19th Century Decision Makers
Assignment 1: Comparative Article Review
Due: October 4th, 2010
The Evolution of Sanitation:
How 19th Century Decision Makers Influenced Today’s Innovation
By: Ryan Parkinson
I. Introduction By the late 1800’s, the method of sewage treatment became a heated issue of debate among members of political parties. At the time, the belief was that poor health was a matter of fate. Health promoters, however, argued that, “disease arose from correctable environmental causes.”[i] Until the mid 1800’s, disposal of biological waste was unsanitary and left in the hands of manual street sweepers. With various diseases becoming epidemics, governments were forced to develop a new method of disposal. Both Harold L. Platt and Vijay Prashad use historical …show more content…
evidence to compare the evolution of sanitation in three key urban centres. Platt’s “Clever Microbes” contrasts the advancement of sanitary technology in Manchester and Chicago, where as Prashad’s “The Technology of Sanitation in Colonial Delhi” looks solely at Delhi, India. Through these writings, it is clear that it was up to society to embrace science and facilitate reform. It can be said that the degree of societal pressure exerted in Manchester, Chicago, and Delhi resulted in three different rates of sanitation progression, leading to contrasting environments today.
II. Manchester – United Kingdom In Manchester, the government’s purposed solution was to channel the waste into a large septic tank and dispose of it rather than develop a proper filtration system. This, however, was not cost-effective and lead to contaminated drinking water. At the time, chemists largely embodied the scientific community, while infrastructure responsibility was assigned to engineers. The sanitation issue initiated the movement towards Bacteriology, and as Balfour Browne states, “only recently that this [sewage] matter has passed out of the hands of the chemists and passed into the hands of the biologist … the only method, of disposing sewage is by the bacterial method.”[ii] On October 31st, 1897, a vote to abolish the septic tank plan took place, with the majority apposing the city’s proposal.[iii] This opposition was mainly due to the purposed tax hike, however, it also unconsciously served as a transformation to problem solving as a science-based approach.[iv]
III. Chicago – United States In contrast to Britain, America’s traditions saw science as an unsubstantiated approach to infrastructure projects. Despite the growing concern for sanitation and the movement towards bacteriology, doctors and academics struggled to influence politicians. During the period between 1908-1925, policy makers mulishly refused methods of wastewater disposal, even after the recommendation of the state’s leading public health official Dr. John H. Rauch.[v] Rauch clearly expresses his concerns, stating that, “[I]n Chicago the sewage undergoes decomposition in the mains …. In rain or floods, sweeping everything out rapidly [into the lake], there is danger of [it] being carried a long distance away and infecting the water supply.” As in Britain, officials felt the canal drainage system was the only solution. The lack of political support to introduce a filtration system eventually led to diminishing levels of freshwater in the great lakes, resulting in economic losses in the shipping industry, which spurred a lengthy legal dispute.[vi]
IV. Delhi – India In India, colonial regime was focused on military support as apposed to sanitation control. During the period of 1881-82, 41.9% of public funding was spent on the Indian army.[vii] Due to limited resources, engineers could only conduct minimal research on sanitation improvements.[viii] In the late 1800’s, Delhi also attempted to channel waste outside of the city by way of larger drainage canals.[ix] By 1936, Delhi’s sewage system was still not at the level of a ‘modern city’.[x] Impediment was due to a profit-oriented philosophy, as, “Works of Internal Improvement need to be ‘essentially based on the idea of their being profitable in a pecuniary point of view…. If it cannot reasonably be predicted that such a work will be profitable in this sense, it should not be undertaken.”[xi] Limited organized protest towards this philosophy resulted in minimal advancement in India’s sanitation controls throughout the 1800 and 1900s.
V. Comparison By ranking the three cities, it can be proven that political direction must be challenged by society in order to initiate change.
In Britain, we see citizens executing their democratic right, voting against the government project in favour of science and technology. This allowed for greater research in sanitation control, resulting in an increased rate of development. Coming in behind Britain was the United States. Their sanitation revolution, however, lacked societal pressure, as it was believed that the governing bodies knew what was best for its people. Science was not given the necessary respect, and if not for legal mandates, Chicago and the rest of the United States would not have progressed at the same rate. Finally, in India, the general education and ignorance of elected officials, coupled with inadequate protests, consequently delayed the progression of sanitation technology. When officials state that, “the [sewage systems] would be wasted on the natives, who would not even appreciate their economic value,” it is clear that society must rebel. This, however, was not the case, resulting is poor sanitation conditions and manual street sweepers still utilized …show more content…
today.[xii]
VI. Conclusion The writings of Platt and Prashad use historical evidence to substantiate the notion that society must be active in all political matters.
In all three cities, Governments made uneducated decisions, ignoring science, and relied on a profit-oriented approach. It was the differing activist movements that led to varying sanitation and sewage system development. While Britain and the United States continue to advance in sanitation technology, India still lags. It is estimated that over half of the human feces in most urban areas of India is not collected.[xiii] Moving forward, it is our responsibility to seek innovation, continually challenging government reform, in hopes of creating a more prosperous
society.
Notes
-----------------------
[i] “Edwin Chadwick Biography (1800-1890),” Advameg, Inc, accessed October 2, 2010, http:// www.faqs.org/health/bios/66/Edwin-Chadwick.html.
[ii] Harold L. Platt, “Clever Microbes: Bacteriology and Sanitary Technology in Manchester and Chicago During the Progressive Age,” The History of Science Society (2004): 157.
[iii] Ibid., 156.
[iv] Ibid., 158.
[v] Ibid., 159.
[vi] Ibid., 162.
[vii] Vijay Prashad, “The Technology of Sanitation in Colonial Delhi,” Cambridge University Press (2001): 115.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid., 119.
[x] Ibid., 153.
[xi] Ibid., 116.
[xii] Ibid., 114.
[xiii] “Uncollected Feces Highlight Sanitation Challenge in India's Urban Areas,” Bloomberg, accessed October 3, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-09/none-of-india-s-423-cities-is-healthy-and-clean-sanitation-survey-finds.html.
Due: October 4th, 2010
The Evolution of Sanitation:
How 19th Century Decision Makers Influenced Today’s Innovation
By: Ryan Parkinson
I. Introduction By the late 1800’s, the method of sewage treatment became a heated issue of debate among members of political parties. At the time, the belief was that poor health was a matter of fate. Health promoters, however, argued that, “disease arose from correctable environmental causes.”[i] Until the mid 1800’s, disposal of biological waste was unsanitary and left in the hands of manual street sweepers. With various diseases becoming epidemics, governments were forced to develop a new method of disposal. Both Harold L. Platt and Vijay Prashad use historical …show more content…
evidence to compare the evolution of sanitation in three key urban centres. Platt’s “Clever Microbes” contrasts the advancement of sanitary technology in Manchester and Chicago, where as Prashad’s “The Technology of Sanitation in Colonial Delhi” looks solely at Delhi, India. Through these writings, it is clear that it was up to society to embrace science and facilitate reform. It can be said that the degree of societal pressure exerted in Manchester, Chicago, and Delhi resulted in three different rates of sanitation progression, leading to contrasting environments today.
II. Manchester – United Kingdom In Manchester, the government’s purposed solution was to channel the waste into a large septic tank and dispose of it rather than develop a proper filtration system. This, however, was not cost-effective and lead to contaminated drinking water. At the time, chemists largely embodied the scientific community, while infrastructure responsibility was assigned to engineers. The sanitation issue initiated the movement towards Bacteriology, and as Balfour Browne states, “only recently that this [sewage] matter has passed out of the hands of the chemists and passed into the hands of the biologist … the only method, of disposing sewage is by the bacterial method.”[ii] On October 31st, 1897, a vote to abolish the septic tank plan took place, with the majority apposing the city’s proposal.[iii] This opposition was mainly due to the purposed tax hike, however, it also unconsciously served as a transformation to problem solving as a science-based approach.[iv]
III. Chicago – United States In contrast to Britain, America’s traditions saw science as an unsubstantiated approach to infrastructure projects. Despite the growing concern for sanitation and the movement towards bacteriology, doctors and academics struggled to influence politicians. During the period between 1908-1925, policy makers mulishly refused methods of wastewater disposal, even after the recommendation of the state’s leading public health official Dr. John H. Rauch.[v] Rauch clearly expresses his concerns, stating that, “[I]n Chicago the sewage undergoes decomposition in the mains …. In rain or floods, sweeping everything out rapidly [into the lake], there is danger of [it] being carried a long distance away and infecting the water supply.” As in Britain, officials felt the canal drainage system was the only solution. The lack of political support to introduce a filtration system eventually led to diminishing levels of freshwater in the great lakes, resulting in economic losses in the shipping industry, which spurred a lengthy legal dispute.[vi]
IV. Delhi – India In India, colonial regime was focused on military support as apposed to sanitation control. During the period of 1881-82, 41.9% of public funding was spent on the Indian army.[vii] Due to limited resources, engineers could only conduct minimal research on sanitation improvements.[viii] In the late 1800’s, Delhi also attempted to channel waste outside of the city by way of larger drainage canals.[ix] By 1936, Delhi’s sewage system was still not at the level of a ‘modern city’.[x] Impediment was due to a profit-oriented philosophy, as, “Works of Internal Improvement need to be ‘essentially based on the idea of their being profitable in a pecuniary point of view…. If it cannot reasonably be predicted that such a work will be profitable in this sense, it should not be undertaken.”[xi] Limited organized protest towards this philosophy resulted in minimal advancement in India’s sanitation controls throughout the 1800 and 1900s.
V. Comparison By ranking the three cities, it can be proven that political direction must be challenged by society in order to initiate change.
In Britain, we see citizens executing their democratic right, voting against the government project in favour of science and technology. This allowed for greater research in sanitation control, resulting in an increased rate of development. Coming in behind Britain was the United States. Their sanitation revolution, however, lacked societal pressure, as it was believed that the governing bodies knew what was best for its people. Science was not given the necessary respect, and if not for legal mandates, Chicago and the rest of the United States would not have progressed at the same rate. Finally, in India, the general education and ignorance of elected officials, coupled with inadequate protests, consequently delayed the progression of sanitation technology. When officials state that, “the [sewage systems] would be wasted on the natives, who would not even appreciate their economic value,” it is clear that society must rebel. This, however, was not the case, resulting is poor sanitation conditions and manual street sweepers still utilized …show more content…
today.[xii]
VI. Conclusion The writings of Platt and Prashad use historical evidence to substantiate the notion that society must be active in all political matters.
In all three cities, Governments made uneducated decisions, ignoring science, and relied on a profit-oriented approach. It was the differing activist movements that led to varying sanitation and sewage system development. While Britain and the United States continue to advance in sanitation technology, India still lags. It is estimated that over half of the human feces in most urban areas of India is not collected.[xiii] Moving forward, it is our responsibility to seek innovation, continually challenging government reform, in hopes of creating a more prosperous
society.
Notes
-----------------------
[i] “Edwin Chadwick Biography (1800-1890),” Advameg, Inc, accessed October 2, 2010, http:// www.faqs.org/health/bios/66/Edwin-Chadwick.html.
[ii] Harold L. Platt, “Clever Microbes: Bacteriology and Sanitary Technology in Manchester and Chicago During the Progressive Age,” The History of Science Society (2004): 157.
[iii] Ibid., 156.
[iv] Ibid., 158.
[v] Ibid., 159.
[vi] Ibid., 162.
[vii] Vijay Prashad, “The Technology of Sanitation in Colonial Delhi,” Cambridge University Press (2001): 115.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid., 119.
[x] Ibid., 153.
[xi] Ibid., 116.
[xii] Ibid., 114.
[xiii] “Uncollected Feces Highlight Sanitation Challenge in India's Urban Areas,” Bloomberg, accessed October 3, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-09/none-of-india-s-423-cities-is-healthy-and-clean-sanitation-survey-finds.html.