English followed by une version en français y una versión en español. There is also a Notes section in English. It includes a brief discussion of vulgar expressions.

There is a meta-idea (we’ll call it) behind this post: short is good! That is, I believe Internet posts are best when short, but . . . Like many others, I start writing and run long. So I’m eager to post texts of mine that are short.

Chlorine, cancer, panaceas, trade-offs

A few weeks ago there was a modest article in The Guardian saying Swedish researchers had determined that the chlorination of water promoted certain cancers. One might conclude from this that it would be better if we kept our water sources sufficiently clean that chlorination was not required. And it would be good for all households to have filtration systems to remove the chlorine from their drinking water. The researchers were not, however, proposing that the chlorination of water cease.

The Guardian article noted that “the process of disinfecting water is an essential public health measure that dramatically increased life expectancy when the US began chlorinating drinking water in the early 1900s because it significantly reduced microbial infections and waterborne illnesses, like cholera and typhoid fever.”


I recently wrote a short piece proposing that, as a rule, it takes fifty to one hundred years for a significant number of human beings to realize that a given new invention—be it the internal-combustion engine, plastics or social media— is at least as noxious as it once seemed beneficial or simply wonderful.

Even the Enlightenment, I am prepared to say—and notwithstanding its many virtues—has not been without its discontents. Or “trade-offs” was a word used in the Guardian article. The chlorination process is a “cheap, effective, and readily available” method for killing organisms and infectious disease, but it comes with trade-offs.

Thus please allow me to amend my previous proposition. It would seem that disappointment is ensured by our tendency to see new inventions as wonders or panaceas. Or it may be rather that the problem lies deeper: in our insistence that there be wonders and panaceas. So that the automobile, for example, is not simply useful for some things and a pain in other ways; for decades it was celebrated as the ticket to freedom and for most everyone (in the wealthier countries).


It does not seem necessary to do much more than simply state and repeat—and accept—that there are most always trade-offs, bad comes with the good. There are no panaceas. There are pluses and minuses, advantages and disadvantages. Our longer lifespans, to stumble upon one of many, many examples.

Notes

The Guardian story, by Tom Perkins, 17 February 2025: Water chlorination levels in US and EU likely increase cancer risk, study finds. “Bladder cancer risk increased 33% and colorectal cancer by 15% in using chlorine to disinfect water.”

Prior to working on this little piece I had for some years forgotten Theodore J. Kaczynski’s 1995 monograph Industrial Society and Its Future, which includes the following sentences (which might have been yet more telling if the telephone rather than the automobile had been the example used):

A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go wherever he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace; one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing regulations, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payment on purchase price.

As regards vulgarity: As an American living in France I am often struck by the vulgarity of words and expressions I hear. Tu te fous de ma gueule ? Vas te faire chier ! Merde, putain, connasse !

Of course in the United States we have plenty of these. E.g.: You suck! Stop pissing me off! Fuck you, bitch! However, my sense is that the French vulgar expressions are more widely used, by all social classes, whereas in the United States various social classes tend to speak more vulgarly, or less. Instead of the “F word” or even saying “damn,” my father used the word “fiddlesticks” or would say “Oh birdseed!”

So now, when I was seeking to translate the French word “pénible” (painful or a nuisance) into Spanish, the excellent translation site DeepL proposed “coñazo.” Some readers will have quickly noted that this word, like the French “connasse,” comes from the Latin “cunnus”: a word for the vulva and vagina. So, I noted to my wife, an expert linguist, was I now going to write (in Spanish) that cars can be useful for some things and cunts in other ways?

Anne, who is, again, an expert linguist, disagrees with me on this point. She believes that words and expressions such as “coñazo,” “You suck,” or “Vas te faire chier” have lost their sexual connotations. The etymology has, in these cases, nothing to do with the contemporary significations. The teenage girl who laughs and says to her best friend, “Tu te fous de ma gueule?”, is in no way suggesting that her friend may be fucking her in the mouth. She is saying something like “Are you kidding me?” Or, “Are you fucking kidding me?”

I beg to disagree. I hear the literal, traditional meanings of all these words at the same time as I am familiar with contemporary uses of them. I take “You suck!” to be an unfortunate denigration of fellatio and of fellators.

That said, in the Spanish text below I have used DeepL’s proposed “coñazo,” because my sense is that, etymology included, it well expresses one thing I wished to say regarding motor vehicles.

Français

Chlore, cancer, panacées, compromis

Il y a quelques semaines, un modeste article paru dans The Guardian annonçait que des chercheurs suédois avaient déterminé que la chloration de l’eau favorisait l’apparition de certains cancers. On pourrait en conclure qu’il serait préférable que nos sources d’eau soient suffisamment propres pour que la chloration ne soit pas nécessaire. Et il serait bon que tous les ménages disposent de systèmes de filtration pour éliminer le chlore de leur eau potable. Les chercheurs ne proposent toutefois pas de mettre fin à la chloration de l’eau.

L’article du Guardian note que le processus de désinfection de l’eau est une mesure de santé publique essentielle qui a considérablement augmenté l’espérance de vie lorsque les États-Unis ont commencé à chlorer l’eau potable au début au début du 20e siècle, car il a permis de réduire de manière significative les infections microbiennes et les maladies d’origine hydrique, telles que le choléra et la fièvre typhoïde.


J’ai récemment écrit un court pièce dans lequel j’explique qu’en règle générale, il faut entre cinquante et cent ans pour qu’un nombre significatif d’êtres humains se rendent compte qu’une grande nouvelle invention – qu’il s’agisse du moteur à combustion interne, du plastique ou des médias sociaux – est au moins aussi nocive qu’elle semblait autrefois bénéfique ou tout simplement merveilleuse.

Même l’avènement des Lumières, je suis prêt à le dire – et malgré ses nombreuses vertus – n’a pas été exempt de mécontentements. Ou « trade-offs » (des compromis) est un mot utilisé dans l’article du Guardian. Le processus de chloration est une méthode « bon marché, efficace et facilement disponible » pour tuer les organismes et les maladies infectieuses, mais il s’accompagne de compromis.

Permettez-moi donc de modifier ma proposition précédente. Il semblerait que la déception soit assurée par notre tendance à considérer les nouvelles inventions comme des merveilles ou des panacées. Il se peut aussi que le problème soit plus profond : notre insistance à vouloir qu’il y ait des merveilles et des panacées. Ainsi, l’automobile, par exemple, n’est pas simplement utile pour certaines choses et pénible pour d’autres ; pendant des décennies, elle était célébrée comme un libérateur et de presque tout le monde (dans les pays les plus riches).


Il ne semble pas nécessaire de faire beaucoup plus que de dire et de répéter – et d’accepter – qu’il y a presque toujours des compromis, que le mauvais vient avec le bon. Il n’y a pas de panacée. Il y a des plus et des moins, des avantages et des inconvénients. L’allongement de la durée de vie, pour ne citer qu’un exemple parmi tant d’autres.

Español

Cloro, cáncer, panaceas, contrapartidas

Hace unas semanas, un modesto artículo en The Guardian anunciaba que investigadores suecos habían determinado que clorar el agua favorece el desarrollo de ciertos tipos de cáncer. Uno podría concluir de esto que sería mejor si nuestras fuentes de agua estuvieran lo suficientemente limpias que la cloración no fuera necesaria. Y sería bueno que todos los hogares dispusieran de sistemas de filtración para eliminar el cloro del agua potable. Sin embargo, los investigadores no proponen acabar con la cloración del agua.

El artículo de Guardian señala que el proceso de desinfección del agua es una medida esencial de salud pública que aumentó espectacularmente la esperanza de vida cuando Estados Unidos empezó a clorar el agua potable a principios del siglo XX, ya que redujo significativamente las infecciones microbianas y las enfermedades transmitidas por el agua, como el cólera y la fiebre tifoidea.


Hace poco escribí un breve artículo en el que explico que, por regla general, hacen falta entre cincuenta y cien años para que un número significativo de seres humanos se dé cuenta de que un gran invento nuevo -ya sea el motor de combustión interna, los plásticos o las redes sociales- es al menos tan perjudicial como antes parecía beneficioso o simplemente maravilloso.

Incluso el advenimiento de la Ilustración, estoy dispuesto a decir -y a pesar de sus muchas virtudes- no estuvo exento de descontentos. O «trade-offs» (contrapartidas) es una palabra utilizada en el artículo de Guardian. El proceso de cloración es un método barato, eficaz y fácilmente disponible para eliminar organismos infecciosos y enfermedades, pero tiene sus contrapartidas.

Así que permítanme modificar mi sugerencia anterior. Parece que la decepción está asegurada por nuestra tendencia a considerar los nuevos inventos como maravillas o panaceas. También puede ser que el problema sea más profundo: nuestra insistencia en que existen maravillas y panaceas. El coche, por ejemplo, no sólo es útil para unas cosas y un coñazo para otras; durante décadas fue celebrado como un liberador, y de casi todo el mundo (en los países más ricos).


No parece necesario hacer mucho más que decir y repetir -y aceptar- que casi siempre hay contrapartidas, que lo malo viene con lo bueno. No existe la panacea. Hay más y menos, ventajas y desventajas. La mayor esperanza de vida es sólo un ejemplo.

— Text(s) and lead photograph by William Eaton. The image in the Notes section is from the Other Perspectives website.

I believe it is common for the with-it Substack writer to append to her or his post a comment such as “XYZ is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.” But Montaigbakhtinian is not in search of financial support.

Interested readers are, however, certainly urged to check out William Eaton’s books, most available via Amazon and published either by Serving House Books or Zeteo Publishing. Among these books: Art, Sex, Politics, a collection of essays (Serving House Books, 2017).