Summary
John Snow (1813–1858) was a London physician who demonstrated that cholera spread through contaminated water rather than through foul air, overturning the dominant miasmatic theory of his day. His 1854 investigation of the Broad Street pump in Soho, in which he mapped cholera cases around a single water source and persuaded local authorities to remove the pump handle, is one of the most celebrated acts of applied reasoning in medical history. He also conducted a natural experiment comparing mortality rates between two water companies drawing from different points on the Thames, providing statistical evidence for waterborne transmission. Snow’s parallel career as an anesthesiologist was equally significant: he designed precision inhalers for ether and chloroform, administered chloroform to Queen Victoria during two of her labors, and developed a pharmacological framework for narcotic agents that remained valid into the twentieth century. His work proved correct before the bacteriological mechanisms were understood, demonstrating that epidemiological method could outpace laboratory science.
Intellectual Character
Snow’s scientific temperament was defined by an experimental anti-vitalism and a willingness to test received doctrine against physical evidence. He admired the physiologists and chemists who were dismantling the old vitalist doctrine that living matter operated under laws fundamentally different from those governing inorganic nature.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) This orientation manifested early: in 1841, Snow attempted to reactivate dead tissue in a guinea pig during his investigation of asphyxia, an experiment designed to test whether vital force was a distinct substance or merely a consequence of physical conditions.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) That same year, he delivered a paper at the Westminster Medical Society proposing a resuscitating device constructed with newborn infants in mind, applying mechanical reasoning to a problem traditionally left to nature.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow’s intellectual debts included Thomas Sydenham (1624–1689), whose empirical disease classification remained influential in the nineteenth century and whose emphasis on bedside observation over speculative theory shaped Snow’s clinical method.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) His use of the phrase “diseases of this class” in grouping cholera with other conditions may reflect familiarity with the nosological system devised by William Cullen (1710–1790), which organized diseases by observable symptoms rather than presumed causes.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow’s ideas provoked strong institutional resistance. The Lancet attacked his cholera theory with open contempt when it was first proposed.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Many of his contemporaries remained unconvinced by his reasoning and practical recommendations, even though by 1855 he was a forty-two-year-old physician of considerable standing in London medical circles.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Early Life and Medical Training
John Snow was born on 15 March 1813 in Micklegate Ward, York, the first of nine children of William Snow, a laborer who rose to become a property-owning farmer.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) His childhood neighborhood drew water from the River Ouse and from shallow local wells, neither source safe: the river below the North Street postern was frequently polluted by discharges of dung from livestock pens.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow entered medicine in a period of rapid professionalization. The medical profession in England had been “incorporated” since the sixteenth century, when local authorities first demanded credentials of practitioners.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) The Apothecaries’ Act of 1815 had empowered a reorganized Society to establish licensing requirements for all apothecaries in England, creating a formal gatekeeping structure that Snow would navigate through apprenticeship and examination.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
In June 1827, Snow began a five-year medical apprenticeship under William Hardcastle, a surgeon-apothecary in Newcastle, arranged through his maternal uncle Charles Empson’s social connections.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Much of his daily work as an apprentice consisted of drudgery: washing bottles, maintaining an inventory of drugs, and dispensing prescriptions.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In 1832, several Newcastle physicians founded a medical school in which Snow, then a senior apprentice with five years of experience, enrolled among only eight students, receiving formal training in materia medica, chemistry, medicine, surgery, and anatomy.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
At age seventeen, Snow read John Frank Newton’s essay The Return to Nature and adopted vegetarianism, distilled-water drinking, and teetotalism as a lifelong regimen, convictions that would shape both his personal habits and his later attention to water purity.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In August 1836, Snow walked approximately 400 miles from Liverpool through Wales to London to continue his medical education.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) When Snow reached London in 1836, medical education was still part of a competitive market economy, with every school distributing advertising handbills to attract fee-paying students.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Snow became a perpetual student at the Hunterian School of Medicine at 16 Great Windmill Street, near Haymarket in Westminster, where the curriculum combined anatomy, physiology, and surgical instruction.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He obtained dual qualification as a surgeon (MRCS, May 1838) and apothecary (LSA, October 1838) after eighteen months of London training, with both colleges accepting certificates from the uncertified Newcastle school.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
The Cholera Problem
Cholera arrived in Europe in epidemic waves beginning in 1816, when the first pandemic spread outward from its reservoir on the Indian subcontinent, killing millions and provoking social panic, mob violence against victims, and debates between miasmatists and contagionists.(Porter, 1997) The competing theories (miasmatic, contagionist, and filth-based) each commanded serious medical support and each generated different policy prescriptions.
Snow’s first clinical encounter with cholera came in 1832, when Hardcastle sent him as an unsupervised assistant to treat victims at the colliery village of Killingworth.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) The disease had arrived in Newcastle by December 1831, with colliery villages particularly hard hit; the prevailing explanation was that overcrowding and manure produced an unwholesome miasmatic air.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In an 1836 teetotal address, Snow criticized the “brandy treatment” used in the 1831–1832 epidemic, arguing that it only hastened the dangerous secondary fever, and displayed the therapeutic skepticism that would characterize his entire career: medicines, he told his audience, were “generally the substitution of a lesser evil for a greater.”(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In the same address, he advocated pure water as the ideal beverage and proposed that steam engines could be repurposed to distill water for neighborhoods.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Development of the Waterborne Theory
Snow’s cholera theory advanced through the 1850s by progressive accumulation of pathological, microscopical, and epidemiological evidence. Microscopical examinations of approximately sixty samples of cholera evacuations yielded ninety percent evidence of characteristic “bodies,” while none appeared in diarrheal evacuations resulting from other causes.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He assumed, drawing on the researches of Liebig, that a process of continuous molecular change analogous to fermentation or putrefaction was occurring in the intestinal tract, providing a chemical mechanism for the cholera agent’s local multiplication.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Snow concluded that the cholera poison never entered the general circulation but acted exclusively on the intestinal lining, and listed five preventive measures accordingly.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
He never wavered on the accuracy of his fundamental conclusions about pathology and mode of transmission, but he took seriously all objections to his theory, addressing each in successive publications rather than dismissing critics.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In January 1854, Snow turned to the subject of treatment in a paper read at the Medical Society of London, recommending saline injections into the veins as a means of restoring the blood’s lost fluid volume.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He strengthened his argument about person-to-person transmission of cholera in coal mines by quoting from a letter sent by his brother, Robert Snow, who had direct experience of mining communities.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow’s later work extended his environmental analysis beyond cholera. He concluded one article with a disquisition on water closets, arguing that flushing required enormous quantities of water and that the system’s dependence on centralized water supply created vulnerability to contamination at scale.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He also observed that rickets was less prevalent in urban areas of the north of England than in metropolitan London, an epidemiological comparison that extended his method to non-infectious disease.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
London Practice
Snow established his general practice in October 1838 at 54 Frith Street in Soho, one of London’s most densely populated areas, where he would remain until 1852.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He secured appointments as surgeon to four friendly societies, a common income strategy for new London general practitioners building a private practice.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Snow was an acute diagnostician respected by colleagues but commercially unsuccessful, lacking both the fashionable connections and the willingness to write unnecessary prescriptions that produced income: Richardson recalled that in Snow there was “too much of the skeptic to be popular” and none of the routine practice “which the people love.”(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow’s most important institutional affiliation was the Westminster Medical Society, where he attended more than 90 percent of weekly meetings in his first five years. He later credited the Society with determining his continuance in London and all his subsequent scientific success.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) It was at the Westminster Medical Society on 13 October 1849 that Snow first presented his paper “On the pathology and mode of communication of cholera” to a crowded room.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Professional Credentials and Societies
In June 1850, Snow passed the examination to become a Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians of London (LRCP), an oral examination conducted in English that elevated his professional standing above that of a general practitioner.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In 1851, he was appointed a physician to the Hospital for Consumption and Diseases of the Chest in Brompton, his first and only hospital affiliation.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
The Medical Society of London elected Snow to the coveted role of orator for the 1852–1853 session, vice-president for the following session, and president in 1855. In 1854–1855 he was also president of the Physiological Society.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) The organizing meeting of the Epidemiological Society of London occurred at the end of July 1850, when several resolutions carried unanimously, including the formal creation of a society “for the investigation of epidemic diseases.”(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) The Epidemiological Society began publishing the Journal of Public Health and Sanitary Review in 1855, and Snow found the goals of the new society appealing on many counts, as it provided an institutional home for precisely the kind of disease-tracking work he was pursuing.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow met Benjamin Ward Richardson (1828–1896) at meetings of the Epidemiological Society and the Medical Society of London in 1850.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Richardson became Snow’s closest professional friend, his first biographer, and the posthumous editor of On Chloroform and Other Anaesthetics.
Anesthesia: Ether and Chloroform
The first use of ether anesthesia in England occurred on 19 December 1846, when dentist James Robinson demonstrated it at the home of Dr. Francis Boott in London. Snow personally witnessed an ether administration on 28 December 1846.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Snow’s scientific approach was distinctive: he applied his decade-long knowledge of gas chemistry and the physiology of respiration to determine the concentration of ether vapor at different temperatures and to design an inhaler that allowed precise dosage control.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He never patented any apparatus he designed, publishing clear descriptions with engravings so others could copy them freely, in contrast to the American patent disputes between Morton and Wells.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Ten days after James Young Simpson’s November 1847 Edinburgh announcement of chloroform, Snow presented a favorable comparison of chloroform to ether at the Westminster Medical Society.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Snow recognized ether and chloroform as members of a family of narcotic agents sharing chemical properties and physiological action, an insight that guided his pharmaceutical research program through his final work On Chloroform and Other Anaesthetics.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Chloroform rapidly displaced ether in British practice, used “everywhere to a greater extent than ether had been,” but its greater potency also made it more dangerous than many practitioners recognized.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) The death of fifteen-year-old Hannah Greener during chloroform administration for a toenail removal on 28 January 1848 became a landmark case in the debate on chloroform safety.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow’s approach to the safety question was characteristically practical. He acknowledged that ether was a safer agent than chloroform, but used chloroform “for the same reason that you use phosphorous matches instead of the tinder box. An occasional risk never stands in the way of ready applicability.”(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) His five degrees of narcotism remain valid in modern anesthesia practice as a way to identify anesthetic depth through bedside observation.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Fatality Tracking and Technique
Snow was the first practitioner to assiduously track and analyze case reports of anesthetic fatalities longitudinally, building a systematic record that allowed him to identify patterns of risk across hundreds of administrations.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) By the 1850s, he had seen enough cases to lay out basic guidelines to reduce the chances of vomiting during inhalation: avoid meals before surgery, do not move the patient unnecessarily, and maintain a steady depth of narcotism.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He believed that “brain workers,” people with cultivated mental faculties, retained their consciousness longest under anesthesia, an observation about differential susceptibility that informed his dosing practices.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow wrote a detailed case report, “Death from chloroform in a case of fatty degeneration of the heart,” which identified cardiac pathology as a predisposing risk factor for chloroform fatality.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He had in mind not the discontinuance of chloroform but a change in its mode of administration that would reduce cardiac risk.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In the early months of 1857, Snow began to think he had found a superior agent in the pentene hydrocarbon amylene, which he hoped would combine chloroform’s convenience with ether’s safety margin.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) He wrote that “ever since the introduction of chloroform I have been of opinion that other agents would be met with more eligible for causing anesthesia by inhalation,” a conviction that drove his pharmaceutical testing program to the end of his life.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow’s clinical instincts extended beyond the operating theater. “Out of constant habit and from a scientific curiosity,” he felt for Wellington’s pulse when encountering the Duke in a state of collapse, though he could not find it.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Queen Victoria and Obstetric Chloroform
Snow’s obstetric expertise, developed during his Newcastle apprenticeship, led to his appointment as chloroform administrator to Queen Victoria during the births of Prince Leopold (1853) and Princess Beatrice (1857).(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) On the subject of chloroform in labor, Snow argued that it could be safely employed in a wider range of obstetric cases than most practitioners then accepted.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) On Thursday 7 April 1853, Snow administered chloroform to the Queen in her confinement, commencing at twenty minutes past twelve by a clock in the Queen’s apartment.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
In May 1853, a Lancet editorial expressed “astonishment” at the “rumour” that the Queen had received chloroform, treating the report as almost scandalous.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) His attendance on the Queen was momentous for Snow’s reputation: giving the Queen “that blessed chloroform” set a positive precedent that legitimized obstetric anesthesia against both medical and religious objections.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
The 1854 Investigation
Snow’s first account of waterborne cholera transmission appeared in 1849. The decisive proof came in 1854 with what Ackerknecht calls “his classic treatise on the Broad Street pump.”(Ackerknecht, 1955)
Snow mapped each case, noting the addresses of those who died and the water sources they used.(Fitzharris, 2017) The pattern was unambiguous: a majority of people who fell ill were receiving water from a pump on the southwest corner of the intersection of Broad and Cambridge Streets. Despite strong skepticism from local authorities, Snow persuaded them to remove the pump handle, after which the outbreak subsided.(Fitzharris, 2017)
The pump handle removal is the image most attached to Snow’s name. But his parallel investigation, the Southwark and Vauxhall study, was methodologically more rigorous. Two water companies served overlapping areas of south London: Southwark drew its water from the Thames downstream of major sewage outfalls; Lambeth had moved its intake upstream in 1852. Snow compared mortality between households served by each company. Bynum summarizes: households receiving water from the Southwark company suffered more than fourteen times the death rate of Lambeth company customers. The interdigitating nature of the supply ruled out air-borne, miasmatic spread.(Bynum, 1994)
Snow and the Sanitarians
The essence of the disagreement between Snow and the sanitarian establishment was the all-encompassing nature of Snow’s theory and its dependence on two singularities: first, only a case of cholera could produce another case; second, the only route of transmission was fecal-oral ingestion of another case’s dejecta.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) By late 1854, Snow conceptualized the cholera agent as a form of live matter, probably a cell analogous to the morbid material of smallpox and cowpox, that could produce pathology only by interacting with the intestinal lining.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow believed that the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers’ program to abolish London’s estimated 200,000 cesspools and replace them with water closets draining directly to sewers would route cholera evacuations into the Thames and recirculate them through the piped water supply. In his view, sanitarian reforms inadvertently worsened cholera outbreaks by contaminating drinking water.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) The General Board of Health’s 1855 Committee for Scientific Inquiries explicitly rejected Snow’s Broad Street pump theory, stating they found “no reason to adopt this belief.”(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow testified before Parliament on 5 March 1855, arguing that offensive smells from nuisance trades had no specific disease-causing power, directly opposing the miasmatic sanitarian view. The Lancet condemned his testimony, accusing him of “joining forces with filth and disease.”(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In mid-1856, John Simon published a General Board of Health report that virtually replicated Snow’s south London analysis without crediting Snow; Simon calculated a 3.5-fold mortality difference between the two water companies, whereas Snow documented a 6-fold difference after correcting four methodological errors in Simon’s analysis.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
At the 1856 British Medical Association meeting in Birmingham, Benjamin W. Richardson publicly defended Snow’s priority, stating that the discovery “in no way belonged to the Board of Health, but exclusively to one of our own associates — Dr. John Snow.”(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) William Budd confirmed that “the entire priority of this inquiry rested with Dr. Snow” and described the GBH report as “decidedly unfair.”(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Unlike most sanitarian contemporaries, Snow (himself of laboring-class origin) never attributed higher cholera rates among the poor to their “vicious habits” or moral degeneracy. He pointed instead to structural factors: poor lighting that hindered detection of contamination, lack of sanitary hand-washing facilities, and excessively long mine shifts that forced meals underground.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Evidence Before Mechanism
Snow never saw the cholera vibrio. He died in 1858, nearly three decades before Koch isolated the Vibrio cholerae bacillus in 1884. Ackerknecht notes that both Snow’s waterborne theory and William Budd’s parallel demonstration that typhoid was waterborne (1856) were “advances preceding bacteriological proof and showing epidemiology could outpace microbiology.”(Ackerknecht, 1955)
Snow’s method was classical epidemiology: the comparison of populations, the mapping of cases, the control of variables, the search for the differential factor. It required no knowledge of microorganisms, no laboratory equipment, no germ theory. His last paper, published weeks before his death, demonstrated that after the Southwark and Vauxhall Company changed its water intake to the village of Hampton in July 1855, mortality in metropolitan Surrey dropped from consistently above average to below average, with even greater reductions in diarrhea and typhus deaths.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Koch’s isolation of the cholera bacillus in 1884 reinforced the rationale for public health measures, helping control subsequent pandemics in western Europe.(Porter, 1997)
Death and Legacy
Snow collapsed on 10 June 1858 while writing On Chloroform, with “Fergusson” the last word he penned. He died on 16 June at age forty-five. An autopsy revealed shrunken, granular, encysted kidneys with scarring from old tuberculosis, suggesting hypertension and renal disease as the cause of the fatal stroke.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
In the immediate aftermath, the Lancet reversed its earlier hostility and became a self-styled champion of Snow’s anesthesia legacy, endorsing his inhaler over the “hanky method” and praising On Chloroform posthumously.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) In 1911, A. Goodman Levy demonstrated the mechanism of cardiac failure under chloroform, using cats to show that injecting a small amount of adrenalin during light chloroform anesthesia induced ventricular fibrillation, vindicating Snow’s insistence on controlled depth as a safety measure.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow’s transition to a public health icon began with the 1866 east London cholera epidemic, when Henry Whitehead’s magazine articles reminded the public of Snow’s theories and young epidemiologist John Netten Radcliffe traced the outbreak to contaminated uncovered reservoirs at Old Ford.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Near the end of the 1866 epidemic, the Lancet declared that Snow’s researches were “among the most fruitful in modern medicine”; William Farr became a nearly complete convert to Snow’s theory; and John Simon eventually acknowledged in 1873 that Snow had “the great merit of forcing medical attention” to the facts of cholera transmission.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
Snow’s role as an exemplary figure in epidemiology was first formalized by the American public health expert William T. Sedgwick in a 1902 textbook. Wade Hampton Frost then championed Snow in America, and his 1936 reprint Snow on Cholera shaped academic epidemiology education through the rest of the twentieth century.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) Snow’s scientific followers in epidemiology included Sir Ronald Ross (mosquito vector of malaria, 1895), Charles Nicolle (typhus as louse-borne, 1909), and Walter Reed (yellow fever mosquito transmission, 1900).(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) After the 1866 epidemic, Snow’s theory received no serious challenge for metropolitan-level cholera epidemics; the 1892 Hamburg epidemic, the last major cholera outbreak in a Western city, confirmed his explanation definitively.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
The authors of Snow’s definitive biography argue that the GIS community’s identification of Snow as its “patron saint” rests on a simplification: the Broad Street spot map was an illustrative device added months after his investigation was completed, not the inductive analytical tool that later scholars made it. Snow implicated the pump because he had a coherent, multilevel theory of the pathology and mode of transmission of cholera; the theory was essential, and the map was secondary.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) The irony in this myth is that modern GIS bears greater resemblance to the methods used by mid-nineteenth-century sanitarians than to Snow’s own analytical approach, which was theoretical rather than cartographic.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003) The biographers’ larger point is that Snow’s integrated vision linking anesthesia and epidemiology through a unified framework of continuous molecular changes was fragmented after his death by professional specialization. Each field claimed Snow as a founding figure while severing his contributions from the intellectual framework within which he had developed them.(Vinten-Johansen, Peter et al., 2003)
See Also
- cholera
- germ-theory
- miasma-theory
- public-health
- epidemiology
- william-farr
- edwin-chadwick
- robert-koch
- contagion
- thomas-sydenham
Sources
Evidence cards: fitz17-ch08-003, ack55-ch19-003, bynsp94-ch03-006, port97-ch13-003, port97-ch13-008, vj03-ch01-001, vj03-ch01-002, vj03-ch01-003, vj03-ch01-004, vj03-ch01-005, vj03-ch01-006, vj03-ch01-007, vj03-ch02-001, vj03-ch02-002, vj03-ch02-003, vj03-ch02-004, vj03-ch02-005, vj03-ch02-006, vj03-ch02-007, vj03-ch02-008, vj03-ch03-001, vj03-ch03-002, vj03-ch03-003, vj03-ch03-004, vj03-ch04-001, vj03-ch04-002, vj03-ch04-003, vj03-ch04-004, vj03-ch04-005, vj03-ch05-001, vj03-ch05-003, vj03-ch05-005, vj03-ch06-001, vj03-ch06-002, vj03-ch06-003, vj03-ch06-004, vj03-ch06-005, vj03-ch09-001, vj03-ch09-002, vj03-ch09-006, vj03-ch09-007, vj03-ch09-008, vj03-ch09-009, vj03-ch09-010, vj03-ch09-011, vj03-ch09-012, vj03-ch09-013, vj03-ch09-014, vj03-ch09-015, vj03-ch09-016, vj03-ch09-017, vj03-ch09-020, vj03-ch09-021, vj03-ch09-022, vj03-ch09-023, vj03-ch09-024, vj03-ch13-001, vj03-ch13-002, vj03-ch13-003, vj03-ch13-004, vj03-ch13-005, vj03-ch13-008, vj03-ch13-010, vj03-ch13-011, vj03-ch13-012, vj03-ch13-013, vj03-ch13-014, vj03-ch13-015, vj03-ch14-005, vj03-ch14-006, vj03-ch14-007, vj03-ch14-008, vj03-ch14-010, vj03-ch14-011, vj03-ch16-001, vj03-ch16-002, vj03-ch16-004, vj03-ch16-005, vj03-ch16-006, vj03-ch16-007, vj03-ch16-008, vj03-ch16-009, vj03-ch16-010, vj03-ch16-011, vj03-ch16-012, vj03-ch16-013, vj03-intro-001, vj03-intro-002, vj03-intro-003, vj03-intro-006, vj03-intro-007