That other terrorist attack on U.S. soil

[Ban Hammer 14,661]

I must disagree with Charles (big surprise there!). Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents. And even within permitted labs, not all associated with the lab are allowed to be near the bacterial hood.

who's talking about permits? it can be obtained all over the world. we have anthrax here in the usa, naturally occuring.

Not weaponized and not of the same optimized process that is described by Dr. Rosenberg. You can have anthrax on your skin right now and it not be an issue. Big difference there.

Permits apply to the use and handling of particular strains of the bacteria that are not ubiquitously available where the sun don't shine.

yet you didn't specify you were talking about that particular strain were you? my earlier post to mawilson's question was in regards to anthrax in general, not a specific strain. nor did your subsequent posts appear any different in regards to a particular strain. so let's not do the bait and switch routine here k?

remember this:

"Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents."

again, i reinterate:

when it occurs naturally in the wild they can always obtain specimens themselves and culture them.

And I was writing about the general discussion topic in the thread. See?

The difference is that the particular strain used in the attacks was weaponized and nearly impossible to culture without established, controlled protocols from "nature."

but they are not the only version of anthrax that can kill you.

[HAL 9000 96]

I must disagree with Charles (big surprise there!). Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents. And even within permitted labs, not all associated with the lab are allowed to be near the bacterial hood.

who's talking about permits? it can be obtained all over the world. we have anthrax here in the usa, naturally occuring.

Not weaponized and not of the same optimized process that is described by Dr. Rosenberg. You can have anthrax on your skin right now and it not be an issue. Big difference there.

Permits apply to the use and handling of particular strains of the bacteria that are not ubiquitously available where the sun don't shine.

yet you didn't specify you were talking about that particular strain were you? my earlier post to mawilson's question was in regards to anthrax in general, not a specific strain. nor did your subsequent posts appear any different in regards to a particular strain. so let's not do the bait and switch routine here k?

remember this:

"Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents."

again, i reinterate:

when it occurs naturally in the wild they can always obtain specimens themselves and culture them.

And I was writing about the general discussion topic in the thread. See?

The difference is that the particular strain used in the attacks was weaponized and nearly impossible to culture without established, controlled protocols from "nature."

but they are not the only version of anthrax that can kill you.

Of course they are not. Even E.coli, the one that lives in your gut, can kill you given the right amount of immunosuppression. The point is to stay on thread while being off topic...

[Ban Hammer 14,661]

I must disagree with Charles (big surprise there!). Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents. And even within permitted labs, not all associated with the lab are allowed to be near the bacterial hood.

who's talking about permits? it can be obtained all over the world. we have anthrax here in the usa, naturally occuring.

Not weaponized and not of the same optimized process that is described by Dr. Rosenberg. You can have anthrax on your skin right now and it not be an issue. Big difference there.

Permits apply to the use and handling of particular strains of the bacteria that are not ubiquitously available where the sun don't shine.

yet you didn't specify you were talking about that particular strain were you? my earlier post to mawilson's question was in regards to anthrax in general, not a specific strain. nor did your subsequent posts appear any different in regards to a particular strain. so let's not do the bait and switch routine here k?

remember this:

"Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents."

again, i reinterate:

when it occurs naturally in the wild they can always obtain specimens themselves and culture them.

And I was writing about the general discussion topic in the thread. See?

The difference is that the particular strain used in the attacks was weaponized and nearly impossible to culture without established, controlled protocols from "nature."

but they are not the only version of anthrax that can kill you.

Of course they are not. Even E.coli, the one that lives in your gut, can kill you given the right amount of immunosuppression. The point is to stay on thread while being off topic...

pardon me for answering mawilson's question then.