'WOOLSORTERS’ DISEASE.’

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 166, 22 October 1880, Page 1 (Supplement)

'WOOLSORTERS’ DISEASE.’

The ‘Lancet’ says :—‘A man, apparently in the prime of health and strength, who was engaged recently in sorting Van mohair at Shipley, complained several times to his wife of the noxious character of the wool with which he had to deal. He was taken suddenly ill, and in four days succumbed to what was considered a severe cold, attended with congestion of the lungs, but which, we suppose, must really have been an acute form of blood poisoning. Such rapid cases are not unfamiliar to the medical men who practise in that district, and are found to occur ouly among the workers in alpaca, mohair, camels' hair, and dry Eastern wools, among which there may be some fallen fleeces. Au admission that sorting these iu thsir unpurified condition is a dangerous occupation is found in the fact that the employers of this man, whilst denying that his death was caused by woolsorter’s disease, state that they are provided with proper apparatus for preventing any unpleasant consequences from sorting the class of wool referred to. They do not mention, however, that this particular specimen of mohair was subjected to any disinfecting process. Inasmuch as all noxious properties can be effectively destroyed by a sufficient exposure to dry heat or to steam, it would be more satisfactory if the proper disinfection of such wools were made compulsory. Greater attention should be paid to this source of peril than it has hitherto received. The exact nature of the woolsorters’ disease is still somewhat obscure, and it would be a great gain to our knowledge if its pathology were placed beyond doubt. It is very different from any of the forms of mechanical bronchitis which are so common iu many trades. Its rapidity and the pod mortem appearances of those who have died from it are especially characteristic of a blood poison. Dr 8011, of Bradford, believes that it is produced by the inhalation of living organisms derived from the fleeces of animals that have died from anthrax. He states that it can be communicated from man to animals, and that myriads of bacteria (Bacillus anthrax')*) may be found in a drop of blood when examined after death. Such a definite conclusion, and one so readily tested, is of the utmost importance, and we hope that Dr. Bell will take immediate steps to demonstrate so valuable a pathological discovery before some professional body which is in a position to fully appreciate its merits. Why not bring the subject under the notice of the Pathological Society, and so fbcure a competent authority for its investigation ?’