Posted on 10/19/2013 12:26:30 PM PDT by markomalley
The thoroughly compromised, clueless and politically correct FBI refuses to "discuss the nature of the threats or the number of cities affected." That reticence in itself points to Islamic jihadists, the one threat that the FBI is forbidden to call by name or confront directly. But even if these threats come from those mythical "Christian extremists" or some other source that our political and media elites love to scapegoat, the jihadi threat to the water supply is real. And as far back as 2002, the feds arrested two jihadis who were carrying plans about how to poison water supplies. In 2003, al-Qaeda threatened to poison water supplies in Western countries. In 2011, a jihadi in Spain likewise planned to poison water supplies.
And in May 2013, seven Muslim "chemical engineers" were caught trespassing at the Quabbin Reservoir, a key supply of water for Boston, after midnight. Only months later and indirectly did we hear that it was a "criminal matter." That same month, jihadists were caught in Canada who had considered poisoning air and water to murder up to 100,000 people.
"FBI investigates possible water supply threat in Wichita, Kansas," by Alice Mannette for Reuters, October 18 (thanks to Lookmann):
(Reuters) - The FBI is investigating possible threats to the water supply systems in Wichita, Kansas, and several other Midwestern cities that are as yet unsubstantiated, a spokeswoman said on Friday.The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation learned of the threats in the past two days and has contacted the water supply facilities and law enforcement offices for the municipalities, said Bridget Patton, a spokeswoman for the FBI office in Kansas City, Missouri.
Patton declined to discuss the nature of the threats or the number of cities affected. She said investigators had been sent out in response to the reports, but offered no details.
"We were made aware of the threat," Patton said. "We have not been able to substantiate any of the threats."
Wichita city officials warned employees in emails to be on guard for suspicious activities. City officials also told residents the water is safe to drink and the public will be notified immediately if this changes....
Obama’s supporters/handlers told them to poison the water because they refused to accept the Healthcare Act.
Poisoning a water supply is actually quite difficult, unless you can access water after it leaves a water filtration plant, and whatever poison you use is not particularly susceptible to chlorine or sodium.
Unless the poison is a hardy bacteria, like E. coli, or other coliform bacteria found in feces, *and in sufficient concentration* by the time it reaches consumers, it is unlikely to cause illness.
Probably the poisons that would set off alarm bells most are rather hard to get.
Damn those Sarah Palin supporters!
But your conclusion is disturbing:
Probably the poisons that would set off alarm bells most are rather hard to get.
"Hard to get" in the sense of being expensive? Well, somewhere, someone with a lot of _____ money would probably be willing to fund a "research" project. A well-coordinated, large scale effort could prove to be a cost-effective way to eliminate one's enemies.
Secondly, if the contaminates are introduced at the user side of the filtration, how much damage will occur before any such alarms are activated? (Rhetorical)
Hope our people are all over this.
When I say hard to get, I mean it. As in there is no retail of such substances, and big industrial plants have to pay through the nose for it or make it themselves. It is the furthest thing from “cost effective terrorism”. More trouble than it is worth.
Probably the worst natural poison for this sort of thing would be arsenic, and to say that the EPA and the USGS are obsessive about it is an understatement. Since 2001 the most they will tolerate in drinking water is 10 micrograms per liter. 10 millionths of a gram per liter.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/trace/arsenic/
And yes, every water treatment plant in the US constantly tests for it. If they get so much as 11 micrograms, they dump drums of iron oxide into the water, which binds with the arsenic and precipitates it out.
Did someone pee in another reservoir?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/portland-drains-reservoir-after-man-urinates-in-it-1.1059891
These morons drained it! I wonder if birds never poop as they fly over and squirrels never poop and pee near the water.
What? Another kid found pissing in the reservoir so they had to drain the whole thing?!
With Centers for Disease Control and laboratories all over the world, I wouldn’t be surprised if something got out!
...big industrial plants have to pay through the nose for it...
Paying through the nose is a relative concept, especially if one is offshore and very well funded.
...or make it themselves.
Third-world sweat shops offer a great way to beat high-end retail, with the added benefit of avoiding gabby sales clerks.
...cost effective terrorism.
You misquoted me. But I did suggest a cost-effective means of warfare. Warfare, of course, typically returns a greater likelyhood of success than terrorism.
When in Iraq, the vast majority of us were limited to drinking "purified" water that was, interestingly enough, bottled in the ME. Always thought that presented an Achilles Heel.
Have nice weekend, and you can have the final word.
And what about the fish? Where do they poop? We need to build little outhouses around the reservoir so that they can climb out and poop poor little things.
I look at it from a chemistry point of view. To poison a water supply, optimally you would use bacteria. But this fails because very few can survive water treatment in enough concentration to significantly affect consumers. Those that could have far more efficient means to deploy than dumping them in a water supply.
Organic and inorganic poisons have to practically work at just a few parts per million, or optimally down to parts per billion. And they have to survive water treatment.
Truthfully, it is the paradox of chemical weapons, that they are pretty worthless as military weapons, because soldiers adapt to them so quickly that high explosives are far more cost effective, resulting in far more casualties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.