It depends also on where you lived. Cities were less healthy than the country, the air and water in the country tended to be cleaner, diseases that spread by proximity were less likely to run rampant through an entire village than a city, and social ills like gin addiction and street crime were less. However, there were periodic famines in the country due to inadequate distribution channels for food, and I would suspect more accidents (although street accidents in cities were notorious). In the Boston area in the mid to late 17c, for example, life was quite healthy and people who survived childbearing and childbirth tended to live fairly long. Farmers were able to raise their own food and there was adequate land for the taking and clearing. In europe life was not as healthy as in the new world at that time. Whitney Keen Miles Fowler wrote: > Which was dirtier, the 17th or 19th century? > > Depends on how you look at it. Both had horse and ox pollution but the 19th had more coal dust in the air. On the other hand, the average workingman was more likely to own an extra pair of pants in the 19th century than earlier, thanks in large part to the industrial revolution in textiles (cheaper clothing). Being able to change clothes more often led to washing them more often, and that alone improved hygiene almost more than any deliberately taken public health measures. > > Miles Fowler > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Sent via the WebMail system at mail.nexet.net > > > > >