[HN Gopher] Human parasites in the Roman World: health consequen...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Human parasites in the Roman World: health consequences of
       conquering an empire
        
       Author : GeoAtreides
       Score  : 65 points
       Date   : 2024-07-20 15:46 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cambridge.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cambridge.org)
        
       | arbuge wrote:
       | "Despite their large multi-seat public latrines with washing
       | facilities, sewer systems, sanitation legislation, fountains and
       | piped drinking water from aqueducts, we see the widespread
       | presence of whipworm (Trichuris trichiura), roundworm (Ascaris
       | lumbricoides) and Entamoeba histolytica that causes dysentery.
       | This would suggest that the public sanitation measures were
       | insufficient to protect the population from parasites spread by
       | fecal contamination. Ectoparasites such as fleas, head lice, body
       | lice, pubic lice and bed bugs were also present, and delousing
       | combs have been found. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the
       | Roman culture of regular bathing in the public baths reduced the
       | prevalence of these parasites."
       | 
       | I would think that the communal nature of the latrines and baths
       | would actually have contributed to increasing the incidence of
       | those parasites, rather than decreasing them.
        
         | welder wrote:
         | Especially because they used shared reusable sponges to wipe
         | instead of bidet
        
           | shaky-carrousel wrote:
           | It was probably used as a toilet brush.
        
             | jowdones wrote:
             | I swear I read "toothbrush". Took me 4 or 5 passes to
             | realize it's "toilet".
             | 
             | Joking, maybe they did use the sponge alternatively as a
             | bottom brush and tooth brush. Not in this order, probably
             | :)
        
             | ghodith wrote:
             | I don't think there was anything to brush, normally just an
             | elevated hole with running water underneath
        
             | palisade wrote:
             | Nope, it was use in the butt itself.
        
           | kuschku wrote:
           | They didn't - they used ripped pieces of fabric and cloth to
           | wipe themselves. They used the sponges to clear obstructions,
           | somewhat like a combined toilet brush / plunger.
        
             | palisade wrote:
             | Hate to break it to you, the sponge was for their butt.
             | And, in Asia they didn't have a sponge they just used a
             | stick.
        
               | quonn wrote:
               | No it wasn't.
        
         | practicemaths wrote:
         | I think contextually it depends.
         | 
         | If you compare rural living to urban living, then maybe you
         | could say latrines and baths contributed to increase in
         | parasites.
         | 
         | However that's a bad comparison.
         | 
         | What would be better is compare similar levels of urbanization
         | (population density) with and without latrines & baths. I
         | imagine the latter may be more sanitary.
        
           | prerok wrote:
           | Exactly. I wonder/think that reports from medieval and early
           | modern age London were much worse.
        
         | shaky-carrousel wrote:
         | That's because you are comparing it with our current systems.
         | You have to compare it with what it existed before, basically
         | people relieving themselves everywhere.
        
           | Wytwwww wrote:
           | I don't think Romans invented sewage systems or plumbing.
           | That existed all over the Mediterranean for hundreds of years
           | prior we just don't know much about them (no written sources,
           | less archaeological research/evidence etc.).
        
             | AlbertCory wrote:
             | > no written sources, less archaeological research/evidence
             | etc.
             | 
             | Makes sense. So how do you know?
        
             | srean wrote:
             | Hundreds of years and Mediterranean you say...
             | 
             | It boggles my mind that Indus valley civilization had flush
             | toilets. That would be roughly 3000~2600 B.C. Its both sad
             | and ironic in the context of some of the poorly serviced
             | parts of India (sanitarily speaking).
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#History
        
             | kergonath wrote:
             | No written sources from around the Mediterranean before
             | Rome? Also, no archaeological evidence?
             | 
             | You must be joking.
             | 
             | I am not saying the Romans were the first, but surely we
             | can do better than "of course there were others, but we
             | don't know".
        
         | space_oddity wrote:
         | Agree, facilities such as latrines and baths likely contributed
         | to the spread of parasites rather than mitigating it
        
         | peoplefromibiza wrote:
         | > rather than decreasing them
         | 
         | Romans used sponges to clean their butt in public toilets, but
         | sponges were shared.
         | 
         | I guess that didn't help...
        
           | wdh505 wrote:
           | I think they got a daily vinegar ration to soak the sponge
           | and make it less smelly. Some believe that the sponge offered
           | to christ on the cross was a poo vinegar sponge.
        
         | dredmorbius wrote:
         | Centralised latrines _with waste diverted from freshwater
         | supplies_ would be a net-net win over, say, backyard privvies
         | which soaked directly into adjacent wells and surface streams.
         | The latter was the case in cities such as London and New York
         | well into the 19th, and early 20th, centuries. Keep in mind
         | that the haulage of human waste itself ( "night soil" in some
         | cultures) was a major activity with its dedicated labour pool
         | (pardon the mental image...), though that was in part based on
         | social shunning of those who were so employed.
         | 
         | Concentrations of people create hygenic issues regardless. On
         | balance, Romes latrines were _probably_ a net benefit, though
         | of course the Romans lacked modern understanding of disease,
         | both in parasitic and infectious forms.
         | 
         | Even today, roughly 85% of the increase in human longevity,
         | much due to decreased infant and child mortality, is
         | attributable to general hygiene, municipal sanitation measures
         | (both of wastes such as sewerage, solid rubbish, and of
         | improved air quality; and of vastly improved water and food
         | quality. Other public health measures, including quarantine,
         | epidemiological surveillance, and vaccinations, also played a
         | huge role. I first became aware of this through Laurie
         | Garrett's book _The Coming Plague_ (1994):
         | <https://search.worldcat.org/title/30701925>
         | 
         | See "The Conquest of Pestilence in New York City" for a ...
         | graphic ... expression of the trends in mortality from ~1800
         | through 2000 or so:
         | 
         | <https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uTWEATUzgxk/TXQoTibILtI/AAAAAAAAA..
         | .>
        
         | beloch wrote:
         | If you go to the public latrine at Ephesus today, it looks
         | pretty awesome. It's out in the air. Nice views in all
         | directions. If you can get over the communal nature of it, it
         | seems like a fantastic spot to do your business.
         | 
         | In Roman times, public latrines were places of last resort.
         | They were typically enclosed, poorly ventilated, and notorious
         | for rats and explosions[1]. For most Romans, making it home to
         | your own commode was vastly preferred.
         | 
         | This brings us to a funny quirk of roman home design. Toilets
         | were usually located in kitchens and "flushed" with wastewater
         | from the kitchen. In most homes these toilets were connected to
         | cesspits that were periodically emptied, and not to the sewers.
         | 
         | [1]https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-
         | europe/rats-e...
        
           | notnmeyer wrote:
           | aside from this being appalling, "notorious for rats and
           | explosions" is pretty funny
        
       | Mistletoe wrote:
       | Well let's look on the bright side, did they have less auto-
       | immune diseases?
       | 
       | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618732/
        
       | BobbyTables2 wrote:
       | The headline made me think that that the "parasites" were going
       | to be the Romans!
        
       | space_oddity wrote:
       | The Romans had advanced public health infrastructure, it was
       | inadequate in preventing the spread of parasites still.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-07-20 23:02 UTC)