SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The U.S. military mistakenly sent live anthrax bacteria to laboratories in nine U.S. states and a U.S. air base in South Korea, after failing to properly inactivate the bacteria 11 months ago. The anthrax was initially sent from a Utah military lab and was meant to be shipped in an inactive state as part of efforts to develop a field-based test to identify biological threats. No one appears to have developed any symptoms, but have been given treatments as a precaution.
What went wrong? What are the best way to handle diseases such as this?
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Military Mistakenly Ships Live Anthrax To Nine States
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 5, Informative) by Sir Finkus on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:01PM
Anthrax is a rather common livestock disease. It only becomes really nasty if you weaponize it. Was it weaponized anthrax designed to be dispersed through the air? Since the TFA doesn't mention it I'll assume it wasn't, because I doubt any media organization could resist using "weaponized anthrax" if they could. Gotta get those clicks.
It doesn't really present any security implications since getting the Anthrax itself isn't the problem (as I said, it's a rather common disease) the main problems lie with weaponization. I believe the process involves binding the spores to particles of an appropriate size so they linger in the air without being dispersed, and can get deep into the lungs to cause the most serious form of infection.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Friday May 29 2015, @02:49AM
Original submitter here.
I'd like to give Reuters big points for not saying anything like that to get clicks, although it leaves a huge question mark in my mind. From the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the article:
Maybe they weren't weaponizing it, but it sounds like they were experimenting on it as if it were already weaponized. An anti-weaponization experiment of sorts. I admit that is purely speculation on my part. But why else would they be "sending it into the air"?
In any case, they were putting into the air without "enough safeguards" and that is cause for concern and investigation.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by Joe on Friday May 29 2015, @03:08AM
why else would they be "sending it into the air"
Inhalation anthrax is the most dangerous form, so any procedures that could potentially aerosolize spores have to be treated as if they did to err on the side of caution. Similar precautions were taken for the previous case with the CDC since the samples were used for Mass Spec analysis.
putting into the air without "enough safeguards" and that is cause for concern and investigation
Aerosolization of completely inactivated bacteria would pose no danger to the researchers. Also, the labs were probably still working under BSL-2 safety protocols so they would still act under protocols that would minimize exposure (it isn't like they would intentionally try to inhale inactivated anthrax).
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0711-lab-safety-infographic.html/ [cdc.gov]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix-assisted_laser_desorption/ionization [wikipedia.org]
- Joe