http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/08/ST2008080803414.html
Since the fall of 2001, federal officials have made contradictory statements about whether the powdered anthrax contained a form of the mineral silicon. The presence of silicon dioxide — also known as silica — would be highly significant, suggesting that the bioterrorist took additional steps to ensure that the powder would not clump and would penetrate deeply into victims’ lungs. Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.
On Nov. 7, 2001, then-Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said at a news conference that the anthrax powder contained silica, a statement that implied that the bioterrorist had access to secret government formulas for making biological weapons.
But in the documents released this Wednesday, the FBI clarified Ridge’s statement. The powder contained not silica but silicon, which was present “within the spores,” the documents said. There was no silica coating on the spores, as would be expected if someone had deliberately added the material to keep the spores from clumping.
Two government scientists with knowledge of the FBI’s investigation said the presence of silicon, while not fully explained, does not appear to be significant. The scientists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the silicon was probably an inadvertent contaminant and might have been introduced when the bacteria was being grown in the lab.
Still, numerous scientists and biodefense experts continued to complain that the FBI has not publicly addressed questions about silicon as well as other technical facets of the case. Many scientists, including colleagues of Ivins, say the evidence presented so far has not conclusively linked Ivins to the anthrax letters.
It seems ANONYMOUS sources are being given credit here.
Let’s remind ourselves what Meselson (the disgraced US microbiologist) and Alibek (the crook defector who is now in hiding back in what-the F@#k-is-stan) said back in 2002 about “anonymous sources”:
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxundermicroscope.html
The Oct. 28 front-page article “FBI’s Theory on Anthrax Is Doubted” reported that silica enabled anthrax spores sent through the mail last fall to become airborne. The article quoted unnamed sources as saying that the spores had been formulated with a product called fumed silica, which, under an electron microscope, “would look like cotton balls strung together into strands that branch out in every direction.”
Both of us have examined electron micrographs of the material in the anthrax letter sent to Sen. Tom Daschle, but we saw no evidence of such balls or strands. In July 1980, the Journal of Bacteriology reported an “unexpectedly high concentration of silicon” to be naturally present in the outer spore coat of bacillus cereus, a close relative of bacillus anthracis. Is it possible that the unnamed sources misinterpreted silicon naturally concentrated in spore coats as something that was artificially added.
Until knowledgeable government investigators announce their results, statements attributed to anonymous sources or from persons who have not examined the actual evidence should be greeted with cautio
“Silica was part of the recipe for a particularly deadly anthrax weapon made by Soviet military scientists.”
hmmm...I had never considered a soviet connection, but when you think about Putin’s tendency to poison his enemies in various unique and creative ways (polonium in your tea?) - I suppose that is another possibility.
Although, I’m not really sure what Putin would have gained from something like that.
In the other cases, he clearly wants to send a bold signal to those journalists and former spies who he held a grudge against.
Don’t know what the motive would be here.