Talk:Miasma theory

message: There doesn't seem to be any reason for there to be two different miasma in China sections, if those were to be combined and just have a subsection for the south China part it might flow better. Especially since there is a section on miasma in the west in between the two sections. Also the seemingly most relevant part of the article as a whole is the transition from miasma to germ theory so it would probably make more sense to emphasize that section of the article more prominently.
Keelanca (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Combining the China sections sounds like a good proposal. If you want to go ahead and rewrite the section, I doubt anyone would object.Dialectric (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (not related to the subject at hand, but typically in wikipedia new comments are placed at the bottom the talk page).Dialectric (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: A few suggestions

message: What about Hahnemann's miasma theory? His ideas seem to be confirmed by today's epigenetics. His theory is far from obsolete!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.237.81.7 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hahneman's miasma theory

message: I think that miasma is also a homeopathic concept differnt than simple airboune filth as a cause of disease. I'm not yet infomed enough to add to the article, perhaps someone else is.--Tjc 13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy 

message: This should be at Miasma hypothesis of disease.Geni 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: move

message: If miasmatic theory "began" in the Middle Ages, how is it possible that "Abaris the Hyperborean...cleaned Sparta under Mount Taygetus from miasmata coming downhill".  Was he a time traveller from the Middle Ages?Sladek 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn good question. This is, overall, an excellent and informative article (disregarding the fact that all the main info is in the leader) but that sentence makes absolutely no sense and if no one steps in to make sense of it, it should just be removed. --203.2.182.254 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical? 

message: The general success of this theory prior to the discovery of the actual microbe may not be related to simply "kill the germs!" wherever smell was found. Germs are legion even in the cleanest areas of nature; furthermore; it stands to reason that the human organism has evolved sensory mechanisms to detect unhealthy areas, this is why feces smell bad! Perhaps the converse of the miasma theory bears looking into; unpolluted areas that do not smell bad and are rife with nature may be full of competing germs that, while they may give you mild diarrhea if you are not acclimated, act to prevent the establishment of more seriously pathogens! Zaphraud 15:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your title gives the impression that you think miasma theory is valid. I don't know what kind of bacteria you will find in areas that are unpolluted. What would qualify as unpolluted? Smell is irrelevant. If a nasty bacteria or virus makes it into your body, it will poison your system (cause cellular damage). Vmelkon (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

text: People are indeed beginning to recognize that bacteria are not “bad”, but simply unheathy for certain organisms, and that certain bacteria are necessary for the health of certain larger lifeforms.  The second half of your statement seems non sequitur to me; I would say, rather, that no detectable “foulness” from something or somewhere is not the only indication upon which you can rely to decide whether such a thing would be healthy:  detecting “foulness” simply helps us to manage certain regions of the ecosystem.  Anyways, it does not seem pertinent in this article.  — JamesEG (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

text: The miasma theory of disease is very valid, but not for explaining germ-based diseases. We now know all too well the expansive damage and diseases that various forms of air pollution can do. Even in an otherwise clean home, when one cooks or keep open garbage or smokes, it releases VOC (volatile organic compounds) gases that cause numerous adverse symptoms. In the absence of excellent ventilation or filtering, these linger in the air. The air can independently also have an odor of ozone or an imbalance of ions that are harmful in altogether different ways. Miasma and germ theory even interact in facilitating the spread of fungal spores in the air. It's not that all air poisons are bad either; a very low amount of carbon monoxide in the air is known to have a hormetic anti-inflammatory effect. --Acyclic (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Science Take Another Look? 

message: This article has a couple of eccentricities, such as Florence Nightingale being responible for making hospitals "fresh smelling", and also what the hell does effluvia mean? Latin shouldn't just casually be thrown in to an English language encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.249.53 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fresh smelling"? 

message: Does it really need 10 years to move a single article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.32.178 (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  really now, just move it 

message: This book http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Art-Steam-Heating/dp/0974396095 states that radiator in old buildings were made far too large for the measurements of the room because of this theory. People would sleep with their windows open (and in full body outfits with night caps) and would need far more heating output to keep the room warm. I will add a section about this, but was hoping someone could find a confirming source. --Skintigh (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiator sizing 

message: The author does forget to add a citation on one occasion. In the sections about China he talks about several dynasties that several people may not be familiar with. Therefore, I would suggest adding some links that lead to other articles. Please review the link to the encyclopedia from Paris because it does not work. www.merriam-webster.com is not considered a reliable source, so please use other sources.Aleman1993 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Miasma theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scpub.org/data//files/revinfdischron-9694.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141108000806/http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/00701/ws007010219.htm to http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/00701/ws007010219.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Miasma theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325114725/http://www.ibms.org/pdf/pdf_science/william_farr.pdf to http://www.ibms.org/pdf/pdf_science/william_farr.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I did some quick reshuffling of prose, promoting "Replacement by germ theory" to a top level heading, and also put in subheadings for "1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak" and "Experiments by Louis Pasteur".  It seems to me that the "1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak", could be a summary-style link to 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak (and possibly trimmed a bit) and that there's an opportunity for someone to add a sub-section summarizing the work of Filippo Pacini.  The "Experiments by Louis Pasteur" section could also probably use expansion. -- RobLa (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about germ theory 

message: Would it make sense to include the time period when talking about the different dynasties in China?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinroberts3567 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time period