Ed, I asked Dr. Beecher for a copy of the article so I could distribute the two sentences and corroborate them or debunk them, explore his source for the statement etc. It prompted Kay Mereish’s letter based on the presentation by Dorothy Small who actually examined the anthrax for the FBI.
So now let me pass on to you a key sentence from this article: “In the anthrax attack of 2001, some of the material was believed to be in a “fluidized” form (defined here as having fumed silica added).”
But I really do think you should be at least doing library research if you are going to presume to address the issue.
Development of an Aerosol System for Uniformly Depositing Bacillus Anthracis Spore Particles on …
PA Baron - Aerosol Science and Technology, 2008
Re: the Simmering Frog
From the new novel about Ayman :
“He remembered a story his father had told him one day in their home on the poor side of Maadi, on the banks of the Nile. His mother’s family discussed radical politics, and was active in the revolutionary changes taking place in secular Egypt. He had never forgotten the day at the dinner table when his father had asked him if he knew how to cook a frog. Ayman was only 11 at the time and had no answer. Without even interrupting his eating the dessert Ayman’s mother had prepared, his father had coached, “You place him in a pan of cold water on the stove, then you turn on the heat. By the time the water is hot enough that the frog knows it is in danger, it is too weak and dulled by the heat to leap out.”
You’re wasting your time talking to Ed about coated anthrax spores. He still believes what Alibek told him - that there is “no principle” to coating.
Ed even believes all the coated spores shown in “Microbial Forensics” are some stunt set up to demonstrate how spores are NOT weaponized ;))))
Meanwhile - the scientific community reads Beecher’s Meselson-inspired paper, laughs quietly to themselves, and continues to study the aerosol properties on silica COATED spores. Some of the samples in the study you cite are 40 years old - and they still have robust silica COATINGS.
I haven't yet read the article, but it can't contain much of importance if you have to dig through it to find words and parts of sentences you can use to fit your beiefs.
I see an abstract of the article HERE.
The title of the article says it's about DEPOSITING spore particles evenly on a surface so information can be developed on how to do valid samplings. It's not an article about the anthrax attacks of 2001.
In fact, the abstract says it's about correcting problems with sampling methods used back in 2001:
After the anthrax incidents in October 2001, several techniques used for sampling surfaces for biological agents were found to be inadequately validated
So, it's pointing out MORE mistakes made back then.
The abstract also mentions coatings:
The flow-enhanced powder mixture appeared to affect the spores' ability to grow on the agar medium. Three ways of analyzing the agar plates were used to evaluate the effect of spore coatings on viability and to differentiate between number of spore-containing particles and the number of spores.
That seems to suggest that they found that coatings on spores HURT the spores' ability to germinate. In other words, coatings make the powder less effective.
I'll certainly look for a copy of the article. It MIGHT contain something of interest.
Until then, I suppose I'll just have to live with you claiming you have found some words and parts of sentences that validate your beliefs.