Editing Davy lamp (section)

== Impact ==
In 1816, the [[Cumberland Pacquet]] reported a demonstration of the Davy lamp at William Pit, Whitehaven. Placed in a blower "... the effect was grand beyond description. At first a blue flame was seen to cap the flame of the lamp, – then succeeded a lambent flame, playing in the cylinder; and shortly after, the flame of the firedamp expanded, so as to completely fill the wire gauze. For some time, the flame of the lamp was seen through that of the firedamp, which became ultimately extinguished without explosion. Results more satisfactory were not to be wished..."<ref name="WilliamPit1816">{{cite news|title=untitled paragraphs|work=Cumberland Pacquet, and Ware's Whitehaven Advertiser|page=3|date=9 April 1816}}</ref> Another correspondent to the paper commented "The Lamp offers absolute security to the miner... With the excellent ventilation of the ''Whitehaven Collieries'' and the application of Sir HUMPHRY's valuable instrument, the accidents from the explosion of' (carbureted) 'hydrogene which have occurred (although comparatively few for such extensive works) will by this happy invention be avoided".<ref name="WilliamPit1816" />

However, this prediction was not fulfilled: in the next thirty years, firedamp explosions in Whitehaven pits killed 137 people.<ref name="wood1988">Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society: Extra Series XXIV: {{cite book|last1=Wood|first1=Oliver|title=West Cumberland Coal: 1600–1982/3|date=1988|publisher=Titus Wilson|location=Kendal|isbn=095007795X}}</ref>{{rp|139}} More generally, the Select Committee on Accidents in Mines reported in 1835 that the introduction of the Davy lamp had led to an increase in mine accidents;<ref name="Smiles1857" />{{rp|130}} the lamp encouraged the working of mines and parts of mines that had previously been closed for safety reasons.<ref name="Lawrence"/> For example, in 1835, 102 men and boys were killed by a firedamp explosion in a Wallsend colliery working the Bensham seam, described at the subsequent inquest by [[John Buddle]] as "a dangerous seam, which required the utmost care in keeping in a working state", which could only be worked with the Davy lamp. The coroner noted that a previous firedamp explosion in 1821 had killed 52, but directed his jury that any finding on the wisdom of continuing to work the seam was outside their province.<ref name="Sykes 1835">{{cite book |last1=Sykes |first1=John |url=https://archive.org/details/b22485302 |title=An account of the dreadful explosion in Wallsend Colliery, on the 18th June, 1835, to which is added a list of explosions, inundations, &c. which have occurred in the Coal Mines of Northumberland and Durham ... |date=1835 |publisher=John Sykes |location=Newcastle}} (Sykes was the publisher of the [[Newcastle Courant]])</ref>

The lamps had to be provided by the miners themselves, not the owners, as traditionally the miners had bought their own candles from the company store. Miners still preferred the better illumination from a naked light, and mine regulations insisting that only safety lamps be used<ref name="wood1988" />{{rp|139}} were draconian in principle, but in practice neither observed nor enforced. After two accidents in two years (1838–39) in Cumberland pits, both caused by safety checks being carried out by the light of a naked flame, the [[Mines and Collieries Act 1842|Royal Commission on Children's Employment]] commented both on the failure to learn from the first accident, and on the "further absurdity" of "carrying a Davy lamp in one hand for the sake of safety, and a naked lighted candle in the other, as if for the sake of danger. Beyond this there can be no conceivable thoughtlessness and folly; and when such management is allowed in the mine of two of the most opulent coal-proprietors in the kingdom, we cease to wonder at anything that may take place in mines worked by men equally without capital and science"<ref name="wood1988" />{{rp|140}}

Another reason for the increase in accidents was the unreliability of the lamps themselves. The bare gauze was easily damaged, and once just a single wire broke or rusted away, the lamp became unsafe.
Work carried out by a scientific witness and reported by the committee showed that the Davy lamp became unsafe in airflows so low that a Davy lamp carried at normal walking pace against normal airflows in walkways was only safe if provided with a draught shield<ref name="mines1843" />{{rp|13–17}} (not normally fitted), and the committee noted that accidents had happened when the lamp was "in general and careful use; no one survived to tell the tale of how these occurrences took place; conjecture supplied the want of positive knowledge most unsatisfactorily; but incidents are recorded which prove what must follow unreasonable testing of the lamp; and your Committee are constrained to believe that ignorance and a false reliance upon its merits, in cases attended with unwarrantable risks, have led to disastrous consequences"<ref name="Smiles1857" />{{rp|131}} The "South Shields Committee", a body set up by a public meeting there<ref>advertisement beginning {{cite news|title=At A Public Meeting of the Inhabitants...|work=Durham County Advertiser|date=5 July 1839|page=3}}</ref> (in response to an explosion at the St Hilda pit in 1839)<ref>{{cite news|title=Awful Loss of Life at South Shields|work=Newcastle Courant|date=5 July 1839|page=2}}</ref> to consider the prevention of accidents in mines had shown that mine ventilation in the North-East was generally deficient, with an insufficient supply of fresh air giving every opportunity for explosive mixtures of gas to accumulate.<ref name="mines1843">{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/b30450469/page/n3|title=The Report of the South Shields Committee, appointed to investigate the causes of Accidents in Coal Mines|publisher=Longman, Brown, Green, & Longmans|year=1843|location=London}}</ref>{{rp|28–36}}{{efn| The Shields Committee argued that the local mines had had far too few shafts for the size of the underground workings (a view supported by evidence from George Stephenson, amongst others) and that the Commons Select Committee of 1835 had been misled on this point by gross over-estimates of the cost of additional shafts given them by [[John Buddle]]. The Shields Committee also argued against the practice (which it thought Parliament should legislate against for all new winnings) of sinking a single shaft and sub-dividing it by partitions ('brattices') to separate in- and out-flowing ventilation air – any explosion destroying the bratticing would destroy the ventilation of the mine and ensure the death by asphyxiation of those underground.  This scenario had led to some of the deaths in the Wallsend accident of 1835: multiple shafts became a legal requirement in 1863 after the deaths of 204 miners in the [[Hartley Colliery disaster]] of 1862 where the catastrophic failure of a pump beam both destroyed the ventilation and blocked the only means of escape.}} A subsequent select committee in 1852 concurred with this view; firedamp explosions could best be prevented by improving mine ventilation (by the use of steam ejectors: the committee specifically advised against fan ventilation), which had been neglected because of over-reliance on the safety of the Davy lamp.<ref>{{cite book|title=Report from the Select Committee on Coal Mines, together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index|date=1852|publisher=by order of the House of Commons|location=London|url=https://archive.org/details/reports18354918502grea}}</ref>{{rp|viii}}

The practice of using a Davy lamp and a candle together was not entirely absurd, however, if the Davy lamp is understood to be not only a safe light in an explosive atmosphere, but also a gauge of firedamp levels. In practice, however, the warning from the lamp was not always noticed in time, especially in the working conditions of the era.<ref>See note in "Successors" section of this WP article about the modern day use of the lamps.</ref>

The [[Mines Regulation Act 1860]] therefore required coal mines to have an adequate amount of ventilation, constantly produced, to dilute and render harmless noxious gases so that work areas were – under ordinary circumstances – in a fit state to be worked (areas where a normally safe atmosphere could not be ensured were to be fenced off "as far as possible"): it also required safety lamps to be examined and securely locked by a duly authorized person before use.{{Citation needed|date=September 2019}}

Even when new and clean, illumination from the safety lamps was very poor,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smithsonian |date=October 2022 |title=Safety Lamps |url=https://www.si.edu/spotlight/mining-lights-and-hats/safety-lamps |access-date=2022-10-22 |website=Smithsonian Institution |language=en}}</ref> and the problem was not fully resolved until electric lamps became widely available in the late 19th century.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smithsonian |date=October 2022 |title=Electric Lamps |url=https://www.si.edu/spotlight/mining-lights-and-hats/electric-lamps |access-date=2022-10-22 |website=Smithsonian Institution |language=en}}</ref>