You make the point better in two paragraphs than I did in an essay. I
definitely fall on the side of the argument that asserts that an orbital
colony would become (whether intended or not) an ecosystem from the moment
it was created, and that designers would probably have a complex job just
cataloging which nano-smurfs had gotten aboard, much less trying to control
them.

I think this thread started when someone brought up quarantine requirements.
The author seemed to think that an orbital colony could be made entirely
disease-free with just some well-thought-out policies. While I agree that
keeping infectious diseases at a minimum in an orbital colony would be
desirable, I didn't want to see anyone betting the orbital farm on a 100%
microbe-free citizenry--it would be neither possible nor desirable.

What about a hypoallergenic colony for the highly allergic? Or a low
bacteria colony, for a immune-compromised colonists? Or a wine-making
colony with just the right noble rot molds on board to sweeten the ripening
grapes? It's worth a try some day.

Brad W

PS for the latest on cruise ship gastroenteritis outbreaks I recommend the
CDC website, www.cdc.gov

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
>
> You make the point better in two paragraphs than I did in an
essay. I
> definitely fall on the side of the argument that asserts that an
orbital
> colony would become (whether intended or not) an ecosystem from
the moment
> it was created, and that designers would probably have a complex
job just
> cataloging which nano-smurfs had gotten aboard, much less trying
to control
> them.
>
> I think this thread started when someone brought up quarantine
requirements.
> The author seemed to think that an orbital colony could be made
entirely
> disease-free with just some well-thought-out policies. While I
agree that
> keeping infectious diseases at a minimum in an orbital colony
would be
> desirable, I didn't want to see anyone betting the orbital farm on
a 100%
> microbe-free citizenry--it would be neither possible nor desirable.

I'm questioning if it would indeed be desirable. I think it would
but I'd like to read the rebuttal to my point. I'm not advocating a
microbe free environment. Many microbes are beneficial. But is there
a need to import viruses, molds, etc that are pathogens? Consider
Fusarium head blight which affects wheat, barley and oats and
produce mycotoxins such as deoxynivalenol (DON), also know as
vomitoxin. Why not screen it out from the seeds we import from
earth? At the same time, import beneficial molds, those needed for
penicillin, those needed for making cheeses, those needed for wines,
for agriculture, for human health.

>
> What about a hypoallergenic colony for the highly allergic? Or a
low
> bacteria colony, for a immune-compromised colonists? Or a wine-
making
> colony with just the right noble rot molds on board to sweeten the
ripening
> grapes? It's worth a try some day.
>
> Brad W
>
> PS for the latest on cruise ship gastroenteritis outbreaks I
recommend the
> CDC website, www.cdc.gov
>
> >From: "Ed Minchau "
> >Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Habitat Contamination - Warning:
Rambling
> >Ahead!
> >Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 21:52:48 -0000
> >
> >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

>But is there a need to import viruses, molds, etc that >are pathogens?
>Consider Fusarium head blight which >affects wheat, barley and oats and
>produce mycotoxins >such as deoxynivalenol (DON), also know as vomitoxin.
> >Why not screen it out from the seeds we import from
>earth? At the same time, import beneficial molds, those >needed for
>penicillin, those needed for making cheeses, >those needed for wines, for
>agriculture, for human >health.

Public health officials and engineers have faced some of these questions
before, e.g. in designing clean rooms for computer chip manufacture, low
contamination microbiology labs, etc.

But folks on this site are confusing two different approaches to pathogen
reduction, and I think the distinction is important to make.

Do we:

1) Make a "hit list" of the 100 or 1000 or 10,000 pathogens we're going to
specifically target for exclusion (Fusarium mold, measles virus,
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Stachybotrys atra mold, poison ivy, etc.),
figure out precisely what it would take to eliminate those villians from the
seeds, seedlings, people, animals, materials, gases and soils brought up
from earth, and do it.

Or do we:

2) Aim for a low- to no-microbes policy, using broad measures like
irradiation of inaminate objects, lengthy antibiotics regimens and other
harsh (even dangerous) measures to remove microbes from colonists and other
living things, long quarantine periods, and potentially much more costly
in-situ generation of most of the colony's needs. By this last point I mean
the creation of water, atmosphere gases and soils from presumably sterile
sources like lunar regolith, crushed asteroids, etc., thereby reducing the
number of (possibly contaminated) things brought up from Terra.

The first alternative, targeted exclusion, is more easily done, depending on
what's on your hit list. It is already practiced here on earth (e.g. to
transport horses across state lines in the US you have to have a statement
from your veterinarian about the absence of certain diseases). But some
authors on this site seem to be leaning toward alternative #2. The No
Microbes position may seem more desirable to folks because of it utopian
simplicity. But I've tried to point out that we here on Earth live in a
complex milieu of microbes, so beneficial, some pathogenic, but most not
clearly in either camp. The arguments against the No Microbes position are:

1) These Middle Ground microbes (neither commensals nor pathogens) are
poorly studied and understood, and it might take decades to even figure out
how to exclude them. There are no broad-spectrum anti-virals or anti-mold
drugs, and spores (which most molds produce) are incredibly tough.

2) Steps to eradicate pathogens and Middle Ground microbes would almost
certainly wipe out commensals too. Your doctor will tell you that long-term
broad spectrum antibiotic use is a bad idea, because it alters your internal
ecosystem, killing the commensal bacteria that protect you. Reestablishing
that internal balance is not well understood.

3) The Middle Ground microbes may play roles in our ecosystem that we don't
understand. Some extreme Green Party types consider this blind spot in our
knowledge of the ecosystem to be sufficient reason for radically reducing
the technology level we currently employ. At the very least it deserves
considerable attention in the research leading up to the first orbital
colonies.

4) There may be an important role for some of the microbes on the hit list.
The much maligned structural molds that have received so much bad press in
the US for growing in people's homes and making them sick are, in the global
context, very important for the breakdown of decaying plant materials,
especially dead trees.

Here again I've taken 1000 words to say what somebody else might say in
less, so I'll stop now.

Brad W.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
>
> >But is there a need to import viruses, molds, etc that >are
pathogens?
> >Consider Fusarium head blight which >affects wheat, barley and
oats and
> >produce mycotoxins >such as deoxynivalenol (DON), also know as
vomitoxin.
> > >Why not screen it out from the seeds we import from
> >earth? At the same time, import beneficial molds, those >needed
for
> >penicillin, those needed for making cheeses, >those needed for
wines, for
> >agriculture, for human >health.
>
> Public health officials and engineers have faced some of these
questions
> before, e.g. in designing clean rooms for computer chip
manufacture, low
> contamination microbiology labs, etc.
>
> But folks on this site are confusing two different approaches to
pathogen
> reduction, and I think the distinction is important to make.
>
> Do we:
>
> 1) Make a "hit list" of the 100 or 1000 or 10,000 pathogens we're
going to
> specifically target for exclusion (Fusarium mold, measles virus,
> Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Stachybotrys atra mold, poison ivy,
etc.),
> figure out precisely what it would take to eliminate those
villians from the
> seeds, seedlings, people, animals, materials, gases and soils
brought up
> from earth, and do it.

IMHO, if a Habitat is costing xxx billions of dollars to construct,
I would think that setting up a quarantine process on Earth for the
soil, seeds etc should involve minimal expense. Further, the Habitat
has only ONE chance to do it right. If they introduce a pathogen
into the living environment, seperate from the farming modules, then
it's unlikely that they can open it up to vacuum and start again.

I'm not so sure that we'd be sending gases and soils up in bulk,
even for the first Habitat. It would be interesting though, if
Nitrogen had to be sent for the first one, to consider what
organisms could survive the N2 extraction process and the freezing,
to reawaken at ambient temperature in the Habitat atmosphere.

As for the seeds and the soil cultures, how complex an undertaking
would it be to microscopically inspect everything that goes to the
first Habitat? Of course, my unstated (now stated) assumption is
that the eco-torus of the first Habitat will provide the cultures
and living matter for the second Habitat and so on, thereby reducing
the need to send biomatter from Earth for every new Habitat.

>
> Or do we:
>
> 2) Aim for a low- to no-microbes policy, using broad measures
like
> irradiation of inaminate objects, lengthy antibiotics regimens and
other
> harsh (even dangerous) measures to remove microbes from colonists
and other
> living things, long quarantine periods, and potentially much more
costly
> in-situ generation of most of the colony's needs.

Cost/benefit analysis needs to be done. I'm not advocating a "no-
microbes" policy because I assume that microbes would be necessary
for the bio-cylinder to function.

But you raise a good point about decontaminating all of the
inanimate objects. How far should this principle be taken, if at
all? Decontaimate for what?

Which microbes would we remove from humans? Would there be a benefit
to doing so? Once removed, how could the clean state be maintained?

My thinking concerning humans was not so much centered on microbes,
but viruses and contagious diseases. A utopian attempt at reducing
the illnesses that plague mankind. A habitat would really be the
first environment that could be maintained without contamination
from Earth, thus a disease-reduced society might be achievable in
orbit where it would be impossible to achieve on Earth.

By this last point I mean
> the creation of water, atmosphere gases and soils from presumably
sterile
> sources like lunar regolith, crushed asteroids, etc., thereby
reducing the
> number of (possibly contaminated) things brought up from Terra.

Actually, I think this approach to be the most likely. The oxygen
from luanr regolith, the nitrogen from liquid ammonia from a NEO,
the soil a combination of regolith and NEO components mixed with
live biomatter from Earth. I just can't see rocket launches with a
cargo of tons of dirt happening.

> The arguments against the No Microbes position are:
>
> 1) These Middle Ground microbes (neither commensals nor
pathogens) are
> poorly studied and understood, and it might take decades to even
figure out
> how to exclude them. There are no broad-spectrum anti-virals or
anti-mold
> drugs, and spores (which most molds produce) are incredibly tough.

At what point does an enclosed structure become a environment? The
toxic mold in houses today would be a nightmare if it ran rampant in
a Habitat.

So let's study them. I'm sure that the knowledge gained would be
beneficial to Earth society as well.

We're also assuming that it will be a herculean effort to exclude
certain components of a bio-sphere and still have it function
properly, but the flip side of that argument is that it might be
just as large a task to insure that all of the components are
identified and shipped up to orbit and that they are introduced and
nurtured in the right order and that the interdependencies are
functioning so that one part doesn't die off before the other part
needed for symbiosis is functioning.

>
> 2) Steps to eradicate pathogens and Middle Ground microbes would
almost
> certainly wipe out commensals too. Your doctor will tell you that
long-term
> broad spectrum antibiotic use is a bad idea, because it alters
your internal
> ecosystem, killing the commensal bacteria that protect you.
Reestablishing
> that internal balance is not well understood.

I wasn't really writing about killing off our internal microbes. The
issue I wanted to raise concerned viruses/bacteria that cause us
suffering and illness. I'd like someone to educate me as to why they
are necessary for our health and why we shouold make the conscious
choice to import them into a new world.

>
> 3) The Middle Ground microbes may play roles in our ecosystem
that we don't
> understand. Some extreme Green Party types consider this blind
spot in our
> knowledge of the ecosystem to be sufficient reason for radically
reducing
> the technology level we currently employ. At the very least it
deserves
> considerable attention in the research leading up to the first
orbital
> colonies.

Yes, I agree that more research needs to be done. If we're going to
create whole new engineering specialties that will manage the eco-
cylinder for the residents, they should know how all of the
components inter-relate. As for the Green party position, I won't
rebut in this forum.

>
> 4) There may be an important role for some of the microbes on the
hit list.
> The much maligned structural molds that have received so much
bad press in
> the US for growing in people's homes and making them sick are, in
the global
> context, very important for the breakdown of decaying plant
materials,
> especially dead trees.

Ok, point taken, but consider that we shouldn't take for granted
that processes need to be duplicated in orbit. Do we need molds to
break down our plant material or will have have other means to
achieve the same result, ie solar ovens and elemental extraction
techniques. I don't know enough to venture forth with a supportable
opinion.

>
> Here again I've taken 1000 words to say what somebody else might
say in
> less, so I'll stop now.
>
> Brad W.

I enjoyed your commentary.

TangoMan

On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 03:47 PM, Brad Walsh wrote:

> I
> definitely fall on the side of the argument that asserts that an
> orbital
> colony would become (whether intended or not) an ecosystem from the
> moment
> it was created, and that designers would probably have a complex job
> just
> cataloging which nano-smurfs had gotten aboard, much less trying to
> control
> them.
>

On this note, apparently 99%+ of all Earth bacteria species are, at
present, unknown.

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 Tuesday, December 17, 2002, at 08:01 PM, victoriatangoman
wrote:

> Many microbes are beneficial. But is there
> a need to import viruses, molds, etc that are pathogens?

Obviously not, but keeping them out may be extremely difficult. Also,
as an earlier post noted, many diseases are caused by normally benign
or even beneficial microbs when they get in the wrong place or in
excessively large numbers.

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

Al Globus wrote:

>On this note, apparently 99%+ of all Earth bacteria species are, at
>present, unknown.
>
Still, atleast bleach kills 99% of all known germs- dead!

Hmm. Doesn't sound as good now does it? Gotta love advertising ;-)