Attitudes to pollution in the United Kingdom and the United States, 1800-1950

HIST3106 research essay, S1 2007

The period between 1800 and 1950 was characterised by very anthropocentric understandings of pollution which focused on human health and human amenity issues. To a certain extent pollution was considered an inevitable accompaniment to industrial development, although most pollution reform activities chose to target industrial pollution, as opposed to domestic pollution, out of the belief that it was more practical to change the behaviour of a few manufacturers than a mass of disorganised citizens. Perceptions of what pollution was and how it came about changed from the early nineteenth century, when it was seen as a natural phenomenon to be solved by the application of technology, to the late nineteenth century and beyond, when pollution came to be considered as anthropogenic. Whereas visible, odoriferous or otherwise tangible signs of waste were the key elements of both public and expert understandings of pollution throughout the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, from around 1890 onward a professional elite were formulating understandings of pollution based on scientifically measured criteria such as the presence of chemicals, elements and micro-organisms. Differences in the rate and timing of urban and industrial development in the United Kingdom and the United States meant that Americans were more aware of potentially impending pollution issues from reports published on British experiences. However due to the relative abundance of natural resources in the US and the different social and legal structures, American and British experiences with and attitudes toward pollution were not exactly identical.

This essay will firstly examine general conceptions, attitudes and responses to pollution throughout the approximate period 1800 – 1950 in both the UK and US, then go on to examine in more depth the shifts in attitude that accompanied the rise of germ theory in the late nineteenth century and the increasing role of experts in defining “pollution” and shaping government and industry responses to it. Finally it will look at differences in the handling of the cases of water and air pollution, and between English and American attitudes to and experiences with pollution.

What was pollution?

The word “pollution” was not used in the modern sense until the second half of the nineteenth century. Until this time the word was used to refer to moral or spiritual corruption, describing the quality of a person or their soul or spirit. However from around 1865 the word began to take on more public connotations, although the moral force of the word was not lost until the twentieth century[1].

Environmental problems in the nineteenth century were conceived of in terms of discrete “nuisances”, issues that threatened the comfort, health, safety or morality of the body public, damaged private property or interfered with private property rights. Such things as coal smoke, noise, acidic vapours and fumes, smells, garbage, bad-tasting water and overcrowding in slums were all considered nuisances at some point between 1800 and 1950[2]. Nuisances were often, but not always, associated with public health or wastes[3] and usually had a (sometimes downplayed) aesthetic component. As well as being categorically discrete, nuisances were also supposed to be geographically discrete. The view that pollution was a purely local phenomenon held until the effects of municipal sewage systems, which became widespread from around 1870 onwards, led to the realisation that the effects of pollution could be carried downstream and affect communities outside the immediate locality[4].

Until the twentieth century definitions of what constituted a nuisance were formulated and agreed upon by the public and described qualitatively, in terms of tastes, smells, sights, physical sensations, the effects of substances on the body or vegetation or however else they caused inconvenience. Expert input, from chemists, physicians and engineers, was largely limited to either supporting or contradicting the public's claims about the danger or offensiveness of nuisances and advising whether such nuisances could be avoided or solved. However the period from WWI onward saw an increasing prominence and regard given to expert definitions of what constituted pollution in addition to the existing reliance on experts for the provision of solutions to pollution and nuisance problems. Expert definitions usually stressed quantitative measurements and practical “best use” solutions over the aesthetic considerations that the public often prioritised[5].

The increasing control of experts over the definition and response to pollution and nuisances was also a result of the changing state of scientific knowledge. Until around 1875 it was generally held that miasma or vitiation of the air, caused by fermenting organic matter and manifesting itself as foul and offensive odours, was the cause of sickness and epidemic disease. To confirm the presence of pollution and disease potential all one needed was a working sense of smell (although the poor were generally not attributed such an ability). With the rise of germ theory, however, definition of and detection of pollution became increasingly less democratic and more the privileged domain of sanitary scientists, engineers and officials. In addition to this, by the turn of the nineteenth century pollution began to be seen by the public as less a natural process as a product of technology and human agency and thus most appropriately responded to with technical and engineering solutions[6].

Attitudes to pollution

Pollution was a concern for a number of different groups and their attitude to pollution varied according to their broader social objectives, public sentiment and the rise and fall of different theories of disease. Public health reformers wanted to lower the morbidity and mortality rates in cities, while engineers were more interested in pollution when it intersected with efficiency and technology. Women and the middle- and upper-classes approached pollution through health, aesthetic and moral issues and perceived threats to social stability. The concern for business and industry was, of course, profits, while for politicians and government officials it was tax revenue and re-election[7].

In general, negative attitudes toward pollution never overcame the belief that profit was more important, that pollution was inevitable with industrial development and that a totally pristine environment was economically unfeasible[8]. Pollution abatement was also never put before military and national superiority. The needs of the nation undermined popular smoke abatement movements in the UK in the 1890s, while the war years in both nations saw much more pollution released than in peace time[9].

Opinions about what exactly constituted harm and who was at risk also coloured attitudes to different nuisances. Thus any pollution or nuisance that was implicated in epidemic disease was the focus of the most public action and concern as disease travelled indiscriminately out of the filth of the slums and into the cleaner, more affluent neighbourhoods[10]. However more localised nuisances, such as smells and smoke pollution in working-class and industrial areas, did not receive so much interest from the middle- and upper-classes who were not personally affected by them. It was held that the poor could tolerate higher levels of pollution than their betters would accept because they lacked refined sensibilities and besides, they were accustomed to it[11].

Working class attitudes toward pollution are poorly documented, but given the general range of living conditions experienced by the working class during this period, pollution was only one of many hardships they endured[12]. Flick suggests that the smokiness of working-class homes may have contributed to their general acceptance that smoke meant jobs[13], although it is equally conceivable that the threat to jobs alone was enough to get workers to side with their employers against pollution control. As it was, the working class were often blamed for causing pollution and disease by their squalid living conditions, inefficient use of coal fuel and laziness or carelessness at work[14].

Believers in environmental determinism and social progress rejected the view that healthy people weren't affected by pollution and claimed poor environmental quality as the cause of moral and racial degeneration, especially among the lower classes[15]. Cleanliness was seen as a marker of progress and national superiority, whereas pollution signified barbarism[16].

Engineers regarded pollution as a nuisance when it interfered with their technology and as an efficiency challenge to be solved by engineering and technical means. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century sanitation engineers regarded various trade wastes as nuisances, not so much for their danger to health as the fact they reduced the effectiveness of municipal water treatment systems[17]. Smoke was a sign of incomplete combustion and meant wasted fuel and wasted money, while machine noise meant wasted energy[18]. Pollution could also be a technical challenge in finding ways of adding value or re-utilising it to create a saleable product.

Responses to pollution

During the period between 1800 and 1950 pollution nuisances were dealt with as discrete problems, if they were dealt with at all[19]. In practice it usually took a disaster or tragedy for public sentiment and municipal will to effect any kind of change[20]. Local authorities also refused to be responsible for the disposal of industrial wastes, although they increasingly took on responsibility for regulating it[21]. In general, pollution was tolerated until it couldn't be tolerated any more, and then either action was taken to either remove it or move away from it, change the accepted disposal methods, implement a technological fix or simply sacrifice some areas to pollution and concentrate on protecting cleaner resources where it they existed.

In order to keep wastes clogging up the manufacturing process or the domestic environment they were simply dumped in the easiest and cheapest manner – gases and smoke into the air, liquid wastes into watercourses or the ground and solid wastes into heaps or used as building material or fill[22]. Although ordinary citizens often objected to the disposal methods of local councils and industry, the presence of the same polluting manufacturers and industrialists in positions of authority meant that altering the pollution situation was not always possible. Responsibility for the environment was a local issue throughout most of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which often led to situations where local elected officials or factories and processing plants owned by the city were accused of being their own biggest polluter, a charge they inevitably denied[23].

Another common response to pollution was to avoid it by moving. More affluent citizens moved out of the most affected urban and rural areas, abandoning them to the poor and further industrial development. Sometimes local regulations and civil nuisance cases could force polluting and nuisance industries outside city limits. The end of the nineteenth century saw the pioneering of urban zoning ordinances, such as those in St Louis and New Yord, which effectively quarantined nuisance industries together in areas where political resistance was weak, away from better neighbourhoods[24]. Local authorities also found that, where possible, it was cheaper to look elsewhere for essential water resources than pay to clean up polluted sources. American city authorities abandoned polluted but convenient water sources in favour of more distant but cleaner sources, rather than clean up the existing supply[25]. Businesses and factories were also willing to move to less populated or politically or economically powerful areas, although to escape complaints and harassment about their own pollution rather than avoid pollution in general[26].

If pollution transcended private property boundaries, financial compensation for property damage or loss of amenity could be sought through common law. However civil suits were often expensive and their outcome never guaranteed. Local authorities had the power to declare specific wastes a public nuisance and fine offenders for polluting, but the penalties were usually so low that large businesses were not discouraged from polluting[27]. Legal force, either through legislation and regulation, such as the UK Alkali Act of 1863[28], or through ordinary civil suits, such as in the case of many American factories that adopted the Cotterell Electrical Precipitator[29], was necessary to make industry invest in new technologies to prevent pollution nuisance. Even then, industry was incredibly resistant to investing in unproductive pollution control technology, that is, technology purely for abating a nuisance that did not result in any saleable by-product that the factory could use to offset the cost of the equipment or realise a profit from[30].

Finally, some reformers who considered domestic wastes as equally or more pressing issues than industrial sources stressed education as an appropriate response to the pollution problem. The reasoning behind this strategy was that the kind of businesses who were averse to new technology because it cost them money must be interested in making the most efficient use they could out of their existing equipment. Likewise working class families, who could not afford expensive but cleaner fuel and more efficient furnaces could still learn to burn their coal more cleanly and efficiently, thus saving them money and smoke nuisance. Industry and the upper- and middle-classes often blamed the poor for the smoke nuisance, either due to the sheer number of poor households burning dirty coal in open grates or the uneducated furnace stokers in factories who were blamed for objectionable black smoke emissions[31].

The rise of germ theory

For the majority of the nineteenth century the dominant anti-contagionist theory of disease identified miasma, spontaneously produced by the fermentation of organic matter, as the source of epidemic disease. Consequently the accepted way to identify health hazards was with one's nose, and most public health measures were centred around the removal of odoriferous nuisances[32]. As stench was the focus of concern, domestic and industrial wastes were not treated any differently, although the “noxious trades”, as they were known, were generally forced outside the city limits or into areas where the residents would not complain. In the UK municipal sewage systems were built during this time out of concern for public health[33]. Smoke, however, was not considered to be hazardous to health, although sulphurous fumes from certain kinds of coal were considered objectionable.

The initial effect of germ theory in the 1870s was to reinforce the Victorian fear of stench and filth generally[34], but with increased understanding of disease transmission public health authorities specifically named human sewage as the most hazardous pollution and most important public health issue. Germ theory, along with the trend for local authorities to assume responsibility for sanitary issues such as sewage and domestic refuse disposal, helped to demarcate attitudes toward “domestic” as opposed to “trade” wastes. Local authorities considered that the problems of industrial waste should be dealt with by industry and at industry's own expense. However, although it may have been objectionable and a nuisance to other riparian users, the dumping of acidic trade wastes into watercourses was not discouraged by sanitary experts, as it helped kill water borne pathogens introduced by the municipal dumping of sewage[35]. Attitudes to smoke began to change, becoming less favourable as people became aware that smoke diminished sunlight reaching the dirty city and lowered concentration of ozone in the air meaning that these naturally germicidal forces were suppressed.

Visible into invisible pollution

The twentieth century saw a change in the conception and definition of pollution from something that was offensive to the senses, a qualitative experience embedded in a particular time and place, to a set of scientific measurements of micro-organisms, chemicals and elements measured quantitatively by a group of professional elite. Urban decongestion, the result of the movement of populations into new suburban developments, and the quarantining of polluting industry by new zoning laws (such as those introduced in 1918 in St Louis and even earlier in New York[36]), coupled with more effective municipal waste removal systems and the substitution of the automobile for the horse[37], meant that cities were becoming less visibly filthy places to live.

The bureaucratic structures of public health and sanitation that had been established in the nineteenth century continued to grow and consolidate themselves in the twentieth century. Sanitation expertise became more scientific and professionalised[38]. Regulatory bodies took on an increasing amount of work, especially with regard to water, inspecting pollution levels and reporting on problems and potential solutions. Delocalised sanitary authorities, which were initially a response to water pollution problems that transcended local government boundaries[39], began increasingly to set their own agendas and priorities and formulated sets of standards for water quality, rather than treating each locality as a special case and taking on local concerns and attitudes toward water quality and pollution[40]. Advances in the various sciences led to the development of increasingly sophisticated and sensitive tests and measures which could reveal the existence of hazards that the body could not sense, such as bacterial contamination and high concentrations of heavy metals[41].

Finally, the displacement of visible pollution, increasingly diverted from the air and water into landfill, disguised the location and extent of pollution problems to the public even while engineers and other experts were aware of the hazards and risks of technologies like the Cottrell Electrical Precipitator and municipal sanitary landfills[42]. The eventual elimination of smoke from cities, such as St Louis and Pitsburgh in the 1940s, made concern about invisible air pollution possible[43].

Differences between attitudes to air and water pollution

Air pollution, either as smoke, sewer gas, noxious vapours or fumes, was not treated as seriously as water pollution in the nineteenth century. Although the fear of stench was widespread, it was usually tied to other visible or tangible nuisances, such as garbage and other waste nuisances, sewer pipes or abattoirs, rendering plants and other factories that used animal or organic materials. Smoke pollution was usually considered inevitable or harmless, although the devastating effects of coal smoke on vegetation and crops was not unknown, it was considered a lesser issue than human deaths from water borne disease. Air pollution could also be naturalised in a way that water pollution couldn't, as a product of the weather rather than human indifference.

Water pollution was relatively easy to tie to quantitative health indicators, such as death rates from infectious disease. Although many reformers and physicians felt that smoke was a public health issue, its effect on death and disease rates could not be quantified so easily. Consequently more moral arguments than health were made about the offensiveness of smoke, such as the corruption it nurtured and hid and its deleterious effect on the temperament of those forced to live in smokey darkness. Quantification of smoke most often took the form of differences in hours of daylight in smoky and clean areas, soot and ash falls and calculations of smoke-related cleaning costs[44].

Because of the established disease risk of polluted water, waterworks, sewage systems and water treatment systems were considered justified and necessary public expenditures. Water and waste systems were also relatively easy to manage and regulate with a centralised bureaucracy. In contrast it was considered impossible to regulate all the numerous domestic hearths and furnaces of the city, were it not from the outset an affront to the right to behave as one pleased in the home[45].

Although British experts had pronounced full combustion of coal as feasible in the 1820s[46], the methods and technologies available to realise smoke abatement through proper combustion were never implemented on a wide scale until the middle of the twentieth century. Exemptions from smoke regulations were regularly granted to industries such as metal casting that required high temperatures, achieved only by overstoking furnaces, which inevitably produced quantities of black smoke. Also, smoke pollution was considered to be transient and inevitable, unlike water pollution[47]. Until the twentieth century smoke pollution was often confused with or considered equivalent to fogs and even up to the 1940s air pollution disasters around the world were initially blamed on the weather conditions rather than the extremely polluted state of the air[48].

Differences and similarities between US and UK attitudes and experiences

Several factors differentiated British and American attitudes toward and experiences with pollution. One was the timing of intense industrialisation, which happened slightly later in the US than the UK. Consequently it was possible for Americans to draw on the knowledge and experiences of the British, although they eventually rejected many of the innovations that the British pioneered, such as sewage farming and coke by-product plants, because they were seen as overly expensive or irrelevant to the American situation. Another difference was the relative wealth of resources each could draw upon - obviously there was more space to expand into and resources to exploit in the US. Municipal attitudes to industry, public health and infrastructure also seemed to be quite different, marked by a relative optimism in the US as contrasted with a kind of fatalism on the part of British local government.

Despite these differences there were substantial similarities. Both countries relied very heavily on their domestic coal reserves for the majority of their fuel requirements. American nuisance law, being rooted in the British common law tradition, was also substantially the same as in the UK. Conflict of interest saw local governments in both nations ignoring the pollution of local manufacturers and industrialists, and a tacit consensus between government and industry existed in both nations that any regulatory bodies would be not merely enforcers of government pollution standards but providers of engineering expertise to industry.

Having a larger resource base to work with made it easier for Americans to avoid the effects of pollution and to establish a hierarchy of “best use” functions for resources, especially in the case of rivers and other water resources[49]. Large American cities could spare themselves the expense of cleaning up nearby rivers to drinking water standards by building new systems to exploit cleaner but more distant supplies[50]. Dirty industry was less concentrated geographically and more often located well beyond the range of major metropolitan areas and the vocal concerns of city residents[51]. There was less need and less will to utilise wastes, such as manure and sewage from the cities, and gases and aromatic by-products from coke production that accompanied metal smelting.

Britain, being much smaller and densely settled, had no such fallbacks when it came to drinking water and few geographic blessings when it came to dirty industry. Limited water sources meant that the expense of sewage farming and other methods of sewage treatment could not be avoided by municipal authorities[52]. However geographic proximity had some advantages when it came to utilising the by-products of British coke-works. Their location near urban centres meant there was a ready market for gas nearby. Eventually the majority of gasworks were publicly owned, so as to prevent a private monopoly situation taking advantage of a public good[53].

Whereas some American cities tried to make money out of their pollution by selling their manure and offal, incinerating garbage to produce electricity and establishing rendering plants[54], municipal authorities in the UK derived revenue from being their own worst polluters in the form of gasworks[55]. Not that local authorities in the US were without conflicts of interest, quite the opposite. Municipal authorities in both nations often consisted of local industrialists and manufacturers who were reluctant to enforce their own smoke abatement and other anti-nuisance ordinances[56].

The attitudes of municipal authorities in the US and UK were, however, very different. British local government was incredibly conservative, almost pessimistic, in their attitudes toward abating pollution and building sanitary infrastructure. Their aim was to keep rates as low as possible and to conserve the tax base, which meant avoiding restrictive legislation lest the large tax-paying manufacturers take their business elsewhere. A dull fatalism meant that as long as there was a dirtier town to hold up as an example, smoke abatement or other environmental improvements that might have adversely affected trade could not be justified[57]. On the other hand, cities in America supported sanitary reform, clean drinking water and public health and were willing to spend money on the infrastructure, such as sewers and waterworks, to achieve it. Their action and optimism was based in the belief that a good reputation for public health would encourage population growth and stimulate trade. As well as attracting investors, local authorities in the US were also interested in raising land values[58].

Possibly the most interesting discrepancy between the British and American experiences relates to the timing and success of public smoke abatement movements. While civic pride was no doubt a factor in both countries, in the UK the smoke abatement movement was also materially aided in its efforts by the interests of the gasworks[59]. No such corporate sponsorship was available to smoke abatement activists in the US, yet the first effective anti-smoke laws were passed and enacted in St Louis in 1940, more than a decade before an equivalent success in the UK[60].

Conclusion

Concerns about human amenity and especially human health underpinned many of the attitudes to pollution in the US and UK in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Increasing scientific study of pollution and public health, along with the professionalisation of sanitation and introduction of bureaucratic structures for pollution monitoring and regulation, meant that although twentieth century pollution concerns still centred around public health issues, the public contributed less to forming attitudes and setting priorities in pollution issues. American and British experiences and attitudes toward pollution were quite similar, with the main difference being that America had more space in which dirty industry could pollute without serious opposition, more clean water resources to draw upon and the opportunity to use the British experience to foresee and plan for potential pollution problems.


Bibliography

Bruggemeier F (1990) 'The Ruhr Basin 1850-1980: A case of large-scale environmental pollution.' IN: C Pfister and P Brimblecombe (eds), The Silent Countdown: Essays in European Environmental History. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 210-227.

Colten C E (1988) 'Historical questions in hazardous waste management.' The Public Historian, 10(1):6-20.

Colten C E (1998) 'Groundwater and the law: Records vs recollections.' The Public Historian, 20(2):25-44.

Cumbler J T (1995) 'Whatever happened to industrial waste?: Reform, compromise, and science in nineteenth century southern New England.' Journal of Social History, 29(1):149-171.

Detweiler R, Sutherland J N, Werthman M S (eds) (1973) Environmental Decay in its Historical Context. Scott, Foresman & Co., Glenview.

Dingle A E (1982) '“The monster nuisance of all”: Landowners, alkali manufacturers, and air pollution, 1828-64.' Economic History Review, 35(4):529-548.

Flick C (1980) 'The movement for smoke abatement in 19th-century Britain.' Technology and Culture, 21(1):29-50.

Hoak R D (1952) 'Theory and practice in stream pollution control.' The Scientific Monthly, 75(3):166-174.

Hurley A (ed) (1997) Common Fields: an Environmental History of St Louis. Missouri Historical Society Press, St Louis.

Iliff N A (1972) 'Pollution- nuisance or nemesis.' Geographical Journal, 138(4):420-421.

LeCain T (2000) 'The limits of “eco-efficiency”: Arsenic pollution and the Cottrell Electrical Precipitator in the US copper smelting industry.' Environmental History, 5(3):336-351.

Magoc C J (2006) Environmental Issues in American History. Greenwood Press, Westport.

Markham A (1994) A Brief History of Pollution. St Martin's Press, New York.

Melosi M V (ed) (1980) Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870-1930. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Rome A W (1996) 'Coming to terms with pollution: The language of environmental reform, 1965-1915.' Environmental History, 1:6-28.

Sloane D C (2006) 'From congestion to sprawl: Planning and health in historical context.' Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(1):10-18.

Tarr J A (1996) The Search for the Ultimate Sink. University of Akron Press, Akron.

Thorsheim P (2002) 'The paradox of smokeless fuels: Gas, coke and the environment in Britain, 1813-1949.' Environment and History, 8:381-401.

Thorsheim P (2006) Inventing Pollution. Ohio University Press, Athens.

Wohl A S (1983) Endangered Lives: Public Health in Victorian Britain. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.



[1] Rome A W (1996) 'Coming to terms with pollution: The language of environmental reform, 1965-1915.' Environmental History, 1:6-28.
[2] Hurley A (ed) (1997) Common Fields: an Environmental History of St Louis. Missouri Historical Society Press, St Louis.
Melosi M V (ed) (1980) Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870-1930. University of Texas Press, Austin. Sloane D C (2006) 'From congestion to sprawl: Planning and health in historical context.' Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(1):10-18.
Thorsheim P (2002) 'The paradox of smokeless fuels: Gas, coke and the environment in Britain, 1813-1949.' Environment and History, 8:381-401.
Wohl A S (1983) Endangered Lives: Public Health in Victorian Britain. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
[3] e.g. the noxious vapour nuisance that led to the UK Alkali Act of 1864 was not considered to be a public health issue, and noise nuisances did not involve any physical waste, although anti-noise campaigners would have argued that the production of noise was an inefficiency. See Dingle A E (1982) '“The monster nuisance of all”: Landowners, alkali manufacturers, and air pollution, 1828-64.' Economic History Review, 35(4):529-548 and Melosi M V (ed) (1980) Pollution and Reform in American Cities, 1870-1930. University of Texas Press, Austin.
[4] Tarr J A (1996) The Search for the Ultimate Sink. University of Akron Press, Akron.
[5] Hoak R D (1952) 'Theory and practice in stream pollution control.' The Scientific Monthly, 75(3):166-174; Tarr, op. cit.; Melosi, op. cit.
[6] Thorsheim P (2006) Inventing Pollution. Ohio University Press, Athens.
[7] Melosi op. cit., Wohl op. cit., Thorsheim (2006) op. cit., Rome op. cit.
[8] Thorsheim (2006) op. cit., Tarr, op. cit., Wohl, op. cit., Hoak, op. cit.
Flick C (1980) 'The movement for smoke abatement in 19th-century Britain.' Technology and Culture, 21(1):29-50.
Dingle A E (1982) '“The monster nuisance of all”: Landowners, alkali manufacturers, and air pollution, 1828-64.' Economic History Review, 35(4):529-548.
Hurley A (ed) (1997) Common Fields: an Environmental History of St Louis. Missouri Historical Society Press, St Louis.
Colten C E (1988) 'Historical questions in hazardous waste management.' The Public Historian, 10(1):6-20.
[9] Thorsheim (2006), op. cit., Tarr op. cit., Colten (1988), op. cit.
[10] Wohl, op. cit.
[11] Rome, op. cit., Thorsheim (2006), op. cit. Grinder R D 'The Battle for Clean Air: The Smoke Problem in Post-Civil War America.' In Melosi, op. cit., pp. 83-103.
[12] c.f. Wohl, op. cit.
[13] Flick, op. cit. p.49
[14] Flick, op. cit., Thorsheim (2006), op. cit., Wohl, op. cit.
[15] Wohl, op. cit., Tarr, op. cit., Rome, op. cit., Thorsheim (2006), op. cit.
[16] Melosi op. cit.
[17] Tarr op. cit., p.367
[18] Smilor R W 'Toward an Environmental Perspective: The Anti-Noise Campaign, 1893-1932' in Melosi, op. cit., pp. 135-151.
[19] Melosi, op. cit.
[20] c.f Magoc C J (2006) Environmental Issues in American History. Greenwood Press, Westport, pp. 207-225, Wohl, op. cit., Tarr, op. cit.
[21] Melosi, op. cit., p. 21
[22] Wohl, op. cit., Melosi, op. cit.
[23] Thorsheim (2006), op. cit., Melosi, op. cit.
[24] Hurley, op. cit., p.147
[25] Tarr, op. cit., Galishoff in Melosi 1986 p.53
[26] LeCain T (2000) 'The limits of “eco-efficiency”: Arsenic pollution and the Cottrell Electrical Precipitator in the US copper smelting industry.' Environmental History, 5(3):336-351. Dingle, op. cit.
[27] Thorsheim (2006), op. cit.
[28] Dingle, op. cit.
[29] LeCain, op. cit.
[30] LeCain, op. cit., Dingle, op. cit., Colten (1988), op. cit.
[31] Thorsheim (2006), op. cit., Flick, op. cit.
[32] Wohl, op. cit.
[33] ...
[34] ...
[35] Tarr, op. cit.
[36] Hurley, op. cit. and Hoy S M '”Municipal Housekeeping”: The Role of Women in Improving Urban Sanitation Practices, 1880-1917' in Melosi, op. cit., pp. 173-198.
[37] Tarr, op. cit.
[38] Rome, op. cit.
[39] Tarr , op. cit.
[40] c.f. Hoak , op. cit.
[41] Tarr, op. cit. p.360-361
[42] LeCain, op. cit.
[43] Tarr, op. cit., Hurley, op. cit.
[44] Thorsheim (2006), op. cit., Hurley, op. cit.
[45] Flick, op. cit. Thorsheim (2006), op. cit.
[46] Flick, op. cit.
[47] Although initially water pollution was thought to be transient provided the watercourse was flowing, experience soon proved the “running water purifies itself” theory incorrect.
[48] c.f. Magoc, op. cit. on the Donora disaster and Thorsheim (2006), op. cit., on London smogs
[49] Melosi, op. cit., Tarr, op. cit.
[50] Melosi, op. cit.
[51] Colten (1988), op. cit.
[52] Wohl, op. cit.
[53] Thorsheim (2002), op. cit.
[54] Melosi, op. cit.
[55] Thorsheim (2002), op. cit.
[56] Thorsheim (2006), op. cit., Wohl, op. cit., Hurley, op. cit., Melosi, op. cit.
[57] Wohl, op. cit.
[58] Hurley, op. cit.
[59] Thorsheim (2006), op. cit.
[60] Hurley, op. cit., Thorsheim (2006), op. cit.