Re: NS update on anthrax source

["Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2001, Chris Burford wrote:

> Today's New Scientist (as always, informed, materialist, progressive in
> political leanings) has an article
>
> "The secret is out"
>
> "The anthrax spores in the letters seem to have undergone the same
> 'weaponisation' technique used to make US bioweapons in the 1960's, a
> source who cannot be named told New Scientist this week.
>
> This involves treating anthrax cultures with chemicals that make them break
> into small clumps of spores as they dry, allowing them to stay separate,
> airborne, - and inhalable.
>
> ...the US 's weaponising recipe is supposed to be a closely guarded secret.
> If the anthrax has indeed undergone US-style weaponisation, then either the
> secret is out or the attacks are being made with leftovers from the
> American weapons programme.
>
> Analyses of the anthrax have focussed on the largest sample available, from
> the envelope sent to Senator Tom Daschle. These particles are between 1.5
> and 3 micrometres across, and contain the drying agent silica but no traces
> of the anticaking agent the Iraqis tried to use without success.
>
> The Soviets did succeed in making dry anthrax, but their milling process
> reportedly yielded particles with a wider size range.
>
> The spores found in ventilation filters in Washington DC postal offices,
> and the growing number of cases in postal workers, also support the idea
> that the anthrax was treated to help it spread through the air. Half of the
> 16 victims so far worked for the US Postal Service."
>
>
>
> [Now what sort of person could be that unnamed source. And why would they
> want this information discretely public?]


A dove who wants to counteract the attempt by hawks to blame the anthrax
scare on Iraq as a pretext for invading Iraq.  That issue is on the back
burner for now, but I fear it will eventually come back to the front
burner.

Fred