River water (no. 2) : a reply to Dr. Frankland / by Charles Meymott Tidy.

  • Charles Meymott Tidy
Date:
1881
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: River water (no. 2) : a reply to Dr. Frankland / by Charles Meymott Tidy. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    5/20 page 5
    Regarding Dr. Frankland’s objections to the Shannon in the light of an intimate knowledge of the river, I am disposed to think that the Shannon may not (for the reasons he states) be well fitted to disprove the oxidation of peat in the course of its fiow if there be no oxidation, but that it is admirably adapted to prove oxidation, should such a process be going on. Admit the ever recurring entrance into the river of feeders of peaty water, perpetually increasing the already large quantity of peaty matter present,—if I can show that in spite of this constant addition and addition, there is after a short run a manifest lessening of the peat present in the water, then my experiment, considering that all the chances and conditions are against me, becomes a hundredfold more conclusive than it would otherwise be. I grant, then, that in the Shannon the conditions were unfavourable (because so severe) to prove oxidation, and impossible for the purpose of disproving oxidation, because it was impossible to say that the quantity of peat discharged into the river might not be greatly in excess of the amount got rid of. In other words, the conditions required to disprove are not necessarily the conditions required to prove. Hence, when Dr. Frank- land points out, referring to my analyses, that at certain points of the river, viz., at Portumna, at Killaloe, at O’Briensbridge, and above the junction of the Mulcaire, there is a certain uniformity in the quantity of organic elements present, he merely indicates that the quantity of peaty drain- age that has found its way into the river at or near the spots where the samples were taken, succeeded in restoring again and again the amount of peat that had been removed in the course of the fiow. Thus far then, I contend that the Shannon, considering all circumstances, was singularly well suited for an investigation as to the fact whether the oxidation of peat and its removal by other agencies did take place in a running river, although it was ill-fitted to determine the extent to which that oxidation occurred. I would venture, however, to press Dr. Frankland’s criticisms one step further, and to use them as valuable confirmatory evidence of my contention. Admit that at four points along a course of forty miles (viz., at Portumna, Killaloe, O’Briensbridge and at the junction of the Mul- caire) the organic elements do indicate a fairly uniform quantity of peat in the water, it is indisputable that in this forty mile fiow floods of peaty matter have poured themselves into the river. What has be- come of it all ? Dr. Frankland says the results of the analyses show uniformity. So be it. But how comes the uniformity ? How is it, in short, that the quantity of peat in the river does not, yard by yard as the water flows onward, increase in amount, if there be no oxidation or no inherent power in the running water of self-purification. Starting with a brown water at Killaloe, and noting stream after stream of peaty flrainagc being discharged into it, the river water smoly ought to bo
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image