Talk:Miasma theory

A few suggestions

There doesn't seem to be any reason for there to be two different miasma in China sections, if those were to be combined and just have a subsection for the south China part it might flow better. Especially since there is a section on miasma in the west in between the two sections. Also the seemingly most relevant part of the article as a whole is the transition from miasma to germ theory so it would probably make more sense to emphasize that section of the article more prominently.

Keelanca (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Combining the China sections sounds like a good proposal. If you want to go ahead and rewrite the section, I doubt anyone would object.Dialectric (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

(not related to the subject at hand, but typically in wikipedia new comments are placed at the bottom the talk page).Dialectric (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hahneman's miasma theory

What about Hahnemann's miasma theory? His ideas seem to be confirmed by today's epigenetics. His theory is far from obsolete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.237.81.7 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This theory is totally true and stuff, we should all try to do our part to clean up the air!!!

common methods of prevention and treatment during 350 A.D. -1450A.D.

Miasma theory did NOT include the spread of cholera through water. It was bad air. That's why no one believed John Snow. Definatly worth changing

Homeopathy

I think that miasma is also a homeopathic concept differnt than simple airboune filth as a cause of disease. I'm not yet infomed enough to add to the article, perhaps someone else is.--Tjc 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ==

you're right I'm no expert, either, but I think you are right. When homeopaths use the term, it has a different meaning. But I think a homeopath should add that usage of the word

Here's a link on it www.homeopathic-natural-medicine.com --Calan 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

move

This should be at Miasma hypothesis of disease.Geni 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical?

If miasmatic theory "began" in the Middle Ages, how is it possible that "Abaris the Hyperborean...cleaned Sparta under Mount Taygetus from miasmata coming downhill". Was he a time traveller from the Middle Ages?Sladek 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn good question. This is, overall, an excellent and informative article (disregarding the fact that all the main info is in the leader) but that sentence makes absolutely no sense and if no one steps in to make sense of it, it should just be removed. --203.2.182.254 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dudes.. maybe it's informative but it is certainly not an excellent article. It's very poorly written (English as second language?) and full of redundancies. That was far from the only nonsensical sentence; I just cleaned up at least four or five more, and I only worked on two small paragraphs. Mostly, I just deleted stuff. It reads as though it was written by a high school student trying to meet a minimum word count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.221.135 (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Should Science Take Another Look?

The general success of this theory prior to the discovery of the actual microbe may not be related to simply "kill the germs!" wherever smell was found. Germs are legion even in the cleanest areas of nature; furthermore; it stands to reason that the human organism has evolved sensory mechanisms to detect unhealthy areas, this is why feces smell bad! Perhaps the converse of the miasma theory bears looking into; unpolluted areas that do not smell bad and are rife with nature may be full of competing germs that, while they may give you mild diarrhea if you are not acclimated, act to prevent the establishment of more seriously pathogens! Zaphraud 15:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Your title gives the impression that you think miasma theory is valid. I don't know what kind of bacteria you will find in areas that are unpolluted. What would qualify as unpolluted? Smell is irrelevant. If a nasty bacteria or virus makes it into your body, it will poison your system (cause cellular damage). Vmelkon (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

People are indeed beginning to recognize that bacteria are not “bad”, but simply unheathy for certain organisms, and that certain bacteria are necessary for the health of certain larger lifeforms. The second half of your statement seems non sequitur to me; I would say, rather, that no detectable “foulness” from something or somewhere is not the only indication upon which you can rely to decide whether such a thing would be healthy: detecting “foulness” simply helps us to manage certain regions of the ecosystem. Anyways, it does not seem pertinent in this article. — JamesEG (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all wiktionary:diseases are caused by biological entities, or “germs”; breathing poisonous or toxic chemicals can cause Reactive_airway_disease, for example. See to Pulmonology, Occupational_cardiovascular_disease, et cetera. Editors of Wikipedia are not guaranteed to be scientists, and not all putative scientists understand philosophy of science. I don't care enough for Wikipedia to bother improving the stance of this article, and I doubt that anyone else does either — let us wait and see. — JamesEG (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The miasma theory of disease is very valid, but not for explaining germ-based diseases. We now know all too well the expansive damage and diseases that various forms of air pollution can do. Even in an otherwise clean home, when one cooks or keep open garbage or smokes, it releases VOC (volatile organic compounds) gases that cause numerous adverse symptoms. In the absence of excellent ventilation or filtering, these linger in the air. The air can independently also have an odor of ozone or an imbalance of ions that are harmful in altogether different ways. Miasma and germ theory even interact in facilitating the spread of fungal spores in the air. It's not that all air poisons are bad either; a very low amount of carbon monoxide in the air is known to have a hormetic anti-inflammatory effect. --Acyclic (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Hippocratic background missing

The article currently provides the ancient background to miasma with a rather arcane and idiosyncratic reference to Abaris the Hyperborean, who may not ever have existed, and a quote from the Roman architectural writer Vitruvius, who, since he writes in Latin, does not use the word miasma, but rather the equivalent nebula. I mention this because nebula will also be found in the medieval and Renaissance treatises, most of which are written in Latin. However, the actual Greek theoretical background is missing, one important document of which is On Airs, Waters, and Places in the Hippocratic Corpus. This is a far more significant and medically influential document. It was regularly edited and also translated into Latin during the 16th century, and disseminated through the new medium of the printing press. Merits a sentence, at least. Perhaps the ancient background should be moved into a paragraph under its own section heading after the lead? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Now we have the overly simplistic "...a noxious form of "bad air", also known as night air. The theory held that epidemics were caused by miasma, emanating from rotting organic matter...

The miasma theory was advanced by Hippocrates in the fourth century B.C."

Whereas the document On Airs, Waters, and Places seems to be a little more subtle about different types of waters and the weather/season changes, differences in location and in between races. EricPiphany (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"Fresh smelling"?

This article has a couple of eccentricities, such as Florence Nightingale being responible for making hospitals "fresh smelling", and also what the hell does effluvia mean? Latin shouldn't just casually be thrown in to an English language encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.249.53 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

really now, just move it

Does it really need 10 years to move a single article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.32.178 (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Trash can religion

@Rjensen: "Cleaning up the garbage and getting rid of the smell remained a strong belief in the popular culture, however." How can the action of "cleaning up the garbage and getting rid of the smell" be a "belief"? Something is missing from that sentence, and it is not clear what.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

you're right. I revised to read:

The miasma theory was accepted from ancient times in Europe, India, and China. The theory was eventually given up by scientists and physicians after 1880. They instead accepted the germ theory of disease: specific germs cause specific diseases not miasma. However the belief, based on miasma theory, that it was the highest urban priority to clean up the garbage and get rid of the smell remained a strong belief in the popular culture. [cite: Linda Nash, Inescapable Ecologies: A History of Environment, Disease, and Knowledge (2007) and Suellen Hoy, Chasing Dirt: The American Pursuit of Cleanliness (1996) pp 104-13. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Radiator sizing

This book http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Art-Steam-Heating/dp/0974396095 states that radiator in old buildings were made far too large for the measurements of the room because of this theory. People would sleep with their windows open (and in full body outfits with night caps) and would need far more heating output to keep the room warm. I will add a section about this, but was hoping someone could find a confirming source. --Skintigh (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

The author does forget to add a citation on one occasion. In the sections about China he talks about several dynasties that several people may not be familiar with. Therefore, I would suggest adding some links that lead to other articles. Please review the link to the encyclopedia from Paris because it does not work. www.merriam-webster.com is not considered a reliable source, so please use other sources.Aleman1993 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miasma theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scpub.org/data//files/revinfdischron-9694.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141108000806/http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/00701/ws007010219.htm to http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/00701/ws007010219.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miasma theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325114725/http://www.ibms.org/pdf/pdf_science/william_farr.pdf to http://www.ibms.org/pdf/pdf_science/william_farr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Section about germ theory

I did some quick reshuffling of prose, promoting "Replacement by germ theory" to a top level heading, and also put in subheadings for "1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak" and "Experiments by Louis Pasteur". It seems to me that the "1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak", could be a summary-style link to 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak (and possibly trimmed a bit) and that there's an opportunity for someone to add a sub-section summarizing the work of Filippo Pacini. The "Experiments by Louis Pasteur" section could also probably use expansion. -- RobLa (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Time period

Would it make sense to include the time period when talking about the different dynasties in China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinroberts3567 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Supersitions?

I doubt whether this article belongs in the "Superstitions" category. Not any belief that turns out to be untrue is a superstition. The miasma theory was a very rational line of thought - with the knowledge people had in those days. People recognised that diseases were contagious and that no direct contact with the diseased was needed to transmit them. No magical thinking was involved. It withstood Ockham's razor with a vengeance - until further research in the 19th century made it necessary to advance the germ theory. So we are really doing our ancestor's medical science unjustice by calling it supersitious. Steinbach (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)