| OCR Text |
Show .L Women iBitoed iatftle Aramst!: Smoke in 11937 (Editor's note: This article Is the fourth In a series of stories dealing with Salt Lake City's smoke problems.) By WILLIAM F. McNEANY Public-spirited women of Salt Lake City, comprising; a sizable group with opinions of their own, a not uncommon characteristic of the distaff side, entered the anti-smoke anti-smoke picture with pronounced effect In 1937, although they had by no means been silent participants partici-pants in the 20-year battle against i smoke, that age-old product of one of man's most necessary aids to life fire. An Intention of establishing an independent smokeless fuel plant at a cost I of $1,500,000 was announced an-nounced by Mrs. E. R. 8lmmons, then headjof the finance committee commit-tee of thi women's chamber of commerce. The announcement came after the chamber had voted to table a similar proposal for lack of funds to promote the venture. Mrs. Simmons, declaring that the project would go ahead under the sponsorship of an Independent group within the chamber, said their first move would be to raise $1500 to cover expenses of testa to be made on Utah coal by an "unnamed commercial plant" at an undisclosed location out of the state. 81ft Processes During the same year, J. L Gibson, president of the Utah Conservation Con-servation and Research foundation, founda-tion, said combustion engineers wnrlflnff fnr th. fnnnHattan hail been sifting through some 73 known low temperature carbonization carboni-zation processes in an effort to discover which ones were best suited suit-ed to be applied to Utah coal, characterized by its heavy oil content. con-tent. "With the completion of our experiments." ex-periments." Mr. Gibson said, "we shall be able very shortly to offer Salt Lake citizens the best method of producing smokeless fuel from Utah coal." Mindful of the considerable contribution to the total amok production scene made by the city's home owners and householders, house-holders, William L. Butler, head of the city amoke department, urged smaller coal consumers to cooperate fully with the civic-sponsored civic-sponsored drive to wipe out smoke. "One advantage In using cor- . rect coal-conserving firing methods." meth-ods." Mr. Butler stated, "is tha saving effected by every coal consumer. con-sumer. At least 15 can be saved on the average coal bill In following follow-ing carefully tlie recommended methods of stove and furnace firing. fir-ing. Combustion Problem "Our main problem." he continued, contin-ued, "is one of combustion. We can Instruct a 12-year-old schoolboy school-boy In a few minutes In the proper method of firing a furnace without producing smoke. All smokeless fuels, whether they be coke, or those produced by low temperature carbonization, result in a 48 loss to the consumer. Instead of volatizing comtva table gases in retorts, we can and wit! ahow tha people of Salt Laka how to burn them without smok in their own furnsces." For the benefit of the citizenry, a "display room" housing various types of furnaces and stoves was installed on West Broadway, with a crew of combustion experts, to demonstrate proper smokeless fir-, lng methods. Reporting on the progress mad during the previous yesr. the city announced early in 1938 that overall over-all smoke reduction reached a point 37.6 over the normal mark of recent years. Sponsored jointly by the city and the Works Progress Prog-ress administration, the smok abatement program was hailed as an Increasing success over th years. Smoke Producers The one-third gsln over normal reduction Included factories. Industrial In-dustrial establishments, railroads and residential heating plants, all major smoke producers. In the report. Mr. Butler noted that the "recent mild weather," unseasonable for the winter months, naa noi neen an aia vo the abatement program, as many thought but rather an obstacle. The city engineer pointed out that coal burns with less smok in cold weather than In warm temperatures, tempera-tures, and added that mild weather never failed to bring on an Increase In-crease in smoke from hesttng plants. The report also showed that th railroads, claimed by some as being be-ing the prime offenders, had cut down on their smoke production by 35 within the city limits since the Inception of the Intensive Inten-sive antlsmoke fight Meanwhile, the governing board of the women's chamber of commerce com-merce had split wide open in the controversy growing out of the question of control of a vote to process 100 tons of Utah coal. Twelve of the 25-member board threatened to resign tn opposition to a proposal to aend the coal to an out-of-state processing plant at a cost of $1509. Fought Bitterly The project was- fought bitterly within the board, with th opposing oppos-ing faction led by Mrs. Frank Page Stewart, who declared th idea was being "foisted by person-si person-si interests." thst the nam of the processing plant waa being kept secret, and that any action of the chamber should wait pending pend-ing a report of results of th state conservation foundation on smoke elimination. Mrs. Anthony C. Lund, chamber president, speaking for those who favored the proposal, said it was entirely in keeping with the chsm-ber's chsm-ber's drive for a amokeless city. A request for $1500 to finance th experiment had been filed with th city commission, prior to th vot rail which produced th uproar. With the withdrawal of th "dissenting "dis-senting twelve," Mrs. Lund announced an-nounced the project could "now proceed without obstruction." Upshot of the "testing project csme when it waa announced that 40 tona of all types of Utah coal were to be shipped In 219 ateel See Pag 11, Colunu 1 4 |
