[NNagain] water infrastructure and much more

[rjmcmahon]

The initial phase of potable water in Boston wasn't because of germ 
theory but rather about the temperance movement. Also, water 
infrastructure was used to support fire departments in cities in the US. 
Our cities tended to experience a lot of conflagrations. Rich people had 
access to piped water infrastructure way ahead of poor people in Boston 
for sure. It was a doctor who led Boston to provide universal access to 
clean, potable water in the name of public health. There are a lot of 
books written by trained historians on this - no need to for us to 
guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement#:~:text=People%20were%20instructed%20to%20only,had%20gained%201.5%20million%20members.

Teetotalism (1830s)
See also: Blue ribbon badge
As a response to rising social problems in urbanized areas, a stricter 
form of temperance emerged called teetotalism, which promoted the 
complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages, this time including wine 
and beer, not just ardent spirits. The term teetotaler came from the 
capital "T"s that were written next to the names of people who pledged 
complete abstinence from alcohol. People were instructed to only drink 
pure water and the teetotalists were known as the "pure-water army". In 
the US, the American Temperance Union advocated total abstinence from 
distilled and fermented liquors. By 1835, they had gained 1.5 million 
members.

Bob
> I have not had much time to write anything long form, but I enjoy
> reading long, thoughtful pieces on Sundays, and this one might
> ultimately yield analogies for internet infrastructure also.
> 
> https://comment.org/care-at-scale/
> 
> "In the late nineteenth century, the wealthy taxpayers of Boston were
> convinced to build out water and sewage systems by a straightforward
> logic: every person in the city, rich or poor, needed clean water to
> drink every day. Without it, they would be at risk of contracting
> water-borne diseases like cholera. And with so many people in
> proximity, wealth alone couldn’t provide protection from contagious
> disease."
> 
> While otherwise a wonderful read - go read it!! -
> 
> Me being me, I  disagree that "the wealthy taxpayers of boston
> recognized the need for common water infrastructure"  because the germ
> theory of disease was not well accepted, and the organism behind the
> epidemic was first described in 1854 and not again until 1884. I
> imagine there was great - AGW-esq - sturm und drang - and attempts to
> shift the blame for cholera to merely "being poor", or "foreign", or
> "the will of the gods", or rats - and  attempts to shift the costs
> onto various other parties before safer water distribution systems
> were built, but! I freely admit, I have not done the research into the
> controversies that IMHO, must have existed back then. I think that
> practical problems, like enough city water in the first place to
> support the population density therein, also were a factor.
> 
> The need for sound water and septic systems was recognized by many
> cities two millenia prior to this... and not by many others. I
> remember when the Delaware river and Boston Harbor were sewers, and
> have lived many places  around the world where that was still the case
> for many rivers.
> 
> From some history (that I already knew) see this:
> 
> https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/firstdiscoveredcholera.html
> 
> (It is remarkable how many expired SSL certificates there are in the
> world, also.)
> 
> The Boston river caught fire many times before 1969, and until then,
> no-body cared:
> 
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/