Lots of philosophical questions ahead. Jump right in.

A whole disparate confluence of news events today has led me to
question how procedures in a Habitat might affect contamination
issues.

We've all seen reports that the Habitat environment will be able to
keep out weeds, pests, etc by careful screening at the entry docks.
I'm sure that they might succeed. But what procedures would they
have in place? Manual inspection? Radiate everything? Send it all
through a vacuum? How reliable are these procedures?

Now, when the larger Habitats are constructed all of their
atmosphere will be derived from lunar and NEO extraction, thus with
careful procedures no mold spores and other particulates in our
Earth air need be introduced. Is this a good idea? What would the
benefits be of living in a clean room environment and what of the
drawbacks. I'm aware that pollen would be produced by trees and
such. How much thought would be put into outgassing from products?
Would it be worth it? How about the restrictions that these
policies, if implemented, would put on the individual?

Would a Habitat society not be as extremely individualistic as the
US and other western nations? Do you think that it might evolve into
a more community ethos, more like Asian countries used to be. The
fact that everybody is living in a bubble and six feet below the
ground is sudden death for the unprotected might lead to different
governing principles. I wonder if this turned out to be the case,
would there be an attraction to immigrate for Western people used to
the way we do things now. I recall reading some guys thoughts on
only people from the developing world would put up with the cramped
quarters and hard work in building a Habitat. This is just adding to
his theme.

Taking the clean environment example to more extremes. What if it is
decided to "go clean" how will they insure that no earth air in the
shuttles leaks into the Habitat? Do you think that air filtration
can be that effective?

Taking this topic to another depressing level. I just finished
reading about the AIDS crisis in Africa. Combine that with anthrax
and smallpox scares, norwalk virus outbreaks on cruise ships,
peoples growing reluctance to practice safe-sex, etc. As a practical
matter, are we going to have to import condoms from Earth? What is
the chemical composition of latex?

What if as part of their society they try to screen out as many
infectuous diseases as possible, right down to the common cold. I
mean it doesn't develop spontaneously from nothing - it's
transmitted from person to person, through an endless chain during
which it mutates. Let's say they break the chain. Could such a
society function as a part of Earth society or would they be
isolating themselves completely. Sure they'd be 250,000 miles away,
person to person contact with earth people wouldn't be a common
occurance but still, do you think a sort of paranoia would set in?

If people entering the habitat had to go through a quarantine
period, would that work? How do you think that they would feel about
their personal liberties being affected? Would tourists put up with
such screening? Would this kill a tourist industry? What if a
citizen came back from Earth but had a infectuous disease? How much
do individual liberties rate against society's freedoms?

I know that a lot of the above is asking questions about matters
that have been resolved here on Earth, but I question whether we
should assume that the conditions which led to the resolutions here
will be the same in a Habitat. If not, then is it safe to assume
that the same resolutions will be arrived at?

Well, I warned you that there was a lot of rambling in this post. I
know that there's no "right" answer, but it sure would be
interesting to explore these issues from different peoples
perspectives.

TangoMan

My expectation has always been that we'll see a broad spectrum of habitat
strategies.

At one end of the spectrum we'll have habitats which are obsessive about
keeping viruses, spores, etc. out of the habitat. Their residents may enjoy
life without the common cold and some kinds of allergies, but entering such
a habitat will always be a trying ordeal, with draconian decontamination
procedures comparable to what we saw for the Wildfire lab in the movie
Andromeda Strain, along with a lengthy quarantine period. These will
probably be habitats that won't see (or desire) a whole lot of traffic in or
out.

At the other end of the spectrum, we'll have habitats which need or desire
rapid and routine entry/exit (perhaps tourism is a significant part of their
economy). In those habitats, most everything from Earth will eventually
make it in. But the way to look at that is they'll only be no better or
worse off than we are at present.

Regards,

Mike Combs

On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:06 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> We've all seen reports that the Habitat environment will be able to
> keep out weeds, pests, etc by careful screening at the entry docks.

According to memory: when Biosphere II was closed they inadvertantly
closed in some birds. These particular birds were protected by law
from being held in captivity. They tried to catch them and failed, but
were able to convince the authorities not to arrest anyone.

My bet: there will be plenty of weeds, pest, etc. in space colonies.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:06 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> Would a Habitat society not be as extremely individualistic as the
> US and other western nations?

Assuming that eventually there will be a lot of colonies, I strongly
suspect there will be a great diversity of social systems.

The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:06 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> If people entering the habitat had to go through a quarantine
> period, would that work? How do you think that they would feel about
> their personal liberties being affected? Would tourists put up with
> such screening? Would this kill a tourist industry?

I suspect that the length of the average tourist trip is significantly
shorter than length of a quarantine necessary to eliminate most
infectious disease so, yet, it would kill a tourist industry.

My guess: some colonies will try to 'go clean,' others will deal with
the dirt.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:41 AM, Combs, Mike wrote:

> At one end of the spectrum we'll have habitats which are obsessive
> about
> keeping viruses, spores, etc. out of the habitat. Their residents may
> enjoy
> life without the common cold and some kinds of allergies

And when someone screws up and infection enters the habitat, a lot of
folks will die.

The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

From: "Al Globus"
To:
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Habitat Contamination - Warning: Rambling
Ahead!
(...)
> Assuming that eventually there will be a lot of colonies, I strongly
> suspect there will be a great diversity of social systems.
(...)

Moreover, assuming that colonization goes beyond Cislunar Space, the limit
of light speed and the vast distances will avoid "instantaneous" transport
and communication, avoiding cultural homogenization (like the one in
progress on Earth) and stimulating cultural/social/political
diversification.

Lucio Coelho

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Combs, Mike" wrote:
> My expectation has always been that we'll see a broad spectrum of
habitat
> strategies.

I agree with you. With large sample size will come the opportunity
to implement a large number of alternatives.

But how about a more slippery situation, one in which there is only
one or two large habitats. They're not in LEO, but somewhere in
cislunar space, thus a few days of transit time in addition to
waiting for schedules if there is no daily transit from Habitat to
LEO.

Now your choice is restricted to the two Habitats. I would venure
the opinion that they would be more sychronized to each other rather
than one synchronized to earth and the other isolated. I'm assuming,
of course, that one spawned the other, ie, built it and initially
populated it.

>
> At one end of the spectrum we'll have habitats which are obsessive
about
> keeping viruses, spores, etc. out of the habitat. Their residents
may enjoy
> life without the common cold and some kinds of allergies, but
entering such
> a habitat will always be a trying ordeal, with draconian
decontamination
> procedures comparable to what we saw for the Wildfire lab in the
movie
> Andromeda Strain, along with a lengthy quarantine period.

Maybe, maybe not. If you're leaving earth, perhaps a period of
quarantine in a clean-room type of hotel. Then a few days before
departure, the "Wildfire" procedures, then board your shuttle and
proceed. I guess it depends where you point your quarantine point.

These will
> probably be habitats that won't see (or desire) a whole lot of
traffic in or
> out.
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, we'll have habitats which need
or desire
> rapid and routine entry/exit (perhaps tourism is a significant
part of their
> economy). In those habitats, most everything from Earth will
eventually
> make it in. But the way to look at that is they'll only be no
better or
> worse off than we are at present.

Sure, when there are lots of Habitats. Then they'll have the luxury
of social experimentation.

Why?

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:06 PM, victoriatangoman
>
> > We've all seen reports that the Habitat environment will be able
to
> > keep out weeds, pests, etc by careful screening at the entry
docks.
>
> According to memory: when Biosphere II was closed they
inadvertantly
> closed in some birds. These particular birds were protected by
law
> from being held in captivity. They tried to catch them and
failed, but
> were able to convince the authorities not to arrest anyone.
>
> My bet: there will be plenty of weeds, pest, etc. in space
colonies.
>
-----
> ---------------------
> The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
> space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well,
dinosaurs
> worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll
should
> try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to
detect
> and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to
spread

Yeah, personally I feel that that is a safe assumption. But I'm
trying to answer a more difficult situation: one in which there are
only one or two Habitats, and they don't proliferate so fast that
there is no time for social norms to be established.

A new society is formed in orbit, one which adapts to its new
environment and the unique challenges it presents. Further, these
new settlers can craft their conditions to a larger extent than any
previous society could. What will develop?

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 08:06 PM, victoriatangoman
>
> > Would a Habitat society not be as extremely individualistic as
the
> > US and other western nations?
>
> Assuming that eventually there will be a lot of colonies, I
strongly
> suspect there will be a great diversity of social systems.
>
-----
> ---------------------
> The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may
be
> jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist,
Dennis
> Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station.
Under
> pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in
Mr.
> Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly,
crowded and
> probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much
more
> roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of
how

Maybe, maybe not. I infer from your reply that the optimum strategy
is to not screen out infections. Where do you draw the line and why?
Let in TB, whooping cough, herpes, norwalk, asian flu, syphllis,
AIDS, measles, smallpox, common cold, leprosy, mups, rubella, yellow
fever, clymadia, human papoloma virus, dengue fever, west nile
virus, etc.

I mean wouldn't we all be better off if we had continual exposure
and resistance to all of the above? How do we get that resistance?
If we can't get the resistance, to let's say smallpox, should we
immunize or try to destroy the disease? If it's eradicated in the
US, let's say, but still prevalent in other parts of the world,
should we still immunize everyone in the US or try to screen at the
border?

Let's not forget that even now, people don't jet halfway around the
world on a whim for a vacation. It's expensive for most people. With
respect to tourists and Habitats, you'd have to fly from your city
to a spaceport. From there to LEO station, from LEO station to
Habitat. I really have trouble imagining connection times within
minutes of each other. Rather, I'd say it's more plausible that we'd
be dealing in connection times of a few days. Then factor in the
transit time from LEO to Habitat of a few days to a few weeks.

Now, first question: how many tourists can afford that kind of
transit time?

Second question: how long does a quarantine take? Further can a
quarantine period be coordinated with a orientation and training
period? I don't see why not. Imagine a future immigrant, guest
worker, student, or tourist entering into a quarantine hotel. They
go through the external and internal scrubbing to whatever standards
the "immigration department" sets. Then they are isolated from the
outside world. The hotel employees who come into physical contact
with the guests work in shifts and live on site for their shift and
they too go through the same process.

Inside this hotel, the guests get briefed, trained, etc. Can you
finish medical check-ups, physical training, and Habitat briefing in
the time necessary for quarantine to isolate any pathogens? I don't
know how long quarantine takes, but when I read that shuttle
astronauts take FIVE YEARS to train for a specific mission, then I
think that there'll have to be some orientation for future
immigrants and tourists. A few weeks at least.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 06:41 AM, Combs, Mike wrote:
>
> > At one end of the spectrum we'll have habitats which are
obsessive
> > about
> > keeping viruses, spores, etc. out of the habitat. Their
residents may
> > enjoy
> > life without the common cold and some kinds of allergies
>
> And when someone screws up and infection enters the habitat, a lot
of
> folks will die.
>
> The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to
make
> orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the
Earth in
> usable real estate. See
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Lucio de Souza Coelho wrote:
> From: "Al Globus"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 2:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Habitat Contamination - Warning:
Rambling
> Ahead!
> (...)
> > Assuming that eventually there will be a lot of colonies, I
strongly
> > suspect there will be a great diversity of social systems.
> (...)
>
> Moreover, assuming that colonization goes beyond Cislunar Space,
the limit
> of light speed and the vast distances will avoid "instantaneous"
transport
> and communication, avoiding cultural homogenization (like the one
in
> progress on Earth) and stimulating cultural/social/political
> diversification.
>
> Lucio Coelho

I agree with you only if we were presented with a multitude of
Habitats. But let's restrict our viewpoint to just the first one or
two.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. The distance for human
transport and the time lag will create an impediment to cultural
homogenization. Speech patterns, lingo, accents will develop in
relation to the more isolated environment. Yes, you'll get movies,
songs, newscasts, video games and TV entertainment from earth. But
your day to day, minute to minute interactions will be with people
in the Habitat. In terms of strength of influence, I'd say the
immediate will have a larger impact then the external. Doesn't do
teenagers much good to try to follow the lastest fad on Earth if
they can't get hair dye, or tattoo needles, etc. Rather, they'll
adapt and do what the coolest kid in the class does to set himself
apart. Their fads will be local.

Same with speech patterns. They'll adapt to local conditions and
influences. Let's say that English is the language of choice, but
the immigrants come from many nations on the Earth. Right now I can
distinguish the English that's spoken by Americans, Australians,
Canadians, English, Scottish, Irish, Kiwis, New Englanders, New
Yorkers, Newfoundlanders, Acadians, Native Americans, American born
Hispanics, American born Asians, Texans, etc. Now imagine an English
that is equally influenced by German, French, Spanish, Japanese,
Mandarin, etc. No matter how much Star Trek, NYPD Blue, Sopranos,
Nightly News with Tom Brokaw we watch in the Habitat, I doubt we'll
speak English like TV English.

Same for customs. I don't know that many people in the West who
would know the significance of bringing a bowl of oranges to a new
housewarming party. But I could see that custom being adopted up in
a Habitat. Further, I could see many new customs developing to new
conditions.

As to one of my original questions: rampant individualization in a
society. I really have trouble seeing homelessness being an issue in
orbit. Heroin addiction? Cocaine addication? Can someone make a case
why things will be the same up there as they are down here? Please.
I'm blocked and can't reason out how that would come about.

Now, if there are only one or two Habitats, do we want to
intentionally release molds, viruses, pestulance into the
environment? Here on Earth, many of the newer houses in North
America are fighting toxic mold syndrome. If we can't control the
growth of mold in orbit, do we want to be continually scrubbing down
the HUGE solars in order to slow mold growth? Why introduce mold at
all?

Same question for the other diseases. Why introduce them if we can
screen them out?

And to make the contamination leap complete, why introduce cultural
contamination? Look at how the French are battling mightily to
preserve their French culture against the onslaught of American Pop
culture. Surely, the Habitat would develop local customs.

TangoMan

Wow, interesting issues.

I do want to chip in one point. You guys are thinking that there are only
two types of microorganisms, pathogens and not, with a clear gap between.
Not so. Clearly there are "commensals," organisms which serve a definite
function in the human host, which are beneficial, but which under the right
circumstances can cause disease. The dozens of species of bacteria in the
healthy human colon actually help break down indigestible matter, as well as
fighting off disease which might try to enter from down there. But these
same bugs can cause appendicitis. Also, if the person gets a perforated
colon, or abdominal dialysis, or trauma to the abdomen, these commensals can
become pathogens and cause life-threatening peritonitis. Ditto for skin
pathgens. Staphylococcus epidermidis has no other natural habitat than
human skin, and it's the most common skin flora. It is beyond all our
medical technology to eradicate it from the skin, nor would we really want
to. It is so adapted to the human host that it is usually first to infect a
cut or scrape, and while it multiplies only modestly there and almost never
causes dangerous illness, it does a great job of keeping other invading
pathogens from getting a foothold in the injured tissue. Yet the elderly do
occasionally get ill and die from meningitis due to Stpah epidermidis, and
the immune compromised have been known to get dangerous S. epidermidis
infections.

The eyes, the skin, the colon, the bladder, the mouth, the nose and throat,
all are occupied by hundreds of species of bacteria, viruses and other
organisms. Some we would probably be better off without, like S.
epidermidis' close cousin Staphylococcus aureus, which is more likely to
cause disease and only slightly easier to eradicate, for a short while at
least. But what do the others do? We don't even know.

Would human life be shorter, weaker, without them? We don't know. There is
one theory (I wish I knew the author's name) that microorganisms become less
dangerous to their host over time. According to this theory, when a
microorganism first finds its way to the human host, it is at its most
dangerous. Over centuries and millenia, natural selection would suggest
that those members of this new pathogenic species that are more likely to
kill their host will be selected out, because the extinction of the host
would mean the extinction of the new pathogen. Therefore the organism
should tend toward causing less severe disease over time. The logical
extreme is that all pathogens eventually become symbionts (causing no damage
but drawing resources from the host) or commensals (an active partner, doing
their host good rather than harm). In practice there are plenty of
pathogens which caused the same symptoms, illness and death in the earliest
Greek, Roman and Arabian texts as they do today, so there isn't a lot of
empirical evidence for the theory that I'm aware of. But it should point
out to you that there is a continuum of microorganisms, from pathogen to
symbiont to commensal, and plenty of organisms whose place on this continuum
is unclear.

One other point I can comment on. One of the most disturbing trends in the
last 10 years has been the move from plant-derived drugs of abuse to
home-made varieties. The most common is methamphetamine, or Crank, which is
springing up in small towns all across America, which can be made with
materials available at any WalMart and using a formula found widely on the
internet. Then there's Ecstasy, another home kitchen variety, and Lord
knows how many more. As to why drug use would spring up in space, I assure
you that the IV drug use crowd considers themselves more adverturous, more
open to new experience, living their lives more fully, than their mundane,
goody goody neighbors, especially in boring small towns. Think skiing,
without the snow. It's tragic that they waste their lives and fortunes,
drain public resources, and spread disease in the process of chasing their
fevered dreams. But this ill, too, transmits easily to space colonies, and
would be impossible to quarantine away.

Brad

The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

Hi everyone,

There is a larger point being missed here. In a large orbital
colony, there would be an entire ecosystem. Humans, fish, animals,
chickens (heyyyy...could chickens fly at 1/2 gee?), a wide variety of
plants, bees, perhaps even houseflies. Hopefully no rats.

I don't think it will be possible to keep the common cold out of a
space colony, at least not by disinfection/isolation. At best, that
would catch anyone with a serious, fast-acting disease like ebola.
Such a quarantine is probably best observed on a vessel travelling
from LEO to the colony.

:) ed

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
> Wow, interesting issues.
>
> I do want to chip in one point. You guys are thinking that there
are only
> two types of microorganisms, pathogens and not, with a clear gap
between.
> Not so. Clearly there are "commensals," organisms which serve a
definite
> function in the human host, which are beneficial, but which under
the right
> circumstances can cause disease. The dozens of species of bacteria
in the
> healthy human colon actually help break down indigestible matter,
as well as
> fighting off disease which might try to enter from down there. But
these
> same bugs can cause appendicitis. Also, if the person gets a
perforated
> colon, or abdominal dialysis, or trauma to the abdomen, these
commensals can
> become pathogens and cause life-threatening peritonitis. Ditto for
skin
> pathgens. Staphylococcus epidermidis has no other natural habitat
than
> human skin, and it's the most common skin flora. It is beyond all
our
> medical technology to eradicate it from the skin, nor would we
really want
> to. It is so adapted to the human host that it is usually first to
infect a
> cut or scrape, and while it multiplies only modestly there and
almost never
> causes dangerous illness, it does a great job of keeping other
invading
> pathogens from getting a foothold in the injured tissue. Yet the
elderly do
> occasionally get ill and die from meningitis due to Stpah
epidermidis, and
> the immune compromised have been known to get dangerous S.
epidermidis
> infections.
>
> The eyes, the skin, the colon, the bladder, the mouth, the nose and
throat,
> all are occupied by hundreds of species of bacteria, viruses and
other
> organisms. Some we would probably be better off without, like S.
> epidermidis' close cousin Staphylococcus aureus, which is more
likely to
> cause disease and only slightly easier to eradicate, for a short
while at
> least. But what do the others do? We don't even know.
>
> Would human life be shorter, weaker, without them? We don't know.
There is
> one theory (I wish I knew the author's name) that microorganisms
become less
> dangerous to their host over time. According to this theory, when
a
> microorganism first finds its way to the human host, it is at its
most
> dangerous. Over centuries and millenia, natural selection would
suggest
> that those members of this new pathogenic species that are more
likely to
> kill their host will be selected out, because the extinction of the
host
> would mean the extinction of the new pathogen. Therefore the
organism
> should tend toward causing less severe disease over time. The
logical
> extreme is that all pathogens eventually become symbionts (causing
no damage
> but drawing resources from the host) or commensals (an active
partner, doing
> their host good rather than harm). In practice there are plenty of
> pathogens which caused the same symptoms, illness and death in the
earliest
> Greek, Roman and Arabian texts as they do today, so there isn't a
lot of
> empirical evidence for the theory that I'm aware of. But it should
point
> out to you that there is a continuum of microorganisms, from
pathogen to
> symbiont to commensal, and plenty of organisms whose place on this
continuum
> is unclear.
>
> One other point I can comment on. One of the most disturbing
trends in the
> last 10 years has been the move from plant-derived drugs of abuse
to
> home-made varieties. The most common is methamphetamine, or Crank,
which is
> springing up in small towns all across America, which can be made
with
> materials available at any WalMart and using a formula found widely
on the
> internet. Then there's Ecstasy, another home kitchen variety, and
Lord
> knows how many more. As to why drug use would spring up in space,
I assure
> you that the IV drug use crowd considers themselves more
adverturous, more
> open to new experience, living their lives more fully, than their
mundane,
> goody goody neighbors, especially in boring small towns. Think
skiing,
> without the snow. It's tragic that they waste their lives and
fortunes,
> drain public resources, and spread disease in the process of
chasing their
> fevered dreams. But this ill, too, transmits easily to space
colonies, and

The recent wave of infections experienced on cruise ships picques my
interest in this topic... Is that recent news item what started this
thread originally?

Ron
******

"Ed Minchau " 12/17/02 04:52 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Habitat Contamination - Warning: Rambling Ahead!

Hi everyone,

There is a larger point being missed here. In a large orbital
colony, there would be an entire ecosystem. Humans, fish, animals,
chickens (heyyyy...could chickens fly at 1/2 gee?), a wide variety of
plants, bees, perhaps even houseflies. Hopefully no rats.

I don't think it will be possible to keep the common cold out of a
space colony, at least not by disinfection/isolation. At best, that
would catch anyone with a serious, fast-acting disease like ebola.
Such a quarantine is probably best observed on a vessel travelling
from LEO to the colony.

:) ed

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, rmenich@m... wrote:
> The recent wave of infections experienced on cruise ships picques
my
> interest in this topic... Is that recent news item what
started this
> thread originally?
>
> Ron
> ******

Yes, those cruise ship reports definitely got me thinking about
quarantine issue. Reports about AIDS devastation in Africa coming
out at the same time further spurred my questioning.

We all know that trvel to and from the Habitat is going to be a
journey taking at a minimum 3 days if the Habitat is at L5 or in a
2:1 resonant orbit. Factor in the earth travel time to the launch
site, rendevouz in LEO, perhaps waiting for sufficient passengers to
fill the Habitat shuttle/cruise liner, and I think that we're
realistically looking at travel times of a week or more.

That said, it won't be as easy to travel to and fro between Earth
and the Habitat, so I conclude that the human and cultural
interaction we witness on Earth will be considerably diminished in
the Habitat. Face to face sales call will be rare, tourists willing
to spend two weeks in transit for a return voyage will be rare.

If this will come to pass, then will a Earth based quarantine before
permission to travel be an onerous condition?

Consider the economics of lost productivity due to colds/flu, as
well as the human misery (small in the grand scale of things, but
still very real to those suffering through a cold.)

Who wants to have diarrhea or be coughing up phlem in your space
suit out at the SPS construction site? Also, consider that in a
closed environment, colds will sweep through the population like the
Norwalk virus does through a cruise ship, or for those parents who
can relate, how a cold sweeps through a school classroom.

I contend that it would be worth the inconvenience to the very rare
traveller willing to spend a week on one way transit to insure that
they are free of cold/flu viruses, TB, mumps, measles, etc.

For immigrants, I would go further. List a number of communicable
diseases that are to be screened. To inject a bit of personal
reminisence, when I was in my doctoral program back in the 80's,
being the youngest one in the cohort, my office companions were
sympathisizing with my predicament in the age of AIDS. They recalled
their own age of abandon and nobody dying from having sex.

Why willingly put up with AIDS, cylamdia, herpres, human papolama
virus, etc when they can be screened out in Earth quarantine and
screening?

Taking this concept further; I recall reading a few months back a
report that listed only 5 diseases that account for almost 60% of
society's medical costs. Further, only 12% of the population account
for a different 60% of medical costs.

For a new society in orbit, one in which everyone must apply to
immigrate, I don't see why screening can't be done. It wouldn't run
into the discrimination issues that would plague a domestic hiring
process.

So, to wrap it up - I think that we can tailor the communicable
disease component of our lives in the Habitat. Is this a good idea?
What are its implications? Using the same quarantine policies,
should we also try to eliminate harmful pathogens from the bio-
torus. Afterall, they just have to be screened once - at the
construction phase of the Habitat.

TangoMan

On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 07:50 PM, victoriatangoman
wrote:

> We all know that trvel to and from the Habitat is going to be a
> journey taking at a minimum 3 days if the Habitat is at L5 or in a
> 2:1 resonant orbit.

These orbits were proposed assuming lunar materials. If asteroidal
materials are used then the colony can be in any orbit that won't decay
quickly. I suspect a high Earth orbit is best. Does anyone know how
high you can go before getting into the high-radiation portion of the
van Allen belts?

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 07:50 PM, victoriatangoman
> wrote:
>
> > We all know that trvel to and from the Habitat is going to be a
> > journey taking at a minimum 3 days if the Habitat is at L5 or in
a
> > 2:1 resonant orbit.
>
> These orbits were proposed assuming lunar materials. If
asteroidal
> materials are used then the colony can be in any orbit that won't
decay
> quickly. I suspect a high Earth orbit is best. Does anyone know
how
> high you can go before getting into the high-radiation portion of
the
> van Allen belts?

The Inner van Allen belt, depending on the latitude you're measuring
from, begins at between 250 and 750 miles above the surface and
extends out to about 6,200 miles.

The Outer van Allen belt begins at about 6,200 miles and extends
from 37,000 to about 57,000 miles, with the outer boundary being
determined by the flucuations of solar activity.

I'm not sure whether this is pertinent to you or not, but the Inner
belt usually extend from 40 degrees north to 40 degrees south.

Hope that helps.

TangoMan

Al Globus wrote:

>Does anyone know how
>high you can go before getting into the high-radiation portion of the
>van Allen belts?
>
The radiation belts start to get serious about 300-400 km above the
surface and reach all the way to beyond GEO.

This discussion is dependent upon the destination. If you are
sending someone to the International Space station, they will be
trained for months, fully probed, psychoanalyzed, and isolated prior
to launch. If a passenger get the sniffles on launch day, too bad,
he stays on the ground.

If you are sending somebody to a space hotel like the wheel station
in "2001" or the proposed wheel of space island group
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com then your priorities shift to
pathogen (and pest) management. The environment would be somewhere
between a cruise ship and a hospital - nobody wants to stay at any
hotel where there are cockroaches running across the bed at night...
no matter what the view. Anyone oozing blood from every pore would
likely be denied admission at the airlock - along with the rest of
the people on board his transport - but someone with the sniffles
would likely be let in. A destination of that size would likely have
its own hospital.

For a really long-term destination, like a stanford torus or an
Island One, the quarantine becomes more like the immigration process
from the third world to the USA; you get checked for AIDS and Hep-C
and whatever else, and if you have certain diseases you don't get on
board. Hopefully there's no rats.

:) ed

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman
" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, rmenich@m... wrote:
> > The recent wave of infections experienced on cruise ships picques
> my
> > interest in this topic... Is that recent news item what
> started this
> > thread originally?
> >
> > Ron
> > ******
>
> Yes, those cruise ship reports definitely got me thinking about
> quarantine issue. Reports about AIDS devastation in Africa coming
> out at the same time further spurred my questioning.
>
> We all know that trvel to and from the Habitat is going to be a
> journey taking at a minimum 3 days if the Habitat is at L5 or in a
> 2:1 resonant orbit. Factor in the earth travel time to the launch
> site, rendevouz in LEO, perhaps waiting for sufficient passengers
to
> fill the Habitat shuttle/cruise liner, and I think that we're
> realistically looking at travel times of a week or more.
>
> That said, it won't be as easy to travel to and fro between Earth
> and the Habitat, so I conclude that the human and cultural
> interaction we witness on Earth will be considerably diminished in
> the Habitat. Face to face sales call will be rare, tourists willing
> to spend two weeks in transit for a return voyage will be rare.
>
> If this will come to pass, then will a Earth based quarantine
before
> permission to travel be an onerous condition?
>
> Consider the economics of lost productivity due to colds/flu, as
> well as the human misery (small in the grand scale of things, but
> still very real to those suffering through a cold.)
>
> Who wants to have diarrhea or be coughing up phlem in your space
> suit out at the SPS construction site? Also, consider that in a
> closed environment, colds will sweep through the population like
the
> Norwalk virus does through a cruise ship, or for those parents who
> can relate, how a cold sweeps through a school classroom.
>
> I contend that it would be worth the inconvenience to the very rare
> traveller willing to spend a week on one way transit to insure that
> they are free of cold/flu viruses, TB, mumps, measles, etc.
>
> For immigrants, I would go further. List a number of communicable
> diseases that are to be screened. To inject a bit of personal
> reminisence, when I was in my doctoral program back in the 80's,
> being the youngest one in the cohort, my office companions were
> sympathisizing with my predicament in the age of AIDS. They
recalled
> their own age of abandon and nobody dying from having sex.
>
> Why willingly put up with AIDS, cylamdia, herpres, human papolama
> virus, etc when they can be screened out in Earth quarantine and
> screening?
>
> Taking this concept further; I recall reading a few months back a
> report that listed only 5 diseases that account for almost 60% of
> society's medical costs. Further, only 12% of the population
account