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"Linescans for silicon (unpublished results) confirmed the high levels of silicon in the coats and also the resolution of the method."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
"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.
