Read Ebook: Rural Hygiene by Ogden Henry N Henry Neely

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 1310 lines and 130913 words, and 27 pages

There are special reasons why the Australian death-rate should be low, but, neglecting this one country entirely, it will be seen that Norway, Denmark, and Sweden have rates of 14.5, 14.8, and 15.5, respectively; rates which may be considered as good as any country can attain at the present time. But the United States, as a whole, has about one more death per 1000 than these countries, and New York State two more per 1000 population. This means that in New York State there are 16,000 more deaths each year than if the population were living in Sweden under Swedish conditions and laws. Or, expressed in another way, it means that in Sweden one out of every sixty-five persons dies each year, and in New York one out of every fifty-eight persons.

The rate in New York State is high because the state contains a large number of cities, and concentration of population generally implies all kinds of bad and unsanitary conditions. As a rule, a higher death-rate may be expected in a densely populated community than in a sparsely settled one, and we should therefore expect a rural community to show a lower death-rate than a city or urban community. It is not a fair estimate of the health of any rural locality, such as a county where no large cities exist, to compare its death-rate with the average of the state, or with the average rate of some other county which contains a large city. This fact is plainly brought out by the statistics in Table II, from the several sanitary districts into which the state of New York is divided, as shown on the map, Fig. 1:--

The Maritime District includes the four counties of New York City and comprises about half the population of the state. Its population is almost entirely quartered under distinctly urban conditions, in some parts with a congestion not equaled in any other city of the country. It would naturally, therefore, have a high death-rate, and that it is no higher than it is makes it a matter for congratulation. And yet the rate in New York City is higher than in the other principal large cities of the world. For example, the rates for the five-year period 1900-1904 in Berlin averaged 18.3, in Paris 18.2, and in London 16.9, New York being 19.4 for the corresponding period. The excess in New York is due in part to local conditions and in part to a less active oversight in matters of public health. Similarly, the Hudson Valley District, which embraces the large cities along the Hudson, has a higher death-rate than the state average, whereas the other six districts have low rates, chiefly because of the large proportion of agricultural land and small towns. The last district should be noted particularly, since its rate is remarkably low and its number of cities very small, compared with the area included. The conclusion may be properly drawn, therefore, that statistics confirm the general impression that life in the country is healthier than life in the city.

One factor must be considered, however, since it plays an important part in drawing conclusions from these kinds of statistics, and that is, the accuracy of the records. In a city in which every one must be buried in a public cemetery, and when the physician, the undertaker, and the sexton all have to keep records which must agree, it is not easy for any burial to occur without the fact being recorded and later registered in the Census Office at Washington. But in the country, a person may be killed by accident, for example, and buried in a private lot without the undertaker recording it at all. The result is that the total number of deaths seems fewer and the death-rate seems smaller than the facts warrant, so that a false idea of the healthfulness of the community obtains. That errors of this sort have existed in the past can be seen by examining the death-rates for New York City and those for regions outside that city for the past ten years:--

The decrease in the city rate is to be expected, since with greater knowledge of sanitary matters, more precautions against disease would naturally be taken. But it is not likely that the country is becoming more careless, although the tendency to concentrate population even in rural hamlets may have an effect. It is rather more likely that the reports are made more carefully and that the records are more complete now than formerly. The apparent increase in the number of deaths in rural communities is, therefore, due to greater attention in reporting deaths rather than to any real increase in the number.

If the difference between the rural community death-rate and the rate in all the cities of more than 8000 population in New York State be shown, the difference between the city rate and the country rate is even less than that shown in the table, being only 0.7 deaths in 1000 for 1908. This shows that the boasted superiority of the country over cities is not very great; that it is marked only in the case of a very large city like New York; that, as the size of the city decreases, the difference disappears, and that the country rate in the United States is high when compared with the general rate of other countries like Denmark or even England, where the general rate includes the large cities.

An interesting sidelight on the apparent tendency of the country to have an increasing death-rate, year by year, is shown by the meager figures which are available on the subject of the number of small children in the different towns. The Chief Clerk in the Census Office, Mr. William S. Rossiter, has investigated the proportion of children in two rural counties of New York State, Otsego and Putnam, and has discovered the startling fact that while the population in those counties has hardly changed since 1860, the proportion of young children has decreased almost one third in the forty years ending with 1900, as shown by the following table:--

This shows that while in 1860, when the total population was about 64,000, the number of children was about 14,000 or 22.5 per cent, in 1900, when the total population was 62,462 or nearly the same, the number of children was only 9453, or a reduction in numbers of nearly 5000 children. In many of the small cities of New York State, the fact that there is a constantly decreasing number of children in the community is well recognized, the greater proportion of the population being past middle life. The death-rate, therefore, is lower, from this very fact.

That the general death-rate is directly affected by the number of children living in a community is shown by the following table:--

This table shows two things: first, that children have a hard time reaching five years, as nearly one third of all the children born in any year die under five years, and second, that from five to twenty years is the healthiest--that is, safest--time of a person's life, since after twenty the constitutional diseases make themselves felt so that death becomes almost uniformly distributed from twenty to eighty. It is plain, then, that in any community a change in the relative proportion of children born in any year would change the death-rate, since with a smaller number of infants there could not be so many to die.

No statistics are available to determine the number of small children in the country as compared with that in the city, but it is probable that they are in excess in the latter, since the highest birth-rates are found in the congested districts of cities where foreigners congregate. If this is so, it will account for and justify a higher rate of death in the city because of the larger number of children, as has been explained above, and the lower rate in the country may be due, not to better sanitary surroundings, but solely to fewer children.

According to statistics, the death-rate of children is almost 50 per cent higher in cities than in rural districts, and it is a general impression that most deaths in the country are from old age. English statistics show, however, and those of the United States would probably show the same thing, that while a baby born in the city is more likely to die before its first birthday than a baby born in the country, they have equal chances to finish a month of life and that the city child has better chances to live out the first week. The advantages of the country, therefore, do not begin to operate until after the first month of the baby's life, and there is a decidedly greater chance of the child's living in the city the first week on account, probably, of better and quicker medical attendance.

Turning now to special diseases and comparing the number of deaths caused by special diseases in the country and in the city, it is to be noted, first of all, that a greater difference exists in the case of certain special diseases in the country and in the city than was found in the general death-rate. In the case of typhoid fever, basing the comparison on the statistics of the Census Office of the United States, we find, first, that, at present, the difference in the death-rates from typhoid fever in cities and in rural districts is very small. It is also to be seen that in both city and in rural districts, the rate is steadily decreasing, although in neither has the rate yet fallen to what would, in other countries, be considered a reasonable and proper death-rate. The first line of the table is the actual death-rate from typhoid fever per 100,000 population, based on the total population resident in all the United States where vital statistics are kept; the second line gives the same data for cities not included in registration states; the third line is based on figures for cities in registration states; and the fourth line is based on the statistics for rural districts and villages of less than 8000 population:--

This table shows that, taking the United States as a whole, the typhoid-rate in rural districts is generally less than in cities and that in cities the rate is excessively high.

The first line is the death-rate in cities, found by taking the ratio of all the deaths from typhoid in cities to the population in those cities, and the second line is a similar ratio for rural districts. If the actual rates of the several cities be averaged, a method which has the effect of giving the rate found for a city of 10,000 equal value in the average with one of 1,000,000, the third line of the table is obtained; and in the same way, by averaging the death-rates of the counties of the state, excluding cities, the fourth line is obtained. These last two lines show that the average of the city rates is noticeably higher than the average of the rural rates, and that, while since 1900 the average of the rural districts has remained uniform, the death-rate in cities has been continually decreasing.

It is, then, not fair to say, despite frequent but careless statements by writers on typhoid fever, that this disease is a country disease, and that it is transmitted to the city by the vacationist who finds the disease lurking in the waters of the farm well. Some years ago it was pointed out that the period of maximum development of typhoid fever is in the fall, and the conclusion was drawn that the disease was particularly prevalent then because that season is the end of the vacation period. That this is not true, or at any rate not entirely true, may be seen from the consideration of two facts, viz. first, that the death-rate in the country districts is low compared with the rates in cities, and second, that those stricken with the disease on their return to the city are quite as apt to have traveled through other cities and to have taken water from other places than farm wells.

As a matter of fact, the greatest danger from typhoid fever is neither in the country nor the large city, but in the village or small city. Here the growth and congestion of population has made necessary the introduction of a water-supply, and in many cases this has not been supplemented by the construction of a sewerage system. The ground becomes saturated with filth, percolating, in many cases, into wells not yet abandoned, and the introduction of the typhoid germ brought in from outside is all that is needed to start a widespread epidemic.

Another reason for the prevalence of this disease in small cities is that the organization of their health boards is much less effective than that of larger cities. Individuals have not yet learned to sacrifice their own wishes for the sake of the community, and the local health officer, however much he may desire to do his duty, is not upheld by public opinion, and is therefore powerless.

In order to show the condition existing in the small cities of the state of New York, the preceding table has been prepared, showing the average death-rate for the cities of the state for the past ten years, excluding, however, the cities of New York, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, all of which have well-organized health boards, and where no epidemic of typhoid fever may be expected. Remembering that a rate of 15 per 100,000 is a normal rate, it will be easily seen how excessive is the amount of typhoid fever in most of the cities of New York State.

Turning now to tuberculosis, the death-rate in cities is very markedly higher than in rural districts, and the superiority of the country as a place to live is hereby plainly demonstrated. The preceding table shows the death rate from tuberculosis in cities for the years 1903-1907, the data being taken from the United States Census Reports.

The death-rate in the cities is evidently about 60 per 100,000 greater than in the rural districts, due, of course, to the crowding in city tenements. This is true for nearly all cities, although the difference is more marked in some parts of the country than in others. In Massachusetts, for example, the death-rate in rural districts is slightly higher than the death-rate in cities, but tuberculosis is much more prevalent in that state than in any other part of the country. In New York State the rate in cities is about 70 per 100,000 greater than in rural districts, due, presumably, to the larger number of manufacturing centers in this state. In New York City the rate is constantly more than 200, and in 1908 in the borough of the Bronx it was nearly 500.

Diphtheria is another disease that exacts heavier toll from the cities than from the country, about three times as many deaths occurring in the former as in the latter.

Influenza is, on the other hand, markedly severe on people in rural districts, the death-rate there being more than twice as high as in the cities. It is easy to see why this is. Lack of sidewalks, lack of protection, lack of uniform temperature in the houses, and the lack of care in the first stages of illness, all tend to increase the death-rate from this disease.

The death-rate from pneumonia, on the other hand, is higher in the city, the vitality and power of resistance of victims probably being reduced under average city conditions.

Diseases that are induced by water, all referred to under typhoid fever, but extending into such complaints as diarrhoea and enteritis, are much more severe in cities than in the country. Such an excess of general intestinal diseases shows again that a polluted water-supply is not peculiar to the country, but is responsible for an excessive death-rate in the city. Most of the constitutional diseases also have higher death-rates in the city than in the country. Bright's disease, for example, for the five years 1903-1907, had an average rate in cities of 107.3 per 100,000, while for the same five years in the rural districts the rate was only 68.6.

Further showing the advantage of country life, it is to be noted that the number of deaths from old age in rural districts is nearly double that in cities. For example, in the same period already referred to the death-rate in cities of persons over sixty was 27.6, while in the rural districts, for the same period, it was 49.3,--nearly double.

Not to the same extent as twenty-five years ago, but still too often is the farmer so exhausted by bodily toil that he has left no strength for the cultivation of either mind or spirit. For the brief period of spring and summer, the good farmer in the Eastern States works himself harder than any slave of old. Up with the sun, or earlier, he follows through the long day the hardest kind of manual labor. When the end of the day comes, after fifteen hours' physical strain, his weary body demands sleep, and no vitality is left for mental improvement. In the winter, on the other hand, a lack of exercise is enforced, and the resulting interference with normal functions is so great that he lives the winter through in a sort of hibernation. He is nearly poisoned by lack of ventilation in the small living room, where the one stove makes living possible; he gets fat and indolent, and then with relaxed muscles plunges into furious labor again when spring comes round.

"No wonder," says Woods Hutchinson, "that by forty-five he has had a sunstroke and 'can't stand the heat' or has a 'weak back' or his 'heart gives out' or a chill 'makes him rheumatic.'" Such a life is not efficient any more than a steam engine is efficient when half the time it is run at such high speed that it tends to shake itself to pieces and the other half of the time it stands idle. Nor are the conditions under which farmers' wives live any better. Statistics show that the highest percentage of insanity in any class of persons in the United States is to be found among farmers' wives.

An ideal life is not one which merely rounds out the allotted span, but one which, during that span, is measurably free from ailments and disabilities and in a condition to claim a share in the joy of living which belongs to every human being by reason of his existence. Such lives, to be sure, are seldom found, and no system of statistics yet devised has been able to take account of those ailments. Insurance companies, which make good losses for inability to work and which return the cost of medicines and doctors' bills, give the only information on the subject. From these, it has been shown that for each death in a community there are a little more than two years of illness. Or, expressed differently, for every death occurring in a village, there are two persons constantly ill during the year. Or, still differently, there are, on the average, thirteen days' sickness per year for every person in a community.

It is the aim of all hygienic efforts to prevent not merely premature death, but also the inefficiency of unhealthy living, and it is the latter condition rather than the former which generally prevails in rural communities. As we have seen, the death-rates in the country, except for pneumonia, are not noticeably higher than in the city. But by minor ailments, with the resulting loss of daily efficiency, the rural communities are sadly overburdened. As Irving Fisher says in his Report on National Vitality:--

"But prevention is merely the first step in increasing the breadth of life. Life is to be broadened not only negatively by diminishing those disabilities which narrow it, but also positively by increasing the cultivation of vitality. Here we leave the realm of medicine and enter the realm of physical training.... Beyond athletic sports in turn comes mental, moral, and spiritual culture, the highest product of health cultivation. It is an encouraging sign of the times that the ecclesiastical view of the Middle Ages, which associated saintliness with sickness, has given way to modern 'muscular Christianity.'... This is but one evidence of the tendency toward the 'religion of healthymindedness' described by Professor James. Epictetus taught that no one could be the highest type of philosopher unless in exuberant health. Expressions of Emerson's and Walt Whitman's show how much their spiritual exaltation was bound up with health ideals. 'Give me health and a day,' said Emerson, 'and I will make the pomp of emperors ridiculous.' It is only when these health ideals take a deep hold that a nation can achieve its highest development. Any country which adopts such ideals as an integral part of its practical life philosophy may be expected to reach or even excel the development of the health-loving Greeks."

In attempting to develop a system of rural hygiene, by means of which the full value of the advantages of pure air and sunlight, of healthful exercise and sound sleep, may be realized, the first step should be a proper location of the house. For, while it is possible to have good health in houses not advantageously located, and while the influence of unsanitary surroundings is not as great as was formerly supposed, yet there can be no question but that some influences, whether they be great or small, must result directly from the situation of a dwelling. For example, it has been noticed that a house whose cellar was damp was an unhealthy house to live in, and early text-books on hygiene quote statistics at length to prove this fact.

The early theories connecting ill-health with conditions in and around the house have been handed down, and to-day some are accepted as true, although by the modern science of bacteriology most of the early notions have been upset. For example, it was considered dangerous to breathe night air in the vicinity of swamps, and in one of the Rollo Books, so much read by the children of the last generation, Uncle George requires Rollo, on a night journey through the Italian marshes, to stay inside the coach with the windows closed in order not to breathe the night air and so contract malarial fever. We know to-day that malarial fever comes only from mosquitoes, that night air has nothing to do with disease, and we hear the general advice of doctors that, except where it means the admission of mosquitoes, we should always sleep with our windows open in order to breathe as much night air as possible, because the night air is purer than any other air. These early traditions have not only concerned themselves with damp cellars and night air, but they have insisted that even the vicinity of a swamp or pond might lead to disease, and the State Department of Health of New York is in constant receipt of complaints because of alleged danger to health on account of some pond or swamp in the vicinity of houses.

Again, one tradition says that a house should not be located in the midst of a dense growth of trees, because the shade of the trees, however welcome in summer, will generate and maintain a condition of dampness in the house and, therefore, be injurious to the health of the inmates.

Another tradition is that a house ought not to be located in a valley, but that a hilltop, or at least a sidehill elevation, is preferable, the possible dampness of the valley being alleged again as the reason.

Why is it, then, that damp soils and damp cellars are objected to? Chiefly, because of the inconvenience and discomfort they occasion. A damp cellar means conditions favorable to the development of mildew and rot; prevents vegetables from keeping a normal length of time; accounts for moldy, decaying odors throughout the house, and is generally disagreeable. One is tempted to say that such a condition is also unhealthy, and it is quite possible that a person living over a damp cellar which contains accumulations of decaying vegetables, and breathing air loaded with organic compounds, may gradually lose his normal vitality, and become thereby more readily susceptible to specific diseases, but the diseases themselves will not come from the dampness alone.

The discomfort and inconvenience, however, are quite sufficient reasons to make it eminently desirable to have the house and the cellar dry. With this in mind, the selection of the house site should be carefully made. Instinctively, and with reason, the immediate neighborhood of low, swampy, marshy ground, of stagnant ponds, or of sluggish streams should be avoided. It should not be necessary to warn prospective builders that low land, subject to inundation, even though this may happen only occasionally, is not a wise choice of a building site. Figure 2 shows an inundation in a small village of New York State in 1889. Floods are expected each spring and counted on as a part of the year's experience. The resulting exposure and the inevitable effluvia following the receding waters are both objectionable factors in hygienic living. Similarly, the vicinity of a stream carrying organic matter, such as sewage from a town above, should undoubtedly be avoided on account of possible odors in summer. Not long ago, the writer was told by the owner of a productive farm, situated below a small city in New York State, that in the summer time the windows of his house had all to be kept tightly shut at night, because of the effluvia from a stream a thousand feet distant, which carried the sewage from the city above.

A deep and narrow valley should be avoided, not so much because of the possible dampness in the valley, but because of the noticeably lessened amount of sunlight which such a location involves. For such a house, the morning sun comes up much later, and the afternoon sun disappears much earlier, and, since sunlight is the best foe to disease, the more sunlight enters a house, the healthier are those who live in it. On the other hand, the top of a hill exposes a house to strong and cold winds, not desirable on any account, and involving a large expense for heating in winter. Sloping ground, therefore, facing the south if possible, or better, some knoll which rises above the general surface of a southern slope, affords an ideal location. If the slope is toward the south, north winds are kept off, and every ray of the life-giving winter's sun is captured. If the house itself faces due south, the windows on the north have no sunlight. If, on the other hand, the house faces southeast or southwest, then all sides of the house will receive direct sunlight at some time of the day.

The vicinity of trees is not to be regarded as altogether evil, since they provide both shade in summer and a screen against winds in the winter. No disease comes from dampness because of their presence, and the worst thing which may be charged against a thick growth is that it keeps out the sun. Practically two points may, however, be urged against trees growing too close to a house. If near enough for leaves to drop on the roof, rain troughs and leaders become stopped up and cause trouble. A thick growth directly over a shingle roof allows organic matter to accumulate on the shingles, so that vegetation develops and the roof decays more rapidly than if exposed to sun and wind. Again, and it is no trivial matter, a house whose roof is easily accessible from trees is apt to become infested with squirrels, who get into the attic, run through the walls, and become a great nuisance. For these reasons, then, trees should be far enough away from the house to allow the sun to enter the windows freely and to keep away from the roof objectionable animals, large and small.

It is a law or custom as ancient as the Romans that requires a proprietor to build his house so that the eaves should not overhang on the land of his neighbor. Our grandfathers, with the same idea, used to say that a man should be able to drive his team around his house on his own land. In our day it is highly desirable that a house should be built so as to leave as much land under control between the buildings and the lot line as possible. This, of course, does not apply to houses built on a farm of a hundred acres or more, but rather to the house in a small village where a few hundred people live closely together, under rural conditions. In such a village the water-supply usually comes from wells, and the wastes of the household are discharged into privies and cesspools. There is no law, unfortunately, which restricts the location of either of these two essential structures, and it is quite possible for a well, built within a few feet of a property line, to be ruined in quality by a cesspool, built later, on the other side of the line. It seems very unjust that, after the trouble and expense of building a well, a neighbor may render it worthless by the location of his cesspool, and yet, unless one can prove a direct underground connection between well and cesspool, no law is applicable to prevent the construction of the latter.

Besides such a menace to health, there are other objections to the immediate vicinity of neighbors which can be avoided by a judicious interposition of space. For example, the writer listened through a long evening, recently, to a hearing before a City Commissioner of Health, where one householder and a crowd of witnesses complained of the noise made by a kicking horse in an adjacent stable. The one witness who was not disturbed by the noise, and who lived in the vicinity, was unexpectedly found to be deaf.

It is wisdom also to have a reasonable space between a house and the highway, chiefly because the dust of the road is thereby kept from the house. There are people who find much enjoyment in watching passers-by on the road, and with them front windows would be as close to the road as possible, but it is wiser to have a front yard of at least fifty feet depth when possible.

Finally, the location on a sidehill, even when otherwise advantageous, is to be regarded with suspicion if the subsoil strata are horizontal and neighbors up the slope have cesspools in use. The writer knows of several cesspools, built in rock, which, so far as their owners were concerned, have worked successfully for many years, but the water leeching away through the rock was finally discovered to be the cause of continual dampness in neighboring cellars, on lower ground, to the manifest discomfort of those occupying the houses.

Having thus discussed the location of the house with reference to its surroundings, let us now more carefully examine the character of the soil or earth foundation on which the house shall be built. All soil is made up of varying proportions of mineral and vegetable matter in the interstices of which there are usually to be found more or less air, water, and watery vapor. The mineral substances of soil include almost all of the known minerals, although many of them are found in exceedingly small quantities. The most common and the most important mineral elements of the soil of New York State are carbon, silicon, aluminum, and calcium, which combine in various ways to make either sand, sandstone, clay, shale, limestone, or other rock. The particular form which these mineral elements assume is of interest in choosing a location for a house, for two reasons:--

In the first place, it has been asserted that the mineral constituents of a soil directly affect the health of persons living on that material. For instance, the earlier writers on hygiene gravely pointed out that very hard granite rocks, when weathered and disintegrated, became permeated by a fungus and caused malaria. We are, however, now so sure of the cause of malaria that we only laugh at a theory upheld by scientists of only twenty years ago.

Some constitutional diseases, including goiter and cancer, have been supposed to flourish in localities where an excess of calcium exists in the soil, and it is true that these diseases do have an unusual prevalence in certain limited districts; but no modern scientist ventures to say whether the boundaries of those districts are determined by the character of the soil constituents or by some other predisposing factor. The truth is that, in matters not absolutely determined by science, many theories usually have to be evolved and proved worthless before the real cause is found.

In the matter of appendicitis, for instance, it was formerly asserted that the seed of grapes was responsible for the local inflammation, and that one could never have appendicitis if such seeds were not swallowed. This theory is to-day almost forgotten, and one eminent surgeon has asserted that the prevalence of this disease in a district depends on the calcium in the soil, since it is to that mineral that hard water is due, although this has not been substantiated. No information is to-day available by which the fitness of a soil for securing sanitary conditions of building can be determined.

In the case of cancer, however, while no final conclusions can be drawn, there is some definite indication that the soil conditions have connection with the occurrence and continued appearance of cancer. It is known that this dread disease is abnormally prevalent in certain districts of the world where topography and climate are fairly alike. For example, the entire region between the Danube and the Alps from Vienna westward and between the Jura and Alps to Geneva furnishes the highest mortality from cancer in all Europe. The subsoil is clay with a thin covering of surface soil, the hillsides draining on to level valleys with meandering watercourses that frequently inundate and supersaturate the already moist soil.

This condition seems to prevail wherever cancer is abnormally prevalent. In England, in northwestern France, and in Spain the topography described in every case accompanies a high death-rate from cancer. It is of great interest to find that in New York State the two districts that are conspicuously affected by this disease have the same topography. The Unadilla Valley and some parts of the Allegheny Valley are noted for their cancer houses, and in both localities we find the same kinds of hillsides and water-soaked valleys as in Germany and France. It has also been noted that the older geological formations are free from the disease and that an occasional inundation does not seem to be a factor. Altogether there seems to be some ground for assuming a connection between cancer and soil conditions, at any rate until scientists have determined the real cause of the disease in those localities where it is now so markedly prevalent.

The soil, however, with its mineral characteristics, does indirectly affect the health of the householder because different kinds of rock form themselves naturally into different surface formations, some healthy and some unhealthy. For example, localities where granite rock abounds and comes near the surface are usually healthy because the surface slope is great enough to carry off all drainage water rapidly. The air therefore is dry and not influenced by the immediate vicinity of swamps. The drinking water is soft, and malarial breeding places are usually absent.

Limestone rock, on the other hand, is commonly laid down in horizontal strata, and while a succession of strata may frequently give rapid slopes, marshes are very common, existing even on the tops of the hills. The drinking water is always to be suspected as to quality because, in the first place, it is hard from absorption of lime, and in the next place, cavities and seams in the rock allow polluting material to travel for long distances.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet