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?