Vinegar

[Black Hand]

Black hand, the study used a weaker solution of vinegar water. It probably used only a modern standardized strength vinegar. It only studied one hour. If it did not duplicate the conditions we are referring to in the 18th century. Your reliance on it as conclusive proof of anything is misplaced.

You are welcome to believe what you want, but in this case (vinegar making water safe to drink by killing water-borne pathogens) your belief is incorrect.

Please feel free to take a quart of pond water (preferably from a pond downstream from a herd of cattle, beaver dam or anyplace people defecate in the water, as it would best represent some of the water available at the time), add a little (or a lot) vinegar and let it sit for as long as your like. Drink the "treated" water. Once you have recovered (with medication from your doctor), try again. Make certain to repeat at least 3 times for statistical validity. Then publish your results. While you are sitting on the toilet waiting for the medication to work, you should have plenty of time to review a general Microbiology text and do some research on PubMed.

Please let us know how it goes...

 

[coloradoclyde]

Let's do a laboratory test before we get to human trials...... :haha:

 

[Black Hand]

Let's do a laboratory test before we get to human trials...... :haha:

Sometimes, the researcher needs to step-up to prove their hypothesis. For example, the work definitively linking Helicobacter pylori to stomach ulcers...

 

[coloradoclyde]

You don't want H pylori :nono: Very bad....A friend had that.... :nono:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Again you totally blow by the point. No one claims a bit of vinegar makes pond water totally safe from all pathogens. It was whether they did it for suspected hygiene purposes and not whether it is accepted as fool proof today. I guarantee a 1:16 vinegar -water solution would kill fish and a lot of other things in the water. Perhaps not all, and that does not matter. The water became safer than it was before even if still very risky.

Ohio state found that many aquatic insects die off at a PH of 6 causing fish to starve. So what of water born parasites such as worms, insect larvae and other pests in water? http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/AcidRain/effects-on-lakes.html

 

[coloradoclyde]

What if we are looking at this from the wrong angle?
Vinegar is made by bacteria eating ethanol. What if the vinegar (made from wine) was young and still contained alcohol?

Alcohol (wine) has been proven to kill salmonella, shigella, E. coli, cholera and H. pylori and listeria... :hmm:

An antiseptic doesn't need to be "broad spectrum" to be considered effective....if only one pathogen is of concern....it only has to kill that one pathogen to be considered effective.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Here's my citation for the above...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3046197/

 

[Black Hand]

Again you totally blow by the point. No one claims a bit of vinegar makes pond water totally safe from all pathogens. It was whether they did it for suspected hygiene purposes and not whether it is accepted as fool proof today. I guarantee a 1:16 vinegar -water solution would kill fish and a lot of other things in the water. Perhaps not all, and that does not matter. The water became safer than it was before even if still very risky.

Ohio state found that many aquatic insects die off at a PH of 6 causing fish to starve. So what of water born parasites such as worms, insect larvae and other pests in water? http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/AcidRain/effects-on-lakes.html

With all due respect, it is you who are missing the point.

We aren't discussing fish, insects, worms or other creatures (which are susceptible to changes in pH, temperature, salinity, oxygen concentration, etc.) - We are dealing with bacteria, protozoans and viruses. The latter have unique mechanisms and adaptations that allow them to survive unfavorable environments and then return to their original state once the environment becomes favorable. You could kill 99% of ALL pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoans in the water, and the remaining 1% would be sufficient to cause disease and/or death. Until you kill the remaining 1%, the water is still unsafe to drink. Granted, our predecessors may have been able to deal with these pathogens better because they were exposed to them constantly, and may have developed a tolerance or resistance, but it would still cause problems in those that were young, old, sick or with debilitated immune systems.

If you insist on debating this point, please become better informed about the topic before engaging in further discussion. In this case, you and your Anthropology professor are/were incorrect.

 

[Black Hand]

As a reminder, your original statement was:

I also read that each soldier was to be issued a pint of vinegar per day. As it turns out it served many purposes. A oz in a canteen of questionable water, killed a lot of bacteria protozoa etc...

 

[coloradoclyde]

Thumbing through my recipe file I came across my grandmothers devil's food cake recipe....noticed it contains vinegar......Vinegar is often added to baked goods.... :hmm:

 

[Black Hand]

Did the recipe also contain Baking Soda?

 

[coloradoclyde]

Yes.....I think I know where you are going.....leavening?

 

[Black Hand]

Yes - Vinegar + Baking soda = CO2 gas = lift

 

[coloradoclyde]

Maybe the vinegar ration was for musket cleaning?....The windex crowd seem to like it. :hmm: :haha:


Maybe for athlete's foot....

 

[zimmerstutzen]

And you still miss the issue. to the point of being extremely closed minded on the historical use and purpose, even if the historical use was mistaken. Nobody is saying it will make the water totally safe. If they thought the use tended to lessen the threat of water bourne disease, then in their minds the use was valid. The study you keep touting, confirms that a portion of organisms are killed. The study did not test stronger solutions, did not test longer periods of time and did not even come close to historically accurate conditions, so any further conclusions about such variables would not logically support your conclusions.

And even if the weak solution mix killed 19% of the cysts after an hour (in the modern study) My statement is still 100% correct. Large numerical numbers are killed.

it is a shame they did not test after two hours or with a stronger solution.

 

[Black Hand]

Please let me know when you publish the results of your study. I will anxiously be waiting...

 

[Black Hand]

And you still miss the issue. to the point of being extremely closed minded on the historical use and purpose, even if the historical use was mistaken. Nobody is saying it will make the water totally safe. If they thought the use tended to lessen the threat of water bourne disease, then in their minds the use was valid. The study you keep touting, confirms that a portion of organisms are killed. The study did not test stronger solutions, did not test longer periods of time and did not even come close to historically accurate conditions, so any further conclusions about such variables would not logically support your conclusions.

And even if the weak solution mix killed 19% of the cysts after an hour (in the modern study) My statement is still 100% correct. Large numerical numbers are killed.

it is a shame they did not test after two hours or with a stronger solution.

Please show me a historical quote stating they added vinegar to water because they thought it made the water safer to drink. Here is the main issue - Koch's Germ theory didn't become common knowledge until 1850 and until the 1880, people still thought other factors caused disease. It is impossible the common man of the 17th & 18th century knew about bacteria, viruses or protozoans because they hadn't really been discovered yet. The thought that these organisms could cause disease wasn't even a consideration. Diseases were caused by bad air, the divine or perhaps witchcraft.

I suspect this mistaken idea of vinegar purifying water was a product of the 1960s or 1970s when this hobby started becoming popular. Someone read they issued vinegar to troops and employing a NON-HISTORICAL/MODERN mindset ASSUMED that since vinegar could be used to clean counter-tops, then the vinegar issued as a ration to troops MUST have been used to kill bacteria in the water. All this, without any evidence to back their assumption.

Vinegar was issued as a ration - that we know. Nowhere is there a mention of what it was used for, though we know they drank Switchel (a vinegar based bring similar to Lemonade). NOTHING MORE IS MENTIONED. At best, vinegar was a flavoring agent and may have been used to mask the taste of crappy water.

In summary: The the historical use and purpose justification doesn't hold water. Why? The reason you are basing your argument upon is invalid because they didn't know about bacteria, viruses or protozoan, their presence in water or their ability to cause disease.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I agree!......
In 1676 Antonie van Leeuwenhoek a dutch spectacle maker invented the microscope and first observed microbes in water...In the 1700's filtration using wool and charcoal was employed in the early 1800's wool was replaced with sand. In 1854 it was discovered that cholera spread through water and chlorine was first employed. But it wasn't until the 20th century that it became a standard practice...

Nowhere can I find reference to vinegar being used a disinfectant....

Brewers and winemakers knew about microbes long before Louis Pasteur... Microbes made and destroyed their products...Vinegar itself is made by a microbe. Brewers had to keep things clean and sterile...They did so by using boiling water and later steam. Wine makers also used burning sulfur. The first explicit mention of its use in winemaking is a German royal decree of 1487.

Nowhere can I find reference to vinegar being used as a means of disinfection.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

It wasn't that they knew about microbes. It is that they thought it prevented diseases. For instance, it had been known for centuries that citrus prevented scurvy in sailors, long before anyone knew what vitamin C was, or how vitamin C helped the body. Same in Russia, where for a thousand years folks knew rose hips and rose hip tea helped prevent disease, they just did not know the science of why. Did colonists drink willow bark teas for fevers and aches? Yes Did they know what aspirin was and how it worked. Heck no? Indians and Colonists smoked Great Mullein because it was believed to remedy respiratory complaints, Maybe it did not work for that but the euphoria associated with the smoke may have kept the belief alive. We know vinegar was put into the drinking water. To make it potable. As opposed to non-potable water.

 

[coloradoclyde]

We know vinegar was put into the drinking water. To make it potable. As opposed to non-potable water.

We do??? :shocked2: I must have missed that reference.....Could you re-cite it please....