Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Maringa
It's a red herring. The key, course, is not whether the anthrax is bio-engineered, but how it is processed for delivery. The stuff in Daschle's office had to be processed to a very fine degree, which points to the involvement of a government, which in turn means a nuclear attack on Iraq's weapons facilities is due about now. Since the government finds that prospect unpalatable (or is, at least, not yet ready to embark on such a course), it is throwing up every red herring it can find to change the subject.
6 posted on 10/25/2001 1:44:23 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Mr. Jeeves
Yes. Earlier today Ridge said, concerning the issue of weponized anthrax, 'it was utilized as a weapon'. That should be the end of the story. Weaponized but beatable with Cipro. Just thank the Pharmiceutical companies for developing this product. Without, we would be dropping like flies.
16 posted on 10/25/2001 1:51:48 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Jeeves
It's a red herring. The key, course, is not whether the anthrax is bio-engineered, but how it is processed for delivery. The stuff in Daschle's office had to be processed to a very fine degree, which points to the involvement of a government, which in turn means a nuclear attack on Iraq's weapons facilities is due about now. Since the government finds that prospect unpalatable (or is, at least, not yet ready to embark on such a course), it is throwing up every red herring it can find to change the subject.

VERY well put. I do believe you're probably right.

19 posted on 10/25/2001 1:52:51 PM PDT by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Jeeves
This October 25 article in the Washington Post is very helpful in understanding some of the means used to identify the source of anthrax. I will quote almost all of eight of the twenty-four paragraphs in it, with my comments interspersed. I am _not_ a scientist so take my comments as opinion rather than fact. First here is the URL:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47864-2001Oct24.html

"The ongoing USAMRIID studies on the spores used in the U.S. attacks involve examinations using conventional microscopes and scanning electron microscopes, along with complex chemical analyses that are difficult to conduct even when the bacteria in question are not dangerous. [sentence omitted]

Results of those tests have not been made public beyond a simple description of how small the spore particles were in the Daschle letter. That particle size, 1 1/2 to 3 microns in diameter, said Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), is extremely small -- a first requirement for making "weapons grade" anthrax spores for warfare or terrorism."

The usual way anthrax spores are created is to first create a "wet" anthrax culture and then dry it (taking the lid off the jar is one way). The dehydration will cause the anthrax to form spores. But just how the spores are dried is critical to other matters, so drying them in the proper fashion is not easy.

Among other things, anthrax spores come in a great variety of sizes, but only spores of about one to five microns in diameter can cause pulmonary anthrax. The spores must be under five microns in size to be inhaled deep enough into the lungs to be infectious, but more than a micron across so they will adhere to the lungs.

Side note: anthrax spores of sizes under one micron and over five microns can cause cutaneous and intestinal anthrax. They just won't cause pulmonary anthrax.

What type of drying method is used to create anthrax spores from wet cultures can determine the "yield" of spores of the desired diameters, and how easy it is to treat them so the spores won't clump together in groups in excess of five microns in diameter.

These drying methods are one means of determining the country which created the spores, though that means is not exclusive. It is possible to create small amounts of spores with, for a given country, non-standard (relative to the most common method aka "production standard) drying methods, at greater expense, for experimentation and deception purposes.

And post-spore production techniques are commonly used to increase the number of spores of the desired diameters. Milling is a common method, but the milling methods are reputedly not something which can be done effectively without use of rare and expensive machines operated by skilled personnel. Improper milling can reputedly make the spores some to almost totally harmless, and certainly make them impossible to keep them from clumping together.

Getting back to the Post article:

"In the United States, that problem was solved by Bill Patrick, who developed the process at Fort Detrick as part of the U.S. biological weapons program that ended in 1969. The process is protected by at least five secret patents held by Patrick. It involved freeze drying and chemical processing and was achieved without having to grow vast quantities of spores or mill them to terribly small dimensions, Patrick and other experts said.
... [paragraph omitted]
The Russian program, which has been described in detail by Ken Alibek, who ran it for many years before moving to the United States to do biological research, required the production of much larger quantities of spores that were more heavily milled than the U.S. spores and used a different kind of freezing and coating process.

The Iraqi technique, uncovered by U.N. inspectors, was a novel one-step process that involved drying spores in the presence of aluminum-based clays or silica powders, said Richard Spertzel, who was part of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) team that was to uncover and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program after the Gulf War. [sentence omitted]

"If [U.S. investigators] can get a clue as to how the material in the Daschle letter was prepared, that might narrow the field," Spertzel said. "It may not pinpoint it, but it may narrow it."

I recall an earlier news story, whose URL someone posted a while ago on the Freep, where Spertzel said the Iraqi method of preparing the spores created a characteristic crystallization pattern which could be identified under a microscope.

Summary: creation of anthrax powders which can cause pulmonary anthrax entails roughly the following steps (note that these are broken into arbitrary steps - as a practical matter they overlap some to a lot depending on the methods used):

1) Create "wet" anthrax cultures;

2) Make dry spores of the culture;

3) Treat the spores so as many as possible will be of the right size;

4) Turn the spores into powder;

5) Treat the spores so they won't clump together.

48 posted on 10/25/2001 2:22:51 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Jeeves
777 -- ching, ching, ching.
49 posted on 10/25/2001 2:24:07 PM PDT by Hemlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Jeeves
It's a red herring. The key, course, is not whether the anthrax is bio-engineered, but how it is processed for delivery.

BINGO!!!!!!

54 posted on 10/25/2001 2:28:48 PM PDT by Pericles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Mr. Jeeves
It's a red herring. The key, course, is not whether the anthrax is bio-engineered, but how it is processed for delivery

You're so smart!! Glad to see someone here has the half a brain I'm missing.

86 posted on 10/25/2001 4:09:04 PM PDT by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson