This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

This doesn't belong in Science, because it only briefly covers anthrax biologically and even then does it poorly.

And I downvoted because, from a personal standpoint, this is a horrible mistreatment of a subject that requires a much greater in-depth analysis and a much stronger knowledge of the actual events and the nature of anthrax than the History Channel has, can or likely ever will put forth. Whether the conclusions are likely correct or not, this clip is still bad.

mmm 'k... knee jerk much, jst jking...

>> ^sorted:
mmm 'k... knee jerk much, jst jking...


If by knee-jerk you mean I have years of experience in such research, then yes, my knee is suddenly spasming and making me downvote bad videos. Oh, wait, that's not my knee. It's my brain.

Yes, the science of comparing whether a person burns more calories by viewing a woman's pair of breasts than exercising belongs in his "science channel". Now that's real science, huh>?

Rembar could you tell us if it's true that they concluded it was all the Ames type, and if in fact this is "almost" entirely controlled by the pentagon? Is there even such thing as an Ames strain? Is he the guy they c...never mind I'm going to sound stupid if I keep asking questions so I'll go look at wikipedia.

Okay you're right, it's way deep and this video is very alarmist.

First this...

"Although the anthrax preparations were of different grades, all of the material derived from the same bacterial strain. Known as the Ames strain, it was first researched at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. The Ames strain was then distributed to at least fifteen bio-research labs within the U.S. and six locations overseas."

So, anybody could have it by now.

And then this...

...The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.' (9 May 2002, New Scientist)

So it wasn't "on the street" for long.

Personally, I remember thinking it was an attack by the Pro-life (Anti-choice). I had googled who was attacked in the Senate and it came back that they were all part of a Pro-choice (Anti-life) committee or initiative or something.

Okay you're right, it's way deep and this video is very alarmist.
Yes I am, yes it is, and yes it is.

Rembar could you tell us if it's true that they concluded it was all the Ames type, and if in fact this is "almost" entirely controlled by the pentagon?
It was the Ames strain (not type), although that's poor reporting on this video's part by implying that it is one of many. Although this is true, basically any lab worth its salt doing research on anthrax pathology uses the Ames strain, so that tells people precious little. And no, it is not almost entirely controlled by the Pentagon. It is under national regulation, and not anybody can get their hands on it, but it's a BSL-3 agent, not BSL-4. And that doesn't even cover the samples not held in the US.

People forget that anthrax is a bacteria. Unlike nuclear and chemical weapons, new samples of pathogenic bacteria can be grown from a small sample, and how exactly do you keep inventory of that?

The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.'(9 May 2002, New Scientist)
So it wasn't "on the street" for long.
That's what it seems like at first glance, but that conclusion is faulty. Three years of cultivation is a long, long time, especially if you're only collecting material to use in an attack, rather than trying to improve the strain's lethality or resistance to antibiotics or anything in that vein. In certain forms and methods, anthrax can be properly stored in stasis for decades, without necessity of reproduction. Thus, you could keep a sample viable for close to a century, but genetically your strain will be the same generation. In effect, this knowledge instead points to somebody doing a grow-and-throw - in simplified terms, acquiring the anthrax sample, storing it for however long, then growing some, collecting spores, and sending them, then rinsing and repeating as necessary. This means it was not specifically weaponized, contrary to what the newspapers love to tell you, nor would the actual process require very high-level knowledge of microbiology or anthrax in order to perform.

And lol, Constitutional_Patriot, cry more. I'll gladly put a silly video about breast-watching (which is both entertaining and healthy, as the video demonstrates) into my channel over something that's factually inaccurate, something you don't seem to understand as you've demonstrated a number of times that you wouldn't know real science if it bit you in the ass. Don't try to take it out on me with your little passive-aggressive downvoting. Sack up.

^Well, that certainly comes across as a little less knee-jerk. Could have been an preserved strain that was was openly distributed as a controlled many as three years ago? Coulda been anybody, right?

CP has a right to push this video, even if is alarmist and may send people down the wrong path. And as far as his downvoting, I don't take that as passive agressive. That's what the little triangles are for. For example...whack! -1 for being uncivil.

E: Good post btw. I come here to learn something.

Could have been an preserved strain that was was openly distributed as a controlled many as three years ago? Coulda been anybody, right?

No, you're misunderstanding what I said. The strain is the same. The attacks could have been perpetrated with spores grown from a sample taken many years ago, not just three. The three years is just a somewhat-random number latched on to by the reporters, it only applies if the culture is being continuously grown (and not kept in stasis for storage), as would be required for research but not for collecting spores to stuff in a letter.

CP has a right to push this video, even if is alarmist and may send people down the wrong path.

Yeah, so where did I say he didn't have a right to push this video? I have the right to make fun of him for being a crybaby and for insisting on weighing in on issues he clearly knows little about, and I also have the right to call him out on both counts. I have no qualms about being uncivil, this is a bit of fun.

My world isn't going to collapse because of a little negative number, lol. This sift has no import on the issue in real life, so I have no problem laughing it off.

I accept that you know a lot about this, that's why I'm dogging you about it.
So who do you think done it?

>> ^schmawy:
I accept that you know a lot about this, that's why I'm dogging you about it.
So who do you think done it?


I'll give you the same answer I've given Sorted, as well as a few others:
"As to venturing my opinion on "whodunnit", you'll also excuse me if I don't. You can ask me other things if you want about the topic and I'll answer as best I can, but I've already voiced my opinion in a more public manner and I would rather not connect that with my online persona. I like my anonymity."

gotcha! well thanks for answering dumb questions Rembar, you must be used to it by now!

On a side note I remember being even more uninformed than I am now and voicing my concern about it as I was clapping out a shag wool rug purchased from Poverty Barn or Ikea or somewhere. My ex the Dr pointed out that I stood a better chance of getting anthrax doing that. Haha. I feel the same now as I did then. ;-)

gotcha! well thanks for answering dumb questions Rembar, you must be used to it by now!

No dumb questions have been asked yet and, believe me, I know dumb questions when I see them.

On a side note I remember being even more uninformed than I am now and voicing my concern about it as I was clapping out a shag wool rug purchased from Poverty Barn or Ikea or somewhere. My ex the Dr pointed out that I stood a better chance of getting anthrax doing that. Haha. I feel the same now as I did then. ;-)

Poverty Barn? ....yikes, lol.

And anthrax isn't as totally dangerous as people make it out be. It can be to the people attacked, but it's basically non-transmissible between humans, and it's generally treatable by antibiotics, usually with high rates of success (with a few specific exceptions, the 2001 attacks not really being amongst them). I am against fearmongering in all its forms, and the media hype during and after the 2001 attacks is certainly a prime example.

"I was clapping out a shag wool rug purchased from Poverty Barn or Ikea or somewhere. My ex the Dr pointed out that I stood a better chance of getting anthrax doing that. Haha. I feel the same now as I did then. ;-)", she was probably right, another gotcha is bongos and the like, the animal skin used can be tainted.

downvote away, lol.

I'm glad I'm immune to this shit. As for the title, you need to change it. No one in the History Channel said it was an inside job. The people they interviewed did.

*requeue

Re-queueing this video for one more try; last queued Saturday, January 26th, 2008 5:37am PST - requeue requested by submitter sorted.

Discarding this video. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.