Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well outside the body, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. HIV is found in varying concentrations or amounts in blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, saliva, and tears. To obtain data on the survival of HIV, laboratory studies have required the use of artificially high concentrations of laboratory-grown virus. Although these unnatural concentrations of HIV can be kept alive for days or even weeks under precisely controlled and limited laboratory conditions, CDC studies have shown that drying of even these high concentrations of HIV reduces the amount of infectious virus by 90 to 99 percent within several hours. Since the HIV concentrations used in laboratory studies are much higher than those actually found in blood or other specimens, drying of HIV-infected human blood or other body fluids reduces the theoretical risk of environmental transmission to that which has been observed - essentially zero. Incorrect interpretations of conclusions drawn from laboratory studies have in some instances caused unnecessary alarm.
Results from laboratory studies should not be used to assess specific personal risk of infection because (1) the amount of virus studied is not found in human specimens or elsewhere in nature, and (2) no one has been identified as infected with HIV due to contact with an environmental surface. Additionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions; therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host (CDC: National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention
http://www.aids-ir.org/EN/About_HIV-AIDS.html#04
This topic brings back a freeper post durring the anthrax incident after 9-11.I can't remember the freeper's name, but I won't forget this "theory" on the topic.
His(or her)post came up with this possible answer:
What if the anthrax letters were actually a not-so-subtle threat by Saddam after 9-11??
The reasons for the "mini" anthrax attack, was to threaten the Bush administration if we were going to invade Iraq, because of the tie-ins with Al-Queda and Saddam's BIG role in training them and letting them use Iraq as a "terrorist basic training site" to attack the US.
Saddam was playing the Oil-For-Food (OFF) thing, and had no way to retaliate against the US in any open attack that could be traced back to him.
Therefore, the Anthrax was the way to go. The US was still smarting from 9-11, had the "Gorelick Wall" still in place,Homeland Security was in BARELY underway, and we didn't have ANY idea if a large scale attack was already set to go here with nothing but a "GO" signal to set it off.
If you were the Bush administration at that time, how would you respond to a threat like that?? The airlines were all going broke because of so many people afraid to fly after the 9-11 attacks. Can you imagine a country wide coordinated anthrax attack, with the USPS as the main vehicle, and major ventalation systems in some of the larger buildings, and then in say the major public transportation systems ALL AT THE SAME TIME??
The Bush administration could have been "blackmailed" very easily by Saddam and Al-Queda, by saying they would do a full blown attack if Bush tried to pin the first attack on him. The attack would have been very hard to prove and connect it on Saddam and Al-Queda in the UN arena, due to the state of our intellegence apparatus at that time, and all the UN member countries involved in it, who could have also been "blackmailed" by Saddam and Al-Queda by threatening to expose them in the scandal if they didn't keep obstructing the US from gathering international support for the US and coalition almost certain retaliatory invasion because of the 9-11 and anthrax attacks.
The Bush adminisration could also NOT GO PUBLIC with this information. It would have devestated the US economy, not to mention the mass panic and fear. No US mail delivery for an extended period of time,due to the leaking of information like that is almost unimagionable. The incubation period alone is such an effective weapon, that by the time we realized that a wide spread attack had taken place,.....well let's just say it would be a major "problem".
And what if this "theory" really was true???
I would have to consider a major anthrax attack on the US in the WMD catagory. Why haven't we found out who did it yet?? IIRC, the "type" of anthrax used was only available to approximately four different locations in the world, with one of the four being in Iraq.
Can you imagine being President Bush, knowing what he knew, but not being able to go public with it?? Knowing for the VERY SURVIVAL OF THE US, HE HAD TO RETALIATE, or the "mudlums" would know they were on their way to our total destruction because we DID NOT RESPOND.
And worse yet, having to take all the crap he's taking since then, because the WMD reason given for our invasion of Iraq, didn't find ANY "Weapon's of Mass Destruction" in Iraq, according to the MSM, and the Dems, and all the Bush haters.
And one more thing before I close...can you imagine if some of the major Dem politial anti-Bush bunch DO know about the situation Bush is in because of his not being able to expose it as yet, and are using it AGAINST HIM by painting Bush as a liar with this NO-WMD's in Iraq, so Bush is a liar mantra??.....
Sorry for the "rant", but IMHO, I considered that freeper's post kinda interesting.....