“62 percent of all recorded deaths were of children under five. And yet despite this alarming mortality rate, the population was expanding at an extraordinary clip (74).”

I sampled this quote, because it is indicative of an interesting mistake I think people make in talking about lifespan in pre-antibiotic times.  People often state that the average lifespan during medieval into industrial revolution times was around 30 years, or something like that. However as we can see from Johnson’s quote, the majority of deaths from this disease, and in general mortalities altogether, afflict those under the age of five. This means that because there were so many infant deaths at that time, when you calculate the average lifespan the age is vastly reduced because the young deaths of babies offset the statistic. In actuality, if you survived past five, many people enjoyed healthy lives into their 50s and 60s.

The observations regarding beer—that those who avoided water and stuck to fermented beverages seemed to dodge the affliction—was also interesting. This research, while I am sure is accurate, contradicts to an extent findings that other researchers into cholera in London—such as Friederich Engels—found. He found a higher correlation between alcoholics and deaths from cholera. Researchers today have since connected the correlation between alcoholics and susceptibility to certain infections of the gut to the fact that regular excessive consumption of alcohol significantly changes the PH values of your stomach, making conditions of life more favorable for some bacteria. I guess the conclusion I would draw from Snow’s observation that some beer drinkers seemed protected from the disease is that they likely were protected if they stuck strictly to beer and beer only. Because if they had any exposure to the bacteria, even a dispersed and non concentrated sample, the PH conditions in their stomach likely would lead to rapid bacterial growth and their progression of symptoms from cholera would occur at perhaps a higher rate then other individuals.

-Jesse Geisler

In our age, tea and beer are considered by some to be staple, ordinary beverages and the remarkable impact of these beverages on early civilization is often overlooked. Brewed tea supposedly contributed to London’s population growth by providing a source of sterile water that helped to ward off waterborne disease. The popularity of tea in the general population helped to prevent dysentery and child mortality. Beer served a similar role in an earlier period by providing a liquid which was free from pathogens. The author states that “it is a great testimony to the connectedness of life on earth that the fates of the largest and the tiniest life should be so closely dependent on each other.” These two beverages alone have forever altered the civilization genetically and socially. One can only wonder what other foods and beverages that we consider to be ordinary staples today, have had huge impacts on the development of modern society.

I found it interesting how Snow seemed to be the only one in London at that time who was able to think out of the box and see that the miasma theory wasn’t correct. It wasn’t even like all this happened over a couple of days. Snow had already been trying to figure out what the problem was for more then a year yet people were still stuck on the miasma theory after all that time. It obviously wasn’t the problem if more people were dying even with their attempts to clear the air. I would think people would realize their water system was contaminated even if it wasn’t visible to the human eye since their city was practically filled with waste. You would think scientists would try a new theory once they realized nothing was changing.

As we read about Snow, I find his dilligence commendable. He found something he thought was wrong and went through with it even though the whole city didn’t believe him at that time. It’s also interesting to see how a city goes through changes during times like these. With the outbreak, they finally realized they needed a better sewage system instead of keeping all their waste. Because I live in such a modern time now, it’s hard for me to imagine for people to be okay with there being waste everywhere. Now people complain if they see a couple piece on the sidewalk let alone fecal matter everywhere. I wouldn’t want to leave my house if that’s what my streets looked like.

“The sewers were killing people because of what they did to the water, not the air” (Ghost Map 82).

I keep thinking about how people did not realize that the disease was not air born. The miasma theory was held to such a high regard that the top physicians and nurses stood stubbornly by it. Timing was important at this time period and even though there was a great deal of evidence against the miasma theory, many people still did not believe. An Italian scientist in the University of Florence even identified the cholera species; Snow realized that the Lambeth inhabitants were not dying,

Yet, the streets were still coated with chloride of lime and bleach to get rid of bad stench, Chadwick made many decisions that brought death to thousands of people,  Nightingale promoted fresh clean air, and the rich were considered to be in better “health standings” than the poor.

It’s interesting to see how officials did not believe Snow’s theory that there was something wrong with the water. This is probably because it was much easier to believe in an old theory than to deal with a new one. The miasma theory was simple and it was easier to believe because it was more “tangible” at the time. You can smell bad air but you cannot taste anything wrong in the water. If for example, the water smelled, looked, or even tasted different, then people may have had an easier time believing in cholera. Finally, Ghost Map talks about how the miasma theory was an ancient theory, which dated back to Hippocrates and the Greeks, and so well embedded in the minds of Londoners in the 1800s.

While reading the next few chapters of “The Ghost Map,” my favorite section revolved around the part where Steven Johnson discussed how human tolerance to alcohol arose over time because it was safer to drink than water, as alcohol has antibacterial properties. It reminded me of a video that I watched on YouTube, in which a speaker explained to an audience why many humans have developed lactose tolerance and why many have not. This stems from the time where our ancestors changed from a hunter-gatherer culture to an agrarian culture. Since many agrarian cultures herded sheep and cows, humans were able to consume milk for a longer time and eventually their descendants became tolerant to lactose.

The “adaptation” can be reexamined though the lens of genetically modified / processed foods. Although some individuals are against the process of using pesticides and industrial farming due to the long term negative health effects, a question can be raised on whether the human body will eventually evolve to have stomach and intestines that will be able to extract the nutrients from food without any negative effects from endocrine disruptors or from intake of hormones that have been placed into meat. Tea works the same way as alcohol in terms of killing bacteria, except tea uses the boiling process as well as tannic acid during the steeping process, and is able to have the same effects as alcohol without its detrimental effects. Perhaps there could be another way that can mitigate the effects of genetically modified / processed foods in a more natural way.

YouTube video mentioned in post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3iIfL8q0_k

I find it quite interesting that despite much opposition to Snow’s theory, he continued to pursue the truth. The motivation that he had is quite refreshing, seeing as how many scientists got caught in the sea of popular conviction.

Snow’s behavior helps me understand why, throughout all of my science classes, we repeatedly are taught the scientific method. It is not merely to show you how to experiment, rather it is more to show you to doubt everything until you have considerable proof, and even then, to doubt it. After seeing how adamant Snow was about his theory, and after seeing how hard he worked to stick to it, I believe I have a new appreciation for the scientific method.

But, even though his background proved to help him become victorious, I still wonder why people were so against it. The scientific method’s roots were definitely well-accepted in the scientific communities. Why is it that they chose to doubt everything except miasma theory. As any firm believer of the scientific method would say, why didn’t they doubt their results?

The deadliest disease in the world, the most catastrophic warfare, the most cruel genocide, all pale in comparison to the sheer lethality and deleterious ramifications of a stubborn mind. The inability of men to be receptive of new solutions results in the exponential increase of the consequences of the existing problem. This is clearly evident in these three chapters of the book. Despite overwhelming and substantial scientific and statistical evidence that cholera is a waterborne, not airborne disease, authorities continued to merely ignore these findings by finding “loopholes.” The authority figures of the time, particularly Edwin Chadwick, were fervent supporters of the Miasmata theory. Chadwick argued that all smell was disease, as he believed the smell was directly related to “London’s rising tide of excretement.” While this might have been true, the smell produced by the excretement was not harmful. Our brains make the smell produced by excretement unpleasant so that we will not come into physical contact with the waste, which indeed contained germs and bacteria. The smell, therefore was an indicator that danger is nearby; it is by no means the danger itself. Furthermore, the idea of bad smell means disease was so engraved in the minds of the Victorian population for other reasons as well. Florence Nightingale, one of the most influential medical figures of the time, said that the “very first canon of nursing…is to keep the air he (the patient) breathes as pure as the external air, without chilling him.” She goes onto say that air containing foul smell can enter the patient’s ward, and this poisons the air the patient is breathing. While it is true that clean and fragrant air is indeed good for health, the opposite need not be true. Foul smelling air does not necessitate a decrease in health. Proponents of the Miasmata Theory were so parochial in their fervent conviction of the veracity of this theory that they refused to be the least bit receptive to Snow’s findings. This adamance by those who believed in the Miasmata Theory caused cholera deaths to continue for another decade, as Snow was left to find a foolproof method that would clearly indicate that water, not air, was the cause of cholera.

It was said that tea might have helped the population of urban spaces increase because it has antibacterial properties.  Tea became “a staple of even working class diets by the 1850s” (95).  In addition, there were many people who drank beer, which also has antibacterial properties, although it isn’t too good for the liver.  This would explain why the cholera epidemic died down for a few years, but why did it come back up again in 1853?

Henry Whitehead had visited many homes and he could point out some cases where people would make a dramatic recovery from cholera.  In these cases he noted that they “had consumed large quantities of water from the Broad Street pump since falling ill.  The speed and intensity of their recovery made an impression on Whitehead that would linger in his mind through the coming weeks” (111).  I think it’s interesting how cholera was being spread to people who drank from that pump, but drinking additional, large quantities of water from this source would cure people.  It doesn’t make sense to me because I would think that adding more harmful bacteria into your body would make you more sick.  Maybe they turned the water into tea first.  Also, I thought the history behind the miasma theory was interesting.  I noticed how the part about sharply unpleasant smells was similar to our discussion in class two weeks ago about how the smells do not cause illness, but are a signal to alert us that whatever is producing the smell is.

After reading these chapters, I became interested in the public’s, despite class, opinion on his the epidemic should be researched and handled. Chapter 4 discusses how John Snow based his research on various uncertainties (for example: he was unsure how V. Cholerae appeared under a microscope) as well as the fact that Snow relied on the success of the disease in order to study it’s patterns, symptoms, and cases.

This may be blunt, but why does it seem, like people weren’t taking the study this epidemic to seriously? The existence of the miasma argument shows that society did not understand the spread of disease as we do today, but after reading about the historical fear of unsanitary drinking water it seems like the answer was right in front of their faces.

The text constantly describes the ever decreasing quality of life in London, even comparing it to the plague, but was this not apparent to the citizens of this city? Or did it just come second to survival?

While reading chapter entitled, “All Smell is Disease”, I found the miasmist’s recalcitrant behavior, to a certain extent, to be quite unusual. In the end, one of the causes of the rapid spread of Cholera was the development of a sewage system; the system’s development was highly promoted by the miasmists. Edwin Chadwick was a very influential miasmist who was a major force behind the development of London’s sewage system, at the same time, he caused the death of many people living in London.

What I found to be strange was that the miasmists were not willing to even give John Snow’s water borne theory a chance. They were so enveloped in London’s putrid smell that all the evidence John Snow had to prove otherwise, was simply brushed off. What’s even more ironic to point out was the John Snow was an esteemed physician. He had plenty of experience with ether vapor and chloroform. This would give him back ground knowledge of the effects of noxious fumes on bodies, and they all pointed away from the miasmist’s theory. Certain obvious factors like differing effects of “poisonous” airs amongst people were deemed to be the cause of moral depravity etc. It just seems like, as the author pointed out, that the miasmists could not admit that they were possibly wrong in their diagnosis of the cause of Cholera. They even elected another miasmist, Benjamin Hall, to replace Edwin Chadwick as president of the Board of Health. I just can’t but blame many deaths of Londoners because of the miasmist’s refusal to clearly see the evidence pointing in another direction from miasma.

What I wanted to ask is: How would the development of Cholera in London be different if John Snow was president of the Board of Health? Would the miasmist’s listen to him if he were in such an esteemed position?

David Zilberman