Hygiene

This word came to English from the French, hygiène, which was adopted from the Greek: ὑγίεια hygéia ‘health’ and that derives from Hygia, the goddess of healing of the Greek pantheon. Hygiene stands for the practice of a clean and healthy lifestyle, using the appropriate measures to preserve good health.

Only until the 19th century the concept of hygiene really emerged, with now obvious recommendations such as for surgeons or obstetricians to wash their hands before operating. Pioneers such as Ignaz Semmelweis, or Joseph Lister (in the top image) associated the frequent mortality from puerperal fever or wound infections after surgery with the lack of asepsis. With the use of disinfectants, the cases of sepsis fell drastically. However, the medical society had a hard time adopting these new habits until Louis Pasteur proved that infections were caused by germs. Joseph Lister eponymous for Listerine mouthwash, began using phenol or carbolic gas as a disinfectant in the second half of the century, and published the evidence in a celebrated paper in The Lancet. (1)

In these same decades epidemiology arose in England with the works of John Snow on cholera and the Thames. The improvement of the statistical instruments a little later, with the contributions of Student, Pearson and Fischer, allowed to obtain sufficient scientific evidence of many disease causes.

Hygiene is not only limited to providing a healthy and clean environment, it is also about postural hygiene and ergonomics, mental hygiene, and hygienic practices in a broad sense. When women ceased to wear torturing corsets it was a as a very hygienic practice. The use of toilets, or cooking in special ventilated places were great health advances. Still there is a large part of the population in developing countries that set a fire inside their shelter, like the indian chulhas, to cook their food.

The industrial, along with the French revolution led to a drastic change in fashion, especially for men. Dark jackets and suits appeared to hide the soot from factories, wealthy people escaped from cities contaminated with fumes and pollution. Worker revolutions spread to claim better conditions, many around hygienic factors.

Hygiene has improved in parallel with the consumer and industrial society, but as proven harmful compounds were avoided, others have appeared with unknown long-term health impact. We have seen how the use of lead in pipes was banned, asbestos in construction, the widely used DDT was prohibited due to its toxicity, mercury from thermometers and fillings, phthalates that cause development and reproduction problems, Pesticides, Formaldehydes, and a long etcetera. Most of them are banned in many countries, but just as the tobacco industry hid the evidence of its harmful effects, multiple additives continue to be used in household products, plastics, cosmetics, and many more areas which may prove unhealthy in the long run. .

In medicine or in health prevention, obtaining scientific evidence is not easy. An in vitro trial is not the same as a test on animals, a double-blind test in a small group of volunteers, or a cohort trial in a population for long periods. In a recent article on this blog we talked about the Exposome: exposure throughout a lifetime to a multitude of external variables. But how is it possible to reach a scientific conclusion about the perniciousness of air pollution? It will depend on the time of this exposure, the type or the concentration. A person who works in a mechanical workshop, or is a taxi driver in a big city, is exposed to more risks than a craftsman in the countryside. Combustion gases, or benzene from gasoline are carcinogenic. Particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns emitted by Diesel vehicles enters the bloodstream through breathing, causing multiple harmful effects. Despite a growing body of evidence, the problem with Exposome research is that the effects of these substances or behaviors do not occur immediately, but rather in the medium term with accumulation over time. The human mind, genetically prepared to recognize patterns, can easily fall into the post hoc fallacy (2), but find very difficult to associate long term risks with behaviors that may entail a cost in the short term, no matter how small.

Our concern for the air we breathe is still a long way from the concern we have for food, drink, or nutrition in general. Is it because the air is transparent? No matter the reason, we breathe around 10,000 liters of air a day and what gets into our bloodstream from our lungs is just as important as what we ingest. Fortunately, people are becoming more aware about the issue and many air quality apps or meters are readily available. Federal governments or Global organizations impose measures and sanctions on states and municipalities that do not comply with the regulations, but we do not see them caring much, as the number of days that large cities exceed the agreed pollutant limits increase rather than decreasing.

If you take a measurement of VOC (volatile organic compounds) like formaldehyde after cleaning your home in the morning, or if you measure PM 2.5 particles coming in from the street, you will probably realize that the limits established by the commonly accepted QAI (Quality Air Index) are exceeded.

The best response would be to avoid the cause, stop emitting pollutants and live more sustainably. What does not depend on us will be difficult to avoid immediately. But it is advisable to improve our Exposome with all possible measures, and as far as the air we breathe is concerned, the use of purifiers that naturally and effectively neutralize pollutants at home and especially in the workplace is an easy tool within our reach. The Free-Air Factor (OH·) release technology is the most effective and natural way to do it. There are devices on the market such as PUROH, which provide this type of advantage.

We cannot determine with certainty either lung cancer is the product of pollutants breathed in over many years, or it is the product of a genetic lottery, or an epigenetic mutation, but prevention will always be the best option and there are many things that are in our hands.

(1) On the Antiseptic Principle of the Practice of Surgery. The Lancet (1867)

(2) The error expressed in Latin as “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, which translates into Spanish as “after this, therefore, because of this” and which is used to express a causal relationship between twoevents simply Why does one happen after the other?