In my last post, I mentioned that it seemed like the population of London didn’t seem focused in finding the source, and possibly cure, of the Cholera Epidemic. As Ghost Map came to a close the population became more concerned with the severity of the epidemic. The act of removing the broad street pump, the source of the epidemic in this area, is a big deal. It demonstrated an understanding of epidemiology and a shift from the miasmatic school of thought.

The one topic that I wish was addressed more in the book, was the state of mind and understanding that the general public as well as the explanation that they received. I think it was apparent to the people of London that they were dealing with a deadly and consistently present disease, but did they think this was some miraculous and unexplainable issue? was the general consensus that researchers, such as Snow, were working towards a valuable cure or an ineffective solution. Unfortunately it is difficult to see from the perspective of a peasant or commoner from this time, but that point of view could be very valuable and relevant.

-John

As I read the last chapters of this book, I realized something quite interesting about myself: I never thought history could be so captivating and exciting. I found myself rooting for the hero, John Snow, and found myself hating the temporary villain made in Reverend Henry Whitehead. But I also realized this novel went deeper than just the facts. I found John Snow and Henry Whitehead’s relationship to be quite captivating. After much thought, I realized it was rooted deeper than just their partnership and their goal of finding the cure. They were two people who shared similar values: The Reverend who worked among the poor couldn’t believe that class had anything to do with the disease, and Snow who came from a poor family who wouldn’t accept that relationship and thus was able to find the truth. Their shared views is what made them the perfect team.

My only question is to the author of this book: By the end of the seventh chapter, he downplays Snow’s achievements by stating that it’s Whitehead who spearheaded the achievement by finding the index case. I feel like that statement tries to detract from Snow’s amazing work and legacy. Snow is, after all, one of the most original people. I want to know why the author downplays Snow’s achievement when he could easily show that both of them are to be commended.

It was evident to me while I was reading the book why cholera had spread so quickly and at such an effective rate: the people, and moreover, those in power, were unwilling to admit that perhaps air was not the medium by which cholera traveled. At the very beginning of chapter 7, Snow had decided to present himself in front of the board to show them the data he had collected over the previous week. Thanks to the presence of an overwhelmingly and almost unnecessarily substantial amount of evidence, the Board was finally convinced, albeit with some hesitation, to discontinue water into the Broad Street Pump [“the Board of Governers remained unimpressed with Snow’s theory, though they followed his advice.” (Johnson 167)].

However, when Henry Whitehead heard about this, he made it a point to disprove Snow, as he was so convinced in the truth that was the miasmata theory. “When he first heard the contaminated pump theory that Friday, he reacted with a quick dismissal, siding with the jeering throngs on Broad Street…And Henry Whitehead was so unconvinced by the case against the pump that he vowed to disprove it” (Johnson 167). As is clearly evident, the sheer stubbornness from Whitehead and others in power seriously hampered the truth from coming out: the truth that Snow had worked so hard to find out.

Despite the initial staunch opposition from Whitehead to Snow’s waterborne theory, overtime Whitehead began to realize the veracity of his data and of his findings. Unfortunately by then, many thousands had already died of cholera. Had Whitehead and others like him been more receptive and open-minded about deducing the true cause of cholera, perhaps thousands of lives could have been saved.

As The Ghost Map came to an end, I couldn’t help but reflect on the simple event that left a lasting impact on Broad Street, London, and even science as a whole. Removing the Broad Street pump handle was truly a turning point in history. Dr. John Snow, some “unknown person” who was not a household name then or even now, went against a popular belief at the time and turned out to be right (162). He put so much time and effort into both proving his theory and disproving miasma, as well as trying to convince others (specifically the Board of Health) of something as simple as “cholera is waterborne.” Snow’s research even came with a cost, as more individuals needed to contract and die from cholera in order for him to continue to obtain scientific evidence.

However, I don’t understand that even if there was a thought or some small chance that cholera was waterborne (even if only one person believed it), why didn’t they remove the pump handle sooner? In the time it took for Snow to research and convince the Board, including Henry Whitehead, more people were perishing from the disease. Why couldn’t they have removed the pump handle as a precaution and then have given John Snow a chance to prove the pump-contamination theory? This may be a stretch, but if the removal of the pump handle wasn’t difficult, couldn’t they always put it back on if the theory turned out to be wrong? After all, they weren’t 100% positive that miasma was causing cholera either and they still tried to take precautions in that area. For example, the waste was put into the Thames River in an attempt to take the cause of the noxious fumes out of the air. My final question is this – how many people need to be convinced that something is true before something is done about it? Is there a minimum amount of individuals (whether they be of importance in society or not) that need to first “figure it out”?

As I continued reading  Ghost Map, I kept noticing how many people were still in disbelief at Snow’s theory. Especially at the beginning of chapter 9, leading officials were still not willing to believe Snow despite the mounting evidence supporting his theory. Whitehead also was at first not able to believe but once he studied the neighborhoods and the ways the Broad Street pump was effecting its drinkers, he slowly came to realize the this disease was waterborne.

“For several weeks, Whitehead was at an impasse. All the evidence he had complied pointed o the existence of an index case that he had so long resisted” (177).

Even with so much evidence, Whitehead was still stubborn and I believe this is because he was not able to tangibly see the disease working. He kept thinking that if there was a disease, it should come from water that is murky and not clear. Eventually Whitehead does become convinced, but now it was a challenge to convince the Board of Health Committee.

My question is, in today’s time, is there a process  in which a theory becomes fact? If so, what is the process and was there one in the time of Snow and the cholera outbreak?

During the first few chapters of The Ghost Map, I was wondering what Whitehead’s role was.  I thought it was interesting how Whitehead went from becoming greatly opposed to Snow’s theory to being the most influential propagator of the theory.  The question “What if Whitehead were not convinced by Snow’s argument?” has a lot of scary possible answers.  As the epidemic was just starting to disappear, Sarah Lewis was about to restart the epidemic when her husband died.  Who knows how long the disaster would have lasted?

While Whitehead answered most of the questions left, I still don’t know how drinking more water from the Broad Street pump helped cure people.  It seems counterintuitive.  There are still bacteria in the water.  While there was less over time, drinking the water would add more germs into your body.

I thought it was interesting how the miasmists were blinded by an idea.  I am interested in psychology, so I think it is interesting how people will create circular arguments when they don’t want to be wrong.

This whole book generally reminds me of how there is the theory that cell phones can cause brain cancer.  My mother believes that the theory is true, but I learned in my physics class that it is not.  In order to cause cancer, the waves given off by the cell phone must have a certain amount of energy to break the chemical bonds in DNA.  The RF waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to do that.  To this day, there isn’t a definite answer, so people are left trying to make sense of what they hear.  Like, “is coffee good for you or bad?”  Why are there always so many contradicting stories out there?

It took me until the last chapter of the book to realize just how important and common maps are in collecting social data.  Clearly, John Snow’s “ghost map” was essential to his pivotal discoveries, but today I think it’s easy to think of maps as practically obsolete outside of an academic context.  I was initially thinking of programs like Social Explorer which we looked at in class, as well as tools like GPS and Google Maps as the current representation of such guides.  However, the last chapter especially helped me realize how “mapping” extends beyond a purely geographical realm.  Johnson mentions programs such as New York City’s 311 and reviews posted on various websites, which also aid in combining fact and figures into one source.  We live in a world now more interconnected and intricate than great minds like Snow could likely even fathom.  I think this speaks to how impressive it was of Snow to link together the various clues, lacking such technology.  As Johnson states:

“Snow’s Broad Street map was a bird’s eye view, but it was drawn from true street-level knowledge” (197).

It seems a unique quality of the time (and today no less) to be able to be both sociological investigator and researcher.  Of course he wasn’t alone in his work, but it appears based on the information presented that Snow was quickly able to synthesize his research even though it stood against accepted scientific thought of the time.  I cannot help but think, how did he find the courage to continuously fight against the standard, with all the new discoveries he needed to string together?

-Jacqui Larsen