[GSBN] health (ill) effects of earthen floors

[Bruce King]

Wow, thanks for following that up, Derek.

I am working in Port-au-Prince and Kibera (Nairobi) right now in  
situations characterized by:
1. warm climate
2. extreme poverty (barefoot children)
3. extreme crowding
4. no sanitary systems -- feces & fecal dust everywhere

all of which make for horrific health conditions.  So I'm still  
wondering how anyone measured ANY appreciable reduction in diarhhea,  
infections, etc. where concrete was added to floors.  I think we all  
intuit that the key is not concrete, it's being able to sweep and  
clean the hardened floor surface.


Bruce "call me curious" King


bruce at bruce-king.com
(415) 987-7271
Twitter: @brucekinggreen
blog: bruceking.posterous.com
Skype: brucekingokok

On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Derek Roff wrote:

> "you can't argue with the science"
>
> We can, and should, argue with bad science.  And even more against  
> bad reporting and the erroneous conclusions which are often drawn  
> from scientific research.  I read the articles cited in the "Paving  
> Paradise" link that Bruce sent.  Only one of those articles presents  
> anything resembling science.  That article, "Hookworm and Poverty"  
> by Peter Hotez, offers no direct evidence to support the idea that  
> hookworms are transmitted effectively by contact with earthen  
> floors, and several direct and indirect reasons for supposing that  
> the main transfer mechanisms require contact with soil outside the  
> home.  Specifically, the article says the hookworm larva need moist  
> soil, and do best in soils with low clay content and low  
> compaction.  This means that an earthen floor would be far less  
> conducive to hookworm transmission than exterior soils.  The article  
> also mentions that parasite infection levels vary with profession in  
> a given area, with the highest levels found among agricultural  
> workers who work on and in moist soils.  The article says that  
> parasite infection is very strongly linked to severe poverty, but  
> the mechanisms are not well understood.  The frequency of dirt  
> floors is mentioned as a possibility, but even the validity of the  
> statistical correlation is questioned in the article text.
>
> It is quite clear that contact with feces is the main problem and  
> the primary element of infection and transmission.  Addressing this  
> problem would be far more valuable and far-reaching for the health  
> of the people involved, compared to paving earthen floors, but it is  
> more complex and harder to evaluate.  Governments love concrete  
> programs, in all senses of the word.  A highly visible, easily  
> countable program is easier to fund and justify, and you don't have  
> to worry about proving primary and secondary effects, positive or  
> negative.
>
> The linked article, "Inexpensive flooring change improves child  
> health in urban slums" says, "replacing dirt floors with cement  
> appears to be at least as effective for health as nutritional  
> supplements".  It reports "a nearly 20 percent reduction in the  
> presence of parasites" in Torreon, along with "Almost 13 percent  
> fewer episodes of diarrhea" and " A 20 percent reduction in  
> incidences of anemia".
>
> "Paving Paradise" article cites this article as the source for the  
> figures that it presents in this sentence:  "Kids in houses that  
> moved from all-dirt to all-concrete floors saw parasitic infestation  
> rates drop 78 percent; the number of children who had diarrhea in  
> any given month dropped by half; anemia fell more than four-fifths".
>
> I find it rather bizarre that the figures in "Paving Paradise" are  
> so dramatically different from those in the article which it cites  
> as evidence.  I'm thinking it is evidence of really bad reporting.   
> Both the numbers and the general conclusions of "Paving Paradise"  
> don't seem to be justified by the supporting documents which it  
> provides.
>
>
> The apparent, although questionable, statistical link between paving  
> earthen floors and decreasing parasite levels, is worthy of more  
> investigation.  But until we have better evidence, I don't think any  
> reliable conclusions are possible.
>
> Derelict
>
> Derek Roff
> derek at unm.edu
>
> On Jan 5, 2012, at 9:31 AM, Bruce King wrote:
>
>> Happy New Year, baleheads!
>>
>> I came across the article linked below about how adding concrete  
>> over earthen floors has a measurable positive impact on occupant  
>> health--  especially children's.  Many of us think "Yuck!" at the  
>> idea of concrete instead of earthen floors, but you can't argue  
>> with the science.
>>
>> Anyone have a rebuttal or additional relevant information?  At the  
>> very least, this seems like something we natural building types  
>> should take a cool-headed look at.
>>
>> Paving Paradise - by Charles Kenny | Foreign Policy
>> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/paving_paradise
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bruce "Cool Head Cold Feet" King
>>
>> bruce at bruce-king.com
>> (415) 987-7271
>> Twitter: @brucekinggreen
>> blog: bruceking.posterous.com
>> Skype: brucekingokok
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20120105/9c419ab0/attachment.htm>