Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

BWhite · 2004-07-07 12:58:05

Rob, here are a few links:

http://www.news-medical.net/print_artic … yes&id=110

This says scCO2 sterilizes surfaces.

= = =

http://eartheasy.com/wear_tips.htm]http … r_tips.htm

Mentions an scCO2 clothes washer machine altough google suggests this was deemed very promising in the late 1990s but then disappeared.

= = =

One more link

http://www.micell.com/docs/uploaded/DeS … rticle.pdf

RobS · 2004-07-07 17:22:33

Thank you. Yes, the middle link mentions a company that uses liquid CO2 for dry cleaning right now! This seems like the way to go on Mars.

-- RobS

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-07 17:55:34

Actually, the llamas mentioned earlier are probably a good idea. I know that Zubrin bashed the idea of bringing non-human mammals in "The Case for Mars," but really, we're going to need some variety of animals on Mars to keep our colonists from getting Earthsick. Besides, llamas could be a good source of food, milk, garbage disposal (plant leftovers), and clothing with thier nice, shaggy fur. I can just imagine a year or so into the first Mars colony mission when the colonists start making space suits out of llama fur instead of high-tech/expensive fibers.

A wide variety of plants and animals would be useful for use at a Mars colony. Corn is a no brainer, it grows fast and has a much higher yeild than grass does, without all the spikey bits of sillica mixed in. Hummingbrids could be used to pollinate plants in the greenhouse, and liven things up. Bees can do the same thing, of course, and produce honey, but nasty stings are an unfortunate by-prodcut. Let's bring both! Potatoes and rice will probably be the staples of the Martain diet, like they were of southeast Asia and Ireland millennia ago. I think that during this kind of speculation, a lot of engineers (Like Robert Zubrin) tend to froget just how fragile and interconnected the web of life is on Earth. In reality, it might be impossible to create a closed environment without thousands of species involved (Just look at biosphere 2), we'll just never know until we try it.

BWhite · 2004-07-07 18:12:47

Thank you. Yes, the middle link mentions a company that uses liquid CO2 for dry cleaning right now! This seems like the way to go on Mars.
-- RobS

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0603/et06 … ml]Hangers dry cleaners.

http://www.hangersdrycleaners.com]http://www.hangersdrycleaners.com

These people even offer to sell you a CO2 dry cleaning franchise!

= = =

Imagine the trivia that has been assembled by members of this board!

BWhite · 2004-07-07 18:20:02

Corn is a no brainer, it grows fast and has a much higher yeild than grass does,

-AND-

I have research notes on a gene-modified variant of corn that can be harvested for plastic.

Con-Agra was part of that IIRC.

http://www.msutoday.msu.edu/research/in … 9Aug2001-1

FrankPoole · 2004-07-07 19:15:30

Infant potty training essentially means finding the baby's signals for when he has to go and then bringing him to a small toilet for this purpose. You can get European ones just for this. After a few weeks he gets the idea and will hold it until you get to the potty. Downside is that they scream when they do soil themselves as they know they are supposed to use modern santitation. And, it takes some patience the first few weeks. At fifteen months, our son only poops in the diaper when we are driving and can't get him to a toilet. Finally, kids can learn sign language much earlier than they can talk, so our boy can tell us when he's in pain, has to go, wants to eat, car, plane, bananna, and several other things even though he can't talk.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-08 12:58:50

We taught our second daughter sign language as well. She learned about 30 words before she began talking. We read about the early potty training but it seemed a bit too much for us at the time.
My wife had two of our children at home, the second one unassisted. Just me, her, and our baby -- beautiful. Our baby has never seen a doctor, never been poked with a needle, never been vaccinated, never been happier!

::Bangs head on desk:: Tie this in with Mars, stupid!

All things being equal, we don't need professionals to give birth on Mars.

C M Edwards · 2004-07-08 13:42:03

My wife had two of our children at home, the second one unassisted. Just me, her, and our baby -- beautiful. Our baby has never seen a doctor, never been poked with a needle, never been vaccinated, never been happier!

Not for us!

My wife has already informed me to have the drugs ready and she's not even pregnant yet. I quite agree with her, and if she didn't want any I'd appreciate it if the doctor would ask me next.

Having just been through a preventable illness with a child in my care, I don't see the value in leaving the child open to another. Please don't get me wrong: children need to build immunity on their own. Too little exposure to infectious material is just as bad as too much. Every child should have a little taste of dirt every day. However, the list of illnesses preventable by vaccine isn't so long that it makes a difference to their overall health. Children are going to get sick whether vaccinated or not. I simply find it worth the expense to know that it isn't diptheria.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-08 17:14:53

My wife has already informed me to have the drugs ready and she's not even pregnant yet. I quite agree with her, and if she didn't want any I'd appreciate it if the doctor would ask me next.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

About vaccinations:
We think the risk of problems caused by the vaccinations themselves at least equal the problems caused by the disease.
For example: until recently, mercury was included in many vaccines. Mercury! You know that element in science class that looked so pretty as it beaded up on the table top. That element that the teacher said not to touch because it would absorb into your skin and make you very sick. Many people think that autism rates have increased because of the mercury in vaccines. Who knows what else is still allowed in vaccines and still hurting our children. My first child developed arthritic knees after getting some shots. The doctors couldn't figure it out. Luckily it cleared up after a few months, but who knows? Here are a couple of articles I googled, pro and con:

http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/vac … feared.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … May18.html

Ian Flint · 2004-07-08 17:21:58

I simply find it worth the expense to know that it isn't diptheria.

Do you mean that if a child gets a diptheria vaccine and gets sick sometime later, it can't possibly be diptheria? If that's what you mean, I think you may be overestimating the effectiveness of vaccines. If I understand correctly, vaccines only reduce the risk of getting the disease. They don't eliminate it completely.

I've heard that doctors have dismissed symptoms of... say the measles... because the child had his vaccines. They do a bunch of tests for other stuff, send them to specialists, etc. only to find out later that it was indead the measles. Interesting, huh?

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-10 22:12:35

My wife had two of our children at home, the second one unassisted. Just me, her, and our baby -- beautiful. Our baby has never seen a doctor, never been poked with a needle, never been vaccinated, never been happier!

I dunno, that sounds kinda gutsy to me. My dad was telling me a story earlier that when he was born his umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck, choking him. Had he been born out away from trained doctors who had the resources and knowledge to save the situation, he, and quite possibly my grandmother too, would have died. Childbirth is actually an increadibly risky operation for both mother and child. Remember that only 150 years ago, a woman's odds of giving birth without losing her life in the process were about one in ten at best. That was one of the leading causes of death back then. Now you can just have a C-section, if something goes awry, on Mars that should be an option too.

Going back to 150 years ago again, your odds of making it past age ten were about fifty fifty. The main reason was disease: it was everywhere. Smallpox, polio, cholera, diptheria, dysentery, it was awful back then. Were it not for vaccines, these diseases would still be prevalent. As wonderful, nearly magical, as current care is, preventative medicine is how you solve real problems like epidemics. I don't know about you, but I'd rather take my chances if there's mercury in a shot than take my chances avoiding hepitits. Now, I laughed along with all rational people at the people in the US afraid of getting SARS, but the fact is, SARS came from the flu and next time we could have a repeat of the epidemic of 1919. I'm sure as hell getting my flu shot this year.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-11 08:42:04

Mad Grad,
I totally understand where you're coming from. Just a couple of years ago I had the same concerns about childbirth. But, anyone can learn how to unwrap a cord from a baby's neck, give infant CPR, etc. I'm not saying homebirth should be done without knowing anything about how to handle the risks. I just don't think you need 8 years of school and a couple of initials after your name.

About vaccines:
I actually agree with the idea of preventative medicine. I also agree with the basic idea behind vaccines -- take a little bit of the bad stuff to help your body get used to it. This is also the idea behind homeopathy. The only gripes I have against vaccines is that they have dangerous preservatives, and that they give them to infants.

Do you know why they give newborns the Hepatitus B vaccine? Its a sexually transmitted disease, you know. Now how would a baby get an STD? They can test the mother beforehand, so EVERY baby needn't get the shot. It's because of all the doctors and nurses and the fact that children are born at hospitals -- you know where all the SICK people go. The medical establishment creates a problem, and then solves it. It's job security whether they planned it that way or not. :;):

About death in childbirth:
If I understand my history correctly, it was a rare occurence when the baby just got stuck and mom and baby died. Assuming that the mother has had a healthy diet for the full term and even earlier in her life, the only case where a C-section is necessary is when the baby comes out hand first. This means that he will be turned sideways and can't mechanically fit through the birth canal. Any other type of breach can be done vaginally.

Mothers often died after childbirth because of infection. I remember reading about how doctors used to go from an autopsy directly to the birthing room without even rinsing their hands. Guess what happened to mommy.

We don't have to revert to the ways of 150 years ago. We now know about sterilization, infection, etc. We also have alternatives to traditional western medicine. For example: to stop bleeding from the uterus after birth -- bite off a piece of the placenta. That's how animals do it. Gross, but effective.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-11 08:49:27

About the prevalence of disease:
I think vaccines played a role in eliminating them from developed countries, but I think the most important thing was sanitation. Draining swamps, modern sewage treatment, clean drinking water -- these are what really led to better health.

C M Edwards · 2004-07-11 12:56:06

Risk of death in childbirth - for mother or baby - is fairly high when without recourse to modern fetal monitoring, surgical techniques, etc. It's about 5% - relatively high for something people do as a normal part of their lives. Prior centuries' birth mortality rates in excess of 25% were due to poor sanitation and other easily controlled factors unrelated to the presence or absence of a doctor. But if you want to get rid of that last 5%, you need medical support on call.

About the prevalence of disease:
I think vaccines played a role in eliminating them from developed countries, but I think the most important thing was sanitation. Draining swamps, modern sewage treatment, clean drinking water -- these are what really led to better health.

Yes, control of disease vectors is what we really have to thank for modern disease control. If you're 150 million kilometers from the closest disease vector, vaccination isn't worth the risk.

However, vaccination is one such control mechanism for disease vectors. It should not be utterly neglected, any more than mosquito spraying or washing your hands.

RobS · 2004-07-11 17:25:06

I'd vaccination Martian kids too, in case they go back to Earth. They may need exposure to germs to develop normally. There is a correlation, I believe, between increased risk for asthma and allergies with decreased exposure to germs; the germs are needed to develop normal immune systems.

As for vaccination, the risk of side effects is much less than the risk caused by the infection; that's why vaccinations are given. It's a statistical thing.

I suspect the mercury thing about vaccinations is just an emotional scare. A few parts per million of mercury in a vaccination (which is itself fractions of a gram of stuff) is harmless. Yes, I know people are scared to death about mercury poisoning. Part of that is an excellent health development and part of it is excess emotion. When I was a kid in the 1960s, I remember my brother and some kids PLAYING with liquid mercury, rolling it around in their hands. (None of them have since died; they're in their late 40s). Our high school science lab had a jar of liquid mercury. And when my brother broke his leg and couldn't go to school for two months he had a tutor come to our house at night, and one time the tutor did a science experiment using liquid mercury and a candle. No doubt it vaporized milligrams of mercury into the house's air.

In the 1960s, the current safety standards just didn't exist.

Anyway, when I hear someone breaks a mercury thermometer and they call the hazard waste disposal team, my reaction is: pick the damn thing up and throw it in the garbage instead!

-- RobS

C M Edwards · 2004-07-12 13:11:16

You know, that's a good point. There are no hazardous waste disposal professionals on Mars. This means there are no hazardous waste handling licenses on Mars. Which in turn means that Marsians will need to know what is actually physically harmful for them to handle and not just what they're forbidden to touch by law.

The mercury from your example, is most immediately toxic in its water soluble chemical compounds and not in the pure form that your brother was playing with. Same with lead. But either metal will eventually oxidize into toxic forms if left in a landfill, so both are regulated as hazardous materials in any form here in the States. Since that isn't a resonable expectation on Mars, I wonder if the US environmental regulations would apply to a US colony there?

Ian Flint · 2004-07-12 15:10:20

Just had a thought.

Early settlers on Mars will most likely be highly educated people, perhaps with expertise in several fields each. The average suburbanite American won't go to Mars in the beginning.

Given that, there won't be much need for regulations and rules from Earth. These people will be smart enough to handle toxic substances. They'll be able to plan construction projects, and organize groups of people. They'll have medical training, too. Those initial settlers will be the cream of the crop.

So when the suburbanites, and the naturalist freaks like me show up, there will be smart people to help out that 5% of the time things go wrong.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-12 22:03:32

Sorry, but what does this have to do with Mars? :hm:

The topic, I mean.

C M Edwards · 2004-07-13 07:35:48

I believe we were discussing child care for Marsian settlers.

... which inspired a discussion of diapers and laundering diapers...

... which led naturally enough to a discussion of hazardous waste.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-14 04:47:12

" ... diapers ... hazardous waste."

:laugh: Ha-ha!! You said it, brother!

clark · 2004-07-20 14:43:54

An interesting possibility for diapers and Mars terraforming...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/scien … gewanted=2

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Plans for the Jumeira Islands development, a luxury residential project being built here, include acres of lush landscaping. But how can such greenery bloom in the sandy soil of this arid desert climate? To address that problem, developers are turning to an unlikely solution: the technology used in disposable diapers.
Disposable diapers are made of superabsorbent polymers, or hydrogels, that retain moisture. In the early 1980's, chemical manufacturers discovered that the same technology, with modifications, could be applied to products designed to improve soil irrigation. At that time, the discovery was hailed as a possible aid to poor farmers in the developing world who were seeking to grow crops in dry climates. But it never caught on; the products were too expensive, and their effectiveness was not proved.
But manufacturers are now finding their market growing, as worldwide demand increases for ways to stretch scarce water supplies.
Sales of hydrogels have increased about 10 percent annually in recent years, said Elke Nelles-Schwelm, director of Creasorb, a German company that makes Stockosorb, the product being used at Jumeira Islands. (Creasorb is a subsidiary of the German company Degussa.)
And the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification began a project at the beginning of the year to use TerraCottem, a soil conditioner containing hydrogel made by the Belgian company TerraCottem N.V., for erosion control in Iran.
"It is the most ideal product so far we've found to fight desertification and land degradation," said Rui Zheng, the United Nations official in charge, adding that there were plans to expand the project to Kyrgyzstan. The problem for widespread use, he said, is the high price.
TerraCottem sells for about $2 per pound, enough to treat about 50 square feet of land, said Willem Van Cotthem, the company's founder. That makes it affordable for applications like landscaping and tree nurseries, but still very expensive for general agriculture.
But at Nakheel, the government-owned company that is building the 740-acre Jumeira Islands, executives say the technology will have applications beyond making flowers grow in the desert. They see its potential for water conservation.
"Water is the major driver of conflicts in the region," said Dr. Imad Haffar, the Nakheel research and development manager.
In adapting diaper technology for irrigation, engineers had to consider that hydrogels in a diaper must absorb liquid once and hold it without seepage, while in soil, they must hold and slowly release water thousands of times over years or decades.
To make hydrogels, two monomers with an extremely strong attraction to water, acrylic acid and acrylamide, are combined to form polyacrylamide, a spongelike substance, which is then mixed in soil. There, it can easily absorb hundreds of times its weight in water; the design of the molecules controls the rate at which the water is absorbed and then released.
Proponents say the products can conserve about half the water otherwise needed, also reducing the amount of fertilizer needed. Since the ground retains the water longer, the technology can also help control erosion.
At Jumeira Islands, the soil additive could cut water consumption by 50 percent, saving about 1.5 million gallons a day, said Mehmet Gecekusu, operations manager at Albayader, the landscape company for the project. He estimated that the hydrogel would pay for itself in less than a year.
But hydrogels have drawbacks. Polyacrylamide is nontoxic, but acrylamide, one of its components, is not. Careful manufacture is needed to ensure that the acrylamide is completely incorporated in the polyacrylamide, and many products still contain traces of these toxins, which can kill the plants the product is intended to help.
Another challenge is the soil's content. Metals like iron and magnesium can permanently damage the molecular net in the soil, and salt temporarily interferes with the ability of polyacrylamide to absorb water.
Ms. Nelles-Schwelm of Creasorb, though, said that even in salty soil like that of Dubai, polyacrylamides can absorb 100 times their weight.

Mars in pampers? ???

C M Edwards · 2004-07-21 14:30:31

Are polyacrylamides recyclable?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-07-07 12:58:05

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#27 2004-07-07 17:22:33

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#28 2004-07-07 17:55:34

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#29 2004-07-07 18:12:47

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#30 2004-07-07 18:20:02

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#31 2004-07-07 19:15:30

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#32 2004-07-08 12:58:50

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#33 2004-07-08 13:42:03

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#34 2004-07-08 17:14:53

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#35 2004-07-08 17:21:58

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#36 2004-07-10 22:12:35

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#37 2004-07-11 08:42:04

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#38 2004-07-11 08:49:27

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#39 2004-07-11 12:56:06

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#40 2004-07-11 17:25:06

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#41 2004-07-12 13:11:16

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#42 2004-07-12 15:10:20

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#43 2004-07-12 22:03:32

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#44 2004-07-13 07:35:48

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#45 2004-07-14 04:47:12

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#46 2004-07-20 14:43:54

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

#47 2004-07-21 14:30:31

Re: Cloth Diapers - Yes...you heard me right -- Diapers.

Board footer