2
INDUSTRIAL
AND ENGINEERING
items of interest concerning historic, industrial, and educational Richmond, together with maps for those interested in motoring to the meeting and in making side trips following. On to Richmond!
CHEMISTRY
News Edition
Another Big Number The February 1 issue of INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEM
Geranium Scent Lures Japanese Beetle to Death {By Science Service) A scent like that of the old-fashioned geraniums in our grand mothers' gardens is to prove the undoing of the Japanese beetle, which has been a most destructive pest in the Eastern truck garden and orchard region for several years. The U. S. Bureau of Entomology has recently discovered that the beetles are attracted by the scent of geraniol, the odorous principle of geranium plants. Comparatively cheap mixtures of this chemi cal have been made and are sprayed upon a small group of trees with the result that the beetles to the windward side will con gregate for half a mile around. They are then easily killed by a contact spray of a diluted pyrethrum extract. The experi ment was tried upon comparatively small infested areas last summer but will be used extensively during the coming season. Other methods of killing the beetles include the introduction of parasitic wasps and flies from Japan, China, and India, and the treatment of the soil of lawns and golf courses where the larvae feed with arsenate of lead. Shade trees have been pro tected by treatment with arsenate of lead coats applied before the appearance of the insects.
Third Pan-Pacific Science Congress The American Chemical Society was represented at the Third Pan-Pacific Science Congress by K. Kashima, our correspondent for Japan and one of the abstractors for Chemical Abstracts. The following extracts are taken from t h e report just made to the Society. The Congress convened in the Great Hall of Tokyo Imperial University on the 30th of October, 1926, and the sessions con tinued until the 11th of November. There were 150 foreign delegates and about 400 Japanese members. Some 430 papers were presented to the Congress which convened by divisions and in joint meetings.· Professor J. Sakurai, privy councilor and president of t h e Imperial Academy and of the National Research Council of Japan, was president of the Congress. Professor Sakurai was made an honorary member of the American Chemical Society a t our Philadelphia meeting* The American delegate was Dr. Victor C. Vaughan. dean emeritus of the Medical School of the University of Michigan. The opening meeting was addressed b y Η. Ι. Η. Prince Kotohito Kan-in, who was patron of the Congress, and by H. K. Hon. R. Wakatsuki, prime minister of Japan and honorary president of the Congress. The purpose of the Pan-Pacific Science Congress is to initiate and promote cooperation in the study of scientific problems relating t o the Pacific region, more particularly those affecting the prosperity and well-being of Pacific peoples, and t o strengthen the bonds of peace among Pacific peoples b y promoting a feeling of brotherhood among the scientists of all the Pacific countries. The first meeting was held in Honolulu, the second in Sydney and Melbourne, the third in Tokyo, and the fourth will convene in 1929 in Java. The Congress of 1932 may accept the invi tation of Canada, though that has not been decided. A permanent organization was suggested by Professor Sakurai to be known a s the Pacific Science Association and this organi zation would seem to insure the future success of the move ment. The problems confronting the Pacific Ocean and the countries bordering upon it were discussed by scholars of astronomy, meteorology, geology, geography, seismology, agriculture, architecture, zoology, botany, fishery, anthropology, ethnology, hygienics, and medicine, t o mention but a partial list. The delegates were unanimous in the opinion that the third meeting was the most important and successful in the history of the movement for international cooperation and research and for the promotion of brotherhood among the peoples of the Pacific.
Adams to Receive Nichols Medal Roger Adams, head of the Department of Chemistry a t the Univeristy of Illinois, has been chosen b y the Jury of Award of the William H. Nichols Medal as the recipient of the medal for 1927 on the basis of his work on "Acids of Chaulmoogra Oil and Related Compounds.'' The presentation of the medal will take place at a meeting of the N e w York Section, American Chemical Society, t o be held in Rumford Hall, N e w York, on March 11, at which time Dr. Adams will deliver an address on the subject of the award.
ISTRY will contain more than 45 original contributed articles cover ing a wide field of chemistry and chemical technology. Solid carbon dioxide, the new competitor of water ice, and a discussion of the world's inorganic nitrogen industry wall open the issue. Developments in the Preparation and Use o f Concentrated Fertilizers is one of a group of papers of particular interest to agricultural chemists, others being Some Economic Aspects of Texas Potash, the Determination of Mineral Nitrogen in Fertilizers, and of Nitrogen-Bearing Organic and Inorganic Chemicals Added to Nitrogenous Materials. A group of papers of special interest to sugar men includes accounts of Some Inter esting Sugarhouse Incrustations, Factors Influencing Char Filtration, and the Examination of Bone Black. Another series of articles has t o do with glue, gelatin, and leather. There is a discussion of Water-Resistant Animal Glues, Effect of Temp erature on Bating, the Action of Ammonia on Calfskin, a Study of Gelatin Viscosity, the Influence of Hydrogen-Ion Concen tration on Plumping in Tan Liquors. Sewage disposal is treated in a group of five papers covering Some Chemical Characteristics of Sewage Sludge, Practical Application of Hydrogen-Ion Control in the Digestion of Sewage Sludge, the Chemical Treatment of Wastes from Silk Dyeing, Disposal of Waste from a Plant Mercerizing, Bleaching, and Dyeing Cotton, and the Effect of Temperature on Sewage Sludge Digestion. There are several topics of interest to pe troleum chemists. There is a Comparison o f Gasolines by Analytical and Engine Tests, Influence of an Antiknock Com pound in a Gas-Ion Oxidation, Determination of Wax i n Inter mediates, Specific Gravity of Paraffin Wax, a n d Parts III, IV, and V of the work reported on Gaseous Explosions. A Sta bility Test for Turbine Oils is described and t h e first of a series of papers on the Deterioriation of Mineral Oils is also included. Further there are reported Some Methods of Studying Cord Tire Fabrics, a report o n Progress in American Tung Tree Culture, a n account of t h e By-Products of the Chilean Nitrate Industry, and a report of the work t o determine the Bffect of Moisture on the Blectrical Properties of Insulating "Waxes, Resins, and Bitumens. The second instalment of t h e series on Chemical Patents will appear. The first report on the Partial Pressures of Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia, and Water over the System : Water, Ammonia, Carbon I>ioxide, and Am monia Nitrate will interest those working in. nitrogen fixation, as will the paper on the Removal of Carbon Dioxide from Gas Mixtures Intended for Ammonia Synthesis. What is Chemical Engineering? You will find this discussed in our February issue.
The Best "Safety Kink" I Have Known B Y IRA V. KEPNER Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
One of the best "Safety Kinks" I have known—for the pre vention of explosions, fires, and accidents, in a chemical plant —consisted of two discarded "automatic sprinklers" with the heads removed connected t o a water line and suspended inside a storage bin where sulfur was being dumped from railroad cars, overhead. We receive our sulfur in ships; it is unloaded into drop-bottom railroad cars, which are taken up a trestle t o the top of the storage bins and dumped. As the sulfur falls dust arises, causing the ever present possibility of a dust explosion. At one time we had a great many dust explosions from this cause, and many a poor workman h a d his clothing blown, off and was se verely burned on account of them. Safe clothing, goggles, and respirators were a great help in the protection of the workmen, but we were a t a loss to know what caused these frequent ex plosions and how they could be prevented. There were several iron rods passing through, these bins, and inspectors from the Board of Fire Underwriters, who called frequently to investigate the fires caused by "these explosions, were of the opinion that the sulfur, striking tlie iron rods, caused "static-electricity" which ignited the sulfur dus*. Our boss pipe fitter hit upon t h e plan of installing a water line, equipped with two old, discarded automatic sprinklers, minus the heads, inside the sulfur bins. This plan was carried out and we now turn on the water, which sprays the sulfur as it is being dumped. Some two years have passed since we installed the first sprays, and we have not had one single explosion or fire in the sulfur bins since. A t this time all our sulfur bins are equipped with sprinklers. The first installation and cost of this little device was not more than $5, and I estimate i t has saved our company hundreds of dollars each year in fire losses and compensation payments alone; and it has saved our employees untold pain and suffering.
January w, 1927
IND USTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHE MIST R Y
Secretary Kellogg Replies and Secretary Parsons Answers I n the December 10 issue of the News Edition, we presented t o our readers under t h e caption "A Patriotic D u t y " copy of a letter addressed to Secretary of S t a t e Kellogg by Secretary Parsons of t h e American Chemical Society calling attention to certain facts in regard to chemical warfare. We now present Secretary Kellogg's reply to Dr. Parsons and a further communication from Secretary Parsons to the Secretary of State bearing on the same subject. SECRETARY K E L L O G G ' S R E P L Y D E P A R T M E N T O F STATE,
Washington, December 7, 1926 D E A R M R . PARSONS: I have your letter of November 29, 1926, in which you refer to our conversation of November 4, 1926, relating to the protocol for the prohibition of the use in any way of asphyxiating, poisonous, and other gases, etc., signed a t Geneva on June 17, 1925, which is now before the United States Senate awaiting the advice and consent of t h a t body to its ratification by the President. I note your remark that the statements contained in your letter are direct, and t h a t some of t h e m controvert statements which yon allege that I made to you. I shall therefore reply to you in the same spirit of frankness which your letter shows. I shall take u p t h e points raised in your letter in order. I n the third paragraph of your letter you state t h a t I informed you t h a t the United States adhered to a n d signed the declaration of the first Hague peace conference concerning asphyxiating gas shells. You go on to point out that t h e Uniced States did not sign or adhere to this declaration. You must have misunderstood my remarks to you. I recall stating merely that t h e United States signed and ratified The Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, Article 23 of each of which prohibits the use in warfare of poisons and poisoned weapons. I t is, of course, true t h a t the United States did not sign or adhere to the declaration of 1899 concerning the use of asphyxiating gas shells. Your quotations from the instructions of Secretary H a y to the American delegation to t h e first Hague conference and from Captain M a h a n ' s report appear to be accurate. In t h e first paragraph, on page 3 of your letter, you state " t h e United States took no affirmative action opposed to the use of gases in warfare until the Washington conference of November, 1921.'* In this connection I would call your attention to the provisions contained in Article 171 of the treaty of Versailles, Article 119 of t h e treaty of Trianon, and Article 135 of the treaty of St. Germain, which substantially state t h a; t the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases and all an? "«cous liquids, materials, or devices is prohibited and their mai cture and importation are strictly forbidden in Germany, Hungary, and Austria. These articles from the above-mentioned treaties were incorporated by reference in the treaties establishing friendly relations between the United States and Germany, Hungary, and Austria, proclaimed November 14, December 20, and November 17, 1921, respectively. These treaties had been negotiated and signed b y this Government prior to the meeting of t h e Washington conference of 1921. In the second paragraph of page 3 of your letter you state that there had been appointed t o advise the Washington conference a sub-committee on poison gas, consisting of technical experts from t h e United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, all of whom came t o Washington specifically for the purpose and sat in conference during several days. You add "their report was unanimous. I t was, however, suppressed. We are told t h a t it was never even read to the general committee whom it was supposed t o instruct. Repeated demands to obtain copies of this report from t h e State Department met with refusal. I t was finally obtained through publication in France in 1925. A translation of t h e French text is attached for your information." I would call your attention to the publication entitled "Conference on the Limitation of Armament," published a t Washington, 1922, which contains the full record of the proceedings of t h a t conference. This volume m a y be obtained from the Government Printing Office. On pages 72b-730 there appears the text of the report of the subcommittee t o which you refer which was read in extenso to the committee on limitation of armament of the Washington conference by Secretary Hughes on January 6, 1922. Although the text to which reference is made above does not correspond to t h e text of the alleged report which you transmitted to me with your letter, I may say t h a t it is presumed t h a t t h e report which appears in the official text of the proceedings of the Washington conference is accurate and actually constitutes the report of t h e subcommittee of technical experts to which you refer. I find n o evidence to indicate t h a t this report was ever, as you allege, "suppressed," and can only assume t h a t the document which you transmitted to me with your letter was a draft of
3
a suggested report, which, certainly according to t h e official record, was never officially submitted to t h e Washington conference. The report actually so submitted, you will observe, was unfavorable to the possibility of prohibiting gas warfare. It contained a recommendation* of the experts to the effect that there could be no limitation of the use of poisonous gases against the armed forces of the enemy, ashore or afloat, a n d t h a t the only practicable limitation was wholly to prohibit the use of gases against cities and other large bodies of noncombatants. As you know, the conclusions of this report were n o t accepted by the Washington conference. You state in the second paragraph on page 3 of your letter "You will note t h a t those who were really competent to pass upon t h e matter were strongly opposed to the inclusion of any such article as Article V, written apparently to meet the demand of an uninformed public." I again refer you to t h e publication entitled "Conference on the I,imitation of Armament," pages 730-736, inclusive, in which there appear three reports which were used by the American delegation in formulating its proposal to prohibit the use of poison gas in warfare. One of these, the report of the subcommittee on land warfare, was signed by Gen. John J . Pershing, and stated "Chemical warfare should be abolished among nations as abhorrent to civilization. It is a cruel, unfair, a n d improper use of science. I t is fraught with t h e gravest danger t o noncombatants a n d demoralizes the better instincts of humanity." Another report was a paper prepared by the General Board of the United States Navy, the conclusion of which is as follows: " T h e General board believes i t to b e sound policy to prohibit gas warfare in every form and against every objective and so recommends." In view of the above, I believe that you will, upon reconsideration, desire to modify your statement t h a t "those who were really competent to pass upon the matter were strongly opposed to t h e inclusion of any such article as Article V . " Without going into any detail in regard to the action of t h e United States Senate in advising and consenting to the ratification of t h e Washington treaty, I merely wish t o emphasize t h e fact t h a t this treaty was approved b y the Senate, as you state, without any dissenting vote. " In regard to t h e arguments which you set forth on pages 4 t o 6, inclusive, of your letter, tending to show the humane nature of chemical warfare, I may say t h a t i t is n o t within the province of this department to attempt to pass upon t h e technical considerations involved. The policy of this Government in regard t o international efforts to prohibit the use of poisonous gases in warfare was established by t h e competent executive authorities, including, a s noted above, General Pershing and the General Board of t h e Navy, after full consideration a t the time of t h e Washington conference in 1921. and 1922, and this policy subsequently received the approval of the United States Senate by its advice and consent to the ratification of t h e Washington treaty. In t h e second paragraph, on page 7 of your letter, you allege that I stated t h a t France had agreed to Article V of the Washington treaty. As it is well known t h a t the reason t h a t t h e Washington treaty of February 6, 1922, is not now in effect is the failure of France t o ratify that treaty, I need not enter into a discussion with you as to what I stated at our conference on November 4. I may say, however, t h a t it is not my understanding t h a t France's failure to ratify the Washington treaty is due to a n y objection to Article V thereof, inasmuch a s I have been informed t h a t t h e French Government has ratified t h e poison-gas protocol signed at Geneva on June 17, 1925, and is prepared t o proceed t o a deposit of ratifications thereof at t h e proper time. You perhaps have reference to this fact in paragraph 2 on page 7 of your letter. I wish t o add that the predictions which you make in»your letter as to the effect of the ratification by this Government of t h e Geneva protocol are, in my opinion, unwarranted. You state that the ratification of this* protocol would tend to discourage all preparedness against an enemy which may unexpectedly use gases and would tend to leave our country defenseless. I wish again to refer t o the discussions of the Washington conference which led u p to the adoption of Article V of the treaty of February 6, 1922, and t o the discussions which took place in t h e arms traffic conference leading up t o the adoption of the protocol of June 17, 1925. If you will study these, you will, I am sure, see clearly t h a t all governments recognize t h a t it is incumbent upon them to be fully prepared as regards chemical warfare, and especially a s regards defense against it, irrespective of a n y partial or general international agreements looking to the prohibition of the actual use of such warfare. The purpose of all international efforts t h a t have been made to control this weapon is, according to my understanding, to prohibit its use. I have never seen any proposal seriously advanced by a n y government to provide t h a t national preparation for the use of and for defense against chemical warfare, if such warfare should be used by a n enemy contrary to treaty engagements, should be abolished or curtailed in the slightest. (Continued on page 5)
