And what if that "expert" has probably never actually made weaponized anthrax or anthrax simulants? The main author of the Aerosol Science article probably hasn't. He got the simulants from scientists at Dugway. What if that "expert" says he believes that the anthrax powders in the attack of 2001 were made the same way Dugway makes anthrax powders, and the experts at Dugway didn't contradict him? But, what if MANY other, better informed "experts" say otherwise? And what if there is an abundance of evidence which says otherwise?
Do you still feel we should mindlessly believe this "qualified expert" even on matters he evidently knows nothing about just because it's something a "qualified expert" believes?
I've talked with many "experts" on anthrax who do not keep up on the news about the anthrax attacks of 2001 and who are totally wrong in their beliefs because they haven't kept up-to-date. Should I mindlessly believe them, even when I KNOW they are wrong?
We've got a former postal employee on this forum who is absolutely certain the anthrax letters were all mailed in Florida at the same time, then somehow got separated into two different batches containing two different types of powders, and those two different batches somehow got postmarked on two different days, three weeks apart, in New Jersey.
Do you believe we should accept everything this "expert" says because he once worked for the U.S. Postal Service?
I accept what an "expert" says IF AND ONLY IF what he says is shown to be true by known facts and there is absolutely no reason to believe he is wrong.
It's unfortunate that those "experts" at the CDC in Cincinati didn't just stick to their area of expertise - sampling methods - and had to mention their beliefs about the anthrax attacks of 2001 in their article. What they wrote in their article about sampling methods could be very valuable. But they stepped on a "land mine" when they mentioned the anthrax attacks of 2001. And it exploded. And it could wipe out all the good work their article provides to people interested in sampling methods.
Maybe if enough scientists understand that they are entering a "mine field" any time they mention the anthrax attacks of 2001, they'll be more careful in what they say. And maybe they'll demand that more facts be made public about the anthrax powders that were in the anthrax letters so that the "mine field" can be eliminated.
Ed,
Here are the Maureen Stevens briefs in pdf available. Today’s oral argument is also available in real time today. Can you link either this link or also the briefs on your webpage and circulate this link to your anthrax list? Thanks.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/07/07-1074/index.html
“And what if that “expert” has probably never actually made weaponized anthrax or anthrax simulants? The main author of the Aerosol Science article probably hasn’t. He got the simulants from scientists at Dugway.”
Whilst I’m not going to waste time correcting the numerous science mistakes you have made in the last few dozen posts I will point out that the new paper is a joint Dugway/CDC study.
The lead author from Dugway, Lloyd Larsen, has been Dugway’s top simulant specialist for years. He’s been making silica coated simulants for years - and he made silica coated Bacillus Anthracis especially for this joint study. As the authors clearly stated - this was to simulate the spores used in the 2001 attacks.