[aldo_14]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/26/anthrax_shopping_spree/

[neo_hermes]

wtf are they doin.

[Bobboau]

probly studying ways of desposal and infection controle.

[Roanoke]

Quick, where's Hans Blix ?

[Wild Fragaria]

You do not need large amount to practise sterilization procedure.

[aldo_14]

It's probably because the CIA accidentally mailed away their backstock 4 years ago.

[Roanoke]

Or sold it.

[karajorma]

Actually it's pretty obvious what they're doing with it.





Seriously though this is a pretty worrying development. Studying how to contain Anthrax is a sensible enough idea but somehow I doubt that they need 3000 litres of the stuff to conduct tests.

[Bobboau]

given our conventional and nuclear arsenal (not to mention the *****(slap)ing we just did to Iraq) do you realy think we'd be makeing anthrax weapons?

[Flipside]

Possibly one of GW's daughters likes Heavy Rock and he got the wrong end of the stick?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
Actually it's pretty obvious what they're doing with it.





Seriously though this is a pretty worrying development. Studying how to contain Anthrax is a sensible enough idea but somehow I doubt that they need 3000 litres of the stuff to conduct tests.

Maybe they're trying to work out how big and how many rockets they'd need to contain 3000 litres of Anthrax?

NB: must check; that Anthrax isn't to be sent care of Zalmay Khalilzad, is it?

[Wild Fragaria]

Well, one liter of broth will yield about 3-4 grams of bugs.  3000 liters, they could have the warehouse stocked up pretty well.

[kasperl]

We're ****ed.


Seriously, that is.




On the other hand, I'm not that concerned about biological stuff as I am about let's say, chemical or nuclear stuff. But still, this isn't making me any happier.

[karajorma]

Why am I suddenly worried that Fragaria can recite the exact amount of anthrax you can get from a litre of broth from memory?

[kasperl]

Not all too hard. I  knew that **** when I was doing the school project. And back when Iraq was just starting, I read up on all the weapons and stuff. Good for debates.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by kasperl
On the other hand, I'm not that concerned about biological stuff as I am about let's say, chemical or nuclear stuff. But still, this isn't making me any happier.

Ummm. Why? Biologicals can be far nastier than chemical weapons. We still haven't found a chemical more lethal than botox for instance.

 

It is possibly the most toxic substance known, with a lethal dose of about 300 pg/kg, meaning that somewhat over a hundred grams could kill every human living on the earth.

The problem with biologicals lies in weaponising them for maximum effect. Do that correctly and they're far nastier than chemicals weapons.

[Wanderer]

Add the fact that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of biology/ chemistry /biochemistry can make sort of biological weapons. Chemical and nuclear weapons are much harder to construct.

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by kasperl
Not all too hard. I  knew that **** when I was doing the school project. And back when Iraq was just starting, I read up on all the weapons and stuff. Good for debates.

What kind of school allows students work on such crazy bug?

And I guess with all the reading you had done about weapons, you probably know how to build one huh

[Wild Fragaria]

Originally posted by Wanderer
Add the fact that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of biology/ chemistry /biochemistry can make sort of biological weapons. Chemical and nuclear weapons are much harder to construct.

You will still have to know the ratio of nutrients, temperature, air and CO2 ratio to grow any bug.  Then you will have to know how to 'preserve' the culture so that it will stay active and not degraded for months and years.  I don't think you get that type of info from Bio 101.

[kasperl]

Basic Bio won't get you anywhere near the level of knowledge you need to grow anything worse then the flue.

Basic chemical knowledge, conventional explosives, and large amount of faithfull willing to die and go to heaven are a lot more effective, even as a weapon of terror. Hell, attach a big bag of flour to the bomb if you want to scare people once in a while. Use a thermite thingymagic if you want spectacular imagery and not much casualties. Hell, create HCN (hydrogen cyanide) if you want lethal gasses. All are easier to create in a school lab then a biological weapon. I can whip up a manual for thermite in a few minutes, and can probably think off some other things to go BANG instead of 'psssh' and burn through the floor as well. Biological stuff is just a lot more sensitive. And harder to controll.

Plus, the real problem is the dispersion. That sect in Tokyo had pretty good Anthrax, but couldn't get it delivered. If something is lethal enough to kill someone after 2mg or something, you'd need to inject him with those 2 mg. If you only have skin contact or breathing, you'll probably need ten to a thousand times that dose.
Media scares are more common then real threats, especially with nuclear and biological stuff.


@Kara: Chemical is a lot easier to dispearse, but a nuke is the most efficient method of killing of a lot of people quickly. Probably good ole TNT if you go for kills per dollar, actually. Seriously, if you look at the financial point, it's better to blow up a city then infect it with some disease. And as said above, dispersion is a ***** when trying to kill of a lot of people with biochem stuff.