I posted on this question Oct 21, saying:
[Rep Frist's (R-TN) comment] leads one to question the descriptions
of anthrax as "weaponized" and "non-weaponized", particularly as
there are several dimensions of weaponization. The lesser is spore
size, with 5 micron being the preferred form for inducing inhalation
anthrax. The greater is antibiotic resistance, and it appears that
this is the criterion on which statements of "non-weaponized
anthrax" are being made. Truth seems to be that resistance is
secondary to spore size given the difficulty of treating advanced
cases of inhalation anthrax.
My suggestion to the press would be to disaggregate the term
"weaponized" to its components: inhalable, and antibiotic
resistant. This provides the public with more useful information:
the bacterium is or is not a grave infection threat (inhalable), and
the bacterium is or is not treatable (resistant). This is
actionable information: inhalable, but nonresistant, anthrax means
that individuals should be aware of respiratory illness symptoms and
submit for early diagnosis and/or treatment.
Today's SF Chronicle reports:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/10/28/MN188786.DTL&t
ype=printable
When it comes to describing anthrax, it is as if they are speaking
different languages.
"Weapons-grade material," Gephardt, the House Democratic leader from
Missouri, told reporters this week, describing the potency of the
anthrax in a letter opened in Daschle's office.
"Common variety," Senate Majority Leader Daschle from South Dakota
said of the same white powder.
Scientists say both are right.
The material was weapons grade, in the sense that it was finely
milled and aerosolized to make it easier to infiltrate a victim's
lungs. At the same time,
it was a common variety that was not genetically altered, making it
fully treatable with common antibiotics.
So which statement is more responsible?
[...]
"I don't think 'weaponized' has any medical or scientific value,"
[Ridge] explained late this week. "It seems to have different
meanings . . . to different people."
The discrepancy in labeling the potency of the poison is a perfect
illustration of the challenges confronting authorities as they try
to communicate complex, evolving and grim information on live
television, often on an hourly basis.
The failure to use precise language can have fatal consequences.
On Oct. 18, three days after Daschle's letter was opened, Postmaster
General John Potter invited the press into a mail facility in
southeast Washington, and told the assembled reporters and workers
that "there is only a minute chance" that anthrax spores could have
escaped from envelopes and harmed postal workers.
Today, Potter is on a 60-day dose of antibiotics. So are the
reporters and anyone else who attended the news conference,
including Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams and his
80-year-old mother. Two workers at the facility have since died.
Authorities knew at the time that the refined spores were highly
potent, but based on previous experience in New Jersey and Florida,
had no reason to believe they would contaminate the Washington mail
house. And they wanted to calm anxious postal workers.
"The administration has been forthright in making information known
as soon as information is available," said White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer. "It is the nature of this type of attack involving
anthrax that information develops over time."
Nevertheless, there is frustration from those who feel that soft
words intended to soothe might instead lull people into a false
sense of complacency.
"I think we've got to stop parsing words and trying to be anything
other than accurate about what this is," Gephardt said of the
biological attack on the Capitol. "This is highly sophisticated
material. It is small in size and it aerosolizes, and so you've got
to be careful in the way it can be handled.
"I believe people are smart. If you arm them (people) with accurate
information, you have a better chance of preventing successful
attacks," Gephardt said.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self