Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Top Anthrax Scientists made Contradictory Statements

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 05:01 PM
Original message
Top Anthrax Scientists made Contradictory Statements
Edited on Wed Aug-13-08 05:15 PM by AntiFascist
In this landmark NY Times editorial published December 3, 2001, William Broad introduced the idea to the general public that the dry anthrax powder mailed to Senators was virtually indistinguishable from that produced by government military, but this was before it shut down its bioweapon program in 1969. (This is a critical propaganda point because around the same time, reports in the Baltimore Sun indicated that similar Ames strain weaponized anthrax were currently being produced for the Dugway Proving Ground, more on this later)

From the NY Times editorial:

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/nyt120301.html


A yardstick for measuring the quality of anthrax emerged more than two years ago when William C. Patrick III, a longtime federal consultant and one of the nation's top experts on biological weapons, wrote a report assessing the possible risks if terrorists were to send anthrax through the mail. Based on the difficulty of developing advanced anthrax, he predicted that the terrorist germs would be one-20th as concentrated as what the government developed and what recently turned letters into munitions.

"The quality of the spores is very good," said a federal science adviser who shared the Patrick report with The New York Times. "This is very high-quality stuff" - equal, he said, in concentration to that produced by the U.S. military before it abandoned germ weapons.

...

Ken Alibek, a former top official in the Soviet germ weapons program, who is now president of Advanced Biosystems, a consulting company in Manassas, Va., said that it was routinely possible to create dry anthrax that contained 100 billion spores per gram and that, with some effort, 500 billion was possible.

...

Still, the 500 billion figure is half the concentration that the American government and whoever sent the letters are said to have achieved. "I don't think they're manufacturing this in caves," Alibek said of the terror anthrax. "It's coming from another source."


Nine days later, December 12, 2001, this article appears in the Baltimore Sun:

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxmatchesarmyspores.html


For nearly a decade, U.S. Army scientists at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah have made small quantities of weapons-grade anthrax that is virtually identical to the powdery spores used in the mail attacks that have killed five people, government sources say.

...

But some experiments require live anthrax, milled to the tiny particle size expected on a battlefield, to test both decontamination techniques and biological agent detection systems, the sources say.

Anthrax is also grown at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, where it is used chiefly to test the effectiveness of vaccines in animals.

But that medical program uses a wet aerosol fog of anthrax rather than the dry powder used in the attacks and at Dugway, according to interviews and medical journal articles based on the research.


Half a year later, on June 1, 2001, this article appeared in the National Journal, where Alibek claims the concentrated form of anthrax could be made virtually anywhere:

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/misc2.html#nj020601


If the U.S. anthrax was very pure but not specially weaponized, could it have been made by amateurs? In small quantities, yes, according to both Alibek and Meselson. It could be done, Alibek says, with "a very simple, nonindustrial process -- a very primitive process -- that could let you get a trillion spores in one gram. You can't make hundreds of kilos, but you could make hundreds of grams at this concentration."

Meselson concurs. "It's something that could be done by a fair number of people." The necessary glassware, culturing media, centrifuges, and so on "would exist in a large number of places, both hospitals and laboratories -- widespread."





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. These facts raise interesting questions.
I have no clue about the answers but I kick and recommend just in case someone else has some idea of the significance of this. The supply of this type of anthrax was destroyed prior to 1969? Is that what I understand here? But, the Dugway Proving Ground still made small quantities of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-13-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes....

Ken Alibek is a Soviet defector. He claims that the military division of the Russian government still maintains a secret bioweapons programs, creating stockpiles of anthrax and other germ weapons going against international treaties. In one statement he made I believe he even called the treaty a joke.

He has also stated that the anthrax mailed to senators is unlike anything ever developed by Russia. Others claim that the concentrated powdered form is almost identical to that produced at Dugway.

It seems that lately there is never any mention of the US program at Dugway, either in the media or by the FBI. Its like it got swept back under the rug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC