[Max McGarrity]

Anyone else notice how hard it is to determine whether or not someone has anthrax? Heard Brokaw talking about his assistant; apparently it took three tries with two different labs to get the "positive" response. If that is the case, why wouldn't it stand to reason that anthrax has been in the population for years undetected? Only 20% of those left completely untreated for cutaneous exposure die from it. Seems to me this is terrorism by hysteria, nothing more.

[cynwoody]

If that is the case, why wouldn't it stand to reason that anthrax has been in the population for years undetected?

Good question, Max. What is the background level of anthrax exposure? If you simply test random people, without any reason to suspect exposure and in the absence of a terrorism scare, at what rate would they come up positive? Any freeper biologists care to venture a guess?