Posted on 03/20/2003 6:40:13 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:35:49 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Monday's elevation of the terror alert level was followed by Tuesday's scary headlines: "Anthrax attack could cost 100,000+ lives" and "Modeling of bio-attack on large city predicts mass casualties with prior distribution of antibiotics."
The headlines were spawned by the publication (Mar. 17) of a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicting that a large-scale anthrax attack on a major U.S. city could cause 123,000 deaths, given our current level of preparedness.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Link to the model, Bones?
You can't really see it, smell it or taste it. And it has an incubation period. I wouldn't be so smug yet. Though, I hope you are right.
Guess I should have been more specific. I was trying to point out how shallow that kind of reasoning is. The article provided nothing legitimate to back up its conclusions.
For instance, the author seemed to think it was significant that anthrax spores had to be very small in order to penetrate far enough into the lungs to be a problem. He pointed out that particles that small are very difficult to make, and seemed to think he had proved something. All he had actually done was prove that only people who really know what they are doing could make dangerous anthrax. So what? Since we are up against people who DO have the ability to make weaponized anthrax, the author did nothing whatsoever to support his point with this argument.
The examples the author used were uniformly misleading. No one says distributing NON weaponized anthrax is going to kill millions of people. Quite the contrary. To make anthrax a threat, you have to really know what you are doing. Likewise, the Russian release was much MORE deadly than expected from a realease of that size and type.
To pick another point the author completely screwed up: Selection of modeling assumptions. A large part of my life has been spent making mathematical models, and I can tell you the author has no clue. He is calling for assumptions based on probability distributions, and claiming that anything less is somehow useless as a tool. He could not possibly be more wrong. In many cases the selection of the probability distributions is so subjective that the results are meaningless. However, analysis of the same situation using a specified set of conditions can be extremely useful as a starting point for decision making.
A final point (I'm on a role). The study assumed an attack with only one kilogram of anthrax powder. More complex studies have assumed releases of 100 TIMES this much. Hence his disparaging comments about "perfect wind conditions" is offset by an off-setting assumption in the other direction. Hence, the study could just as easily be faulted for a much too optimistic starting point. Furthermore, is the author saying deaths of 100,000 plus was too high, and we should be happy because he thinks it would only be half as much? GIMME A BREAK!
Unfortunately I have work to do this evening, so my first post was apparently too short to make my point. It would be fine if the author wanted to rationally argue that anthrax is not a threat. I would really like to see that position rationally presented.
But thus far, all the legitimate information I have seen is that properly weaponized anthrax is a MAJOR threat. This article contributed absolutely nothing except hot air to the debate.
Got to get back to work. /rant
I know.
I was offering you the opportunity to make a link to that post, silly!
I would really like to see that position rationally presented
I am afraid the only way we are going to see a more realistic scenario put forward is in real time...if you catch my drift.
Yes I do. Sadly.
It would see that we are doing very well so far, but it may be too soon to tell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.