3 ms·

I take it that you are not aware of Dr. John Snow[1] who in the 1850s demonstrated that Cholera was a water born illness that came from drinking contaminated wa

I take it that you are not aware of Dr. John Snow[1] who in the 1850s demonstrated that Cholera was a water born illness that came from drinking contaminated water. Or of the "Great Stink"[2] in 1858 that was caused by so much sewage in the Thames, the main source of water for London, that it forced Parliament to actually do something about it. By and large, yes there were fountains and village wells. But that water was usually contaminated because Europe at that time didn't have great sewage systems. People pissed a shat where ever they happened to be and that usually were near the very water sources they drank from. [1] https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowcricketarticle.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink

kergonath 5y ago
> I take it that you are not aware of Dr. John Snow[1] who in the 1850s demonstrated that Cholera was a water born illness that came from drinking contaminated water. The fact that they did not understand germ theory does not mean that people in general did not have access to clean (enough) water, this is a non sequitur. Your point is not refuting the parent. There were in fact places without cholera epidemics, though cities were pretty dire overall.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragontamer 5y ago
> I take it that you are not aware of Dr. John Snow[1] who in the 1850s demonstrated that Cholera was a water born illness that came from drinking contaminated water. I'm aware of Cholera yes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with my point. If anything, the widespread proliferation of Cholera proves that people in the 1800s mostly drank water rather than beer, does it not? Furthermore, without any theory of microorganisms, people in the 1800s were simply too ignorant (even the doctors) to understand why people were getting sick. Classical "Miasma" theory only works on airborne diseases (the "air is infected". "Don't breath the air", mask up, etc. etc. Its hilariously wrong but "good enough" to prevent airborne diseases). ----- EDIT: Or to be more clear: with a modern understanding of microorganisms, we're able to say today that "Alcohol kills bacteria / viruses" and can make the strange, but possibly true, argument that beer could be healthier than water in some circumstances. But go as far back as the 1800s (let alone the 1500s, 1000s, or 500s), and people didn't even know what a bacteria or virus is. Suddenly, its near impossible to make an argument to drink beer rather than water (well, aside from entertainment purposes).

kergonath 5y ago

> I take it that you are not aware of Dr. John Snow[1] who in the 1850s demonstrated that Cholera was a water born illness that came from drinking contaminated water. The fact that they did not understand germ theory does not mean that people in general did not have access to clean (enough) water, this is a non sequitur. Your point is not refuting the parent. There were in fact places without cholera epidemics, though cities were pretty dire overall.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragontamer 5y ago

> I take it that you are not aware of Dr. John Snow[1] who in the 1850s demonstrated that Cholera was a water born illness that came from drinking contaminated water. I'm aware of Cholera yes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with my point. If anything, the widespread proliferation of Cholera proves that people in the 1800s mostly drank water rather than beer, does it not? Furthermore, without any theory of microorganisms, people in the 1800s were simply too ignorant (even the doctors) to understand why people were getting sick. Classical "Miasma" theory only works on airborne diseases (the "air is infected". "Don't breath the air", mask up, etc. etc. Its hilariously wrong but "good enough" to prevent airborne diseases). ----- EDIT: Or to be more clear: with a modern understanding of microorganisms, we're able to say today that "Alcohol kills bacteria / viruses" and can make the strange, but possibly true, argument that beer could be healthier than water in some circumstances. But go as far back as the 1800s (let alone the 1500s, 1000s, or 500s), and people didn't even know what a bacteria or virus is. Suddenly, its near impossible to make an argument to drink beer rather than water (well, aside from entertainment purposes).