Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Period-correct drinking water
 Login/Join
 
Greenhorn
posted
OK fellow throw-back-trekkers (that'd be a good name for a band...), I've got a question that's been naggin' at me and I know there's some real smart folks on here so I'll ask it.

When we're out trampin' around in the wilds, we all give a lot of thought to purifying our drinking water, and with good reason. Every one of us knows that there's little buggers in the water, Giardia lamblia, that'll make us sicker than dogs (and real sick dogs at that). So we boil every drop we drink, or some folks (and I'm not pointin' fingers here) sneak modern tablets or little plastic pumps along to clean up the water. Here's my question; what happened between back-then and now? I've never heard that it was a common practice to boil drinking water in Colonial days but I do know that Giardia is also known as "beaver fever" as it is transmitted by beavers, and there were a heck of a lot of beavers in the water in those days. Did the water not make the early-folks sick? Were they all sick all the time, or immune? Was Giardia introduced to the New World much later on? Did they boil every drop and it was so common a thing to do that no one wrote about it?... Any one a' you know the story on this?
 
Posts: 15 | Registered: 25 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
Hiya, Little Turtle!

While I cannot give definitive opinion on this from a historical view, I can give an example from personal experience.

Having drank untreated water from rivers, streams, creeks and lakes here in Alaska for 47 yrs, I built up a body resistance to giardia within a year or so. Now that doesn't mean we don't have a good population of beaver & muskrat, which in some areas are thick as fleas.

This just means that is my experience.

Now, lets look at some of the issues of giardia caused diarrhea back in the early years. From what I have read, it usually hit those that were town dwellers that found themselves having to live off the land and drink water from sources other than wells or springs. Such as new soldiers, pioneers and travelers, who had not been exposed to these natural water sources on a regular basis. Symptoms can last for over a year in severe cases. Some people never buildup a resistance to the bug, others aren't affected after the first exposure.

Anyway, that that is my take on giardia.

Regards, xfox


The forest is a wilderness only to those that fear it, silent only to those that hear nothing. The forest is a friend to those that dwell within its' nature and it is filled with the sounds of life to those that listen.
 
Posts: 532 | Location: Bitterroot Valley | Registered: 23 October 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
The answer is complicated.
I do think people had certain immunities to the parasites, bacteria, and viruses of their time, but at the same time, many people did get sick and died at a much younger age than we do on average today. They lived with hookworms, tapeworms, beaver fever, and whatever; things that might quickly put us in the hospital today.
I have read that back in the day whenever beer and wine was available the people would drink that and little or no water at all. Of course people on the frontier or beyond wouldn't of had that option.
Our lakes and streams are much more polluted today than they were 200 years ago, and not only with bacteria, but also with chemical poisons. Even tiny brooks running down from the mountain tops are often polluted with acid rain, and wild pig poop. You can't even fully trust a spring because you don't know what toxic dump it might be trickling out of. I know of a study here that put a pink dye in the water inside a cave. That dye came out in a spring several miles away from all known entrances to that cave.
However, having said that, I well remember my French Canadian caribou guide drinking water directly out of a lake far up in remote northern Quebec. He was used to it. I carry and use a backpacker's water filter.


Know what you believe in. Fight for your beliefs. Never compromise away your rights.
 
Posts: 1296 | Location: Cherokee Land, Tenasi | Registered: 06 January 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
Picture of Josh Crain
posted Hide Post
I'm not normally one to add info to somebodies questions, as I'm usually the one learning, but I just heard the other day on NPR (National Public Radio) during their Fresh Air progam, an interview of a historian on alcholic drinks.

He said that in olden times the water was often filthy, bacteria infested, and polluted. He said that the people back then would mix wine or beer with drinking water to sterelize it (even though the didn't know why it worked, or even that they WERE sterelizing it.).

He also said what Rancocas said, that water was considered unhealthy and beer and wine were often drunk instead of water. Now-a-days, I think chemical pollution is a larger problem than natural bacteria.

That's just a little bit of info I've picked up, and I can't really back it up with proof.

~Josh


"Return unto me, and I will return unto you," saith the Lord of hosts.
~Malachi 3:7b
 
Posts: 297 | Location: MI | Registered: 18 August 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
posted Hide Post
The guy on NPR wasn't much of a historian (imho).

The short answer is strong immune systems...

While there is chemical pollution at a much higher level than in non-industrial times, natural bugs were a plenty, and could kill the population in large numbers. Typhoid and Cholera, not to mention other ailments. (BTW there isn't any resistance to most parasites. Luckily Giardia is one than can be overcome..., cryptosporidium not so much.) Plus there are other things out there..., tetanus, ecoli, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria, gangrene, yellow fever, malaria, lime disease, staph, dysentery, rabbit fever, rabies, plague, to name a few...

Remember too that folks used ground water wells, not deep wells as we use today, and if the well were located down from a bacteria source, the water would be full of bugs.

So there were lots of wives' tales on how to purify water..., adding ginger was one method, and adding some wine or some spirits was another..., neither worked.

It became well known that beer was healthier than water, and the beer that was most common was small beer, which was about 2% alcohol, but when correctly made, calls for a long simmering time..., hence it was a safe source of water. Further, it was normally drawn after the beer barrel was stirred, so the drinker got a dose of yeast..., a source of B vitamins, and as the beer was made with grains, dissolved carbohydrates as well. Folks in the woods though didn't carry around beer... Big Grin

Sailors on ship drank grog in addition to water, and the grog was made with hot water..., so folks were using heat to kill off the pathogens..., they just didn't make the connection.

For most folks, they developed resistance to many bacteria and viruses. As the average person didn't move a large distance (the population is often incorrectly seen as all being part of Western expansion), so what you drank you could fight off. There are parts of Africa today where the bush-surgeon and patient live in the general area, and the patient undergoes cranial surgery without infection of the brain, and the Mayans did it too..., but import the doctor from a greater distance than about two days ride..., = death sentence.

Armies weren't just feared because of what the soldiers might do to the locals, they were feared because of the disease they brought. Shakespeare wrote in Henry V lines about how sick Henry's army was as it approached Agincourt. Probably nothing more than exposure to the water in France.

LD


It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
 
Posts: 3843 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hivernant
posted Hide Post
I disagree in part with you LD, as alcohol (spirits) has the power to kill most bacteria and at least inactivate other bugs as it is classified as a intermediate level disinfectant. It is not sporicidal though, so it's usefullness against parasites is limited, however it would be better than nothing.
 
Posts: 111 | Location: Texas | Registered: 25 May 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
posted Hide Post
I drank lots of untreated surface water at times in my life, mostly back in '71 while working in the North Cascades of Washington. Never got sick from that. But I wholeheartedly agree with LD that there is a lot to die for (from) in untreated water. Some of those diseases are practically unheard of in our modern world, in part because we are immunized and in part because we treat the water.

So, as LD has been known to say, drinking period correct water (i.e. untreated) gives you the chance of dying from a period correct disease.

Sparks


"I thought when you said you chased tornadoes, it was just a metaphor."
--soon to be ex-fiance in Twister
 
Posts: 247 | Location: Boise | Registered: 12 November 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hivernant
posted Hide Post
quote:
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove


Keep inside the tree line, Don't let 'em know where yer bedded. Some have less than you do and my be inclined to try and take what little ya have.
 
Posts: 107 | Location: The Soviet Socialist state of Connectitax | Registered: 29 May 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
posted Hide Post
quote:
I disagree in part with you LD, as alcohol (spirits) has the power to kill most bacteria and at least inactivate other bugs as it is classified as a intermediate level disinfectant.


Yes alcohol in HIGH concentrations will kill off bacteria, but taking wine or beer and mixing some of that into water, is not high enough. Take some wine, mix it with an equal amount of water..., and see if it molds or if it goes sour. Heck beer or ale once tapped goes "bad" in less than a week..., so no need to dilute it to see if that will work..., ask any publican who uses a beer engine and opens the barrel or keg with a peg that allows air to enter the vessel.

If either the wine or the beer had enough alcohol to purify the water..., it has enough alcohol to kill off any airborne mold or bacteria that falls into it. High concentrations of alcohol enough to destroy or halt organisms is too high to give the person sufficient water to survive..., as it causes a diuretic effect.

Since you didn't reference what you want me to prove Jimbow, I suppose you mean all of the information that I posted, so I suggest you purchase a copy of Libations of The Eighteenth Century by David Alan Woolsey. It's explained in detail within that book.

Big Grin

LD


It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
 
Posts: 3843 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hivernant
posted Hide Post
That is the part I disagree with you about, when you reference "spirits" as in liquor, not beer and wine.
 
Posts: 111 | Location: Texas | Registered: 25 May 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
Picture of Josh Crain
posted Hide Post
Oops! I didn't mean to spark off an argument here. Frowner I was just repeating what I've heard. If I were you, LD, I'd take my argument up with the historian (he was a historian and wrote a book on the topic.) I would also mention that he wasn't just refering to the west, but to Europe, Asia, and India, and was describing the different practices of the day.

I wish I could give you the name of his book, but, alas, I can't remember it.

~Josh

P.S. As bull3540 said, this guy was talking about beer, wine, and mead- not liquor or grog.


"Return unto me, and I will return unto you," saith the Lord of hosts.
~Malachi 3:7b
 
Posts: 297 | Location: MI | Registered: 18 August 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
posted Hide Post
quote:
He said that the people back then would mix wine or beer with drinking water to sterelize it


This above doesn't mention spirits folks, and that what I was speaking about. IF you get the alcohol up to about 40 proof you do have something that harms some pathogens, and is about basic minimal liqueur potency..., not very healthy either.

OH and "purify" in older times like the 18th century didn't mean to kill off the germs folks. "Germ theory" wasn't a concept the vast majority of the population understood..., if they did they'd a boiled water more often. Malaria, for example is mal [bad] aria[air], and was thought to be due to stinky smells that came out of swampy areas..., not due to germs passed by the bites of mosquitoes. So when you read about folks adding ginger or wine to water, they were changing the smell and so thought they were "purifying" the water..., but in fact were not harming any microscopic critters in the liquid.

Seriously folks, ask yourself why the lowest potency of alcohol sold for disinfection is 70% or 140 proof? If a company could produce an effective form of medicinal alcohol (ethyl or isopropyl makes not difference to bugs) at a lower concentration, thus increasing their profits, but still selling an effective product, why would they go higher to the 70% solution? So at 20% some bugs die, at 40% -50% more bugs die (80 proof liquors don't often spoil) but some of the really nasty pathogens are still going strong, but if you want to really be sure all the bugs are gone, say for example on your hands straight or in hand-sanitizer, or on your surgical stuff..., you need 70% or 140 proof for it to work. Now, that's like taking a quart canteen of Bacardi 151 and adding a gill of water to it.

LD


It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
 
Posts: 3843 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hivernant
posted Hide Post
quote:
and adding ..... or some spirits was another..., neither worked.

This is the part I disagree with you about, the part about spirits, which I think is better than nothing for the below reasons.

quote:
Originally posted by bull3540:
I disagree in part with you LD, as alcohol (spirits) has the power to kill most bacteria and at least inactivate other bugs as it is classified as a intermediate level disinfectant. It is not sporicidal though, so it's usefullness against parasites is limited, however it would be better than nothing.
 
Posts: 111 | Location: Texas | Registered: 25 May 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
Picture of Josh Crain
posted Hide Post
Interesting info here, Dave. Mabey if you talked to that guy on the radio he'd agree with you... I don't really know.

Well... I guess I have no more to add to this topic.

God bless!

~Josh


"Return unto me, and I will return unto you," saith the Lord of hosts.
~Malachi 3:7b
 
Posts: 297 | Location: MI | Registered: 18 August 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Greenhorn
posted Hide Post
Thanks fellas, I knew this'd be the right place to ask.

This all points out a few things for me...

- I can now see why, even though they say that dogs can catch Giardia, my dog can drink from our beaver-creek every day of his life and not suffer. The "every day of his life" part is the secret.

- I am solidly validated in my preference for drinking-water that is at least 90% Scotch-whiskey.

- The early explorers that truly travelled far and wide (Robt. Rogers, Boon, Crocket, The Corps of Discovery, etc...) were even tougher and more remarkable than I had realized...
 
Posts: 15 | Registered: 25 March 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Factor
posted Hide Post
Well you can develop a resistance to Giardia. Crypto Sporidium not so much. Cholera and Typhoid..., after a bout of it where you survive. A small portion of the population is genetic resistant to plague. Folks did survive the pox, but then the right mutation of influenza after 1900 decimated the civil population of a very young age (as the cemetery down the street from me bears witness to [shudder]). Dogs can have all sorts of nasty bugs in their mouths that don't harm them, but even if their bite is not rabid, the secondary infection will often mess up the person bit. So by the time a person survived to be adult, they probably had great immune systems, but only for what they had been previously exposed..., today poison ivy rash is annoying, and we treat it with rash cream and sometimes antibiotic ointment..., untreated in the 18th or 19th century..., scratch it and you get cellulitis..., and you are probably "done".

LD


It's not what you know, it's what you can prove
 
Posts: 3843 | Location: People's Republic of Maryland | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Booshway
posted Hide Post
My son is an M.D. specializing in emergency medicine. He has practiced in southern Louisiana and in Alaska. He has advanced training and certification in emergency wilderness training. He is a hiker/backpacker/camper in wilderness areas, including Alaska. On this issue, he says there is no more pure water anywhere. Even what is coming off mountain tops is often contaminated.
That is convincing enough for me.
Being 'authentic' is one thing. Being smart is another.
Remember, dying a slow, agonizing death at an early age is 'authentic'. Personally, I ain't that dedicated.
 
Posts: 1487 | Location: Mountain Home, Arkansas | Registered: 08 October 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Pilgrim
posted Hide Post
Some of today's troubles may be the result of overuse. You can go into a wilderness area but if a lot of backpackers, etc are around- that wilderness area might have polluted water. When I was a lot younger I drank from pure mountain springs and on canoe trips- water from mid-lake. I don't think I ever got water from a stream where a dead animal might be just up river around the bend. I'd find a little tributory. In any event, I never got sick but in the 1980's hordes of backpackers, etc took to the woods and thereafter I started using water purificatin tablets just to be safe.
The pioneers, etc? Probably just drank from springs, etc.
 
Posts: 54 | Registered: 14 November 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Hivernant
posted Hide Post
I personally think it is a kinda all of the above.

I have read a few books dating before or just after the fur trade and read where people got sick, one book the author was sick for, seems over a month.

Some, I would hazard, just punched out and no one ever knew others built or had some immunity.

It is even possible some folks considered a bout with such a normal part of life


anything worth shooting is worth shooting once.
 
Posts: 126 | Location: Demokratik Republik of Washington | Registered: 29 September 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Free Trapper
posted Hide Post
I have to believe that a combination of effects were taking place. It would be nice to compare yesterday and today, but times were, and are very different. When the nation started heading west,the numbers were small, and the native population limited and mobile. When conditions deteriorated, you moved on. Ground water was not as polluted as today, and nature had a stronger hand in it's purification. I also again that their immune systems were different due to the different diets of the time. It would be interesting to see if any research has been done to the health and methods of using and storing of drinking water by the tribes? This is an interesting thread, not something that I would have thaught of, but one of importance if trekking through the mountains.


" You do with your scalp as you wish and don't be telling us what to with ours."
 
Posts: 158 | Location: lake champlain, vt | Registered: 03 January 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 


2014 Historical Enterprises, LLC