[RB comment: Response provided both to ABIA and ABLN ]
In article <20040409140849.19730.00000046 RemoveThis @mb-m10.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer RemoveThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:
>From: Stacy
>
>>I've gotten sick of Ballard comparing the moon to a city park
>>without
>>any more backing for the comparison than his saying it's so.
>>Therefore,
>>I did what he should have done and looked up the actual "Agreement
>>Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial
>>Bodies" as presented by the United Nations office at Geneva. *much
>>sarcasm snipped, as it was not particularly ladylike and my mother
>>would
>>disapprove.* Here's a link to the agreement:
<RB snipped URL>
>
>As you point out, this does not prohibit disposing of nuclear waste
>on the
>moon, assuming we can get it there without enormous expense and/or
>the chance
>of launch accidents.
It probably does not prohibit building lunar ice cream franchises,
either. That does not make building lunar ice cream franchises
a good idea, however.
>It really does not apply though, because the U. S. never ratified
>it. None of
>the significant players in space ratified it, and only a few nations
>overall.
I am not going to scream loud or long, but there are words missing
in this discussion -- ethics and scientific stewardship.
>One of the reasons was that Article 11, paragraph 3 for all intents
>and
>purposes outlawed any sort of private property. What corporation
>or other
>entity is going to put any sort of facility on the moon if they
>have no
>ownership rights over the facility?
>
>I can go along with the idea that no one nation or other entity
>owns the
>entire moon, or should be allowed to claim ownership. We have
>to allow adverse
>possession though.
Why? And what Governmental body do the colonists answer to,
particularly if the colonists engage in activities detrimental
to terrestrial interests? (I'll use my earlier example --
terrorists dropping big hot rocks into the Earth's gravity well.)
>Once someone has a colony there, then either the
>Earthside entity that established it, or the colonists, have to
>own the area they have
>settled. The treaty does have some good ideas in it, but the
>"no ownership"
>simply was not one of them. I am glad we and most other nations
>were sensible
>enough to reject this.
There are areas in Oklahoma where you can purchase a 100 year
duration lease to use land, but you can not purchase the land
and you can not sublease the land. There are other stipulations
in the lease. That is an alternative to a free and unregulated
land grab. Do we want lunar corporate 'city states'? (Can you
imagine 'Rollerball' played on a lunar track?)
>The 1967 treaty, which we did sign, specifically allows for
>private property in
>Article 8. Article 9 does prohibit the contamination of any
>celestial body
>including the moon, but as I and others have pointed out,
>radioactive material
>on the moon is not contamination. It is about like "contaminating"
>the ocean
>by adding water.
Your analogy (contaminating the ocean by adding water) is flawed.
To my knowledge the lunar surface is not composed of _highly_
radioactive material. Nuclear waste could pollute the lunar
surface, probably with quantity of radioactivity and also
with an unnatural (and scientifically misleading) form of
radioactivity. (E.g., plutonium residues where none existed
before, but the contamination might also be misleading
scientifically.)
>It is kind of hard to imagine what we COULD do to
>"contaminate" the surface of the moon, even if we wanted to.
How about "destroy its astrophysical study value by accidentally
dispersing minute atomic waste residues on the lunar surface"?
I recently read an article that discussed how an astronomer
identified that several dozen matter particles originated in
comets -- this study required scanning several thousand
matter particles for a particular form of silicates. Might not
a nuclear waste minor mishap spoil lunar astronomical studies
dependent upon no or small amounts of radioactivity? The
Mars Rovers are working with small samples from localized
areas -- not a planetwide survey. Might not residues from
nuclear activity potentially kill future lunar scientific
investigations due to minute radioactive contamination?
This discussion has the same taste and smell as drilling for oil
in the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone -- we only got one Moon.
"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?
I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
