Soothe or alarm: What is "weaponized" anthrax?

Karsten M. Self kmself at ix.netcom.com
Sun Oct 28 18:31:23 PST 2001


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 <kmself at ix.netcom.com>       http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                     http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html

[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list