RE: "Now if only the Mars Society would place a link to it, we would all feel better. You do know what the word "biohazard" means in the nASA document right? NASA is talking about ways to deal with pathogens from Mars. Why isn't the Mars Society concerned about this? Because it puts a dent in your plans to send humans to Mars. Why not admit it. It is so obvious to everyone."

The Mars Society probably makes no links to the issue because most of its members feel quite comfortable with letting NASA deal with the issue and there has been no request for such info to be included at the main website. Several members including me have discussed providing easy access to the info and I have done so at the chapter's council web site. I think Zubrin is worried about mission overdesign as a knee jerk reaction to you as am I. He has published editorials based on the overdesign concern and I post here. Working in an industry that deals with very real and nasty hazards I think your whole its impossible to do safely line shows gross ignorance of current safety technology. It's no surprise you don't know how to do it, but that is good reason to leave it up to the engineering, scientific, and medical professionals who do.

Few real scientist expect Martian microbes to be hazardous and there are few even willing to predict it exists currently. Your "it prevents human exploration of Mars" is a strawman argument. People deal with hazardous materials and organisms on a routine basis Barry. It would not require some major technological scientific breakthrough to study Martian organisms even if they were hazardous especially on Mars where the containment only had to be one way as opposed to 2 way on Earth. Even that is not all that tough. It just requires combining too different but currently used containment methods (positive and negative pressure modes one within the other). A report recommending that such a facility be built in no way means it can't be built as you have implied in the past.

Your refusal to acknowledge that if any hazardous organisms existed on Mars they could reach Earth uncontained in meteorites despite abundant evidence while claiming less likely modes of panspermia and long rejected data support your concerns is a far more obvious case of evading an issue. If hazardous organisms on Mars exist they should be studied by humans on Mars or by humans on Earth from controlled samples to develope countermeasures in case of uncontrolled contamination.

Its pretty hard to support your claim "It is so obvious to everyone." based on a pitiful 3000 signatures and the near universal disdain you engender on this board. It is clear the majority here do not consider your opinions to be based on reasonable interpretations of the data and reports available.

RE: "ICAMSR does not say that pathogens from Mars are an absolute. We never have. We do however say it is a possibility and therefore more in situ life sciences experiments are necessary before returning any Martian soil and rock samples to Earth. It is fact that Mars Society President Robert Zubrin himself denies any need for planetary protection. Remember those isssue of the Planetary Report (online)? Zubrin's (Mars Scoeity) no concern for planetary protection issues is dangerous. It tells me the Mars Society would risk contamination of the Earth or Mars for the vanity of sending humans to Mars. If life exists on Mars, it would be the most important single scientific discovery in the history of science. It would also be the most valuable. No scientist in their right minds is going to send humans to Mars before we know about whether or not life still exists there.

Zubrin does not claim no planetary protection measures are required. This is a lie you have told over an over. Zubrins actual comments are at Contamination From Mars: No Threat and Robert Zubrin Responds. While his poor choice of words in the first title may lead one to believe your claim the second article makes it clear he is not against PP and that his comments in the first were to prevent sample sterilization and mission overdesign. Zubrin is an acknowledged extremist on one end of this issue, you are on the other end. Most members of the Mars Society including me feel Zubrin under estimates the potential risk but not by a whole lot.

As Nealson pointed out at Practice Safe Science " I (and most biologists) would (and do) agree with some of his statements. For example, the likelihood of life on Mars is small, and the likelihood of more advanced, mammalian-like life is even smaller. Moreover, the likelihood that a Mars organism pathogenic to Earth life exists and that, if it did, it could compete with highly adapted and competitive life on Earth is very small. None of this is new-it is comprehensively reviewed and discussed (with proper citations) in a National Research Council report ("Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations," Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997).

I covered this all in detail The Whole Story BD Never Tells where you failed to reply in a meaningful fashion, only reposting what I had already responded to.

You on the other hand try to exaggerate the risk by highlighting implausible scenarios as I clearly discussed in my earlier post. Comments you stood by. Discussing something potentially threatening is not fearmongering. The discussion by legitimate asteroid experts about the risk of impacts is informative so for the most parts are comments by Rummel and others associated with NASA's PP efforts. Inflating the risk as EP does with regard to impacts and you do with regard to back contamination and the Cassini launch is fear mongering. The problem with fear mongering is it causes an imbalance of priorities wherebye equivalent risks or even greater risks are neglected in public expenditures due to hysteria over a lesser risk or valuable scientific research gets halted or delayed due to unreasonable public risk perceptions.

I think the issue of life on Mars is one of the most important scientific questions of our time and agree we should first try to evaluate it using robotic probes. What we disagree on is appropriate followup in the event of robotic success or multiple failures.

RE: "BD: Youv'e got to be kidding right? By the Mars Soceity not posting relevant links to planetary protection documents like the one mentioned above it shows that the Mars Society would rather not have its members know about it or be aware of it. It is the one problem you people have no answer for." in response to my comment "Please explain how not discussing something constitutes trying to inspire fear of it?"

Ignoring an issue never constitutes fear mongering. It could be considered suppressing the issue, but given the high profile nature of the issue and numerous easily available sites covering the issue any such claim is laughable. The Mars Society couldn't suppress the issue even if it wanted to. Rather than suppress it Zubrin has always addressed it head on as he does in the The Case For Mars. You may take issue with his stance but can't claim it constitutes suppresion. I often include links to those disagreeing with Zubrin as I did in the post mentioned above. A more complete and balanced list than you gave by the way. Any claim I am suppressing the other side is ridiculous.

RE: "BD: We don't fear monger. ICAMSR raises public awareness to the problems of forward and back contamination. It is foll hardy to return smapls of Mars to the Earth if you don't know how any lifeforms would effect the biosphere. Plus, spacecraft missions fail. Like NASA's Polar Lander, Mars Orbiter and even Columbia. So here you have a scenario where technology fails and something bad happens. Now imagine a scenario where an MSR return capsule suffers some mishap and ends up in the bottom of the Pacific Ocena or worse? You don't think this needs to be addressed? Then maybe you should replace Mark Dittmore as the shuttle program manager.

I listed specific examples of fear mongering and you stood by every one. Your basic form of response is we don't know and you somehow think this justifies raising a fear without evidence. That logic applies to any possible concern and would allow no practical judgement of relative risk or prioritization. Risk assessments are based on what is known not what is unknown. The NRC recommendations are based on the fact that some microbes do pose hazards, the frequency which they pose hazards, how they pose those hazards, and how the conditions on Mars relate to all of those to conclude the risk is very low but not zero. You choose to ignore all that and inspire fear solely based on hypothetical situations without support.

Your mission failure claims totally ignore the fact that the method you favor does nothing to address that. MSR could miss the ISS or other sapce station even easier than it could take a bad profile through Earth's atmosphere. Docking methods could fail as well as parachutes. The safest method is to design and test a capsule for the worst possible circumstances - direct impact with Earth with no active control - yet you are categorically opposed to that. No organism on Mars is adapted for conditions at the bottom of Earth's ocean. There is no reason to believe one could survive there as most Earth life can't either despite a much srtronger environmental similarities.

Regards,
Mark