Feds: Science paper a terrorist's road map
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

Thread: Feds: Science paper a terrorist's road map

  1. #1
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324

    Feds: Science paper a terrorist's road map

    At least some of the details were released. Perhaps if they asked it to be re-submitted without the specific amounts, it might be helpful at preventing it (I'd figure that a terrorist will know or figure out the specific amounts of whatever toxin is needed).

    Source: Health agency seeks to halt scholarly publication

    Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 10:54 PM EDT (0254 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal government has asked the National Academy of Sciences not to publish a research paper that feds describe as a "road map for terrorists" on how to contaminate the nation's milk supply.

    The research paper on biological terrorism, by Stanford University professor Lawrence M. Wein and graduate student Yifan Liu, provides details on how terrorists might attack the milk supply and offers suggestions on how to safeguard it.

    The paper appeared briefly May 30 on a password-protected area of the National Academy of Science's Web site.

    Journalists use that area of the Web site to get advance copies of articles slated for publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    People who downloaded the Wein-Liu paper called the Food and Drug Administration for comment, and the FDA notified the Department of Health and Human Services, which asked the academy to stop the article's publication.

    The paper "is a road map for terrorists and publication is not in the interests of the United States," HHS Assistant Secretary Stewart Simonson wrote in a letter to the science academy chief Dr. Bruce Alberts.

    The paper gives "very detailed information on vulnerability nodes" in the milk supply chain and "includes ... very precise information on the dosage of botulinum toxin needed to contaminate the milk supply to kill or injure large numbers of people," Simonson wrote.

    "It seems clear on its face that publication of this manuscript could have very serious public health and national security consequences."

    Alberts wrote that acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Lester Crawford was joining him in the request to halt publication.

    Officials of HHS and the academy said they are to meet Tuesday to discuss the article.

    "The academy has been dealing with the issue of scientific openness versus national security since 9/11," said academy spokesman Bill Kearney.

    "The academy [members] are strong advocates of scientific openness while ensuring that nothing is done to aid terrorists."

    Kearney said the NAS routinely vets papers for security concerns before publishing them and had vetted the Wein-Liu paper.

    After HHS raised concerns, the NAS decided to "take a step back and make sure that we weren't putting out anything that we're uncomfortable with," he said.

    NAS is a private, nonprofit society of scientists and engineers chartered by Congress to advise the government on science and technology.

    HHS spokesman Marc Wolfson said Wein showed a draft of his paper last fall to HHS staffers, who expressed concern about the level of detail in the paper.

    "He, at that time, indicated that he was going to work it over a bit and he'd be back to us, back to HHS, if and when he submitted it for publication. That was the last we ... heard from him," Wolfson said.

    Wein told CNN he would withhold comment until after the HHS and NAS meeting.

    A week ago, The New York Times published an op-ed article by Wein outlining a possible attack scenario.

    Under the most likely scenario, he wrote, a terrorist would buy toxin from an overseas black market laboratory, fill a one gallon jug with a sludgy substance containing a few grams of botulin, and pour it into an unlocked milk tank, or into a milk truck at a truck stop.

    He wrote that the FDA guidelines for locking milk tanks should be made mandatory, and said the dairy industry should improve pasteurization to eliminate toxins.

    Wolfson said he cannot recall another instance in which HHS has asked a scientific publication to withhold an article on national security grounds.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  2. #2
    AO Guinness Monster MURACU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    paris
    Posts
    1,003
    To be totaly honest i can not see any reason to censure the paper. If I was a terrorist I wouldn't waste time with milk vats I'd just drop a couple of hundred gallons of pesticide into the local water supply. For me to only reason to block the publication is to continue to increase the goverments hold on all parts of americain society. It seems to go along these line :

    Yesterday FDA to NSA : It would be good if you verified the papers before you send them for publication.

    Today FDA to NSA : it would be good if we verified the papers before you send them for publication.

    Tomorrow FDA to NSA: All papers must be verified by us before publication.

    Next month Federal Goverement to everyone : All publications must be verified for us for anything that might aid " terrorists" . Then we will decide what to publish.
    \"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
    \"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
    Oscar Wilde(1854-1900)

  3. #3
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    I've got to say it... we are dealing with an enemy that wouldn't think twice about pouring a toxin into a milk truck at a gas station to kill perhaps thousands of mothers and their children. And we are worried about making sure the geneva convention is applied to those who don't even fall under it's guidelines. Members of once active insurgent, I mean terrorist cells.

    Having said that, the NSA needs to chill but after the political fallout of 9/11 where the pre-presidential campaign democrats where witch hunting those that "failed to protect America" they are a little edgy. Now I have to decide... covering up actual scientific knowledge by the Federal Security Agencies is one thing, extreme detailed plans that cover all basis for a simple milk contamination is another.... it's like Winston publishing a detailed plan on how to flood London during the 1940's. Or is it?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  4. #4
    AO Guinness Monster MURACU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    paris
    Posts
    1,003
    And we are worried about making sure the geneva convention is applied to those who don't even fall under it's guidelines. Members of once active insurgent, I mean terrorist cells.
    That is one of the reasons it was not very smart to declare war on terrorisim. You legitimise them when you do that.
    \"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
    \"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
    Oscar Wilde(1854-1900)

  5. #5
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Legitimize them? Not that simple. What is their identifying uniform? War on terrrorism is a statement. Like war on crime, war against cancer...

    You realize according to the geneva convention or perhaps the way you think of it, they are spies, they are violators or the convention and can be legally executed. That's a simplistic twist eh?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  6. #6
    AO Guinness Monster MURACU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    paris
    Posts
    1,003
    War on terrrorism is a statement. Like war on crime, war against cancer...
    Not to the bush administration it isn't. Bush sees himself as a wartime president and he used the "war on terrorisim" to stampeed a lot of legislation through the two houses. Wasnt it also the bush administration who started calling them enemy combattants to justify setting the army on a war status. The administration hamstrung itself. They should have kept them as common criminals like every other country did before it makes them easier to deal with. Bush set up the rules by which he wanted to "play" it doesn't meant the terrorists will feel obliged to play by the same rules but they sure as hell will take advantage of them.
    The spy loophole doesnt really work as they would have had to been captured on americain soil performing military operations.
    A couple of questions : DISCLAIMER :P Anything I say here maybe wrong so feel free to correct me.

    Bush was voted a lot of power in his first term as the war on terrorisim was starting. As far as I know the president retained these powers after his reelection as the war on terrorisim is still on going. Does that mean that at the next elections those powers will be automatically transfered to his succesor and his successor till the war on terror is won?
    Some of the prisinors at gutamano were captured during the fighting in afghanastan others were arrested in different countries around the world. Is there a difference in status between those who were arrested and those who were captured in the military sense?

    Ms mittens sorry we hijacked the thread.
    \"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.\"
    \"The reason we are so pleased to find other people\'s secrets is that it distracts public attention from our own.\"
    Oscar Wilde(1854-1900)

  7. #7
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    Ms mittens sorry we hijacked the thread.
    Bunch of thread terrorists!!!

    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  8. #8
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    Bunch of thread terrorists!!!

    Thread citizen's of the tyrannical governments of Canada, Ireland and America (I spit on you)...

    My name is Mussafa Memerex Al E'Maxtorfus Akmed HarmonKardon...

    This thread is in the possession of terrorist organization so mean and nasty that you MUST surrender 5 virgins (females of varying national orginis) to me or the hijacking will continue! There is NO bargaining!

    Dirka Dirka

    DISCLAIMER :P Anything I say here maybe wrong so feel free to correct me.
    My yoru hamster die slowly while spinning in a circle among verticle inclines that contunie into eternity.

    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,161
    They're on Derk-derka Baka-Abaka-la. street ...............move out!
    America...
    America...
    America, **** YEAH!
    Coming again, to save the mother ****ing day yeah,
    America, **** YEAH!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    321
    **** yeah send the bombers (150 deads cuz wrong target hit)
    ground troups landing (12 dead didn't put their sealt belt)
    'maintainign teh peace" (3 dead on expired food)
    ....

    Let us compile a simple stat: Add up all the number of terrorist kills and compare it to the number of collateral damage the us forces have done. Suprisingly the us kills more then terrorist in good name and intent.
    So in this case WOULD sacrifing the 10 virgin rather then killing 1000 guys wich is better ?
    assembly.... digital dna ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •