Because it has nothing to do with the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Because your hatred for Professor Meselson seems pathological, and I don't want to give you cause to spout more about your mindless hatred.
Because you use your hatred for Professor Meselson as a reason to avoid discussing the facts about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Because I'm only interested in discussing the facts about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Ed,
Hasn’t it been your position in dozens of posts that silica would have no usefulness in weaponizing anthrax .. in aerosolizing anthrax? With TrebleRebel arguing the opposite?
What did you think of the patent, available Lawrence Livermore authors that said:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070093593.html
“Re-aerosolization is especially problematic where the hazardous contaminant is a very small particle less than 5 .mu.m in size, such as B. anthracis spores, since such particles are readily aerosolizable, have an ability to remain airborne (aerosols with a particle size of 0.1 to 1 .mu.m tend to remain suspended), and can achieve significant diffusive motion in much the same fashion as for gas molecules. Weaponized B. anthracis spores in particular, are very small refined particles which are uniform in size and appearance (approximately 1 to 3 .mu.m in size), highly concentrated, ELECTROSTATICALLY CHARGED, and treated to reduce clumping. Due to their very small size and ability to remain airborne, weaponized B. anthracis spores are more likely to be inhaled and are thus considerably more lethal than unrefined spores. Furthermore, these spores have been shown to re-aerosolize with common office activities such as paper handling and foot traffic.
As an example, particles can include a coating that acts to separate them, RESULTING IN SPACING TOO LARGE FOR VAN DER WAALS FORCES to cause the particles to adhere and thus aggregate and deposit onto surfaces. Various contaminants are of a sufficiently small size (0.5-5 .mu.m) to lodge in the lung tissue, remain in the breathing zone and readily re-suspend.”
Aren’t the Lawrence Livermore authors, with LL doing key work on microbial forensics for the FBI, saying the opposite of what you are saying in hundreds of posts on this very narrow issue of silica?
Do you recall the names of the young scientists at Lawrence Livermore who were doing work for the FBI reflected in MICROBIAL FORENSICS?
Now note the Dugway simulant commonly provided for such studies is 20 percent silica. (see pubmed article below) But the Daschle product is “pure spores” — albeit with silica detected. So the inference to be made is that the silica was removed by repeated centrifugation as Henry Niman posited years ago (whether used in the culture medium or after being dry blended).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1800749
Spore matrix. The material used as the test agent for this study was a
powdered matrix containing B. atrophaeus spores (ATCC 9372; formerly
Bacillus subtilis var. niger and subsequently “Bacillus globigii”) (12)
and silicon dioxide particles obtained from the U.S. Army Dugway Proving
Ground Life Science Division. The spore material was prepared by
cultivating B. atrophaeus in tryptic soy broth (Difco, Detroit, MI)
containing 3 mg/liter MnSO4 (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA). After
80 to 90% sporulation, the spore suspension was centrifuged to obtain a
spore suspension containing approximately 20% solids. Dry spore material
was then prepared from the unwashed spore suspension with a laboratory
spray dryer. The spore material was dry blended with Aerosil R812S fumed
silica particles (Degussa, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) at 80% dry spore
material to 20% silica and jet milled to a uniform particle size. The
final powdered matrix contained approximately 1011 viable
spores/g. The B. atrophaeus spore material was expressly designed to
enhance aerosol suspension and inhalation characteristics, and the
removal, extraction, and recovery characteristics of a different Bacillus
species, native spore material, or spore material prepared by a different
method may differ.”
Now in the two sentences reportedly written by Professor Meselson, he says the danger is that biodefense research efforts will be misdirected if it is not appreciated that no sophisticated additives were used. ... if it is not understood that there is great danger in simply prepared preparations.
But silica is not a sophisticated additive. Beecher never said silica was not detected. If you don’t believe me, just ask him.
Why on earth are you rehashing stuff about Ari Fleischer’s book or personal opinion about someone not involved in the investigation when you have peer-reviewed representations about the make-up of the Dugway simulant?
Formal representations which were shared with you a day or two ago that totally contradict what you’ve been arguing for years?