Posted on 10/13/2006 3:46:10 PM PDT by Shermy
On October 24, 2001, the day before Tom Geisbert went to AFIP, Peter Jahrling attended a briefing at the White House where he showed around some Polaroids he took of "goop" oozing out of the chemical-saturated spores he had examined under the TEM. They still didn't realize the "goop" was the chemicals they used to kill the spores. It was their own "goop", but they were still thinking it was some kind of additive put there by terrorists.
At that White House meeting, the FBI asked if there were any chemicals in the anthrax which might indicate a "signature" for the lab that made the spores. That's why Tom Geisbert went to AFIP, and he almost certainly took the Polaroids with him, since they showed an "unidentifiable substance."
In Richard Preston's book he describes how, after the visit to AFIP, they were thinking the "goop" was explained by the detection of silicon and oxygen in the spores. That was the "unidentifiable substance." There was NO OTHER UNIDENTIFIABLE SUBSTANCE. All they saw was "pure spores" when they looked at spores which hadn't been soaked in chemicals.
"This was a key component," Mullick said.
What is her definition of "a key component"? Scientific reports from 1980 show that silicon representing lab contamination showed up on EDX graphs just like the AFIP graph. It was the largest spike on the graph. Did that make lab contamination "a key component"?
The FACTS say they detected silicon and oxygen. The FACTS say everything else is ASSUMPTIONS, NOT FACTS.
You need to understand the difference between ASSUMPTIONS and FACTS.
Ed
Oh please... You are such an ignorant @#$#%$%. Silicon and Oxygen **are** Silica.
Not only do you not understand anthrax, incubation periods, basic post office operational facts, but you also need a high school level remedial chemistry course covering the Periodic Table of Elements and their combinations.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Silicon and Oxygen are known together as "silica."
What about manufactured glass? What about quartz? How did they know the graph didn't represent traces of manufactured glass absorbed from a Petri dish?
They ASSUMED the silicon and oxygen were in the form of silica because silica is used in "weaponizing" spores. But that was just an ASSUMPTION. They had no reason to think it might have been manufactured glass instead. They were looking for an ADDITIVE and they believed they found an additive. Sometimes people find what they are looking for, even if it isn't really there. Columbus thought he found Asia because that's what he was looking for. He died without ever realizing he'd never seen Asia.
Ed
Did that make lab contamination "a key component"?
Er, no.... Why would lab contamination be a "key component" for aerosolization? Do you actually read English, or do you see things in written English that others don't?
She did actually say: "This was a key component," Mullick said. "Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize.
Are you perhaps seeing this when you read the sentence?:
"This was a key contamination component," Mullick said. "It had nothing to do with aerosolization".
How did they know the graph didn't represent traces of manufactured glass absorbed from a Petri dish?
Do you actually know the reason glass is used by chemists? It's because it doesn't react with anything (with the exception of hydrofuoric acid) - and doesn't leave traces on samples that it contains.
"What about quartz? How did they know the graph didn't represent traces of manufactured glass absorbed from a Petri dish?"
Well, they were missing just a "few" elements to conclude quartz, not that you'd know any better.
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF QUARTZ
| Type | Al | As | B | Ca | Cd | Cr | Cu | Fe | K | Li | Mg | Mn | Na | Ni | P | Sb | Ti | Zr | *OH |
| 214 | 14 | <0.002 | <0.2 | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | <0.05 | 0.7 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 1.1 | 0.8 | <5 |
| 219 | 14 | <0.01 | <0.2 | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | <0.05 | 0.7 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 100 | 0.8 | <5 |
| 254 | 14 | <0.1 | <0.2 | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | <0.05 | 0.7 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 500 | 0.8 | <5 |
| 214A | 14 | <0.002 | <0.2 | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | <0.05 | 0.7 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 1.1 | 0.8 | <1 |
| 214 Rod, 214 LD | 14 | <0.002 | <0.2 | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | <0.05 | 0.7 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 10 |
| 224/224 Rod | 14 | <0.002 | <0.2 | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.03 | 0.2 | <0.2 | <0.2 | 0.1 | <0.03 | <0.2. | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 10 |
| 224 LD | 14 | <0.002 | <0.2 | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.01 | 0.2 | <0.2 | 0.001 | 0.1 | <0.05 | <0.1 | <0.1 | <0.2 | 0.003 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 10 |
| 244/244 Rod | 8 | <0.002 | <0.1 | 0.6 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | <0.2 | <0.2 | <0.1 | <0.03 | <0.2 | <0.1 | <0.2 | 0.003 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 10 |
| 244 LD | 8 | <0.002 | <0.1 | 0.6 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | <0.2 | 0.001 | <0.1 | <0.03 | 0.1 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 10 |
| 124 | 14 | <0.002 | <0.2 | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.1 | <0.05 | 0.7 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 1.1 | 0.8 | <5 |
| 144 | 8 | <0.002 | <0.1 | 0.6 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | <0.2 | <0.2 | <0.1 | <0.03 | <0.2 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 1.4 | 0.3 | <5 |
| 982 WGY | 14 | ** | ** | 0.4 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | <0.1 | <0.03 | <0.2 | <0.1 | <0.2 | <0.003 | 1.4 | 0.3 | <5 |
| 098 WGY | 0.2 | ** | ** | <0.005 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.07 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.1 | <0.05 | 0.7 | ** | ** | ** | 1.1 | 0.8 | 3 |
| 095 WGY | 9 | ** | ** | <0.005 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.07 | 0.1 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.02 | <0.05 | ** | ** | ** | <0.02 | <0.02 | 10 |
| 095 WGY | 9 | ** | ** | <0.005 | <0.01 | <0.05 | <0.05 | 0.07 | 0.1 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.02 | 0.1 | ** | ** | ** | <0.02 | <0.02 | <10 |
| 510, 520, 530, 512, 522, 532 | 14, 8 | <0.01, <0.01 | <0.2, <0.1 | 0.4, 0.6 | <0.01, <0.01 | <0.05, <0.05 | <0.05, <0.05 | 0.2, 0.2 | 0.6, 0.5 | 0.6, 0.5 | 0.1, <0.1 | <0.05, <0.05 | 0.7, 0.7 | <0.1, <0.1 | <0.2, <0.2 | <0.003, <0.003 | 1.1, 1.4 | 0.8, 0.2 | 50, 50 |
| 567, 577, 587, 568, 578, 588 | 14, 8 | <0.01, <0.01 | <0.2, <0.2 | 0.4, 0.6 | <0.01, <0.01 | <0.05, <0.05 | <0.05, <0.05 | 0.2, 0.5 | <0.03, <0.03 | <0.01, <0.01 | 0.1, <0.1 | <0.05, <0.05 | <0.02, <0.02 | <0.1, <0.1 | <0.2, <0.2 | <0.003, <0.003 | 1.1, 1.4 | 0.8, 0.2 | 70, 70 |
There's nothing wrong with that sentence. It's totally true. Silica DOES help prevent anthrax from absorbing moisture and aggregating, which DOES help make anthrax easier to aerosolize.
Mullick is stating a fact about anthrax in general. She didn't say, "The anthrax was put into the powder to keep the anthrax from aggregating." She's confirming that she was MAKING AN ASSUMPTION by making a general statment and implying it was true for the attack anthrax.
Ed
You are an idiot. You know nothing. They found silica. They reported silica. You don't even know what makes silica.
You are an idiot. Silica is an additive for weaponizing anthrax. Find silica in anthrax and you've found weaponization, not "contamination" that doesn't (can't) happen because pure fused silica glass doesn't leave traces of itself (that's why people go to the expense of using it for equipment in lab analysis).
This guy is a piece of work. He knows nothing, is contradicted by facts at every turn, yet parrots nonsense with the certainly of a village idiot.
I suppose the drugs you are taking will also help reconcile your statement "She's confirming that she was MAKING AN ASSUMPTION by making a general statment and implying it was true for the attack anthrax." with the first two sentences of the AFIP report? :
When US Army investigators at Ft Detrick, Md, examined anthrax found in a letter sent to Sen. Thomas Daschle last fall, they discovered that the highly refined spores floated in the air, making them much easier for potential victims to inhale. What made this anthrax so easily aerosolized?
Yes, I know that. But I ALSO KNOW that there were two scientific reports written in 1980 where silicon was detected in spores and the scientists couldn't come up with any explanation for it EXCEPT that it must have come from lab equipment.
The first report was:
M. Stewart, et al. (1980) Distribution of calcium and other elements in cryosectioned bacillus cereus T spores, determined by high-resolution scanning electron probe X-ray microanalysis. Journal of Bacteriology 143: 481-491.
It included a graph which showed a "huge spike" for silicon. That spike is shown on the image HERE.
One might interpret that large spike as meaning that silicon was a "major component". It's the largest spike in graph B where the natural coat was examined. The authors of that scientific report wrote:
"An unexpectedly high concentration of silicon was found in the cortex/coat layer."
"The silicon content of the cortex/coat layer may result from specific incorporation or from contamination from glassware or from silicone vacuum oils employed in the apparatus used to freeze-dry the spores. Since there was considerable variation in silicon content both within and between different spore preparations, we considered it unlikely that the effect could be due entirely to contamination. The presence of silicon might explain the ash deposits seen at the periphery of spores after microincineration [here reference is given to a 1964 paper by other workers]"
Plus, there is another report from 1980:
K. Johnstone, et al. (1980) Location of metal ions in bacillus megaterium spores by high-resolution electron probe X-ray microanalysis. FEMS Microbiology Letters 7: 97-101.
This report contains a different kind of graph, a map of where the silicon was found on and in a spore. The images are HERE.
The authors wrote:
"Detectable amounts of zinc and silicon are located in the coat, and coat plus core, respectively."
"Linescans for silicon (unpublished results) confirmed the high levels of silicon in the coats and also the resolution of the method."
"The biological significance of the silicon observed in the coats and cortex is in doubt since it may be derived from glass culture vessels."
Both reports showed HIGH LEVELS of silicon. The scientists thought it might be from "glass culture vessels." If you think that is impossible, your argument is with them, not with me.
Ed
You are *so* busted.
That won't phase Ed Lake in the least. His obsession for the inaccuracy AFIP report borders on religious fanatacism.
"The silicon content of the cortex/coat layer may result from specific incorporation or from contamination from glassware or from silicone vacuum oils employed in the apparatus used to freeze-dry the spores. Since there was considerable variation in silicon content both within and between different spore preparations, we considered it unlikely that the effect could be due entirely to contamination. The presence of silicon might explain the ash deposits seen at the periphery of spores after microincineration [here reference is given to a 1964 paper by other workers]"
What kind of glassware were these guys using? Sugar glass?
You are an idiot. Random lab contamination, even if possible, wouldn't explain the aerosolization of the anthrax sample.
Actually, calling you an idiot is only half-fair. The full truth is that you are deliberately obfuscating in order to prop up your failing agenda.
There were a lot of misconceptions about anthrax at the time of the attacks, one of them being that natural, untreated spores could not easily aerosolize or reaerosolize. That's evidently the prime reason that Dr. Beecher wrote his report. That assumption was FALSE.
And it's clear that USAMRIID and AFIP didn't realize it was a misconception when they examined the attack anthrax. It wasn't really fully realized until other scientists noticed how easily the attack spores could reaerosolize in the Senate offices where the letters had been opened.
Dr. Beecher points out that it is misleading and dangerous to promote beliefs that natural spores cannot easily aerosolize. It is simply WRONG to believe that.
Ed
Ridicule seems to be your response to everything which does not support your beliefs.
You are showing once again that you cannot deal with facts.
Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
