4 ms·

In 1850s London, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outb... John Sno

by isp 3y ago

In 1850s London, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outb... John Snow traced a cholera outbreak to contaminated water from a particular water pump, the Broad Street pump. The pump handle was temporarily removed, which stopped people from drinking the contamined water, and so reduced illness. But once the immediate crisis had passed, the pump handle was replaced: > After the cholera epidemic had subsided, government officials replaced the Broad Street pump handle. They had responded only to the urgent threat posed to the population, and afterwards they rejected Snow's theory. To accept his proposal would have meant indirectly accepting the oral-faecal method of transmission of disease, which was too unpleasant for most of the public to contemplate. It took another few years until there was agreement to build the London sewer system.

taeric 3y ago
I'm probably being unfair to history, but that feels more at the feet of bacteria beliefs. That and early plumbing facing a ton of unknowns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but plumbing existed in the 1600s, but wasn't widespread and likely not studied nearly as heavily until much much later. I wouldn't be shocked to know most of what we know on it came after the 1900s.
- isp 3y ago
  The modern London sewer system was created in the late 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_sewer_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_sewer_system Before then, the River Thames was essentially an open sewer.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Right, the general "open sewer" is what I would expect on early things. And even there, I'd expect everyone was in favor of "clean" water. Question is on the agreement of if things are clean or not. With bacteria being something folks didn't know about. To be fair, I can see the analogies to the air systems. I just hesitate to think that "clean water" was a controversy.
    - isp 3y ago
      That's exactly it - the analogy is that they couldn't see that the water was unclean, and so it was difficult to build the political will to spend money to fix an "invisible" problem. So even though they knew the water made people ill, it didn't visually appear dirty, and so there was reluctance to clean the water. Ditto now for air.
      - taeric 3y ago
        I think where it falls, though, is that the claims were stronger for the water. People were literally getting ill and dying. With the air, there are much softer metrics being pushed that are more about seeing things are clean, but only if you have the measuring tools to see that they are dirty.
        isp 3y ago
        The evidence is now incontrovertible that people are "literally getting ill and dying" for diseases currently spread through the air. So the situation is analogous: back then, it was controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the water (since many falsely thought it was already clean). Now, it is controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the air (since many falsely think that it is already clean).
        taeric 3y ago
        Most of that evidence is for really bad air in cities, though? Akin to the open sewage river from years ago, such that I don't see much debate there. Note, please don't take my post here as argument against having targets for ventilation. I don't intend it that way. I do think many people over state the dangers of in house stoves and such. I also have no problem saying that we have advanced enough that well ventilated house should be the default. Stated differently. I have no problem mandating child seats. I do wish the safety comparisons for them wasn't to "someone completely unbuckled in the vehicle." So, for air, I do not argue against better codes for ventilation. I also don't expect it to have an impact on my life. My last house didn't even have forced air anything, whereas my current house does. I feel basically the same between the two. Such that all of the stories of ventilation being a miracle cure rub me very much the wrong way.

by isp 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

I'm probably being unfair to history, but that feels more at the feet of bacteria beliefs. That and early plumbing facing a ton of unknowns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but plumbing existed in the 1600s, but wasn't widespread and likely not studied nearly as heavily until much much later. I wouldn't be shocked to know most of what we know on it came after the 1900s.

isp 3y ago
The modern London sewer system was created in the late 19th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_sewer_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_sewer_system Before then, the River Thames was essentially an open sewer.
- taeric 3y ago
  Right, the general "open sewer" is what I would expect on early things. And even there, I'd expect everyone was in favor of "clean" water. Question is on the agreement of if things are clean or not. With bacteria being something folks didn't know about. To be fair, I can see the analogies to the air systems. I just hesitate to think that "clean water" was a controversy.
  - isp 3y ago
    That's exactly it - the analogy is that they couldn't see that the water was unclean, and so it was difficult to build the political will to spend money to fix an "invisible" problem. So even though they knew the water made people ill, it didn't visually appear dirty, and so there was reluctance to clean the water. Ditto now for air.
    - taeric 3y ago
      I think where it falls, though, is that the claims were stronger for the water. People were literally getting ill and dying. With the air, there are much softer metrics being pushed that are more about seeing things are clean, but only if you have the measuring tools to see that they are dirty.
      - isp 3y ago
        The evidence is now incontrovertible that people are "literally getting ill and dying" for diseases currently spread through the air. So the situation is analogous: back then, it was controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the water (since many falsely thought it was already clean). Now, it is controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the air (since many falsely think that it is already clean).
        taeric 3y ago
        Most of that evidence is for really bad air in cities, though? Akin to the open sewage river from years ago, such that I don't see much debate there. Note, please don't take my post here as argument against having targets for ventilation. I don't intend it that way. I do think many people over state the dangers of in house stoves and such. I also have no problem saying that we have advanced enough that well ventilated house should be the default. Stated differently. I have no problem mandating child seats. I do wish the safety comparisons for them wasn't to "someone completely unbuckled in the vehicle." So, for air, I do not argue against better codes for ventilation. I also don't expect it to have an impact on my life. My last house didn't even have forced air anything, whereas my current house does. I feel basically the same between the two. Such that all of the stories of ventilation being a miracle cure rub me very much the wrong way.