Miasmata and the Greenhouse Effect. Fatal misunderstandings in the

Technology versus assumptions

Epidemics of cholera and dysentery in cities in the Nineteenth Century were often attributed to a ‘Miasm’ – plural form ‘Miasmata’ – a form of foul air, often with a sinister and mysterious Supernatural origin. Attempts to prevent these epidemics by scientific measurement and precise engineering were often delayed by debates centred on these theories of origin.

In this study of the London Cholera epidemics of 1831, 1848 and 1854 the author describes how they were finally resolved by technologies now taken for granted, following the work of many scientists, including Dr John Snow and Joseph Bazalgette. The aim is to illustrate the study with quotations from a journal of the time, as well as Joseph Bazalgette’s writings, and a description of the engineering works which finally resolved the problem.

The reason for this study is that the author sees many similarities between the thinking of the 19th century on infections, and the 21st century assumption that global warming is due to atmospheric carbon retention, despite the complete lack of evidence that work based on this theory has done anything to reduce the temperature of the Earth over the last 50 years.

Finally, the author plans to show some of the similarities between the methods proposed for cooling the world (i.e. removing heat in air or water and transferring it to a safe location above human habitation) and those which work so successfully in the sanitary systems of the world’s twenty-first century cities (i.e. directing the harmful, foetid material along defined sewers to remove it quickly from proximity to human beings, and especially from drinking water).

A Brief History of the development of London’s sewage treatment in response to cholera epidemics

In 18th century, before the Invention of the water closet, London contained approximately 200,000 cesspools. Faeces were first deposited in chamber pots, which were emptied into these cesspools. These were then emptied, normally at night (by ‘night-soil’ men), and the contents was either taken to larger cesspools at a distance from the city, or to farms – which at that time were not far away – as manure.

Within the built up areas of the city there were complicated laws governing the building and maintenance of these cesspools. However, even in the periods leading up to this time, there were many disputes and even law suits about pollution coming from them. In the 17th century, Samuel Pepys, the famous diarist, describes his neighbour’s cesspool overflowing into his cellar.

For centuries, there had been little separation between drinking water and effluent, but at least many of the sources of water had come from streams and wells outside the city.

However, the invention of the water closet and its gradual introduction into the homes of richer people meant that the contents of water closets started to be emptied into surface gutters, which were only intended for rainwater. Most of these gutters discharged into the Thames, which became more and more polluted with urine and faeces, but was still a significant source of water for drinking and washing.

As a result of this, and the extreme growth of population, London, like many other cities during the first half of the 19th century, suffered terrible outbreaks of typhus, dysentery and cholera.

At first, it was thought that these were due to foul air or ‘Miasmata’. The belief that some air was essentially unhealthy had been widespread for millennia and continued to be current for a long time. It found expression in ancient fears, such as this personification of Death as a skeleton rowing a boat on a foul river full of animal corpses in a cartoon in the contemporary magazine, ‘Punch’.

Punch cartoon

Many other factors helped to promote the idea that new sewage systems were needed. In fact, one of the most important was the ‘Great Stink’ of July and August 1858, when the brand new Houses of Parliament, located on the side of the faeces-filled Thames, became intolerably smelly because of a hot dry summer, especially when the tide was low.

The primary aim of the new sewers was to isolate the faecal matter and urine, and move it downriver to a point where it would not cause offence in the city. At the same time, stone embankments were built which reduced the width of the river. This development had three beneficial effects:

1. it provided room for a series of large sewers which were linked to pumping engines which propelled the sewage to special treatment works down-stream of the city. This was especially important because the River Thames is tidal, and incoming tides formerly brought the polluted water back to the city;

2. it increased the speed of flow of the river.

3. It made space for new high quality roads, an underground railway, and a park.

The cost was high, and the whole project was opposed on many levels by vested interests (especially water supply companies). However, in the end, the death rate fell dramatically, and London became a much more pleasant place to live.

One reason why this project was so successful, was that it was the result of careful, scientifically-based trials and measurements. These, and the resulting sewers and pumping stations, are described in great detail in:

which also contains important details of costs:

Previous costs of sewage removal were quoted as £30,000 pounds per annum.

Total costs of main drainage works when completed were quoted as £4,100,000 pounds in 1864-5.

This figure is equal in 2023 to £160,377,800 – for the city of London alone, at a time when its population was only 2.5 million people. Obviously, it has needed continual maintenance and enlargement since then, to enable treatment for nine million people.

At that time, the bacteriological basis of cholera and the other diseases had not been identified, but the diseases dwindled in places where the water had been substantially cleaned. The effect was seen before the cause was proved.

A significant similarity between this 19th century development and our proposed 21st century technology for cooling the Earth is – we hope – the number of incidental benefits. Searching at first for a way of cooling the globe, we have discovered also:

1. a method of irrigating below the surface of the earth, reducing water losses due to evaporation and run-off, and promoting successful agriculture;

2. a method of oxygenating the seas and oceans by introducing air into them;

3. a way of reducing the violence of winds and hurricanes (by reducing pressure differences in air and water);

4. the other very significant benefit which we hope to see is an easing of the present emigration/immigration crisis. If people are well-fed, relaxed and prosperous, they are less likely to want to emigrate!

Doubts about the contemporary assumption (in 2023CE) that carbon reduction will help to reduce global warming

This assumption is largely based on Charles Keeling’s thinking about the ‘greenhouse effect’, with a correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere, and Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, this correlation was noticed at a time when there was an exceptional fall in global temperature following the end of the Second World War, which contained enormous episodes of bombing, and the development and use of nuclear weapons.

Keeling assumed that this rise and fall in temperature was natural, but my graph ‘Cool World 2023CE and into the future…’ shows a very different picture.

Cartoon by Will Dawbarn, Courtesy of Private Eye, London

The cartoon shows people suffering in hell – an ancient image – with an irony which reflects what many people feel at present about global warming, and the effects of using air conditioning.

It is my contention that the pursuit of a ‘net-zero’ aim has unintentionally allowed many disastrous outcomes, while preventing people from looking for truly effective solutions.

The real problem is not carbon, it is heat!

In the meantime the pursuit of net zero has led to the following negative developments:

1. A preference for diesel engines over petrol. Diesel may reduce fuel consumption, but it is thought to be worse for human health than unleaded petrol due to the particulate;

2. The Grenfell Towers disaster, due to using an unsafe insulating material in order to reduce the need for heating, and thus CO2 emissions;

3. Depression, particularly in young people, because the results of work on CO2 emissions seem to be so far in the future;

4. A concealed moral agenda or puritanical attitude. Pressure to reduce activities which are thought to be pleasurable can lead to problems like those in America in Prohibition times;

5. Pressure for mass adoption of vegetarianism/ veganism. There is no clear evidence that this will have any real effect on global temperatures, and in the meantime it will have very disruptive effect on many people’s livelihoods;

6. Attempts to replace fossil fuel power stations with net-zero power stations are undermined by the constant increase in need for electricity throughout the world.

7. Appalling levels of cost. Here are the comparative costs:

a. Net-zero Carbon $8,337,808,648,134

b. Cool World structures $50,419,118,209

c. Saving $8,287,389,529,925

8. I do not believe that the world is ready, or able, to pay the Net-zero costs, at a time when food supplies are unreliable and Warfare is spreading. One of the great advantages of our projects is that the structures will be quick to make, and the results will be visible in real-time.

For a much fuller explanation of the new projects, please look at the following. Your comments will be welcomed