[EdLake]

So the quotes that you want to be true are correct and the quotes that I give were misinterpreted by the author - have I got that right?

For what it's worth, I reread the version of the AP article I have on my site and put some comments about it on my site HERE.

I sum things up this way:

One fact seems evident in all the articles: Spores in a biological weapon should not have an electrostatic charge. The unanswered questions are about why that is true.

Ed

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

[TrebleRebel]

"One fact seems evident in all the articles: Spores in a biological weapon should not have an electrostatic charge."

With the exception of the General Accounting Office article - which states that a sophisticated anthrax bioweapon would carry a whopping electrostatic charge. Since this was no doubt written by a US biodefense specialist, it is the closet thing we have to official US position. It also makes a lot of sense, by the way. Any aerosol specialist will tell you that charged powders make excellent aerosols if they carry a net-like-charge.

Looks like you're wrong again - bet you don't publish the GAO article on your website - since it contradicts your theory.

[TrebleRebel]

I also just noticed that Gary Matsumoto's Scince article states that the most sophisticated bioweapons carry a net-like-charge. That should be considered the final word. This article was apparently passed by half-a-dozen exeprts to check for scientific accuracy.

Why don't you send a letter to Science - think they would pubish it?

The point is that it really doesn't matter what you think - the world has now accepted that anthrax carries a charge if it's a sophisticated product.