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?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Gravis on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:41PM
What went wrong?
the article said the CDC is investigating. SN editors, why did you asked the readers?
What are the best way to handle diseases such as this?
SN editors, this is they type of question for an infectious disease specialist... like oh i dunno, the CDC!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 29 2015, @12:37AM
Make fun of jbwolf, not the editors.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Gravis on Friday May 29 2015, @01:26AM
look at the original submission, it's the editors, not jbwolf that asked.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 29 2015, @01:44AM
Point taken.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Friday May 29 2015, @03:05AM
It's ok. You can make fun of me. No one refrained in all my years of school and jobs. If I'm not being ribbed, I don't feel loved. ;)
More seriously, I addressed Gravis' issue in this comment [soylentnews.org].
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 29 2015, @02:14AM
It is surprising who you find in the readership. There could be a CDC person here somewhere : ) Older slashdot had all kinds of big names and positions pop up occasionally. But you are right, it is clearly calling for speculation, lol.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Friday May 29 2015, @02:59AM
Original submitter here.
No, not really. When I submitted the article, I had a worry about people trolling because of the nature of the article. The article is fairly neutral and what I submitted is fairly neutral. (In my opinion.) I don't know of a good way to handle an article that invites trolls despite benign intentions. Some subjects are just like that. It was my hope that there could be a CDC person (or equivalent knowledge) on here who we could bounce questions off of. I expressed the trolling concern to the editors (as you can see in the original submission) and they took their best shot to help direct the conversation. You misinterpreted that as speculation.
What suggestions do you have to prevent speculation and trolling in an article like this? I'm curious to know and I'm sure the editors are too.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday May 29 2015, @01:19PM
I don't see anything wrong with speculation as long as it makes logical sense. It can actually be a lot of fun. But if you don't want to encourage any speculation then the story needs the five W's [wikipedia.org]. If you are submitting a story and not writing it then that may not be possible.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.