It is an impossibility for someone to have inhaled 10,000 spores of anthrax, and only have ONE (as the first patient showed) show in the nasal mucosa.
The reports I read said the man tested positive for anthrax spores in his nose not that he had one anthrax spore in his test.
You understand that what people are concerned about is that someone or some group has tried to kill a large number of people with anthrax. It isnt important that they failed to do a good job of it in order for us to take it seriously. Rather than cause a panic this has given people a chance to prepare and a chance for supply to meet demand.
We dont need govt agencies telling us "all is well" and sending people back to work in a conaminated building just to keep people from going into a "panic".
Are you from the FBI sent here to try and calm the waters with misinformation?
These are just some of the ways that one could find only one spore in the nasal mucosa and still inhale 10,000 or 100,000 spores...or a billion spores.
1) The nasal mucosa produces mucous, which traps inhaled particles which you then swallow or blow out your nose. One could inhale a billion spores and within an hour, there might be less than 100 to be found in the nose.
2) When one swabs the nose for testing, they only sample a small part of the nasal cavity...probably less than 5%.
3) One could inhale into the lungs a billion particles,and a nasal swab five minutes later would be negative. Guess how? Inhale and exhale through your mouth.
4) Your assumption is that what they found were spores, not bacteria...I am not sure that is correct...and that these spores were from what the patient inhaled. It may have been that the spores or bacteria were from what the patient exhaled, after the spores or bacteria started growing in the lungs and were coughed up and caught in the nasal mucosa. While it is true anthrax in the lungs is not as likely to sporulate, it doesn't mean that it won't.
8-10000 inhaled spores is the minimum average dose required to cause anthrax, but it may be less in some people with lung disease or who are immunosuppressed.
I say again and for the above reasons. You cannot estimate the inhaled dose of spores based on what they found on a nasal swab. Therefore, finding anthrax spores in a person, especially one who shares the same risk factors as someone already proven to have anthrax, effectively means that person has anthrax, and no physician in their right mind would fail to treat the patient for anthrax.
Sort of like Schroedinger's cat. Finding anthrax spores in your nose means you are in some respects, both dead and alive. Elective treatment based on your assertion would be insane.
In fact, I see that they admitted this latest patient to the hospital, but understand she has no symptoms yet. Now, why would they do that? See my previous posts.
The longer you wait to start antibiotic prophylaxis for anthrax, the greater the chance the antibiotic treatment will fail. Therefore, they must have admitted her to give intravenous antibiotics instead of oral prophylactic antibiotics hoping that if she does have subclinical anthrax, they can still treat her in time.