than air, consequently heavy concentrations are often found at floor level in the early stages of a treatment. However, the gas is not difficult to disperse after an operation. Apart from this density effect, the gas has greater powers of penetration than most other fumigants in common use and this applies not only to penetration into commodities but also through walls and sealing materials. A high standard of maintenance and sealing is necessary in rooms to be used for fumigations using methyl bromide. The penetration powers of methyl bromide, the absence of smell, the lack of immediate symptoms of poisoning and the long term effect of poisoning, make it essential that adequate precautionary measures should be taken at all stages from the manufacture of the fumigant to the declaration of freedom from danger at the conclusion of operations. The precautionary measures and the additional precautions for the treatments of ships which are to be followed are laid down in a Home Office Pamphlet dated 1960. The fumigation of ships by methyl bromide, usually tor disinsection purposes, occurs only occasionally in the Port of London. The exposure to the gas depends on the concentration and on the period and purpose of the exposure. For example in the case of a ship with completely empty holds, 12 ozs of liquid per 1,000 cu. ft. for 12 hours would eradicate a rodent infestation in the holds, whereas a minimum concentration of 32 ozs per 1,000 cu. ft. for 24 hours would be required in the case of Khapra beetle infestation. The following are the names of the firms approved for carrying out the deratting of ships:— Contra-Pest Service Ltd. Rentokil Laboratories Ltd. (iv) Progress in Rat Proofing of Ships Lloyds Register of Shipping Statistical Tables 1970, show the ocean fleets of the World to be comparatively new, that is 57% are less than 10 years old. The introduction of rat proofing measures in ships first adopted by the Maritime nations some twenty years ago has become standard practice over the years and rat proofing of the vulnerable parts of the ship, for example the provision store room, is now almost always present. When the rat proofing is found to be defective, usually through non-replacement after refit, every endeavour is made to have it made good before the vessel sails. RODENT CONTROL MEASURES CARRIED OUT ON LIGHTERS Rodent control measures on lighters have been carried out successfully during the past year. Of the 3,545 lighters inspected for rodent indications, 2,707 were inspected on the Upper and Middle River Districts, the remaining 838 inspections being carried out in the respective dock groups. It will be noted by referring to the attached table that the degree of infestation is still decreasing. The following figures are very encouraging. Of the 3,545 lighters inspected 93.6% were found not to have any rodent evidence at all. Only 177 rats were recovered after treatment of the remaining lighters and the average rats recovered per lighter treated was 1.9. The methods of de-ratting employed throughout the year were:- Fumigation Rodenticides 1. Sulphur Dioxide. 1. Sodium mono-fluoroacetate 2. Methyl Bromide 2. Multiple dose poisons 3. Ethylene Oxide, + Carbon Dioxide. The method of treatment is determined by the condition and degree of infestation of the lighter at the time of inspection. In view of the fact that in nearly all instances there is a residue of water and foodstuffs in lighters when empty, from past experience it has been found that if treatment is required it is far more efficient to fumigate than use a rodenticide. Throughout the year, 334 lighters were fumigated with Methyl Bromide for insect control of the commodity. As the dosage required varies from 20 to 30 ozs per 1,000 cu. ft. according to the species of insect pest present, the chemical properties of the mentioned fumigant and the 24 hour exposure period required for Methyl Bromide are more than adequate to destroy any rats that may he present in the lighter at the time of fumigation. 24 There has been a further reduction in the number of lighters fumigated within the port, the main reason being the increase of containerisation of many more commodities, especially dried fruits. Instead of the commodity being fumigated in the lighter when off-loaded from the ship, fumigation is now carried out in the container prior to loading aboard the ship. During the course of the year, 14 of the rats that were recovered from treated lighters were sent to the Public Health Laboratory, County Hall, and on each occasion P/pestis was not isolated. Although there has been a further decrease in the number of lighters trading in the port, the lighterage industry serves as an essential link in the sources of the port, conveying cargoes of incoming ships to riverside wharves, factories, public utility undertakings and railheads extending along both banks of the Thames and adjacent canal and creek networks. The lighterage service today is operated with a modern and specialised plant conveying a considerable amount of the tonnage of general cargoes passing through London, plus a large amount of petroleum and other specialised commodities and materials. Including catamaran craft, which are capable of transporting 57 cars at a time from factory to export ship, with continued modernisation and other specialised craft, the lighterage service is still very much an integral part of the life of the port. The number of dumb lighters trading within the Port of London Health Authority's jurisdiction is as follows:— Open Craft 996 Hatched Craft 951 Insulated Craft 122 Refrigerated Craft 5 Tank Craft 144 Grating Craft 13 Pontoon Craft 44 Contractors Craft 54 Punt Craft 14 Canal Craft 162 Bow Section Craft 1 Catamaran Craft 2 TOTAL 2,508 WATER BORNE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Lash Lighters During the course of the year, 317 lash lighters were transported by the 'mother ships' from the United States of America to the Thames Estuary and then towed to various terminal wharves within the port for discharge. In view of the fact that lash lighters trade between various places on the inland waterway system in the United States of America and Europe carrying general cargo and cereal produce, it is important that there must be a system of control regarding rodent infestation. Of the 317 lash lighters that were discharged in the port during the year 1971, 86 were inspected for rodent infestation, equivalent to a 27% inspection, and on each occasion there was no evidence of rodents. As in the past, every assistance has been received from the lighterage industry in our efforts to reduce rodent infestation to a minimum in lighters, and I do feel that, by the combined efforts of education, hygiene, source reduction and rat-proofing, rodent infestation in lighters can be reduced and controlled to a minimum. RODENT CONTROL ON LIGHTERS YEAR ENDING 1971 Number of Lighters Inspected 3,545 Number of Lighters without any evidence 3,319 Number of Lighters with negligible fresh or old evidence. No action taken 137 Number of Lighters treated for rats 89 Number of dead rats recovered after treatment 177 Numberof rats sent for bacteriological examination P/pestis. All results were negative 14 25 TABLE SHOWING FIGURES AND STATISTICS FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS Year No. of Lijghtgts Inspeced % of Lighters without any Evidence % of Lighters with negligible fresh or old Evidence. No Action Taken % of Lighters Treated for Rats No. of Dead Rats recovered after Treatment Average No. of Rats recovered per Lighter Treated 1962 3,793 86.8% 11.7% 1.5% 483 8.5 1963 5,408 89.0% 9.4% 1.6% 732 8.4 1964 2,062 91.7% 60% 2.3% 195 4.0 1965 4,565 79.0% 19.5% 1.5% 377 5.4 1966 3,294 90.1% 8.5% 1.4% 172 3.7 1967 3,153 92.1% 6.1% 1.8% 277 4.9 1968 3,487 92.2% 6.0% 1.8% 248 3.9 1969 2,686 91.3% 5.5% 3.2% 263 3.1 1970 2,649 90.7% 6.2% 3.1% 238 2.9 1971 3,545 93.6% 3.9% 2.5% 177 1.9 Average 1962-1971 3,464 89.1% 8.9% 2.0% 316 4.7 TABLE E Rodents destroyed (bodies recovered) during the year in ships from foreign ports and in shore premises. (1) On Vessels Number of:— Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Black Rats 12 33 37 48 119 39 20 3 16 9 20 2 358 Brown Rats — — — — 2 — — — — — — — 2 Rats Examined 3 5 7 8 7 1 — 2 1 2 4 1 41 Rats infected with Plague — — — — — — — — — — — — — (2) In Docks, Quays, Wharves and Warehouses Number of:— Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total Black Rats 20 24 30 43 90 14 62 56 56 74 46 48 563 Brown Rats 12 24 66 34 30 111 56 37 32 8 26 32 468 Rats Examined 1 — — 3 1 — 1 — — — — — 6 Rats Infected with Plague — — — — — — — — — — — — — 860 Mice were also destroyed, 33 in vessels and 827 in shore premises. TABLE F Deratting Certificates and Deratting Exemption Certificates Issued during the Year for Ships on arrival from Foreign Ports NO. OF DERATTING CERTIFICATES ISSUED Number of Deratting Exemption: Certificates Issued Total Certificates Issued After Fumigation with After Trapping After Poisoning with "1080" Total HCN Other Fumigants Nil 2 Nil 4 6 816 822 26 RETURN OF RATS CAUGHT AND DESTROYED DURING YEAR 1971 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total SURREY COMMERCIAL DOCK - Warehouses — — — — — — — — — — — — — Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — REGENTS CANAL DOCK - Warehouses 01 — — — — — — — — — 8 — 9 Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — WEST INDIA DOCK - Warehouses 19 3 5 5 26 5 17 31 7 6 1 6 131 Vessels — 11 — — 9 — — — — — — — 20 MILLWALL DOCK - Warehouses — — — 3 2 — — 2 — — 2 — 9 Vessels — — — — — — — — — — — — — ROYAL VICTORIA DOCK - Warehouses 3 32 43 35 77 114 56 33 57 39 15 11 515 Vessels — 4 14 — 2 — — — 2 — — — 22 ROYAL ALBERT DOCK - Warehouses 2 6 42 7 2 5 1 5 9 — 14 20 113 Vessels — — 3 7 — — — — — — — — 10 KING GEORGE V DOCK - Warehouses — — — — — — — 5 1 — 6 2 14 Vessels — — — 2 — — — — 14 — — — 16 TILBURY DOCK - Warehouses 7 7 5 ?7 13 1 44 17 14 36 26 41 239 Vessels 7 10 4 17 89 12 — 2 — 7 1 — 149 MIDDLE RIVER - Warehouses — — — — — — —— —— — — — — — Vessels 5 8 16 22 21 27 20 1 — 3 19 2 144 TOTAL 44 81 133 125 241 164 138 96 104 91 92 82 1391 PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS (APPLICATION TO SHIPPING) ORDER 1951-56 During the year 32 Rodent Control Certificates were issued to coastwise ships as provided for by the terms of the Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) Order 1951-56. SECTION XIII INSPECTION OF SHIPS FOR NUISANCES TABLE G Inspections and Notices Number of vessels visited by Port Health Inspectors 12,543 Number of vessels on which sanitary defects were found, and details reported to the Master, Owners and/or Board of Trade 170 Number of Statutory Notices served — Number of Informal Notices served 15 Number of vessels on which sanitary defects were remedied 170 27 Summary of Structural and other Defects Nature of Inspection No. of Defects Inadequate Ventilation 4 Defective Lighting - Natural — — Artificial — Defective or Insufficient Heating 2 Dampness — Condensation 5 — Leaking Decks — — Leaking Ports, Decklights etc. — — Leaking Sideplates — — Leaking Hawse or Chain Pipes — - Defective or Obstructed Floor Drainage 13 - Water lodging on top of Peak Tanks — Defective — Bulkheads 4 — Floors 27 — Doors 2 - Chain Pipes — — Bunks 2 — Clothes Lockers 2 - Food Lockers 14 — Food Storage 50 - Cooking Arrangements 38 Defective or Uncleanly Drinking Water Storage 5 Water Closets — Obsolete — - Defective 29 - Foul or Choked 30 - Inadequate Flush 11 Wash Basins — Defective 42 - Foul 13 Neglected Paintwork or Distemper 45 Absence of Washrooms — of Messrooms — Misappropriation of Crew Spaces 2 Verminous Quarters 46 Miscellaneous 57 TOTAL 443 General Summary Analysis of the Sanitary Inspections etc. in the Port of London for the year ended 31st December, 1971 Type of Vessel/Premises Inspected Defective To be cleaned Foreign Going: Steam Sai I 11,412 190 43 Coastwise: Steam 1,129 12 1 Sail 2 — — 12,543 202 44 Inland Navigation: Steam 189 1 1 Sail — — — Lighters 374 110 30 Canal Boats: — — — Shore Premises: 6,818 135 19 7,381 246 50 TOTAL 19,924 448 94 Areas where Foreign Going and Coastwise vessels were inspected. Dock and River No. of Inspections No. of Vessels inspected in Launches India Dock Group 4,634 "Victor Allcard" 973 Royal Dock Group 1,928 "Humphrey Morris" Tilbury Dock 3,618 "Alfred Roach" 2,195 Swale 2,363 12,543 No. of Vessels inspected in Docks etc. 9,375 TOTAL 12,543 28 SECTION XIV PUBLIC HEALTH (SHELLFISH) REGULATIONS, 1934 and 1948 As reported in 1970 a bacteriological survey of water and shellfish was considered desirable in some parts of the port health district not already covered by existing regulations, or by the two orders which came into operation on the 1st June, 1936, and the 2nd September, 1957. Investigation of the River Roach area indicated possible pollution of the oyster layings which were being worked by five different producers, and this was the area considered to be worthy of further investigation. The survey extended from the port health limit on the River Roach up stream to Barton Hall Creek and included parts of the Middleway, Potton Creek, Paglesham Pool and Barling Creek. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fisheries Laboratory at Burnham-on-Crouch who had all the necessary equipment for sampling and laboratory investigation kindly agreed to assist the authority in this survey which was commenced on the 18th May, 1971. During the period from May until December, five surveys were carried out, and these included obtaining samples of oysters and waters which were then examined and reported on by the Fisheries Laboratory at Burnham. The result of the survey confirmed that considerable pollution existed both in the waters of the River Roach and its tributaries, and as to be expected, also in the oysters. The major source of pollution in the area is the Stambridge Sewage Works, the outfall from which discharges by way of Barton Hall Creek into the River Roach at a point just upstream of the first of the oyster layings. As was expected, the level of pollution was found to be greatest in the River Roach adjacent to Stambridge and decreased seawards, but considerable pollution existed at certain states of the tides downstream to the port health authority seaward limit. Major improvement works are already in hand at the Stambridge Sewage Works and when the extent of these improvements is known and their effect on the effluent has been investigated, further consideration will be given to this problem. Should the improvement works include chlorination of the effluent, the quality of the waters of the River Roach could be considerably improved. Oyster Industry The investigation into the pollution of the oyster layings has already been referred to. The cultivation of oysters for the home market continued as in recent years, and whilst the area concerned is not at present subject to control by any order under the Shellfish Regulations, the various merchants either cleanse the shellfish before selling to wholesalers or dispose of them to merchants who have their own cleansing facilities. No report has been received during the year of any sickness having occurred which could have been associated with the consumption of oysters collected from oyster layings within the Authority's jurisdiction. At the end of April, a French company imported some 700 tons of seed oysters from Portugal and relaid them in the waters of the River Roach to mature. In September, they requested Sanitary Certificates to enable them to export them to France. At the material time the bacteriological sampling survey was in progress and in view of the results then known their request for certificates was refused. It then became necessary for the oysters to be lifted from the River Roach and to be relaid in the River Crouch for self purification. As the waters of the River Crouch are not within this Authority's jurisdiction, the controls relating to cleansing, exportation and the issue of Sanitary Certificates are the responsibility of Burnham U.D.C. Up to the end of the year it was estimated that 450 tons of these oysters still remained in the layings of the River Roach, but it is understood that they will in time all be removed for relaying in the River Crouch for cleansing before being exported to France. Cockle Industry This industry at Leigh-on-Sea continued during the year and produced no serious problems. Routine visits were made to the various sheds from time to time, to ensure that the Authority's requirements as to sterilisation under the 1936 Order were being complied with. 29 A firm of fishermen and trawler owners: Messrs. Gilsons of Southend-on-Sea, converted their boat M.F.V. "John Patrick" for Cockle Dredging and requested permission for the cockles dredged from the Thames Estuary to be cleansed, as required by the 1936 Order, at Boston, Lincolnshire. A few sample shipments were allowed forward with the approval of the Public Health Department, Borough of Boston, for experimental purposes. Shortly after commencing operations however, Messrs. Gilsons arranged for sterilisation to be carried out by one of the local cockle merchants: G. Meddle, who has operated one of the Leigh Sheds for many years, and this procedure enabled them to fall into line with that operated by all the other Leigh cockle merchants. There were no reports during the year of sickness attributable to the consumption of cockles sterilised in the Leigh Sheds. SECTION XV MEDiCAL INSPECTION OF ALIENS AND COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS 1. List of Medical Inspectors holding warrants of appointment at the 31st December, 1971:- Dr. W.G. Swann, Dr. D.T. Jones, Dr. W. Stott, Dr. A.E.L. de Thierry, Dr. W.T. Rougier Chapman, Dr. G.W. Aston, Dr. R.F. Armstrong, Dr. R.G.S. Whitfield, Dr. R.M. Best, Dr. J.V.M. Heslop, Dr. W.T.G. Boul, Dr. D.J. Avery, Dr. D. Keys, Dr. P.J.R. Walters. 2. List of other staff engaged on the work:Clerical staff at the central office. 3. Organisation of the work:— Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants are examined by one of the above panel of doctors, at the request of an Immigration Officer. The majority of ships carrying immigrants are dealt with by the Boarding Medical Officer, but a part-time Medical Inspector may be called in to deal with a particular ship. 4. Alien Arrivals (a) Total number of arriving ships carrying aliens 1,845 (b) Total number of aliens — (i) arriving at the port 49,578 (ii) medically examined 307 (c) Certificates issued 3 Commonwealth Immigrant Arrivals (a) Commonwealth citizens subject to control 1,743 (b) Commonwealth citizens examined 3 (c) Certificates issued NIL 5. Medical examination of Aliens and Commonwealth Immigrants is carried out on board ship. SECTION XVI MISCELLANEOUS Arrangements for the burial on shore of persons who have died on board ship from infectious disease. The body of any person dying on board ship, or in Denton Hospital, from infectious disease would normally be removed from the ship or Denton Hospital for burial by a Private Undertaker acting on the instructions of the shipping company or the next-of-kin, the local police being kept informed. In the event of the death being one of smallpox, special instructions as to precautions to be taken would be given to the undertaker by the Port Health Authority. THE CLEAN AIR ACTS 1956 AND 1968 THE DARK SMOKE (PERMITTED PERIODS ) (VESSELS) REGULATIONS 1958 It has been found that formal smoke observations are very time consuming and often in the end do not necessarily establish evidence that an apparent contravention of the Regulations has been committed. It is the policy, therefore, of the Authority to seek the co-operation of shipmasters to 30 maintain so far as possible a smoke free Port. To this end port nealth inspectors immediately notify the master of any ship which starts to make smoke of such density as to be likely to contravene the Regulations, so as to terminate the emission. In this connection one hundred and forty seven verbal notifications were given. However, during the year it was found necessary to carry out ninety one smoke observations and in sixty six cases there was a minor infringement of the permitted periods. There were thirty-five inspections of plant and equipment with a further eight revisits to ensure that defects had been rectified. Five notices were served on the masters of foreign owned vessels and a copy of the notice was sent to the country's Consulate. The reasons for these contraventions were fully investigated and in view of the explanations received, no legal action was taken. Warning letters were, however, sent to each owner, Similar action was taken in the case of the master and owner of a bucket dredger. THE TRANSPORTATION OF REFUSE BY LIGHTERS Routine visits to the refuse loading wharves and the regular inspection of all lighters engaged in this trade was maintained during the year. During the year, two of the refuse loading wharves owned by the Greater London Council but situated within the Authority's district were closed. This left a total of five riverside wharves and two enclosed docks still in operation at the close of the year. The construction of the new refuse transfer station at Cringle Street, Battersea, has progressed throughout the year. Completion of this station in the early part of next year will lead to the closure of more of the riverside wharves. Spillage of refuse into the river, although greatly diminished during the last few years, still remains a problem. The policy of the Greater London Council to close the older riverside wharves will mean that this source of pollution shall, in the near future, be virtually removed. One of the lighterage companies, which was employed in this trade, ceased operations in the first half of the year. There are now only two lighterage companies remaining in the trade. No proceedings were instituted under the Authority's Byelaws during the year. HOUSE BOATS - UPPER RIVER AREAS There are a total of 138 houseboats moored in the Upper Reaches of the River between London Bridge and Teddington Lock. This is an increase of five on the previous year. The moorings at which these craft are lying were inspected from time to time during the year. No infringements of the Authority's Byelaws relating to houseboats were noted at the time of these inspections. DANGEROUS DRUGS During the year eleven certificates authorising the purchase of scheduled Dangerous Drugs were issued under the Dangerous Drugs (No.2) Regulations, 1964, 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. 31 THE FOOD HYGIENE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 1970 As in previous years, the renewal of fittings, together with the carrying out of all necessary repairs, cleaning and repainting of the River Thames passenger-carrying launches, was attended to in the early months of the year. This work was generally done in conjunction with the annual Department of Trade & Industry survey. At the same time, all fresh water storage tanks are cleaned out and chlorinated prior to use, together with the distribution systems. The seven floating restaurants, thirty-three launches and two kiosks which have operated within the Authority's district and to which these Regulations apply, were regularly inspected during the year. In all a total of 263 inspections were made and a high standard of food hygiene on these craft was maintained during the year. Sixty-eight water samples were drawn from the launches. Adverse reports were obtained on twenty-six occasions. In each instance the source of contamination was traced and eliminated. With the decline in recent years of trade and shipping to the Upper Reaches of the River Thames, an interest has grown in the recreational aspect of this part of the River. At the moment there are two additional craft being fitted out as floating restaurants for mooring on the River. H.M.S. "Belfast", which is now at permanent moorings in the Upper Pool of London, will be added to this growing number of restaurants in the near future. TILBURY GRAIN TERMINAL In 1971 the Terminal handled 1,528,746 tons compared with some 1,470,000 tons in 1970. The 1971 figure represents approximately 20% of all U.K. grain imports. The highest discharge rate of 19,582 tons in 14 hours through two marine leg grain discharge towers occurred in May 1971 and was believed to be a world record. TiIbury Grain Terminal Photo by courtesy of the Port of London Authority. 32 FOOD INSPECTION 1971 The total amount of foodstuffs detained for examination by the Port Health Inspectors and either condemned as unfit for human consumption and destroyed or otherwise disposed of under guarantee and supervision was 6,207 tons, 14 cwts, 0 qtrs, 20 lbs. The following is a summary showing methods of disposal:- Weight 1971 Comparable weight 1970 Tons Cwts. Qrs. Lbs. Tons Cwts. Qrs. Lbs. Burnt 57 1 0 18 75 10 1 20 Buried 261 12 3 21 417 14 1 0 Contractor 116 5 3 2 135 13 3 1 *Other Districts 5,342 10 0 4 529 9 3 27 *Animal Feeding 357 14 3 22 46 0 1 27 Re-exported 72 9 1 9 75 9 3 11 6,207 14 0 20 1,279 18 3 2 The variation in the above weights between 1971 and the previous year was due to the detention during 1971 of 4,900 tons of wheat which was found to contain ergot in excess of the norm. Items marked * were released with the agreement of and under the supervision of local Medical Officers of Health. Of the above-mentioned 6,207 tons, the principal methods of disposal, with weights, were as follows:— Burnt Tons Cwt. 6,098 Tins and 262 cartons of fruit, meat, vegetables, pulps and juices — burst, blown, leaking and broken 8 16 4,159 Containers of fruit and vegetables - wet damaged, smashed, broken, dirty mouldy, contaminated, oil stained and rodent damaged 41 7 3 Cases preserved Fruit - contained non-permitted colouring matter 2 5 Cartons Soy Bean Sauce — contained non-permitted preservative 1 2 Part Casks of Orange Juice — contaminated with extraneous matter 3 2 Cartons Cocoa Butter - wet damaged 2 1 Bag Coffee Beans — vermin damaged 1 44 Bags Black Pepper - oil damaged 2 4 27 Bags Coconuts — wasty and stained 15 5 Cases Shelled Walnuts — vermin damaged 2 2 Part Bags Desiccated Coconut — contaminated with extraneous matter 1 3 Cases Dried Red Dates — dirty 3 16 Bags Ox Fores and Shins - dock water damaged 2 5 Cartons Pork Skins - no official certificates 2 4 Bags Wheat and Rye Extract - rodent damaged 4 34 Cartons Gram Flour - rodent damaged 11 2 Drums Hickory Smoked Torula Yeast — insect infested 2 2 Cartons Butter — wet damaged 1 5 Cartons Margerine — wet damaged 1 4 Bags Milk Powder—vermin infested 4 6 Chests Tea - wet damaged 6 Buried 24,282 Tins, 3,292 Cartons and 324 Jars of Fruit, Meat, Vegetables, Pulp and Juices — burst, blown, leaking and broken 71 3 6,478 Containers of Fruit and Vegetables - wasty, wet damaged, crushed, dirty, mouldy, insect and vermin infested 148 19 11 Containers Preserved Fruit — contained non-permitted colouring matter and preservatives 8 242 Containers Sauces, Chutnies and Pickles - contaminated with extraneous matter, burst, leaking and containing non-permitted colouring matter and preservative 4 6 300 Bags Walnuts in Shell - unwholesome 7 7 20 Bags Groundnuts - sweepings 14 47 Bags Coconut — unsound 1 5 73 Cartons Frozen Prawns and Shrimps — decomposing 19 33 Buried (continued) Tons Cwt. 69 Cartons Fish - insect infested and decomposing 18 132 Cartons Dessert Mixes - contained non-permitted colouring matter 6 38 Cartons Sweets (with toys) - contained non-permitted colouring matter 17 120 Packs Rice - dirty and vermin infested 5 6 20 Cartons Vegetables with meat - No official certificate 5 25 Cartons Meat — prohibited 10 5 Cases Corned Beef — damaged 1 49 Cartons Cheese — decomposing 12 5 Casks Pulps and Juices - contaminated with extraneous matter 1 3 1 Bag Yellow Crystal Sugar - dock water damaged 1 112 Chests Tea - wet damaged 3 17 Animal Feeding 67 Bags Millet Seed - rodent damaged 3 1 101 Bags Rice - rodent damaged, sweepings 5 2 Bulk Wheat — wet damaged 336 0 47 Bags Groundnuts — contaminated with extraneous matter and oil damaged 1 12 279 Cartons Sultanas — wet damaged 3 10 93 Boxes Apricots — vermin damaged 1 3 472 Containers Meat - decomposing 5 14 699 Tins Corned Meat — crushed and dented 1 11 Contractor Various quantities of meat and offal unfit for human consumption 116 5 Other Districts 114 Bags Beans — Insect infested. Released for fumigation 6 0 14 Bags White Beans - sweepings. Released for cleaning 3 360 Bags Sago Seeds and Pearl Tapioca - wet damaged. Released for sorting 18 0 Quantity of Dark Northern Spring Wheat — contained ergot. Released for cleaning 4,900 0 88 Bags Black Pepper — wet damaged and contaminated with extraneous matter. Released for garbling, distillation and reconditioning 4 15 11 Bags Shelled Almonds — wet damaged and mouldy. Released for reconditioning 11 313 Cases Shelled Walnuts — moth infested. Released for cleaning 7 16 100 Cases Poppadums - mouldy. Released for sorting 5 4 2,233 Cartons Oranges - wasty and mouldy. Released for sorting 27 0 1,770 Cartons Canned Pineapple - burst, blown and leaking. Released for sorting 28 8 1,344 Cartons Canned Pears — burst, blown. Released for sorting 17 3 Bulk Lard - contaminated. Released for processing 248 0 45 Cartons Pork Lard — rancid. Released for processing 1 2 36 Cartons Beef Livers - inedible. Released for pharmaceutical processing 18 10 Bags Turtle Meat — infested. Released for fumigation 7 20 Cartons Fish Cakes — contained non-permitted preservative. Destroyed 5 35 Cases Sweets with Toys — contained non-permitted colouring matter. Released for the destruction of the sweets 8 429 Chests and 11 Bags Tea — wet damaged and charcoal contaminated Released for reconditioning.. 12 13 1,642 Bags Argentinian Tea - bloodstained. Released for sorting 63 11 Re-Exported 448 Containers Preserved Fruit - contained non-permitted preservative and colouring matter 7 0 746 Cartons Melon Cubes - contained excess tin 12 10 300 Cartons Grapefruit Segments - contaminated with metallic paint 6 9 1,202 Cartons Shrimps - decomposing 13 8 13 Cases Oyster Flavoured Sauce — contained non-permitted preservative 4 10 Cases Preserved Mustard - contained non-permitted preservative 2 125 Rice Crackers - contained non-permitted preservative and colouring matter 1 16 6 Cartons Chinese Foodstuffs - contained non-permitted colouring matter 3 34 Re-Exported (continued) Tons Cwt. 25 Bags Coffee Beans — wet damaged 1 3 121 Cartons Beef Livers - prohibited meat 3 0 560 Cartons B/L Beef — prohibited meat 15 0 10 Cases Hog Casings - No official certificate 2 14 10 tierces Beef Cases - incorrect official certificate 3 0 4 Cases Pork Skins - incorrect official certificate 3 7 Cartons Liver Paste — No official certificate 2 800 Cartons Candy - contained non-permitted preservative and colouring matter 4 14 The following figures are derived from H.M. Customs and Excise statistical tabulations, which are based on Customs entries, and is Crown copyright, reproduced with the permission of the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office. The area covered by the tabulations, which comprises the Customs Port of London, includes the following shipping places:- The Port of London Authority docks and jetties, Regent's Canal Dock, Poplar Dock, all private and public wharves and other installations in the River Thames between Havengore Creek and Teddington Lock (e.g. Dagenham Dock, Shellhaven, Thames Haven, Canvey Island), Rochford (Essex) and certain places in the River Medway (Port Victoria, Isle of Grain and Sheerness Harbour) and in the West Swale (Ridham Dock and Queenborough). Commodity Tons Meat and meat preparations 353,877 Dairy products and eggs 180,677 Fish and fish preparations 27,867 Cereals and cereal preparations 2,129,725 Fruit and vegetables 739,075 Sugar and sugar preparations 1,071,106 Coffee, tea, cocoa, etc. 152,905 Feeding stuff for animals 136,994 Miscellaneous food preparations 79,175 Total foodstuffs 4,871,401 FOOD SAMPLING Sampling - Public Analyst During the year 475 samples were sent to the Public Analyst as follows:- Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Dried, Pickled,Preserved and Canned Fruits 45 27 22 contained non-permitted colouring matter, 4 contained non-permitted preservative 1 contained excess tin Re-exported. 17 inadequately labelled letters to merchants and local M.O's.H. Fruit Pulps and Juices 11 0 1 inadequately labelled Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Fresh Fruit 16 1 Contained excess preservative - informal sample. Letter to merchant. Drinks and Drink Mixes 20 0 1 inadequately labelled — Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Dried Lily Flowers 0 1 Contained excess preservative. Released for use in the catering trade. 35 Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Action Dried, Pickled, Preserved and Canned Vegetables 53 8 4 contained non permitted preservative, 2 contained excess tin, 1 contained excess arsenic — Re-exported. 1 contaminated with sea water — Destroyed. 2 inadequately labelled - Letters to merchants and local M.O's.H. Duck with Preserved Vegetables 1 0 Inadequately labelled — Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Meat Products 2 0 Chutnies, Sauces and 46 11 10 contained non-permitted Pickles preservative, 1 contained nonpermitted colouring matter Re-exported. 4 inadequately labelled - Letters to merchants and local M.O's.H. Tomato Paste 22 0 Lard 1 0 Spice Powders 25 0 4 inadequately labelled — Letters to merchants and local M.O's.H. Soups and Soup Mixes 3 0 2 inadequately labelled — Letters to merchants and local M.O's.H. Seasonings 8 3 Contained non-permitted preservative — Re-exported. 3 inadequately labelled — Letters to merchants and local M.O's.H. Wheat 4 16 Contained excess ergot. Released for cleaning. Whole Kernel Sweet Corn 1 0 Flour 3 0 Bakery Products 10 0 Butter 1 0 Savouries 4 2 1 contained non-permitted preservative, 1 contained nonpermitted colouring matter — Re-exported. Cakes and Pudding Mixes 18 4 Contained non-permitted colouring matter — Re-exported. 5 inadequately labelled — Letters to merchants and local M.O's.H. Desserts 3 2 Contained non-permitted colouring matter — Re-exported Flavourings 3 0 Candy Sweetening 0 2 Contained non-permitted colouring matter — Re-exported. Sweets 29 7 Contained non-permitted colouring matter - Re-exported. 1 inadequately labelled — Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Chocolates 5 0 1 inadequately labelled - Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Concentrated Must 1 0 Honey 2 0 Egg Jam 1 0 Dark Corn Syrup 1 0 Cheese 3 0 1 inadequately labelled — Letter to merchant and local M.O.H. Salted Peanuts 1 0 Groundnuts 12 2 Af latoxim - medium. Further samples satisfactory — Released. Silver Coated Supari 0 1 Contained non-permitted colouring matter - Re-exported. Coffee Beans 1 0 Fish Cakes 5 2 Contained non-permitted preservative — Re-exported. 5 inadequately labelled — Letters to merchants and local M.O's.H. 36 Sample Satisfactory Unsatisfactory n Sharks Fin Cake 1 0 Pink Salmon 1 0 Tuna 2 0 Sliced Smoked Saithe 1 1 Contained non-permitted preservative - Re-exported. Fried Oysters 1 0 Mock Caviar 0 1 Contained non-permitted preservative — Re-exported. Cuttle Fish 1 1 Contained non-permitted preservative — Re-exported. Fried Dace with Black Beans 1 0 Carnauba Wax 0 1 Non-permitted emulsifier — Re-exported. Tea 13 0 Animal Feeding Stuffs (Examined by the Agricultural Analyst) 14 0 3 samples contained a small excess of protein beyond the prescribed limits. 3 samples contained added copper which was not declared as required by the Act. 1 sample contained a small excess of oil beyond the prescribed limits. The merchants concerned were warned that they should ensure that these products conform with the necessary Acts and Regulations. Bacteriological Sampling Prawns and Shrimps 715 10 Contaminated with salmonella Destroyed. Some consignments showed high plate counts and were released with a warning to keep deep frozen until eaten. Frozen Oysters 7 0 Frozen Lobstermeat 1 0 Frozen Crabmeat 59 0 Australian Boneless Mutton 10 2 Contaminated with salmonellaDestroyed. Beef Cuts 270 15 Contaminated with salmonellaDestroyed. Minced Beef 18 2 Contaminated with salmonellaReleased for animal feeding. Minced Beef Steak in Gravy 6 0 Frozen Beef Patties 2 0 Lamburger Patties 1 0 Frozen Spring Roll 1 0 Protein 7 3 Faecal and non-Faecal Coli present. Re-exported. Frozen and Dried Egg 498 0 Frozen Frogs Legs 0 1 Contaminated with salmonellaRe-exported. Skim Milk Powder 1 0 Made-up Milk 0 1 High Plate count. Ship sailed. Sultanas 1 0 No action. 37 CONTAINER TRAFFIC The container terminals at Tilbury had another successful year, imported containers increased from 69,642 in 1970 to 105,720 in 1971. At one time it was thought that this figure would have been very much increased but two factors outside the control of the Port of London Authority drastically reduced container traffic importations into the dock. On the 1st August, United States Lines ceased operations from 40 Berth and transferred their service to Felixstowe. This berth was the first ocean container terminal to be operated in the dock having received its first ship in June 1968. After U.S. Lines left the berth, it ceased to be operational until the end of the year. The other factor was the strike of dockworkers in America. This affected container operations carried out by a Swedish Company — Johnson Line of Stockholm, for a 3 month period from early August. None of their vessels from the Pacific Coast of North America arrived to discharge cargo. In contrast the other three terminals all increased their throughput. 39 berth operated by Overseas Containers Ltd. for their Australian Service in conjunction with Associated Container Transportation handled nearly 42,000 import containers of which nearly one half contained foodstuffs. The Port of London Authority's common user container berth 41/43 handled over 43,000 import containers as compared with 26,640 the previous year, and the Scandinavian Ferry Terminal at 26 Berth also continued to expand. The O.C.L. Terminal provided a pattern of regular ship arrivals throughout the year and dealt with 53 vessels from Australia. During the year the total number of ships used in this trade was increased by two, a French vessel joining the service in February followed by a Dutch one in March,making a total of thirteen. Afurther vessel under the Italian flag had yetto be commissioned at the end of the year. The control of imported food at 39 Berth was developed after consultation and agreement with the berth operators and provided for Port Health clearance of all hard frozen foods (plus some fruit) at the berth. All other food containers were routed to Inland Clearance Depots for Customs and Health Clearance by local officers. Of the 20,860 containers of food landed from vessels on this berth approximately 14,000 were dealt with as required by Sec.5(5) of the Imported Food Regulations 1968, notification being sent to the "receiving authorities". A further 448, containers were released under the "deferred examination" procedure. All these contained frozen egg products, the sampling and examination of which could be more satisfactorily carried out when the goods had been discharged from their containers and stowed in the cold store at their destination. Port Health clearance covered 6,852 containers of which 869 were produced for examination at the Port Health Inspection Shed at 39 Berth provided by Messrs.Overseas Containers Limited. It is understood that the two companies concerned will be requesting the Port Health Authority to increase the number of food examinations at this berth in 1972, initially to include more fruit containers and later to clear general foods. Providing clearance by H.M. Customs is effected at Tilbury these additional foods will be dealt with by the Port Health Inspectors. 38 41/43 Berths This "common user" terminal operated by the Port of London Authority had a successful year and dealt with 935 vessels compared with 626 in 1970. Eleven services operated from the berth with vessels arriving from France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, East Germany,Poland, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Russia and Canada. Of the imported containers 5,030 contained food and of these 214 were notified to "receiving authorities" as they were not cleared by H.M. Customs at Tilbury. Of the remaining 4,816 containers, 997 were opened for examination by officers of the Authority so that detailed inspections could be carried out. 4 Berth This berth handling container and conventional cargoes was seriously affected by the strike of dock workers in U.S.A. in the latter part of the year. Nevertheless, total container imports increased from 2,647 in 1970 to 3,134 of which 2,582 contained foodstuffs. This berth, in fact, produced a higher percentage of food containers compared with total imports than any other berth in the dock, and a very busy year is expected in 1972. Thirty-six ocean going container ships were handled during the year. 26 Berth Traffic over this berth which is solely used by the Swedish Lloyd ferry service to Gothenburg also increased as expected, 201 arrivals were handled compared with 150 the year before. 10,780 units (Flats and Containers) were imported but of these only 665 containers were of food. 40 Berth As already reported this berth ceased operations in August when U.S. Lines left Tilbury for Felixstowe. Up to that time it had handled 36 vessels from the U.S.A. and 45 from European ports which had discharged nearly 7,000 containers, 723 of which contained foods. Although this valuable berth lay idle until the end of the year a new continental container service commenced in the first week of January 1972. At the beginning of the year the Port of London Authority introduced 24 hour shift working at various container terminals to speed up the turnround of vessels. The seven day week, 24 hour day working that was already operating at the OCL Terminal 39 Berth was extended to include 40 Berth and 41/43 Berths. With the co-operation of the port industry, together with limitations as to clearances put on deliveries by H.M. Customs outside the normal working period of 0700 hrs., to 21.00 hrs., it was found possible to control food importations without introducing a night shift into the Port Health Inspectors pattern of work. Should H.M. Customs at some future date agree to import clearances and examinations at any time of the day or night without restriction, the Port Health service may find itself forced into giving a similar service to enable trade to proceed unhindered. This pattern of the dock industry working seven days a week on the container terminals has made it necessary for Port Health Inspectors to make regular week-end attendances. During 1971 Tilbury Dock was manned on every Saturday for at least some part of the day and on six occasions on Sundays and Bank Holidays purely on food control. With the further expected build up in this type of traffic, and there is every indication that increases are to be expected, regular Sunday working by Port Health Inspectors may become necessary. The following tables, applicable to the various container workings at Tilbury during the year are produced for information. Table I Gives a summary of food containers subject to Port Health clearance arriving from Australia and being discharged at 39 Berth. These figures do not include food containers notified to inland authorities for clearance elsewhere. Table 2 Summarises all major container operations dealt with as to trade, listing shipping arrivals to the four operational container terminals. Whilst figures quoted have been carefully arrived at they must be considered to be close approximations rather than be mathematically precise. They do, however, portray the extent of container traffic on a comparative basis in the various trades. 39 TABLE 1 1971. Summary of Food Containers received at 39 Berth. Tilbury. For Clearance in the Port. Via Joint O.C.L./A.C.T. Australian Service. VOYAGE No. 1971 VESSEL TOTAL FROZEN & CHILLED CONTAINERS FOR CLEARANCE @ TILBURY TOTAL FROZEN & CHILLED CONTAINERS INSPECTED @ TIL'Y BONELESS BEEF BONELESS MUTTON & LAMB CUTS LAMB & MUTTON CARCASES VARIOUS OFFALS VEAL & BEEF STEAKS RABBITS COOKED BEEF & MUTTON CHILLED BEEF &1¼ s CHICKEN OFFALS INEDIBLE MEATS FROZEN EGG APPLES/PEARS ORANGES/HOPS FISH & CRUSTACEA OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT OCL ACT 0031 Moreton Bay 113 74 12 9 14 16 14 14 56 34 8 8 1 * 1 2 * * * * * * 1 * 17 • * * * * 1 * 0032 Act. 2. 129 78 14 7 27 15 11 19 62 34 9 9 * * * 1 * * 1 * * * * * 18 * * * * * 1 * 0033 Discovery Bay 103 66 13 8 24 9 19 20 44 28 10 7 * * 2 * * * * * * 3 * * * * * * * * * 0034 Flinders Bay 106 64 15 12 18 16 19 16 34 23 15 3 * 1 1 1 3 * * * * * * * 16 4 * * * * * * 0035 Jervis Bay No Reefer Cargo For United Kingdom. 0036 Melbourne Express 41 34 5 6 6 10 12 11 11 4 6 7 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * 4 * * * * 1 1 * 0037 Aust'n Endeavour 108 72 11 11 33 21 22 24 30 20 18 5 * * * * * * * * * * 2 * * * * * * * * ** 0038 Botany Bay 122 114 11 10 33 39 30 13 16 20 26 21 * * * * * * * * * * * * 17 19 * * * * * * 0039 Act 1. 128 112 10 11 25 42 31 17 32 23 24 18 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * 16 9 * * * * * 0040 Sydney Express 17 9 4 2 6 2 3 1 2 2 6 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0101 Act. 2. 161 65 15 10 56 22 28 12 13 6 18 15 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * 33 7 11 * * * * 0102 Discovery Bay 84 54 6 6 36 29 9 9 * 6 15 9 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * 23 * * * * * * 0103 Encounter Bay 45 38 9 9 14 14 5 2 2 2 11 10 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 * * * * 0104 Flinders Bay 151 77 18 10 76 33 19 10 8 9 40 24 * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * 0105 Jervis Bay 77 * 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ♦ * * * * * * 77 * * * * * 0106 Melbourne Express 20 * 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20 * * * * * 0107 Kangourou 97 49 12 7 29 36 12 3 * 2 9 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 * 40 * * * * * 0108 Aust'n Endeavour 109 48 12 6 32 33 11 5 10 3 21 7 1 * * * * * * * * * * * 3 * 26 * * * * * 0109 Act 1. 106 22 12 3 26 14 2 3 1 * 7 5 2 * * * * • * * * * * * 3 * 64 * * * * * 0110 Sydney Express 48 11 6 3 16 5 * 2 * * 5 4 * * * * * * * * • * * * 3 * 24 * * * * * 0111 Moreton Bay 106 19 13 3 21 14 6 3 * * 5 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 * 72 * * * * * 0112 Abel Tasman 34 * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 34 * * * * * 0113 Act. 2. 123 34 12 5 24 21 5 3 1 3 22 7 * * * * ♦ * * * * * * * 2 * 69 * * * * * 0114 Discovery Bay 111 10 11 3 10 7 1 2 * * 3 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 * 95 * * * * * 0115 Flinders Bay 80 11 11 3 16 7 2 3 1 * 3 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 * 56 * * * * * 0116 Encounter Bay 142 35 13 4 25 20 9 2 3 4 16 5 1 * * * * * * * * * * * 2 4 86 * * * * * 0117 Melbourne Express 28 13 5 3 2 7 * * * * * 2 * * * * * * * * * * • * * 4 26 * * * * * 0118 Botany Bay 145 82 17 11 50 42 23 8 2 5 43 17 2 * 1 * * * * * * * * * 7 4 * * 12 * * * 0119 Kangourou 99 46 12 5 30 23 8 3 9 * 31 16 2 * 1 * * * * * * * * * 10 4 * * 8 * * * 0120 Act. 1. 96 37 10 5 23 17 9 6 8 1 20 7 1 * * * * * * * * * * * 20 4 * * 14 • * * 0121 Sydney Express 36 17 8 4 2 8 2 * 2 2 12 3 * * 1 * * * * * * * * * 10 4 * * 6 * 1 * 0122 Moreton Bay 58 30 7 4 10 10 10 5 1 * 18 10 * * * * * * * * * * * * 15 4 * * 2 * 2 * 0123 Abel Tasman 39 18 7 3 11 6 2 1 6 3 7 4 * * * * * * * * * * * 7 4 * * 4 * 2 * 0124 Aust'n Endeavour 84 49 10 8 25 14 5 5 3 1 17 7 * * 1 * * * * * * * * 8 29 8 * * 3 * 1 3 0125 Act. 2. 113 63 12 9 23 25 22 5 7 4 23 15 * * * * 2 * 5 * * 1 * * 30 11 * * * * 1 2 0126 Act. 3. No Import Cargo. Vessel Loaded Outwards Only. 0127 Encounter Bay 106 51 14 10 14 9 8 6 18 11 22 11 * * 2 * 1 * * * * * 13 6 24 7 * * 2 * 2 1 0128 Jervis Bay 65 36 9 8 14 10 8 3 30 11 11 11 * * * * * * 1 * * * * 1 * * * * * * 1 * 0129 Flinders Bay 58 43 9 7 8 7 7 3 21 18 14 12 * * 2 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * 2 * 3 1 0130 Botany Bay 50 40 8 7 4 9 9 7 16 13 10 7 * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 * 1 1 0131 Kangourou 146 85 22 10 22 14 10 17 41 32 18 16 * * * * * * * * * * 41 2 * 3 * * 9 * 4 * 0132 Melbourne Express 9 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9 * * * 0133 Moreton Bay 106 80 14 10 22 18 15 15 36 28 25 12 * * * * * * * * * * 4 2 * 2 * * 2 * * * 0134 Act. 1. 81 61 15 9 16 13 10 9 36 19 8 8 * * * * 1 * * * * * 5 2 * 10 * * 4 * * * 0135 Discovery Bay 89 33 13 5 16 7 18 5 28 10 14 10 * * * * 3 * * * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * 0136 Aust'n Endeavour 72 50 8 7 6 9 9 9 33 20 15 11 * * * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * 9 * * * 0137 Abel Tasman 36 29 5 5 3 7 1 4 30 11 2 5 * * * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * 0138 Act. 2. 76 40 8 6 27 10 6 8 26 9 12 9 * * 1 * * * * * * * 1 2 * * * * * * * * 0139 Sydney Express 48 36 6 6 2 7 4 9 37 15 4 3 * * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * 0140 Jervis Bay 111 67 11 8 19 19 15 8 59 28 17 10 * * * * * * * * * * 2 * * * * * * * * 0141 Flinders Bay 87 72 8 9 17 18 11 13 42 23 16 14. * * 1 * * * * 1 * * * 2 * * * * * * * * 0142 Botany Bay 85 48 10 5 30 18 3 10 38 14 10 5 * * 1 * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0143 Encounter Bay 115 62 12 8 29 10 16 5 48 31 16 15 * * 1 1 4 * * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * 0144 Kangourou 108 61 20 8 31 17 36 23 20 9 19 12 * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 * 4507 2345 541 328 40 TABLE 2 SERVICE Shipping Arrivals Total Containers Imported Total Food Containers Imported ROTTERDAM 294 16,618 1,121 ANTWERP 152 5,360 569 HAMBURG 93 1,686 429 DUNKIRK 86 1,507 391 HELSINKI 66 3,533 86 GDYNIA 36 562 8 LENINGRAD 30 1,143 37.3 QUEBEC 57 8,678 1,731 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL 41 720 349 EMERICH 10 31 - ROSTOCK AND HAMBURG 115 3,851 181 U.S.A. (Atlantic Coast) 36 6,352 515 U.S.A. & CANADA (Pacific Coast) 36 3,134 2,582 SWEDEN 201 10,780 665 AUSTRALIA 53 41,765 20,860 TOTAL CONTAINER SHIP ARRIVALS (MAJOR OPERATORS) 1,306 105,720 29,860 Container berth — Tilbury Dock Photo by courtesy of the Port of London Authority. 41 Roll on /Roll off terminal — Tilbury Dock Photo by courtesy of the Port of London Authority- Meat Examination Centre — Royal Docks Photo by courtesy of the Port of London Authority. 42 1971 TABLE 1 The Meat (Sterilization) Regulations 1969 Investigation and Disposal of Pet Foods Commodity Packages Approximate Weight (Tons) Inedible Meats & Offals 221,404 5,535 Horsemeat & Offals 184,158 4,604 Totals 405,562 10,139 Goods not marked as required by the abowe Regulations were detained and marked at No. 6 Cold Store Total 14,821 packages Approximate Weight 3701A Tons. 1971 TABLE 2 Imported Food Regulations 1968 Examination for Fitness for Human Consumption Commodity Country Beef Livers Other Beef Offals B/L Beef Sheep & Lambs B/in & BIL Mutton & Lamb Sheep & Lamb Offals Pork & Offals Chilled Beef Cuts Other Meats Argentine _ _ Ctns. 254 _ _ _ — Ctns. 150 Clns. 10 Hares 7 Cooked Beef Australia Ctns. 160 Ctns. 35 Ctns. 355 — Ctns. 190 — Ctns. 10 — Ctns. 2 Gristle 20 Minced Beef Brazi I _ _ _ — _ _ _ Ctns. 128 — New Zealand Ctns. 320 Ctns. 166 Ctns. 300 500 Ctns. 40 Ctns. 25 _ — _ U.S.A. Ctns. 20 Ctns. 20 _ _ — Ctns. 40 _ — _ S.W. Africa Ctns. 20 Ctns. 5 Ctns. 94 _ _ _ _ _ _ China _ _ _ _ _ Ctns. 60 Rabbits 5 Hares Eire _ _ Ctns. 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ Totals Weights (Appro x) 520 T 13 226 T 5.65 1,053 T 26.32 500 T 17 230 T 5.75 65 T 1.6 10 T .25 278 T 7 104 T 2.6 Total Weight 79.17 Tons (approx.) Total Packages, 2,996. TABLE 3 Damaged Meats Detained at No. 6 Cold Store for Destruction or Reconditioning Commodity Sheep & Lambs Sheep & Lambs Cuts Sheep & Lamb Offals Bl in & BIL Beef Beef Offals Other Offals Packages 21,044 674 10 1,937 1,121 765 Approx. Wt. (Tons) 329 17 ¼ 48½ 28 20 Total Weight 412% Tons (approx.) Total Packages, 25,546 43 TABLE 4 Meat rejected by U.S.A. — Detained at No. 6 Cold Store and Other Cold Stores pending Inspection of samples held at No. 6 Cold Store Commodity B/L Beef B/L Mutton Lamb Cuts Beef Offals Pork Packages 28,962 1,941 8,208 627 888 Approx. Wt. 724 (Tons) 48½ 205¼ 15 ¾ 22½ Total Weight 1,016 Tons (approx.) Total Packages, 40,626. Importation of Bulk Lard and Edible Tallow in Ships' Tanks during 1971 Country No. of Ships Approx. Tonnage Number Sampled U.S. A. 8 19,712 1 Bulk Lard Italy 2 1,000 _ Bulk Lard Belgium 1 466 — Bulk Lard TOTALS 11 21,178 1 THE FOOD HYGIENE (DOCKS, CARRIERS, etc.) REGULATIONS, 1960 The sophisticated and modern practices, including containerisation, now generally applied to the packaging of food have considerably reduced the risk of contamination of food during transit, discharge and delivery. However, the contamination during the traditional carriage of carcase meat in refrigerated holds of ships still remains, although there has been a diminution of this problem due to the present conditions under which all meat from South America is now cartoned. Constant supervision during discharge to ensure the cleanliness of quays and cargo handling equipment is a matter of routine. Vehicles used for the carriage of carcase meat are now generally of modern design and construction. The larger transport companies also operate an acceptable system for routine cleansing. During 1971 a total of 8,650 inspections were recorded which resulted in 247 vehicles receiving additional cleansing at the loading banks, and a further 58 vehicles being rejected for complete cleansing. Protective clothing is issued to personnel engaged in carcase meat handling and the provision by the Port of London Authority of an increasing number of amenity blocks of a very high standard has greatly enhanced the existing washing and toilet facilities. FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1926 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS REGULATIONS, 1968 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1970 Fourteen samples of Feeding Stuffs were submitted to the Agricultural Analyst. No sample of Fertiliser was sent. Six samples of feeding stuffs showed variations beyond the prescribed limits, as follows:— In Pig Sow Rolls - satisfactory in respect of its content of oil and fibre but contained a small excess of protein which amounted to 0.20 per cent. Creep Feed Pellets and Weaners and Growers Cubes — both samples were satisfactory in respect of oil, protein and fibre. Both contained added copper, the presence and amount of which was not declared by the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations, 1968. Fast Growing Pig Pellets - satisfactory in respect of oil and fibre but contained a small excess of protein which amounted to 0.50 percent; also contained 220 parts per million of copper, the presence and amount of which was not declared as is required by the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926. 44 Turkey Growing Pellets — satisfactory in respect of its content of protein and fibre but contained a small excess of oil amounting to 0.40 per cent beyond the prescribed limit. Complete Horse Cubes - satisfactory in respect of its content of oil and fibre but contained a small excess of protein which amounted to 0.15 per cent beyond the prescribed limit. The difference in the limit of variation in all these samples was not to the prejudice of the purchaser. Details of the variations and labelling omissions were brought to the attention of the merchants concerned, who were warned that they must ensure that these products meet the requirements of the Act and Regulations. DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT 1950 & ASSOCIATED ACTS Mr. G.S. Wiggins, M.R.C.V.S., Veterinary Officer for the City of London, has submitted the fol lowing report:- Under the terms of the London Government Act 1963, the Corporation of London is responsible for the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act 1951, in respect of the importation of animals, for the whole of Greater London. Quarantine Facilities at Heathrow Airport In 1969 the Port and City of London Health Committee agreed in principle to the setting up by the Corporation of London of proper facilities for handling imported animals at Heathrow Airport. The Government Committee of Enquiry into Rabies, in its report, recommended the provision of such facilities at all airports authorised for the landing of imported animals. During the year various meetings were held with interested parties to discuSs this matter. In August your Veterinary Officer visited the Animal Hostel run by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals at Kennedy Airport, New York. This hostel was found to be much smaller than the existing one at Heathrow and is much more a commercial undertaking. The facilities nowhere approached those of London but much useful information was obtained. The Rabies (Importation of Mammals) Order 1971, has increased the Corporation's responsibilities as it covers most species of mammals, and has made the provision of facilities more important. Plans have been drawn up by the City Architect and it is hoped that specific recommendations may be made in the near future. Work carried out under the various Orders concerning imported animals included the following:- Diseases of Animals Act - Importations There were many cases of dogs and cats arriving at Heathrow Airport without the necessary licence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Numerous visits were made in connection with these and arrangements were made for 117 dogs and 50 cats to be placed into quarantine kennels and for 18 dogs, 6 cats and a monkey to be re-exported. A number of animals arrived dead at the airport and post mortems were carried out. The animals comprised 17 monkeys, 2 leopard cats, 12 otters, one panda, one civet cat, 7 shrews, 32 parrots, 5 macaques, 2 dogs and one domestic cat. Following the examinations, the carcases were properly disposed of and reports were submitted to the airlines concerned. Four incidents occurred of persons being bitten by imported animals. In each case the person bitten received medical attention and health reports on the animals were obtained after a period of 1.4 days. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Medical Officer of Health, Hillingdon, were also informed in each case. Importation of Dogs and Cats Orders 1928 to 1970 Several letters were addressed to airlines concerning infringements of the above Order at Heathrow Airport. In January a dog was exercised in the customs hall, permission having been given by an employee of an airline. Two dogs escaped from their crates in April and it was considered that the crates were very poorly constructed. Another dog broke its crate and escaped in July. Also in July, some imported animals were unloaded outside the hostel. In this case a letter was addressed to the Airline Operators Committee. Apart from the above, there were two other cases of animals escaping at the airport. On 17th August, a dog escaped and was free until the 25th August. It was sent to a quarantine kennel and a health report obtained after 14 days. On 26th August, a cat escaped from the hostel and despite much effort was not found. Other cases which occurred concerning imported animals were: April 45 26th - a dog which was suspected to be imported was taken from the river at Bow Creek. It was kept at Battersea Dogs Home until May 11th and then destroyed. July 7th - a dog was landed at Gatwick Airport and taken to Heathrow. It was returned to Gatwick but did not go on the intended flight and was taken back to Heathrow in a taxi. A letter was sent to the authorities at Gatwick. August 16th — a dog died on board a vessel at Chambers Wharf, S.E.16. The carcase was collected and incinerated. August 17th - a suspected illegally landed dog was taken to the Blue Cross, Victoria. Dog was re-exported and the owner left the country. August 27th - an illegally landed dog was discovered at an hotel in London. The dog was re-exported. It was ascertained that it had been imported at Dover. August 21st — an illegally imported dog was taken to a kennel by its owner. The dog was eventually re-exported to Germany. October 3rd - a suspected illegally landed civet cat was discovered in South London. Enquiries were made but the information obtained was unsatisfactory. November 6th - an attempt was made to smuggle some squirrels and 2 silver gibbons into the country, concealed in cases carrying parakeets and other birds. 37 of the squirrels had died and the remainder of the animals were placed in a zoo. Four cases occurred of illegally landed animals which resulted in cautionary letters being addressed to the owners. In February a Pekingese dog was discovered in the luggage of a person who had not declared it to H.M. Customs. Also in February a person was discovered trying to smuggle a cat through customs in a brief case. It was the intention to prosecute in this case but the owner left the country. On 11th June, it was discovered that an Alsatian puppy had been illegally imported the previous May. Information was received on 10th August that a sand fox had been illegally imported the previous July. In each of the above cases cautionary letters were addressed to the owners by the Comptroller and City Solicitor. Two cases resulted in the owners being prosecuted. In March two dogs were illegally imported from Afghanistan ait Heathrow and were taken to Corringham, Essex. They were eventually placed into quarantine. On 27th July, a kitten was removed from a vessel at Royal Victoria Dock and taken to Rugby. The animal was destroyed on 28th July. In both cases the defendants pleaded guilty and were fined £20 with £5 costs and £10 with £15 costs respectively. Animals (Importation) Order 1930 Animals (Sea Transport) Order 1930 — Horses (Sea Transport) Order 1952 These Orders contain regulations designed to prevent unnecessary suffering and for the protection of the animals. On 16th July, a visit was made to East India Docks concerning the export of a Connemara horse to Barbados. Conditions were found to be satisfactory. The horse was exported for breeding purposes. The Orders also state that vessels from which imported animals have been landed shall be cleansed and disinfected and that fodder, litter, etc. should be disposed of. A number of importations took place at London Docks and officers attended to see that the terms and conditions were carried out satisfactorily. The animals concerned comprised 29 polo ponies, 4 sheep, 7 elephants, 4 buffalo and 3 horses. Export Certificates Requests were received from nine firms for veterinary certificates of health to enable them to export such varied commodities as pheasants, partridge, dog biscuits, hog casings, lamb casings, ostrich feathers, rabbit furs, wood pigeon, rabbits, grouse, wool, hares, mallard and venison. Thirty-nine such certificates were issued. Health certificates were also issued for a cat which was being exported to Spain and a poodle dog, exported to Canada. Exotic Animals (Importation) Order 1969 In April, enquiries were carried out at the request of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning a chimpanzee which was thought to have been imported in contravention of the above Order. Enquiries revealed that the supplier of the animal resided in Yorkshire and therefore the Ministry in Yorkshire were informed and continued enquiries. In June a conference was attended on the transport of exotic animals. This conference was organised by the Zoological Society of London and speakers and delegates attended from many countries. Much useful information was obtained on the transport of animals by air and sea, transport of dolphins, mortality in transit, etc. Rabies Order 1938 Several cases of suspected rabies occurred requiring the action of Corporation Officers. In July a member of the public and a policeman were bitten by a dog. The same animal had bitten a child six weeks previously. The dog was taken to Battersea Dogs Home and destroyed, and tests carried out proved negative for rabies. In September a cat, reported by its owner to be going mad' was taken away and destroyed by the R.S.P.C.A. Inspector. Again tests for rabies proved negative. A further case occurred in November, concerning a child, who was bitten by a dog 46 which died soon afterwards. The carcase of the dog had been disposed of in a canal and had to be recovered for tests to be carried out. These were negative for rabies. In each of the above cases, it was necessary for extensive enquiries to be made and restrictions were placed on animals which had been in contact with the suspected animals. Following the courses of vaccinations against rabies received by your Veterinary Officer and the staff of the R.S.P.C.A. Hostel, Heathrow Airport, further courses were commenced for three members of the staff of this department. Acts and Orders 1971 The following Orders, affecting the work of the department, came into operation during the year- Equine Animals (Importation) Amendment Order 1971 This Order came into force on 15th July and amends the Equine Animals (Importation) Order 1969. Equine animals from outside Europe must have their importation authorised by a licence issued by the Minister. Poultry Carcases (Landing) Order 1971 The Poultry Carcases (Landing) Order 1955 is revoked by this Order which prohibits the landing of poultry carcases unless licensed by the Minister or fully cooked. STUDENTS AND VISITORS Student Public Health Inspectors Five student public health inspectors were employed by the Authority during the year. Requests are received from other Local Authorities for training in port health duties (as required by the Public Health Inspectors Education Board) to be given to their students. These requests are always met and the visiting students usually spend two or three days receiving individual tuition in the Docks. Parties of students from the technical colleges have been accepted during the year and altogether76 students each received two day's training in this way. Visitors Other visitors who were shown various aspects of port health control work included doctors, public health inspectors, pupils from the City of London Freemen's School and students from places such as Israel, Ceylon, Japan, Germany and France. "PORT HEALTH" The film "Port Health" which shows many varied aspects of the Corporation's health control work in the Port, was screened on 282 occasions during the year to a total audience of 11,026. Thefilm is issued on loan to establishments such as hospital training schools, technical colleges, secondary and grammar schools and health authorities throughout the country. 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 London Government Act, 1963 Noise Abatement Act, 1960 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act, 1969 ADMINISTRATION City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1965 and 1971 Local Government Act, 1933 London Government Act, 1963 London Port Health Authority Order, 1965 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Officers Regulations, 1959 47 ALIENS AND IMMIGRANTS Aliens Order, 1953 Aliens Order, 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 and 1968. CANAL BOATS Canal Boat Regulations, 1878 to 1931 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 CONSTITUTION OF THE AUTHORITY City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1965 and 1971 London Government Act, 1963 London Port Health Authority Order, 1965 Public Health Act, 1936 CREW ACCOMMODATION Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 DANGEROUS DRUGS Dangerous Drugs (No. 2) Regulations, 1964 FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926 Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations, 1968 Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (Amendment) Regulations, 1970 FOOD Antioxidant in Food Regulations, 1966 Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959 and 1960 Artificial Sweeteners in Food Regulations 1969 Bread and Flour Regulations 1963 Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1966 Colouring Matter in Food (Amendment) Regulations, 1970 Emulsifiers and Stabilisers in Food Regulations, 1962 Emulsifiers and Stabilisers in Food Regulations, 1970 Fluorine in Food Regulations, 1959 Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations, 1967 Food (Control of Irradiation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1969 Food and Drugs Act, 1955 Food Hygiene (Docks, Carriers etc.) Regulations, 1960 Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1970 Ice Cream (Heat Treatment etc.) Regulations, 1959 and 1963 Imported Food Regulations, 1968 Lead in Food Regulations, 1961 Liquid Egg (Pasteurisation) Regulations, 1963 Meat (Sterilization) Regulations 1969 London Government Act, 1963 Mineral Hydrocarbons in Food Regulations 1966 Preservative in Food Regulations 1962 Preservatives in Food (Amendment) Regulations, 1971 Public Health (Imported Milk) Regulations, 1926 Solvents in Food Regulations 1967 FUMIGATIONS Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Buildings) Regulations, 1951 Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation of Ships) Regulations, 1951 HOUSEBOATS City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1933 Part III Sections 6 & 7 Essex County Council Act, 1952, Section 212 INFECTIOUS DISEASES City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1971 Health Services and Public Health Act, 1968 London Government Act, 1963 Public Health Act, 1936 Public Health Act, 1961 Public Health (Fees for Notification of Infectious Diseases) Order, 1968 48 Public Health (Infectious Disease) Regulations, 1968 Public Health (Prevention of Tuberculosis) Regulations, 1925 Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1970 Public Health (Aircraft) Regulations, 1970 Regulations as to the notification of Plague as an infectious disease, 1900 Regulations for preventing Plague by the destruction of Rats etc. 1910 RATS AND MICE Poisons Rules, 1971 Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949 Prevention of Damage by Pests (Application to Shipping) Orders, 1951 to 1956 Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1970 SHELLFISH Medway (Shellfish) Regulations, 1935 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 and 1948 in respect of a 'prescribed area' in Kent. Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934 and 1948 CLEAN AIR Clean Air Act, 1956 and 1968 Clean Air (Arrestment Plant) (Exemption) Regulations, 1969 Clean Air (Emission of Dark Smoke) (Exemption) Regulations, 1969 Clean Air (Height of Chimneys) (Exemption) Regulations, 1969 Clean Air (Measurement of Grit and Dust from Furnaces) Regulations, 1971 Clean Air (Emission of Grit and Dust from Furnaces) Regulations, 1971 Height of Chimneys (Prescribed Forms) Regulations, 1969 Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) Regulations, 1958 Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations, 1958 Public Health Act, 1936 BYE-LAWS Bye-laws have been made by the Port Health Authority 1. For preventing 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 of London. PUBLICATIONS (1) Handbook of Poultry Inspection. (2) Clean Food Handling. 49 SOME ASPECTS OF MARINE POLLUTION OF CONCERN TO HEALTH AUTHORITIES By A.H. Marshall, F.A.P.H.I., Master Mariner, Chief Port Health Inspector, Port of London Health Authority SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Public Health Law covers approximately ten per cent of the current water pollution control legislation. However, Section 135 of the Water Resources Act, 1963, defines "inland waters" as "so much of any river, stream, whether tidal or not, and so much of any lake, pond, reservoir or dock and any channel, creek, bay, estuary or arm of the sea as is within any of the river authority areas". The connection of this definition to ships and the sea permits the word "marine" to be included in the title of this paper and the discussion therein of matters which are of general interest to health authorities and port health authorities, although to a large degree these authorities are not responsible for the exercise of the relevant functions. "The amount of water in the seas and oceans of the world is almost unbelievably great and its potentialities for dilution and rendering harmless the wastes of mankind are almost infinite. Unfortunately these potentialities are not fully available everywhere because the oceans do not mix rapidly and in some places are hardly available at all. Disposal of wastes at these places (chiefly sewage, but also toxic industrial wastes together, of course, with waste oil) has at times given rise to objectionable conditions and has tainted fish and even made them poisonous to mankind. This has given rise to concern, both popular and scientific, and sea disposal of wastes has come in for a good deal of criticism." (Technical Committee on the Disposal of Toxic Solid Wastes). These observations portray most vividly the situation by which enlightened governments and people have come to recognise that marine pollution is one of the major problems facing mankind in the 1970's. The oceans cover approximately two thirds of the earth's surface and although their capacity to degrade and dilute is enormous, it is not infinite, and there is increasing evidence that the oceans of the world can no longer be considered a timeless dustbin. "Pollution'", a subject of last year's European Conservation Year, is definitely an "IN" subject and has rapidly moved up the list of priorities. It is now freely discussed on television, radio and in the press. SECTION II - GLOBAL PROBLEM The renowned French underwater explorer, Commandant Cousteau, reported to the Council of Europe (1) the results of his repeated obersvations during the last two decades. In all seas of the world marine life has, in his opinion, diminished by more than thirty and by less than fifty per cent over the last twenty years. He has reported a reduction in the Red Sea coral reefs, dying reefs in the Mozambique Channel, those south of Madagascar and those off the Chagos Archipeligo and the Seychelles. He has also noted deterioration in the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, North and South Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean. American deep sea divers using the submarine "Deep Star" off Long Beach, California, found no life at all below a depth of 416 fathoms (2,500 ft.) and on the ocean bed just north of Cataline Island they found a layer of fine brown flocculated material covering the normal ocean sediment. The same divers when operating off San Lucas Cape, Lower California, again found an underwater desert and the ocean bed included mounds of industrial waste deposited by passing ships. Studies carried out on the sludge dumping grounds off New York have shown that the effects on benthic communities can be quite drastic. The bottom water was found to be very low in oxygen content and marine life was largely absent from the central areas of the dumping grounds. The sad story of Lake Erie is perhaps the greatest object lesson of our time. As a resultthe word "EUTROPHICATION" has been introduced into the vocabulary. Eutrophication is the enrichment of water in watercourses and lakes by chemical substances, especially compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus. It can greatly accelerate the growth of algae and higher forms of plant life. In 1929 Lake Erie had a high degree of oxygen saturation, but by 1964 some 2,600 square miles (approximately one quarter of the total area) was found to have an extremely low oxygen level. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in its Lake Erie Report 1968, stated that: "the total mass of organic waste that reaches Lake Erie each year requires for its conversion to inorganic substances the consumption of about 540 million pounds of oxygen." The continuous decomposition of the enormous accumulation of rotting vegetation and sludge with its complement of micro-organisms utilises the dissolved oxygen and releases plant nutrients which stimulate plant growth even more. Approximately one third of the United States Lake Erie shore line is fouled by bacterial contamination from waste inputs. Coliform concentrations may run as high as 1 million or more organisms per 100 m.l. It is interesting to note that the Canadian Department of Transport's proposed regulations specify a maximum of 1,000 coliform organisms per 100 m.l. in the sewage effluent discharged from ships into the St. Lawrence Seaway. Industry on the shores of Lake Erie has been charged with pouring 280 lbs. of mercury a day into the Lake in industrial effluents, but this has now been drastically reduced to about 10 lbs. per day. In the middle of 1970 there was a report that the Caspian Sea was in danger of becoming a "dead sea" as a result of the pollution of the rivers draining into it, and as a result the tonnages of sturgeon had drastically fallen over the last nine years. More recently the Biblical Sea of Galilee was reported to be reaching pollution danger point as a result of tourist development on the shores and the drain off of pesticide residues used in the orange groves. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2) mention pollution of some isolated stagnant basins within largely land-docked areas, such as parts of the Baltic and parts of Oslo Fjord. Early in April a survey of the Mediterranean's best known sun spots (3) was publicised. It should be added that not all the beaches are contaminated by sewage and oil. Regarding the pollution of holiday beaches in England and Wales, there have been two press reports as a result of surveys carried out by the Coastal Anti-Pollution League (4). SECTION III - POLLUTION OF RIVERS, COASTAL WATERS AND ESTUARIES The fresh water in most rivers in their natural state may vary in appearance from turbid to crystal clear. The water is rich in dissolved oxygen, approximately 10 p.p.m. and supports a vast variety of plant and marine life. Rivers and lakes supply most of our drinking water and the water used in industry and agriculture. Unfortunately the rivers are used increasingly to dispose of our industrial waste and sewage effluent and to some extent for power station cooling purposes, which de-oxygenate and heat the water and on return to the river still further reduce the dissolved oxygen content of the river. (a) Sewage Disposal A great deal had already been written on the subject of pollution of the rivers in England and Wales, much of it dating back into history. The Working Party on Sewage Disposal in their Report (5) say that despite the recognition by Parliament that river pollution should be controlled, there is no national assessment of the quality of river water which would show the current extension of pollution and the effects of statutory control. Water abstraction for industry, agriculture and public supply has reduced the volume of clean water in many rivers while sewage effluent discharges have increased. For example, in dry weather some reaches of the Irwell, Tame, Rother, Mersey, Don and the Avon at Stratford are normally at least half treated sewage effluent. An analysis of the Tame, which carries effluent from the Birmingham area, shows it to be more contaminated than a normal sewage effluent. A River Pollution Survey was undertaken by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (1969/70) in co-operation with river authorities, the Confederation of British Industry, and the local sewage disposal authorities. The result of the survey has not so far been published. The most comprehensive information previously available was in 1958 when the Ministry completed an informal survey. The following table is from the informal survey of non-tidal rivers with a dry weather flow of at least one million gallons a day. Class Description of River Miles % of total 1 Unpolluted or recovered from pollution 14,603 73 2 Doubtful and needing improvement 2,865 15 3 Poor and urgently needing improvement 1,279 6 4 Grossly polluted 1,278 6 The criteria used for this classification is set out and their comment relating to Class is as follows:- Class 1: These rivers will be fit for normal uses although it may not be safe to bathe in them. Class 2: These rivers may support game fish (e.g. salmon and trout) as well as coarse fish and be fit as a source of public water supply. Class 3: These rivers may support coarse fish but they are not fit for use for public water supply or high grade industrial use and may not be fit for irrigation or for supplying cooling water for industry. Class 4: These rivers cannot be used for public water supply, by agriculture for irrigation or by industry for process water. They are not pleasant for people who live or work by them or who use them for recreation. The Report states that there are some 5,000 municipal sewage treatment works in England and Wales serving over four-fifths of the population; under 20 per cent of these serve populations of over 10,000. The works discharge mainly to rivers and in a few places to estuaries, the most notable being the Thames which receives vast quantities of effluent. However, the Report cites evidence that about 60 per cent of local authorities' sewage effluents fail to reach the standard recommended by the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal for no more than 30 m.g/l (30 p.p.m.) of suspended solids and 20 m.g/l for B.O.D. (20 p.p.m.) For centuries river estuaries have been regarded as being in the same category as the sea in being able to absorb large quantities of pollution. The vast quantity of sewage sludge which has been discharged a few miles from the shore for many years is testimony to the capacity of the sea to receive large amounts of wastes without significant effect and a few special studies have confirmed that at suitable sites, enormous dilution is readily available and biological purification takes place. It is estimated that some five million cubic metres of domestic sewage is piped to the sea every day. However, some effluents have of late been discharged without treatment, which has resulted in very severe pollution specially in or near mouths of rivers. The 1958 Ministry of Housing and Local Government Survey found that tidal rivers to the then seaward limits were more polluted than either non-tidal rivers or canals. As the information was less complete than for rivers, the following figures should be taken only as a general indication of the state of tidal rivers and estuaries in 1958. Degree of Pollution in Tidal Rivers and Estuaries Class Condition Miles % of Total 1 Clean 720 41 2 Doubtful 580 33 3 Poor 250 14 4 Grossly Polluted 220 12 The Working Party on Sewage Disposal says there are some badly polluted estuaries in the conurbations - the Mersey, Tees, Tyne, Wear, Humber, Severn, Usk and Ribble. The only major estuary not significantly polluted is the Solway Firth, containing the Esk and Eden estuaries. In the Humber estuary the main cause of pollution is the pollution load brought down by the rivers Ouse and Trent. The Tees, it is said, receives 500 untreated discharges and the Tyne receives sewage and trade waste through 270 outfalls. On the Welsh Coast of the Severn estuary there are 90 outfalls discharging sewage and trade waste from 1.1 million people (40 per cent of of the population of Wales). The Severn and the Thames estuaries are used for the disposal of sludge by sludge vessels. In the case of the Thames estuary, some five million tons of digested sludge are dumped each year without creating a sea floor "desert". (b) Toxic Wastes The Technical Committee on the Disposal of Toxic Solid Wastes (6) found there was no satisfactory definition of the word "toxic" but as the pollution prevention Acts spoke of "poisonous, noxious and polluting matter" they did not try to distinguish precisely between these words and took it that "poisonous" and "toxic" were almost synonymous in common or everyday use. As this paper is restricted to marine pollution, a brief outline as to how the inshore tipping of toxic waste may create ultimate river pollution is appropriate. There would be no pollution due to solid waste tipped dry were it not for rain. If the tip itself, the toxic wastes in it and the surrounding land are all permeable, then the rain fall should percolate vertically downwards. The water reaching the waste should in fact be no more than the rainfall minus the evapotranspiration for the area. If it is more, the percolate will eventually reach an impermeable layerand find its way via surface drainage to a stream. Opportunity for dilution and oxidation varies according to local geology and is limited in some circumstances. Because of this, detectable pollution of streams occurs more frequently than pollution of underground water sources. Detectable pollution will most likely be found in watercourses close to tips and grazing lands during the wettest period of the year, i.e. November to March. This could be a major hazard, since about one third of Britain's drinking water supplies is abstracted from underground sources and a further third comes from lowland river systems- The disposal to sea of toxic wastes within the territorial waters of England and Wales is controlled by byelaws of the eleven Sea Fisheries Committees constituted under the Sea Fisheries Act 1888. Beyond that there appears to be no statutory control. Suitable precautions are taken in England and Wales through a voluntary consent system operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The consents for deep sea disposal usually request that the toxic material shall be enclosed in suitable, identifiable, non-plastic containers which will not float and from which the wastes will not be released before they have arrived at the bottom of the sea and then only very slowly. The disposal outside the continental shelf in depths greater than 2,000 fathoms is carried out from ships on transatlantic runs or specifically chartered ships. The U.K. Atomic Energy Authority has gained experience in sea disposal of waste and such advice is available to industry. There are a number of well established dumping areas in the sea. Each dump is entered in the ship's log and a certificate signed by the Master of the vessel quoting the consent certificate number, details of the containers and the position of the ship at the time, is sent to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Very recently concern has been expressed in scientific circles lest some large land locked seas which are small compared with the oceans, receive too much waste directly or indirectly from large industrial regions. The North Sea and the Baltic are two examples. An additional complication is the way in which certain kinds of marine life actively concentrate substances, such as metals and organochlorine pesticide residues, with the result that their bodies may contain quantities a hundred or even a thousand times greater than in the sea itself. Accumulations of mercury in fish have become wide-spread ranging from Japan, U.S.A. and Canada and in some areas around Scandinavia. One reason for this is the discharge to sea of mercury as a result of waste products resulting from the manufacture of materials used for P.V.C. plastic. Regarding non-toxic wastes, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1970, state that four million tons of colliery waste and 1.5 million tons of china clay waste are disposed of each year off the north-east and south-west coasts respectively. (c) Oil Pollution The question of pollution of coastal waters and estuaries would be incomplete without a reference to oil. The spillage of oil at sea and the resultant contamination of pleasure beaches and the wholesale slaughter of sea birds has been widely publicised. There has, however, been less publicity given to oil pollution of the sea arising from the accidental spillage at off shore oil drilling sites in home and overseas waters. Very little is known about the effects of the drilling and dredging on the shallow and deep sea floor and a major catastrophe could occur at some time in the future. The proposal to construct sea bed oil storage tanks in the vicinity of oil rigs also represents a hazard. Ten years ago a tanker of 50,000 tons was considered to be immense. In 1970 (7) there were 98 tankers of 100,000 tons and over in service and a mammoth tanker of some 450,000 tons is on order. It must be realised how great the home coastline is at risk when considering the escalation from "large" to "super" to "mammoth" tankers and that there are something like 800 ship movements through the Dover Straits each day. The accident rate approximates to three incidents each week. Since the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, there has been quite a list of major marine accidents involving oil spillage to coastal waters and beaches. These are as follows:- April 1969 "Hamilton Trader" — collision in Liverpool Bay November 1970 "Pacific Glory" — aground after collision off Isle of Wight January 1971 "Texaco Caribbean" — foundered after collision explosion off Dover January 1971 "Brandenburg" and "Nicki" - both foundered after striking "Texaco Caribbean" wreck. February 1971 "Hydrophone" - after collision off Goodwin Sands March 1971 "Trinity Navigator" - aground in Torbay April 1971 "Panther" - aground on theGoodwin Sands April 1971 "Hullgate" — collision off Beachy Head and one case involving chemical spillage, the tanker "Bow Rogn" which collided with the Nab Tower. The increasing incidence of oil spillages caused by strandings and collisions puts the seaside local authorities to great trouble and expense, whilst repeated spills prevent the natural recovery of beaches and marine life. It is interesting to note that in the Annual Report of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea for 1969, there were 64 proseuctions under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts for unlawful discharges of oil during the year ending 1968. These resulted in 62 convictions of which 27 related to offences by British registered ships and 30 to offences by ships of foreign flags. The remaining five convictions concerned discharges of oil from installations on land. During 1969 surveyors of the Board of Trade carried out 2,267 inspections of ships to ensure that they complied with requirements of the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts. There were 80 prosecutions for unlawful discharges of oil, resulting in 77 convictions. Forty convictions related to offences by British registered ships; they included the first successful prosecution for an offence committeed outside United Kingdom territorial waters. The Report of the Advisory Committee includes surveys of oiled sea birds and their rehabilitation, the general situation of oil pollution round Great Britain, and the latest information relating to work carried out in all these fields by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO). A recent television programme on oil pollution in coastal waters included a reference to the deep water oil terminal at Milford Haven where the local amenities are preserved through the good management of the oil terminals. The reception of oil super tankers does not necessarily mean oil pollution. The amount of oil polluting the sea is not accurately known but the Royal Commission estimates half a million tons from tank cleaning operations on board tankers and a further threequarters of a million tons from spillage and bilge water from ships. (d) Radioactive Wastes The hazards of radioactive wastes are so serious that very great care needs to be exercised over their disposal. Highly active solid waste is stored in concrete. Less highly active waste is burnt or buried at selected sites or is dumped at sea in deep water (over 2,000 fathoms) beyond the continental Shelf in such a way that it does not escape. Liquid wastes are stored, or if their radioactivity is very low, they can be discharged without risk. The Radioactive Substances Act, 1960, controls the accumulation and disposal of radioactive wastes and as from the 1st December, 1963, persons keeping or using radioactive material have, unless exempted, been required to register with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government* and obtain authorisation from the Minister for the disposal, including discharge into waters, of radioactive waste. The disposal of radioactive waste on or from premises on a site licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act must be authorised by both that Ministry* and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The nine nuclear power stations currently operating are - Berkley and Oldbury Gloucestershire Bradwell Essex Hinkley Point "A" Somerset Traws-fynydd Merioneth Dungeness "A" Kent Sizewell Suffolk Wylf Anglesey Hunterston "A" Ayrshire Under construction and due to become operational are - Dungeness "B" Kent Hinkley Point "B" Somerset Hartlepool Co. Durham Heysham Lancashire Hunterston "B" Ayrshire The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conducts limited monitoring of coastal waters for radioactivity. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1971 reports that these checks in 1968 show that in many areas there was no radiation exposure at all from radioactive wastes and where there was measurable radiation it was within internationally accepted limits. An article appeared in a London evening newspaper in August 1970 expressing grave concern over the dumping of toxic and radioactive wastes and included a map of the United Kingdom showing "Britain's Dumping Grounds" (8). (e) Household Refuse An estimated 14 million tons of domestic refuse are collected annually by local authorities in England and Wales; this amounts to about 2 lbs. per person per day (2). * (Now Department of the Environment). The disposal of household and trade refuse and refuse from ships into ports, harbours, rivers and estuaries is controlled by various port and harbour enactments and byelaws. Included with refuse are ballast, stone, slate, gravel, earth, rubbish, wreck or filth. It is of interest to note that under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, it is an offence to dispose of a diseased animal carcase into a river, canal, navigation, or into the sea within the three mile limit. SECTION IV - THE LAW RELATING TO MARINE POLLUTION The law relating to rivers, watercourses and estuaries is extremely old and obscure, some of it dating back to Magna Carta 1215. Many of the functions are divided between areas and authorities for specific or administrative purposes. The law relating to pollution is beyond the scope of this paper, but for convenience, a summary of some of the law applicable in England and Wales, which has been considered in the compilation of this paper, is listed in Appendix I. Regarding London, the Port of London Authority is responsible for the River Thames and the associated dock systems from Teddington Lock to a line from Foulness Point in the County of Essex to the Gunfleet Old Light House, then south-easterly to a seaward point near the Tongue Lightship, thence to Warden Point in the County of Kent. The total distance is approximately 92 miles. The Port Authority's jurisdiction under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1959, extends over the whole of the River Thames and Estuary under their control, but their powers under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts do not extend beyond the former Seaward Limit from Havengore Creek to Warden Point. The Pollution Control Committee of the Port of London consists of nine members currently nominated by the Authority, together with representatives of or nominated by the Essex River Authority, the Kent River Authority, the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, the Greater London Council, the Corporation of the City of London and a person nominated by the Confederation of British Industry accepted by the Minister as independent and qualified. The Thames Conservancy is responsible for the River upstream of Teddington Lock and the River Lee Catchment Board is responsible for the River Lee Navigations which joins the Thames at Blackwall. The Greater London Council is responsible, under the London Government Act, 1963, for main drainage, sewage purification and disposal and trade effluent control, Thames flood prevention and refuse disposal. The Council operate 40 pumping stations, 13 sewage treatment works and six sludge disposal vessels. SECTION V - PUBLIC HEALTH ASPECTS The International Health Regulations adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1969 reaffirm Article 30 of the International Sanitary Regulations 1965, which provides that a health authority for a port may take all practicable measures to control the discharge from any ship of sewage and refuse which might contaminate the waters of a port, river or canal. In Article 14 a health authority for a port shall be provided with an effective system for the safe disposal of excrement, refuse, waste water, condemned food and other matters dangerous to health. The Public Health Officers Regulations 1959, require the Medical Officer of Health for the port to inform himself of all matters affecting or likely to affect the public health in the district and a public health inspector is required to keep himself informed of the sanitary circumstances of the port health district. Weils Disease or Leptospirosis Man becomes infected by drinking contaminated water unintentionally or by accidental immersion or by the organisms getting into the body through skin abrasions. Dr. Twigg (9) has reported that although farm workers topped the list in the period 1947-50, making up to 31 per cent of the total, a category "bathing and accidental immersion" came second with 19 per cent of recorded cases. A recent Public Health Laboratory Service Report (10) states that for the last seven years the number of cases of leptospirosis reported by laboratories in England and Wales has been about 30 to 40 cases a year and during 1970 there was a total of 27 cases in England and Wales of which three were swimmers and one was an angler. Metallic Elements in Shellfish Certain kinds of marine life, including bivalve shellfish, actively concentrate substances such as metals and organochlorine pesticide residues in their flesh with the result that their bodies may contain quantities thousands of times more than in the sea water adjoining their layings. The Metallic Contaminants Sub-Committee appointed by the Food Standards Committee consider and recommend as to the limits for any metals or other injurious elements, and whether they should be applied to foods generally, to any particular food, or groups of foods. Shellfish appear to have been excluded from food standards legislation because of the high levels of metallic elements naturally encountered and because even at those levels there is no apparent hazard to health. Shellfish may ingest and absorb lead compounds present in sea and estuary waters. Some of these sources are uncontrollable but others are attributable to human agency and can be regulated. The Lead in Food Regulations 1961 do not apply to crustacea and molluscs for which a natural lead content in excess of 2 p.p.m. has been established. The Regulations permit up to 5 p.p.m. in canned fish. In view of the high natural copper content of shell fish and crustacea, a limit has not been specified but the Sub-Committee recommend that the sale of shellfish containing copper in excess of 20 p.p.m. should be permitted if it can be shown that the copper is of natural occurrence. Traces of copper in food is a less serious problem than is the case of lead and arsenic. The Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959, do not apply to crustacea and molluscs or edible seaweed for which a natural arsenic content in excess of 1 p.p.m. has been established. P.C.Wood (11) has reported that Copper and Zinc in concentrations in excess of 250 and 1,200 m.g/l respectively, have been found in oysters from estuaries polluted by waters from old mine workings. These oysters are unacceptable because of the green coloration of the tissues and the bitter metallic flavour imparted by the metals. The following table of emetic and toxic doses (12) can be related to shellfish in order to arrive at a decision as to fitness on the basis that 1 p.p.m. is approximate to 1 mgm. per kilo - Copper: Emetic dose 300 mgm. of copper sulphate. Arsenic: Fatal dose about 100 mgm. Arsenious oxide. Zinc: Emetic dose 1 -2 gms. of zinc sulphate. Tin: An unofficial tolerance of 250 p.p.m. The presence of methyl mercury in imported Japanese tinned oysters was discovered by the Port of London Health Authority in 1961. The amount, when present, was considered to be of no great hazard to health. However, methyl mercury in tuna fish imported into the United Kingdom was confirmed by the Government Chemist and resulted in a statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Press Notices (13). The Bacteriological Examination of Imported Shellfish The bacteriological examination of imported live shellfish from Denmark (mussels) and imported, cooked, peeled, frozen shellfish from Japan, Korea, Canada and Bahrein has been a regular feature of imported food inspection. In 1967 the Association of Sea and Air Port Health Authorities agreed a "recommended standard" which has been faithfully applied by the Authorities since that date. From time to time additional and more specific sampling has had to be carried out as was the case in 1969 arising from the blooming of dino-flagellates which caused shellfish food poisoning in Northumberland and Denmark (14). The Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934, places responsibility on a local authority, through their Medical Officer of Health, for ensuring that the health of the public is safeguarded from the consumption of oysters, mussels and cockles derived from layings in prescribed areas. There is nothing in the law to prevent the public from eatinq shellfish derived from locations outside the prescribed areas. However, a Medical Officer, on becoming aware of a possible danger to public health, is obliged to report his findings to the local authority with a view to an order being made. There are various ways whereby a Medical Officer of Health may become aware of a danger to public health. This may be on notification of food poisoning attributed to the consumption of shellfish derived from the district, from intermittent sanitary inspections of the district or from planning and development applications through the close and friendly liaison which should exist between a port or harbour authority, river authority and sea fisheries committee. Information will also be derived from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health and Social Security. It is significant that in the case of the Port of London, the Health Authority for the Port have made two orders prescribing areas and one joint Public Health Shellfish Regulation. At present they are carrying out a survey and research in the estuarial waters in order that they may consider the making of new orders or modifying or extending original orders. The polluted condition of ports, rivers and estuaries is also of concern to port health authorities in the advice sought by ship owners in relation to the filling of water ballast tanks which may ultimately contaminate the ship's potable water by accidental contamination. Advice is increasingly sought in relation to the use on board ship of distillation plants whilst in port. A pin hole in the condenser section can have disastrous results. It may be considered unusual to introduce the subject of clean air into a paper on marine pollution, nevertheless Section 16 of the 1956 Act is invoked from time to time in the Port of London in the case of bonfires of driftwood and other heterogeneous material on the foreshores. The recent exemption regulations have not been extended to cover incineration of this type of waste although disposal is in fact controlled in the manner laid down in those regulations. The disposal of household refuse has been referred to previously. The control of tipping and carriage by water is constantly exercised in the Port of London and prosecutions are taken from time to time under the Port Health Authority Bye laws. The Greater London Council collected some 2,635,000 tons of refuse in the period 1969/70 of which 618,000 tons was carried on the Thames by refuse barge (15). A spillage of one per cent into the River would result in 6,180 tons of putrescible matter introduced into the River in the course of a year. This pollution is avoidable. The January survey of houseboats showed 144 boats moored within the Port of London Health Authority District. The Authority's byelaws prohibit the discharge of dust, ashes, rubbish, carrion, fish or filth, offensive matter or liquid into the River. There were also eight floating restaurants established within the District, the sewage from which is discharged to shore sewer. SECTION VI - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN POLLUTION CONTROL It is of great interest to learn from the Water Pollution Research Laboratory Report, 1969, that the largest individual project is research into the discharge of sewage to coastal waters. A greater proportion of the laboratory's resources are devoted to it than for example, work on the treatment and disposal of sludge, and some of the large sums of money now being spent in schemes for long sea outfalls might be saved if the laboratory's research can be completed in time. The present study includes research into the mortality of coliform bacteria to predict the effects of varying outfall lengths. The report also says that heat treatment of sewage sludge is contemplated or installed at 30 treatment plants. The accidental spillage at road tanker coupling points in places using oil heating and the discarding into sewers and drains of used oil and vehicle washings at large transport garages and depots resulting in the oil pollution of watercourses, is now receiving attention by such bodies as the oil industry and Associations of Mteropolitan Boroughs and the Greater London Council. Their aim is the reduction and, if possible, elimination of this unnecessary type of pollution by "good housekeeping" and development of a new type of interceptor to replace the current petrol interceptor. The first sludge disposal vessel built for private enterprise for the carriage and disposal at sea of approved liquid wastes from local authorities and industry was commissioned in the Port of London in March, 1971. The vessel is designed to operate in shallow waters and can load when aground. It is capable of carrying some 1,500 tons of waste in four tanks and can discharge to sea at a rate of 300 tons per minute. It is intended to dump the waste about 12 miles from the Thames Estaury in the area of the Kentish Knock with the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Consultant chemists have been appointed in order to give adequate protection to the marine environment. The vessel is fitted with the latest navigational aids to "fix" the exact disposal point and it is part of centralised storage facilities for industries and organisations inland without their own disposal facilities. The first disposal by the vessel in April provoked a critical response from Norway. As the new Bill before Parliament seeks to strengthen the enforcement of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, and to increase the fine on indictment to a maximum of £50,000 it is only to be expected that new devices will be marketed to save ship masters from the results of accidental or negligent spillage of oil andto offera defence of "best practicable means". One such device is a shipboard "do it yourself anti-pollution kit" consisting of a sledge mounted water turbine pump specially designed for use on board ships. A hose with a lance attachment can project a multipurpose oil dispersant for use with all types of oil up to 100 feet. The dispersant, it is claimed, is non-toxic to mammals. The dispersant disperses oil in water in the form of minute droplets which remain dispersed and do not sink, thus causing secondary pollution problems. Meanwhile, the Warren Spring Laboratory is testing the efficiency of an oil dispersing detergent for use by the Department of Trade and Industry which could become the standard weapon against coastal oil pollution. Another development is a mobile polyurethene filled net boom which is capable of soaking up oil at a rate of 5V2 gallons of oil per cubic foot. In oil tankers the introduction of sullage tanks and the "loading on top" system should reduce the quantity of oil slicks discovered in coastal waters from time to time. The Royal Commission estimates that three million tons of oil per year has been saved which would otherwise have been discharged to sea. Although the introduction of sewage disposal plants on board ship is not a recent development, it would appear to be gaining momentum to the extent that all new larger transocean cargo and passenger ships have had purpose made sewage storage and ejector systems or biological treatment systems fitted during building, whilst some ships carry an assortment of ship to shore fittings and flexible pipe lines for use in port to connect direct from the main shipboard discharge to shore sewer. The discharge to sewage from ship is controlled in London by the Port Authority in their capacity as both port and river authority. It would appear that the biological treatment plants have run into operational difficulties in that the disposal effluent is not of a standard acceptable to port or river authorities for discharge into closed docks and rivers. The retention of sewage on board system is convenient so long as the vessels stay in poft, itself a current problem, is within the storage limit. Any necessary ejection of several days bulk can create problems and the time and place of ejection should be agreed with the port pollution control officers, so as to minimise nuisance and pollution problems. One system of chemical treatment and recirculation of the scented effluent has no port disposal problems which is an advantage over other systems, but is considered to be unattractive in some quarters on aesthetic grounds. The Jeger Report (5) recommended that the discharge of sewage from boats into fresh water should be prohibited. Discharges from ships including naval vessels, into estuaries and tidal waters, should be controlled where necessary by authorities responsible for water conservation. Further developments may be expected through measures to be introduced for the tightening up of existing legislation such as the "consents" by the eleven Sea Fisheries Committees under byelaws in their districts in relation to the deposit or discharge of any solid or liquid substance detrimental to sea fish or sea fishing in accordance with conditions laid down and in the area prescribed in the "consent". The East Suffolk and Norfolk River Authority have recently made Byelaws regulating the use of boats fitted with sanitary appliances on the Norfolk Broads. The Byelaws are due to come into force on the 1st January, 1973. The Byelaws, the first to be made to cover inland amenity and pleasure waters, will doubtless be noted with interest by other authorities. In 1966 there were Draft Regulations issued for the control of pollution in the St. Lawrence Seaway (appendix II) but it is not known whether they have been amended or confirmed. There was a press announcement early in 1971 of a nation wide survey, to be completed by early Spring, aimed at determining the pattern and movement of Britain's mushrooming industrial waste treatment and disposal problem (16). SECTION VII - CONCLUSION AND COMMENTS The Minister for the Environment has said that the Department faced four major priorities. The first was housing, followed by planning and the need to develop clear regional strategies. The third was Local Government reform and fourthly the improvement of the quality of the environment. The Department's approach to pollution is threefold; assessing the priorities, seeing what amount of pollution can be prevented if at all possible, and what can be cleared up if prevention is not possible. With the greater mobility of the population, more and more people are visiting lakes, rivers and coastal resorts at home and abroad.They are all now very much aware of all forms of pollution of their holiday environment and are increasingly inclined to complain. The complaints previously unchannelled are now being co-ordinated by many public spirited "ginger groups". The public are aware of the possibility that bathing on beaches at home and abroad may carry the risk of infectious disease, which causes anxiety. Spoilage of clothing and equipment by oil on beaches has ruined many holidays. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Working Party on Sewage Disposal both agree that there is an urgent need for comprehensive enquiry into the extent of discharges and the dumping of wastes into tidal waters, estuaries and seas around our coasts and into the kind of control which should be exercised. Refuse disposal is now being given increasingly high priority in local authority thinking and more incinerators, pulverisers, shredders, balers and composting plants are being introduced. Many of the sewage disposal authorities are increasingly aware of the bio-chemically resistant organisms which may pass through plants and which could ultimately permeate and pollute drinking water supplies. The Metropolitan Water Board are particularly active in this field and regular monitoring of the River Lee and River Thames at the Board's intakes for enteroviruses has been carried out for a number of years. Results since 1968 have been published (17). The Royal Commission takes the view that the use of atomic power will require arrangements for waste disposal on a far larger scale than at present. These arrangements will be of concern not only to Britain but to all nations generating power from atomic energy and the problem, though not imminent, is one which will have to be solved at international level and it needs foresight now. In future years, as all the various improvement schemes near fruition and there is the anticipated improvement, the marine environment will be used increasingly for amenity and marine sports. Some risk to the public health will remain and health authorities will need to review the sanitary condition of their districts from year to year and in order to do so they should by mandatory or friendly consultation keep themselves informed of preventive measures being introduced inland or up river. The Department of the Environment, in a letter dated 1st April, 1971, to the Clerks to Local Planning Authorities, with copies to the Clerks to all Local Authorities in England relating to (1) Pollution of Inland Waters; and (2) Safety of Aircraft and the pollution of water sources and supplies, stressed the need to make formal arrangements for local planning authorities to carry out certain consultations with the appropriate river authority, water undertakings or waterways board. It is interesting to note that in London, the Thames is becoming so clean that as well as 20 species of fish having returned to the estuary and lower and middle rivers, colonies of shellfish are developing, the consumption of which by the public without some form of cleansing, could represent a health hazard. Sea and Air Port Health Authorities are particularly interested in many of the national and international sources of marine pollution as they may from time to time affect their functions, duties and judgement not only in relation to the health and well being of ships' crews and inward passengers, but also to imported foodstuffs. It should be remembered that the Aberdeen Typhoid outbreak was considered to have occurred because of the use of the River Rio de la Plata polluted water in the cooling processes of the canning factory, It is important to read press reports, including the marine press, as quite frequently such reports as appear from time to time, are often well ahead of official notices and advice from the World Health Organisation and Government sources, and early consideration can be given to relevant matters. It is interesting to consider on an international note, that LASH lighters are required by U.S.A. Quarantine Regulations, to be thoroughly hosed down with pressure jets to remove any contamination or pollution picked up in European coastal waters or canals which may be carried over to the Mississippi River and associated waters. The third of the major priorities mentioned by the Minister of the Environment, that, is Local Government reform, is awaited. On the pollution front, as well as the Committee's reports mentioned in this paper, the Central Advisory Water Committee Report has been published (18). They have recommended that the present 200 water undertakers should be reduced to between 6 and 15. The 1,300 sewerage and sewage disposal authorities and the 29 river authorities and the water undertakers should be replaced by between 7 and 13 multi-purpose regional water authorities. The West German Government are suggesting a meeting of all North Sea States to draw up interim regulations to check marine pollution and have circulated an aide memoire (19). The Minister for the Environment announced in the House of Commons (20) that an international policy on marine pollution is urgently needed and a regional agreement concerning the North Sea and English Channel would be the most productive way to move ahead. All of this indicates a national and international deep concern over marine pollution in all its aspects and no nation should be permitted to dump its wastes to river or sea where by natural flow or ocean current it pollutes another nation's marine environment. APPENDIX I A summary of some of the Law in England and Wales relating to the discharge of Liquid and Solid Wastes 1936 The Public Health Act. Responsibility of a local authority to drain its district. Provision of foul sewers and surface water drainage and sewage treatment works individually or through joint boards. 1937 The Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act. The Act sets out local authority and industry rights as to trade wastes, including toxic wastes and classified exempted effluents. 1948 The River Boards Act. The constitution of River Authorities. 1951 The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act. The Act requires the consent of the river authority for the discharge of sewage works effluents, including conditions as to quality and quantity of effluents. 1955 Tne Oil in Navigable Waters Act. 1960 The Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act. The Act sets out for each river mentioned in the Act, the upper limit of tidal waters and the seaward limit over which the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts are applicable. 1961 Tne Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act. The Act made important changes in the 1951 Act as a result of the 1960 Trade Effluent Sub-Committee Report. The Act required consent for all discharges existing prior to and since commencement of the 1951 Act. Applications for consent required statements as to nature, composition of the effluent and the maximum temperature; the maximum daily quantity and the highest rate of discharge. A river authority may require detoxification of a toxic effluent. 1961 The Public Health Act. Part V of the Act brought under control to a large extent those effluents exempted under the 1937 Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act. 1963 The Water Resources Act. The Act required also the consent of the river authorities as to discharges of toxic liquid waste not made to sewers or river but to an aquifer by well, borehole or pipe. 1962 & The Town and Country Planning Act. The Acts required inter alia planning 1968 permission before a refuse tip is established or extended or the establishment or extension of an outfall to river. Planning permission may be refused on account of the possible toxic effects of the refuse on underground water or contamination of a foreshore by sewage works effluent. APPENDIX II Draft of Proposed Regulations for the St. Lawrence Seaway, 1966 (a) Vessels operating on fresh water lakes or rivers shall not discharge sewage or ballast or bilge water within areas adjacent to domestic water intakes as are designated by the Surgeon General. (b) No vessel, the construction or major conversion of which is contracted for after the effective date of this section, or is undertaken after such date for the purpose of sale and which operates in interstate traffic, shall discharge into navigational waters of the U.S.A., and sewage which does not meet the following requirements:- (1) For vessels with a normal complement of 41 or more, including passengers and crew, such sewage without benefit of dilution with water in addition to that required for sanitary purposes aboard the vessel, may not contain more than 50 m.g. per litre of B.O.D., no more than 150 m.g. per litre of suspended solids and no more than 1,000 coliform organisms per 100 milliliitres. (2) For vessels with a normal complement of 4C or less including passengers and crew, such sewage without benefit of dilution with water in addition to that required for sanitary purposes aboard the vessel, may not contain more than 1,000 coliform organisms per 100 millilitres. (c) "Adjacent" means within three miles of a water intake. REFERENCES (1) Commandant Jacques-Yves Cousteau, Council of Europe Assembly's Committees. Strasbourg, 1970. (2) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Chairman, Sir Eric Ashby, First Report February 1971. (3) Sunday Telegraph, 11th April, 1971. (4) Daily Mail, 12th January, 1967, and Daily Telegraph, 15th May, 1970. (5) "Taken for Granted". Report of the Working Party on Sewage Disposal. Chairman, Mrs. Lena Jeger, M.P., B.A. (6) Report of the Technical Committee on the Disposal of Yoxic Solid Wates, Chairman, Dr. A. Key, C.B.E., D.Sc., Ph.D., P.lnst.W.P.C. April, 1970. (7) Lloyds Register of Shipping Statistical Tables, 1970. (8) Britain's Dumping Grounds — London Evening News, 11th August, 1970. (9) Dr. G.I. Twigg, B.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Zoology, Royal Holloway College, "HEALTH" Autumn 1970. Paper "Rats and Disease". (10) Public Health Laboratory Service C.D.R., Special Reports, 19th March, 1971. (11) P.C. Wood, B.Sc., Dip.Bart., Head of Marine Pollution Unit, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Burnham-on-Crouch. (12) Martindale. (13) Lancet, 1st August, 1970 and 2nd January, 1971. Press Notices MAFF, 18th and 22nd December, 1970, and January 19th, 1971. (14) Lancet, 5th October, 1968. (15) G.L.C. Annual Abstract of Greater London Statistics 1969/70. (16) Environmental Health Trade News, February, 1971. (17) Public Health Laboratory Service, C.D.R., Special Reports, 15th January, 1971. (18) The Future Management of Water in England and Wales. Central Advisory Water Committee, April, 1971. (19) Daily Telegraph, 21st April, 1971. (20) Daily Telegraph, 28th April, 1971.