http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-anthrax15-2008aug15,0,7898836.story?page=1&track=rss
Latest from the Los Angeles Times, same author of the first Ivins story. The one with the quotes from the brother in Ohio.
I think it is significant as it is a blatant attempt to massage answers to questions from Grassley and others.
It’s actually funny, very fiskable, if the situation weren’t so tragic.
I didn’t think the LA Times article added anything, except perhaps to highlight that someone at Ft. Detrick is pointing at him based on working late etc.
Allan,
A number of experts have responded to the question I forwarded. Here is the first email I’ve opened. I don’t want to be naming distinguished microbiologists in this context. But this is what he says which is persuasive because of its factual content:
“It is a matter of record that Dugway produced spore powders prior to the 2001 anthrax attack. This work was performed at or below BSL-3. (Dugway did not possess a BSL-4 facility.)
It is a matter of record that Dugway produced spore powders following the 2001 anthrax attack, in an effort to “reverse engineer” the attack material and also for separate studies involving assessment of decontamination procedures. This work was performed at or below BSL-3. (Dugway did not possess a BSL-4 facility.)
It is a matter of record that the US, the UK, the USSR, Iraq and possibly others produced spore powders in the second half of the twentieth century. This work was performed at or below BSL-3. (Most bioweapons-production plants did not possess BSL-4 facilities. No ton-scale bioweapons-production plant operated as a BSL-4 facility.)
Only a fool or knave would assert that the material could not be prepared at BSL-3..
P.S. With respect to the differences between BSL-3 and BSL-4, the differences are summarized at: http://www.cdc.gov/OD/ohs/biosfty/bmbl4/bmbl4s3.htm “