CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Jim White believes a 100-fold math error in the Amerithrax investigation improperly excluded suspects … do you agree?

Posted by DXer on February 25, 2010

Dr. Bruce Ivins

see related post … * Old Atlantic in response to Jim White

Jim White believes a 100-fold math error in the Amerithrax investigation improperly excluded suspects

  • Substantial flaws still remain in the FBI’s explanation of the technical analysis on which they concluded that Bruce Ivins was the sole perpetrator of the anthrax attacks of 2001.
  • I have found what appears to be an error in the analysis of how much material from RMR-1029 would have been required to produce the spores used in the attack letters.
  • The result of this error is an overestimate, by a factor of 100, of how much material from RMR-1029 would have been needed to be used for each letter.
  • Partially because of this overestimate, the FBI excluded as suspects other researchers who received samples from RMR-1029, claiming that they lacked the expertise both to produce such a large volume of material and to then prepare it as attack material.
  • With the smaller estimate, most of the basis for excluding these individuals goes away, as simple procedures could be used to dry such a small amount of material.
  • In doing his microscopic analysis, Ivins states clearly that he is working with a 100-fold (or, 1:100) dilution of material from the RMR-1029 flask. He also states that this dilution is at an approximate concentration of 3 X 108 spores per mL. From the information present on this page of the notebook, it is clear that the concentration of spores in RMR-1029 is approximately 3 X 1010 per mL.
  • Ivins recovered 0.013 grams of powder from the envelope. He suspended this powder in water and then plated it out to determine the concentration of bacteria. He then computed a concentration of 2.1 X 1012 colony forming units per gram of powder. For spores that are perfectly viable, one spore corresponds to one colony forming unit. That means that 0.013 g of the powder contains 2.7 X 1010spores.
  • A leading anthrax researcher who assisted the investigation expressed his expert opinion that 100 ml would have been required to create sufficient material to be used in one letter, for a total of 500 ml for the five letters. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty how much material was used in the letters.
  • One hundred mL of RMR-1029 would be 3 X 1012 spores, 100-fold more than Ivins recovered from the envelope he analyzed. The only way the opinion of the anthrax researcher makes sense is if they mistakenly took Ivins’ 3 X 108 notation in the notebook as the concentration of spores in RMR-1029, when Ivins clearly states that is the concentration of the diluted material he analyzed.
  • The lower concentration makes no sense as the spore concentration of RMR-1029 for several reasons.
    • First, the description of how many large cultures were produced at Dugway and small cultures in Ivins’ lab to produce RMR-1029 would suggest that the purification process resulted in the loss of most of the spores produced, if the lower concentration of RMR-1029 is correct.
    • In other words, the lower concentration for RMR-1029 would mean that the final concentration of RMR-1029 was approximately at or below the concentration of spores one achieves in a standard bacterial culture, even though over a hundred liters of culture were used to produce the one liter purified material in the RMR-1029 flask.
  • An alternate explanation for the discrepancy would be if Ivins collected only one percent of the material in the envelope for his analysis, but that would mean that there was so much material in the envelope that it would appear overly stuffed.
  • The bottom line, then, is that only one mL, not 100 mL of RMR-1029 would be required to produce the material in one envelope.
  • I can see that statement being accurate for someone drying 100 mL of RMR-1029 five times (or 500 mL once), but most of the concerns about equipment and space go away if only 5 mL needs to be dried to produce the attack material without a need to grow and purify a large new culture using the RMR-1029 material as inoculum. Rather than a lyophilizer, simple vacuum filtration or air drying could be used on such a small amount of material, and the procedure could be carried out without attracting much attention.

It appears to me that the FBI has excluded hundreds of potential suspects on the basis of a math error.

Read more at …http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/30737

see related posts …

* Dr. Bruce Ivins RMR-1029 inventory records, from 1997 to 2003, pursuant to a FOIA request

* tracking Dr. Ivins’ RMR-1029 anthrax; more questions for UM and LSU researchers

* USAMRIID RMR records – Dr. Bruce Ivins’ flask 1029 – two documents don’t match

50 Responses to “* Jim White believes a 100-fold math error in the Amerithrax investigation improperly excluded suspects … do you agree?”

  1. A S CHESNICK said

    We can find – A few reader reviews of Edward G. Lake’s book on the anthrax attacks on Amazon.com. one or two in my opinion…I find rather interesting and revealing.

    All from Amazon.com

    Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks -by Edward G. Lake

    Price: $19.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details- In Stock.
    Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available
    Only 2 left in stock–order soon (more on the way).

    Editorial Reviews
    Review
    “An Important Book”
    “I have read many books on this subject, and this book is by far the most informative!” — Personal letter, March 21, 2005 – from William C. Patrick III (America’s #1 bioterrorism expert)

    Ed Lake’s “Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks” is a must-read for anyone interested in the unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001. — Richard Preston, author of demon in the Freezer and the Hot Zone

    Internet warriors like Lake are now important players in the public discourse. Who knows? This one may yet be right. — New Scientist magazine, 30 April 2005, page 53

    11 of 18 people found the following I was most interested in the book reviews by the readers………
    i think two may be rather telling more of the reviewer then the Mr. Lakes book:
    *************************************************************************************
    We begin with-

    Terrible! Avoid at all costs!, May 5, 2005
    Reviewer: Jason Dickson “Needs More Money” (Maryville, TN USA) – See all my reviews
    Edward Lake’s Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks is the worst book I have ever voluntarily read. […] Beginning with the absurd, rambling explanation for writing the book, every page reveals such rich ineptitude in thinking and writing that its 250 or so pages feel endless.

    Readers of the book are subjected to a bizarre self-ego-gratification trip by the author in which he makes the ridiculous claim that thousands of FBI agents, reporters, journalists, medical doctors and scientists all made repeated errors in the case. […] However, other than endlessly repeating that there is some undisclosed conspiracy belief at work amongst the media, military and medical profession, he offers absolutely nothing to advance the case.

    For some reason or another, Mr. Lake seems to persistently hold onto the belief that a major breakthrough in the anthrax case is always right around the corner. I expect that ten years from now he’ll probably be last guy on the face of the earth who still believes that an actual arrest is just a few weeks away.

    This book is a vanity publication. The author himself paid a publisher to print and bind his offering, thus the editorial standards are zero.

    There’s nothing worthwhile here that you can’t learn for free simply by perusing the http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com website. The next time you go to Vegas you can take the money you saved, go to the roulette table, and put the money on number Zero, which is the actual number of stars the book really deserves.

    Don’t waste your time reading this confused drivel and don’t make the mistake of buying a copy.

    13 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

    An interminable mega-bore, April 21, 2005

    *********************************************************************************************
    Reviewer: D L – I had to live my life all over again I’d do it all exactly the same, only I wouldn’t read Edward Lake’s “Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks”.

    This book brings a new meaning to the word awful. Reading a book you cannot abide but have forced yourself to read because of your interest in the topic can make you feel as though you’re chained to a madman or dining with a monster of solipsistic preciousness. The book has bascially two parts – one part is the ranting pretension of the author – the other is his fuming incomprehension.

    I forced myself to the end, hoping there would be something new concerning the anthrax case – anything. It was an exercise in futility on my part, much as it was an exercise in futility in the writing of this work of nonsense.

    ******************************************************************************
    This one review I found most interesting of Ed Lake’s anthrax book was from a famous author and alumnus of the Princeton Graduate School of Creative Writing.
    The school is located in the oldest building on the Princeton Campus; on Nassua Street across and up the street from the Banks Street US Mailboxes where the deadly anthrax letters were mailed post 9/11.
    Compared to the other reviews it is more than rather odd and seems more intended to divert attention away.

    Note: This is the only book review this person has ever done on Amazon except for possibly the one below? .Review pasted below

    9 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
    Lake’s book is fascinating, April 6, 2005
    By Richard Preston (New York, USA, Earth, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy) – See all my reviews

    I think Ed Lake’s “Analyzing the Anthrax Attacks” is a must-read for anyone interested in the unsolved anthrax terrorist attacks of 2001. It’s thoughtful, intensely and passionately researched and argued, and intelligently probing about the mysterious events. Lake brings a wealth of detailed factual knowledge to his acccount. He comes to provocative conclusions that not everyone will agree with. He is critical of the media and of scientists for speculating too much–and he occasionally takes issue with my book, The Demon in the Freezer–but, hey, so what? We in the media ought to be able to handle criticism just the way we dish it out. I think Lake’s thought and work deserve to be taken seriously. We can only hope that one day this horrendous crime will be solved and the perpetrator or perpetrators brought to justice. Lake’s book should serve to remind federal authorities, and all of us, that there has so far been no justice delivered for the lives of ordinary people lost in this heinous act of terrorism.
    Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

    Was this review helpful to you?

    Review By-Elmo Lincoln – See all my reviews

    For those of us who have not closely followed the seemingly dormant anthrax investigation, Edward Lake’s book is a gem of a who done it and far more interesting than the handful of existing books on the subject.

    Dare I say that only the anthrax mailer himself would have more insight into the matter?

    Note:
    Elmo Lincoln was the name of the first movie Tarzan (A silent film.)
    I suspect Elmo is nom de plume of the same reviewer as above and is a Pinceton, NJ resident.

    More from other reviewers…..
    ******************************************************
    The anthrax letters – not worth reading, April 1, 2005
    Reviewer- Nicole H – See all my reviews This book is really awful […]

    This was the second book I had read on the anthrax letters. The first one I read was by Marilyn Thompson. Thompson’s book is in a different league than the one by Lake. Thompson has real sources and you can tell that she researched the subject thoroughly. I think Lake made most of his analysis up and he seems to have a hidden agenda of some kind. His writing style is particularly awful.
    ********************************************************

    By-Dale (Chicago) – See all my reviews
    Edward Lake is the worst writer of his new generation of self publishers.
    I apologize for the abruptness of this declaration, its lack of nuance, of any meaning besides the intuitive; but as I made my way through Lake’s contribution during the past few days I was unable to come up with any other starting point for a consideration of his accomplishment.
    The plain truth is that I have stared at pages and pages of Lake’s prose and they remain as meaningless to me as the Korean characters that paper the wall of a local restaurant. Actually, the comparison is not particularly apt, because I know that the Korean writing means something, but I am not convinced that Lake’s book is about anything at all.

    **********************************************************
    An interminable mega-bore, April 21, 2005
    By-D L – See all my reviews
    If I had to live my life all over again I’d do it all exactly the same, only I wouldn’t read Edward Lake’s “Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks”.

    This book brings a new meaning to the word awful. Reading a book you cannot abide but have forced yourself to read because of your interest in the topic can make you feel as though you’re chained to a madman or dining with a monster of solipsistic preciousness. The book has bascially two parts – one part is the ranting pretension of the author – the other is his fuming incomprehension.

    I forced myself to the end, hoping there would be something new concerning the anthrax case – anything. It was an exercise in futility on my part, much as it was an exercise in futility in the writing of this work of nonsense.

    **************************************************8
    Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks, March 10, 2005
    By – Harold (NJ) – See all my reviews
    Edward Lake’s Analyzing The Anthrax Attacks is the worst book I have ever voluntarily read. Lake is a retiree and has never written a book before. […] Beginning with the absurd, rambling explanation for writing the book every page reveals such rich ineptitude in thinking and writing that its 250 or so pages feel endless.

    A copy of the book was provided to me 2 days ago and the book promised to deliver new insight into the still unsolved anthrax attacks of 2001. It didn’t deliver anything of the sort. Instead, the reader is subjected to a bizarre self-ego-gratification trip by the author in which he makes the ridiculous claim that thousands of FBI agents, reporters, journalists, medical doctors and scientists all made repeated errors in the case. […] However, other than endlessly repeating that there is some undisclosed conspiracy belief at work amongst the media, military and medical profession, he offers absolutely nothing to advance the case.

    The book is a vanity publication. The author himself paid a publisher to print and bind his offering, thus the editorial standards are zero.

    Don’t waste your time reading this confused drivel and don’t make the mistake of buying a copy.

    I do not mean to say that Lake is deliberately setting out to deceive. I mean to say only that he is a bad writer. But bad writing has consequences. Analyzing The Anthrax Letters isn’t simply a bad idea badly rendered. It is so awful that it is easy to see the book as in league with the very crimes that it seeks to solve. The language that Lake employs is so fundamentally imprecise that it cannot help but tell untruths.

    If it was possbile, I would give this self-published piece of nonsensical garbage negative minus ten stars.

    • DXer said

      A former Zawahiri associate worked alongside Bruce Ivins using virulent Ames and the company he co-founded made $80 million without a marketed product, tested its decontamination agent at the Capitol and pitched hand cream to postal workers.

      At the same time, a scientist mentored by Bin Laden’s sheik shared the suite, fax and maildrop with the leading anthrax scientist and former deputy USAMRIID Commander.

      Given the lack of evidence supporting an Ivins Theory, it’s really a time to focus on and explore the merits and the record evidence while pressing the DOJ and USAMRIID for the documents it has wrongfully failed to produce.

  2. DXer said

    “5/282008 302 page 7

    _________ was asked to opine on IVINS’s frequent and lengthy late night activity in the hot suites at USAMRIID during the mailing window of the anthrax-laced letters. _______ opined that although unusual, IVINS has always worked frequent late night hours in the hot suites. _______ advised that even in the very recent past, IVINS still continued to come into USAMRIID at very odd hours. _______________ even spoke to IVINS about his continuing to draw attention to himself by working odd and late night hours and ___ informed IVINS that his behavior was self destructive.”

    Wasn’t Taylor’s argument and Ed Lake’s argument about working odd hours in the B3 particularly stupid given that after 9/11 they implemented a 2 person rule that prevented someone working late hours alone in the B3?

    So while continuing to work late hours, he would be spending the time outside of the B3.

  3. Anonymous Scientist said

    Ed Lake said…
    The New York Times says: “The case has always been hobbled by a lack of direct evidence tying Dr. Ivins to the letters.”

    In reality, there IS direct evidence tying Dr. Ivins to the letters.

    The FBI’s summary report describes the hidden message that Dr. Ivins put into the media letters and how Dr. Ivins attempted to destroy the evidence connecting him to that hidden message. But the FBI recovered that evidence.

    Perhaps the Times didn’t bother to read the FBI’s summary report. Or perhaps they didn’t understand it.

    For my web site, I’ve written a description of the hidden code and its meaning to the case. You can read it by clicking HERE.

    Ed

    February 28, 2010 11:41 AM
    Ellen Byrne said…
    Someone is reading too much Dan Brown fiction.

    February 28, 2010 9:26 PM
    Vronsky said…
    You are certainly on to something there, Ed. Should anyone remain in any doubt about this, note that the whole message is an anagram of:

    Intoxicant, whip-like neatness
    Hot-headed aromatic retaliates
    Alas! Large hit!

    Thank god your FBI easily sees through this sort of thing. I truly can’t wait to hear them produce this evidence in court – it will be sensational, and utterly conclusive, as you say.

  4. richard rowley said

    Posted by Ed Lake:
    ——————-
    I haven’t dissented about anything, I’ve just expanded upon what the FBI reported. There are LOTS of details that the FBI failed to write about or couldn’t write about. I don’t recall reading anything in the summary where they say that handwriting experts determined that Dr. Ivins personally wrote the letters. In fact, forensic information about the handwriting is curiously omitted.
    ———————————————-
    That’s because it’s information in Ivins’ favor. It indicates that Ivins didn’t print the letters and since the FBI doesn’t have a child-did-the-printing scenario to fall back on, it would be an indication of his innocence. And so unwelcome in a document whose PURPOSE is to show the case solved.

    • richard rowley said

      Posted by Ed Lake:
      —————–
      Ed Lake said

      March 3, 2010 at 4:27 pm
      Richard Rowley wrote: “That’s because it’s information in Ivins’ favor.”

      Or so you BELIEVE without any proof or evidence whatsoever.[…]
      —————————–
      Well if the FINAL REPORT were trying to be even handed (ie giving info that would tend to exonerate Ivins), it would include:

      1) a detailed admission that there’s no evidence that Ivins was in the Princeton area in September of 2001.

      2) a detailed admission that there’s no evidence that Ivins was in the Princeton are in October of 2001/

      (and for both 1) and 2) you can substitute “the entire state of New Jersey” for “Princeton area”)

      3) the expostion of the idea that Ivins killed himself, not from guilt about Amerithrax but from

      a) embarassment about his crossdressing, fascination with women’s undergarments etc.

      b) loss of access to his workplace,

      c) forced early retirement

      My guess? This type of stuff isn’t in the report…..

    • richard rowley said

      Posted by Ed Lake:
      ———————————
      Richard Rowley wrote: “1) a detailed admission that there’s no evidence that Ivins was in the Princeton area in September of 2001.

      You don’t seem to understand the facts about evidence. You don’t have to prove that Ivins was in Princeton, you just have to prove that he COULD HAVE BEEN in Princeton.
      ===========================
      No, you are just flat-out wrong about that. In the example you cite, a burlar who is not on the scene is usually convicted via the discovery of stolen property on his person/in his vehicle/ at his house. There is no analogue of that in the Ivins case.

    • richard rowley said

      Posted by Ed Lake:
      ————————————
      I could drive to some town a hundred miles away this afternoon without leaving any trace that I did so. Does that mean I didn’t do it?
      —————————————
      Ah, this is that presumption error again. Got to watch that!

      The police would have to PROVE you did it and merely stating a hypothesis that you did it “without leaving a trace” isn’t PROVING anything.

      Watch the tautologies too!

      • Anonymous said

        Posted by Ed Lake:
        ——————-
        Flask RMR-1029 is the “murder weapon,” and it was under Ivins’ control.
        ===============
        No, that misstates things.

        1) the flask remained in Fort Detrick.

        2) the contents may have traveled (ie been brought to Trenton) but that is not in evidence,

        3) and it’s not in evidence because a sister flask with the same substrain was created in 1997 and that flask’s contents were sent to two or more other institutions.

        That, IN AND OF ITSELF, produces ‘reasonable doubt’ since there’s only a 50/50 chance the fatal spores were from the flask that Ivins (and others at Ft Detrick) continued to control.

      • DXer said

        Ed, when do you say that Ivins had no alibi? He does have an alibi. He lived in a small house with 3 adults. You are the one who doesn’t have an alibi. We know from Diane’s note on the day of his death that she sincerely believes that he had nothing to do with the mailings.

        How was the flask “under his control?” 350 people had access to the unlocked refrigerator when he wasn’t even there. So how was it under his control, Ed?

        Leaving anonymous gifts is not unsavory, Ed. It’s romantic and pathetic, but not unsavory. He broke in a sorority house to steal a code book. How cool is that! I went into a fraternity house through the second story window and killed my victim in a game in 1981 called “Killer” (I think it was called that; you used a water pistol). There was a stripper performing at a party downstairs. I had got his brothers to tell my victim to come up stairs because his killer was on the phone. His brothers didn’t tell him which end — and they wanted to get back at him for having hazed them. :0)

        Ed, have you even read the record? You keep saying things that are contradicted by the record — and, as an example, evidence no awareness of the small animal studies that required he go to the lab.

        You have no sense when it comes to evaluating evidence and still haven not posted the October 5, 2001 explaining his time in the B3 — or joined in asking that the government produce his contemporaneous notes made in the B3 at the time they say he was aerosolizing the anthrax. Why would you not focus on obtaining documents?

        On the code thing, you obviously have no experience in codes. Or codons. Many fanciful interpretations could be divined.

        • DXer said

          “How was the flask “under his control?” 350 people had access to the unlocked refrigerator when he wasn’t even there. So how was it under his control, Ed?”

          It is obvious Ed hasn’t read the record or else he would know that nothing prevented any of the 350 from walking away with Ames. So the concept that the two 500 ML flasks were “under his control” is stupid.
          They were in the common refrigerator along with everyone else’s stuff.

        • DXer said

          A weapon, such as a gun, is under your exclusive control, when it is locked in a cabinet, for which you have the only key (and the key never left your possession) and there is no indication that the lock has not been picked.

          Here, if you keep your handgun in the refrigerator at work to which 350 have access, you do not have exclusive control.

          Duh. Oh, and that’s just at USAMRIID. Lots of others had access elsewhere.

        • DXer said

          Indeed, the genetics did not limit things at all as to USAMRIID. The same 350 or so had access to other strains in Building 1412 and 1425 as well. There is no evidence that the 1/7 crappy portion from Dugway was autoclaved for that matter. He has no recollection of autoclaving it.

          Moreover, the documents show that 100 ml was recorded missing. Why is there a 100 ml discrepancy in Dr. Ivins’ records dating back to 1999?

          And the documentary evidence shows that Dr. Ivins was concerned that inventory was missing because (shhhh…you know…) and his superior told him to shut up about it — that would be justification for missing samples. Why was Dr. Ivins concerned he was missing samples and what justification for missing samples did his superior say there was.

          Why has the DOJ failed to provide these critical references cited in its expanded Amerithrax-generated record of how virulent Ames from Flask 1029 was used?

          And if it was known to be the US Army strain by November 2001, then where are the investigative documents from 2001-2002?

      • richard rowley said

        Posted by Ed Lake:
        ————————–
        Ed Lake said
        March 3, 2010 at 9:25 pm
        Richard Rowley wrote: “The police would have to PROVE ..”

        But the FBI DID prove that Ivins did it. You just ignore the proof. The hidden message in the media letters and Ivins attempt to destroy the “code books” is direct evidence connecting Ivins to the letters.
        =========================================
        No. The evidence in its TOTALITY says:

        1)Ivins was interested in the Amerithrax Case from the get-go; hence his October 4th 2001 email trying to confirm the information given in media reports on that very day about Stevens (who died the next day) AND his offer to provide any help/information he could.

        2)there’s no reason to believe that Ivins ever lost interest in the following years. And since Ft Detrick was involved in the government’s investigation, why would he? It’s not at all a stretch to say that Ivins tried to figure out on his own who the perp(s) was(were).

        3)As a result he emailed himself in Sept 2007 the following message:

        “Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!!!! I finally know who mailed the anthrax letters in the fall of 2001. I’ve pieced it together!” Ivins wrote in the e-mail dated Sept. 7, 2007, according to an FBI affidavit.

        “I’m not looking forward to everybody getting dragged through the mud, but at least it will all be over,” Ivins allegedly wrote. “Finally! I should have it TOTALLY nailed down within the month. I should have been a private eye!!!!”

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2008-09-24-1501613054_x.htm

        We can’t know whether he had actually made the progress this email indicates (perhaps exaggerated) OR whether he was mocking his own futile efforts in that vein. But WHICHEVER of these two interpretations we give the email it (the email) is most consistent with someone trying to SOLVE the case (hence:
        “I should have been a private eye!!!!”)

        But such an email is INCONSISTENT with a perp because a perp needs to do no detective work. Moreover, chances are that Ivins was using the book in question to DECRYPT rather than to ENCRYPT a message. Eventually, after he realized the government investigators would interpret anything and everything as “proof” of his guilt, he decided to trash the book…..

        • DXer said

          Richard,

          As someone who is regularly forgetting to get the trash out, it amuses me to think of the 302s that say:

          “Subject was seen running down the street in his bathrobe shouting, ‘Wait, wait!” :0)

    • richard rowley said

      Partial post by Ed Lake:
      —-
      A murderer keeping track of everything going on in a case is proof that he’s innocent? Really?
      ———–
      Once again a presumption error.

  5. richard rowley said

    Posted by Ed Lake
    —————————
    March 2, 2010 at 2:41 pm
    Richard Rowley wrote: “Mister Lake’s own history of signing on to a given hypothesis (a child did the printing), defending it vehemently against all comers for years, and then abandoning it when the government’s final report came out.”

    Why on earth would you say that I abandoned my “hypothesis” that a child wrote the anthrax letters??!! NOTHING could be farther from the truth! The information about the code in the media anthrax letters REINFORCES that “hypothesis”. I added 3 sets of notes to my web page about the handwriting to show how some of the new facts clear up questions and how other aspects of the new information CONFIRM my “hypothesis.”
    ===============================================================
    Well, I’ve read what you said about the FINAL REPORT and

    1) there’s nothing about a ‘child’ in the final report

    2) since August 2008 the FBI has always used the expression ‘Ivins, acting alone’ (did the Amerithrax mailings)and ‘acting alone’ is the opposite of ‘acting through a seven year old child’.

    3) the ‘doodling’ that you, Mister Lake, and you alone see in the Brokaw/NY POST text (Brother Jonathan sees only ‘doubled letters’ caused by the child’s fatigue) is explained by the final report as purposely highlighted letters (ie letters that were selected by the perp and hightlighted by him, not some child who would not have any sort of cryptographic intentions).

    4)the ‘child’ has never been anything more than a wild hypothesis, one that the government never endorsed (and people like me pointed this out to you in the late summer/fall period of 2008).

    5) NOTHING that you wrote about the final report in the first 3 or 4 days indicated that you dissented from it. Even on the smallest detail. And a 7-year old helpmate is not a small detail.

    But if you do still hold to your ‘child’, then welcome to the world of “True Believers”!

    • DXer said

      Ed does not rely on facts. For example, he has failed to post the October 5, 2001 that gives Dr. Ivins observations on the animals’ health during the first days of challenge. Or the October 4, 2001 that the DOJ has mischaracterized.

      Ed vehemently argued for 6 months that the DOJ had narrowed things to Ivins himself on the genetics — when in fact the DOJ just had concluded that the genetics narrowed things to 350 or so who had access. Then the difference between 350 versus 1 did not alter his assessment of the probabilities one bit because he is a “true believer.”

      Ed argued for 7 years that silica was not used to aerosolize anthrax — he argued that it made it heavier and less floatable — even though anyone in the field or who read the literature knew that it was routinely used.

      Ed does not rely on facts at all — that is just his schtick.

      If he relied on facts, he would be delving into the record instead of reposting his usual garbage about how it looks like a kid wrote the letters. Dr. Ivins, by the way, agrees that it looks like a kid wrote the letters. See 302. That’s the nature of block writing.

  6. richard rowley said

    Post by A S Chesnick:
    ———————————————————
    A S Chesnick said
    February 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    why do you give Ed Lake any credence? I believe the FBI over him. Please just ignore him it only encourages him if you respond …. in my opinion
    ==============================================================
    Well, the reason I respond to Mister Lake is this:

    1)thousands of persons who will never read a book on Amerithrax will, if it strikes their fancy, do a Google or other search online and Mister Lake’s site will be at or near the top of the hit queue. Meaning his site—–and his opinions—– will have an enormous influence over the casually interested.

    2)But since he does link sites like this one, there’s an opportunity to respond to his more tendentious comments and point out the discrepancies, not only in the government’s case but in Mister Lake’s own history of signing on to a given hypothesis (a child did the printing), defending it vehemently against all comers for years, and then abandoning it when the government’s final report came out.

    3) In other words readers of Mister Lake’s site should be made aware of the fact that he’s a spokesman for the government line, no matter how many twists and turns it takes.

  7. richard rowley said

    I can see that Mister Lake misconstrued something I wrote here on February 24th. It was as follows:
    —————————————————————–
    February 24, 2010 at 4:42 pm
    Has anyone seen this paragraph by Ed Lake at his website?????????
    ——————————————–
    So, I guess it’s just a matter of who you believe – people who were somewhat responsible for allowing a major crime to be committed by someone under their supervision or the FACTS which say that Ivins actually could and did create spores of the purity of those in the anthrax letters.
    ———————————————
    So:

    1) we mustn’t listen to Ivins’ coworkers’ claims that Ivins was innocent

    because

    2) they allowed him to commit the crime(s)!

    Can Lake really not see that this is assuming that which is in dispute?!? (ie whether Ivins is guilty)
    ==============================================================
    End of my post and here’s Mister Lake’s characterization of that post at his site (Thoughts and Comments section:
    —————————————————-

    Updates & Changes: Sunday, February 21, 2010, thru Saturday, February 27, 2010

    February 27, 2010 – On Thursday, in an on-line discussion, I was asked how I could state with certainty that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer when the subject is still under debate. […]
    ==============================================
    But as the original post indicates, I wasn’t asking Mister Lake, I was asking the general readership of the blog if Mister Lake couldn’t see the error in LOGIC. Errors in logic occur all the time. The one made by Mister Lake is called an error of presumption:
    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/

    So to abstractionalize it (ie to take it out of the immediate Amerithrax situation):

    1)Person A is accused of dastardly misuse of a government laboratory to terrorize and harm other persons. Accused, that is, of serious crimes.

    2) Person A’s coworkers says a) that is completely out of character for person A and b)’we never saw any misuse of the laboratory and it would be difficult to conceal’.

    3) Person B comes along and says: ‘are you going to believe people who allowed Person A to misuse a government laboratory to terrorize and harm other persons?’

    Person B is committing the logical fallacy of presumption: he assumes that which is under dispute and therefore will fail to convince anyone who is aware of the basic operation of logic.
    This—–the fact that a logical fallacy has been committed—-has no INHERENT bearing on the overall question of A’s guilt/innocence. It is neither here nor there.

  8. A S Chesnick said

    why do you give Ed Lake any credence? I believe the FBI over him. Please just ignore him it only encourages him if you respond …. in my opinion

  9. richard rowley said

    Partial post by Ed Lake:
    ————————————
    “3) When it was suggested to you that a first grade teacher or a number of first grade teachers be consulted on this question, since they would have the most familiarity with the features of printing by 6 and 7 year olds, you brushed off the idea out of hand.”

    Not true. I tried to get first grade teachers in my home town to discuss the idea, but they didn’t want to have anything to do with anyone who talked about anthrax, much less anyone who talked about children and anthrax. The subject scared them, it didn’t interest them. They would only do it if the school board directed them to do it. I didn’t see any chance of persuading the school board to order them to do it.
    ===============================================================
    Well, then on that score I give you A for effort but not much else. There are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (yes, I capitalize sometimes too!) of retired, former and active first grade teachers in this country (many of them participating in various lists on the Internet) and you maintained your theory (really a hypothesis) about the child printer for something like 6 years.
    And you never could ‘find’ a single teacher to give you feedback???? I think you were looking in all the wrong places: residents of senior citizen communities (aka old folks homes) and retired nuns would likely be responsive to such queries (they no longer have students to protect from weirdos asking about anthrax!)

    I had better luck with my search for Hebrew consultations: it was confirmatory.
    —————————————————————
    More from Ed Lake:
    ————————-
    “2)It bothered you not one whit that the professional graphologists who had weighed in on the Amerithrax printing were of one voice in thinking it printed by an adult.”

    Right. None of them has said that the letters MUST have been written by an adult. They just ASSUME that the letters were written by an adult. There’s no reason to believe that they even CONSIDERED the idea that a child may have written the letters. They do not address the evidence that says a child wrote the letters. Until the evidence is addressed and disproved, the OPINIONS of handwriting “experts” is just that: OPINIONS. I work with facts, not opinions from people in a field that is art not science.
    ————————————————————-
    This is you reading the minds of graphologists. Believe you me, if they thought the texts were written by children, they would have said so. You are accusing THEM of exactly your problem: a closed mind. So closed that you wouldn’t admit for 1 and 1/2 years that the FBI’s overall hypothesis was incompatible with the ‘child’ of your hypotheesis. Until last Friday.

    And the one person in the world who agrees with you about the ‘child’ didn’t see any ‘doodling’ either: Brother Jonathan attributed the doubled and retraced letters to ‘fatigue’ on the part of the child:
    http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/bj110201.html
    So on the doodling you were a party of one. Sometimes a party of one is right and more perceptive than the vast majority. But the
    thing to do then is to subject the hypothesis to the harshest scrutiny.
    This you avoided at all costs: with teachers, with graphologists (you could have consulted a graphologist who had never looked at the texts and requested that an age assessment be made) and most glaringly in refusing to respond to my long critique of your own new a-child-did-it document. My critique, which I worked on on and off for about a week, in no way required one to sign on to hypotheses about Hebrew letters, or secret government conspiracies, or space aliens. My tone was respectful, I tried to keep it as positive as I could under the circumstances (ie it was constructive criticism) and you weren’t interested

  10. richard rowley said

    Posted by Ed Lake:
    —————————
    Ed Lake said
    February 25, 2010 at 3:04 pm
    Richard Rowley wrote: ““all you have is a theory””

    And, you seem to be confirming that all you had was a theory. It wasn’t a better theory than any other theory. You had no proof.
    ——————————————————
    Wait just a moment! You still don’t seem to get what my point was there. Guess I was too subtle. So I’ll be more explicit.

    1) YOUR “theory”——-and it’s exposed as a theory by the fact that you dropped it like a hot potato last weekend without any admission by you that you were wrong for, what?, six year>?—–was that a child of 6 or 7 copied the original and that this child’s copy, replete with “doodles’ (and the “doodling” was labelled by you a “FACT”), was photocopied by the Killer and those photocopies were the ones that contained the anthrax in the mailings.

    2)It bothered you not one whit that the professional graphologists who had weighed in on the Amerithrax printing were of one voice in thinking it printed by an adult.

    3) When it was suggested to you that a first grade teacher or a number of first grade teachers be consulted on this question, since they would have the most familiarity with the features of printing by 6 and 7 year olds, you brushed off the idea out of hand.

    4)When the government, in August and September of 2008, laid out in sketchy fashion the case against Ivins, it was pointed out to you (by me, possibly by others) that their case was incompatible with a child assisting in the printing, you were unrepentant.

    5) Indeed, you made much of the revelations that Ivins’ wife had had a child-care business and that Ivins got along well with children. By your lights, more “FACTS” telling you you were right: Bruce Ivins + one child did it.

    6) As a result, you re-did your document on the child’s printing, averring that now, more than ever, it was a “FACT”——or was it a compilation of “FACTS”? I always forget!——that a child had done the printing.

    7) My last try to change your mind on what seemed to me an obvious point was when I sent you, under another handle, a longish email critique of your new a-child-did-it document.
    This a few months back. Total silence.

    So all efforts to reason with you on the topic got nowhere, not because I and others (the graphologists, your interlocutors on blogs, including newrepublic etc.) didn’t have valid arguments (on the who-printed-it question they coincided utterly with the FBI: an adult printed it), but because you had a closed mind.

    Your turnabout last weekend was prompted entirely by your slavish backing of the government line on the whole case.

  11. richard rowley said

    Posted by Ed Lake:
    ————————–
    The evidence is clear beyond any doubt that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer. The code in the media letters is a virtual smoking gun. And it’s just one item in a massive amount of evidence.
    ————————————————————-
    Funny about that “smoking gun”: a few years back, I had an email exchange with you about the lettering of the two texts. I spied a pseudo-Hebrew element to a number of letters in the Brokaw/NY POST text (important because at least one of the St Petersburg hoax letters had pseudo-Russian elements to it according to Don Foster and this connects THOSE hoax missives to the real anthrax letters, placing a purportedly individual perp in Florida between Amerithrax mailings in Jersey)

    AND I pointed out that certain letters in the Brokaw/NYPOST text were either partially or entirely retraced/done heavily and I suggested that this was some sort of signature of the perp.

    Your response? It can charitably be termed a yawn. When I offered to send you any subsequent versions of my analysis, you said “Don’t bother” and “all you have is a theory” and ‘that’s the doodling of the ‘child’ who copied the letter’ etc. So I dropped it. And could see that you didn’t have an open mind about it, since you had signed on early to Brother Jonathan’s idea of a child copying the texts: all who opposed you even on THAT score were “True Believers” who were opposed to FACTS (yeah, you capitalize that word a lot!).

    And so it went——-you vehemently claiming that anyone who couldn’t admit that the heavy retracing were “doodles” (!!!!) and acknowledge the ‘obvious FACT’ that a child printed the letters was blind to the facts——–until it turned out the FBI itself was a “True Believer” on these questions.

    NOW you jump in with both feet.

    But you are wrong AGAIN on this point.

    The actual retraced/heavily written letters are as follows:

    TT
    TA
    AHTO[R*]
    TO
    AT

    *letter R is included under some criteria, omitted under others
    ———————————————————-
    So what the FBI actually did was EXTRACT a subset of letters from the above retraced (partially or in whole)letters to fit a particular suspect. And to fit a particular theory. So they ignored a heavy/retraced H, a heavy/retraced O, ANOTHER retraced O, all so they could ‘read’ groups of letter As and letter Ts. So that they could get ‘amino acids’ from it. It would not stand scrutiny in court, because there is no inherent cryptological reason to select some letters and ignore others.

    And, by the way, the ‘encryption system’ the FBI sees there (or claims to see) is NOT ‘diagonal’ like the one in the book that Ivins owned and trashed.

    A ‘smoking gun’? No. Not even a box-cutter…….

    • BugMaster said

      There no equivalent “Doodles” in the Senate letters. Since this would have supposingly been the most potent, most lethal “coup de grace”, certainly there was a profound coded message embedded within!

      And what about the AMI letters? Oh, wait a minute, they never recovered any.

      And never did anyone interviewed at AMI recall anything that made the slightest suggestion of 9/11 and anthrax.

    • BugMaster said

      O.K., Ed, then Ivins directed the kid to add the “Doodles” to the letter!??

      • BugMaster said

        Then why didn’t he add a final secret message with doodles to the Senate letters?

        Maybe he was training in a new kid.

        • BugMaster said

          So, the secret message in the Senate letters is that there is no secret message, but there really is, because the lack of a second secret message emphasizes the secret message in the NYC letters. So really, there is a secret message in the Senate mailings, which is the absence of an obvious secret message.

          But of course! That should have been easy for me to see, and instead, Sage Lake had to enlighten me!

          I am such an idiot!

          BTW:

          “Plus, you need to understand the reason he put the hidden message in the media letters in the first place. That reason doesn’t appear to have been still valid when he mailed the second batch of letters.”

          I still don’t understand here, Sage.

          Could you please again enlighten me?

        • BugMaster said

          O.K., so you are saying that Bruce Ivins mailed out enough powdered material to kill half of the entire population of the U.S. (3 hundred million LD50s at 10000 spores per infective dose) and became a baskit case when he realized someone might have died!??

        • BugMaster said

          Ed:

          Antibiotics don’t cure everyone who contracts
          inhalation anthrax. The spores can germinate MONTHS after they were inhaled. So, gee, everyone, just take some pills and all will be fine?

        • DXer said

          Ed, always cite things to support your factual claims. You are misrepresenting the Canadian study before 9/11. It found that the anthrax could leak and disperse from sealed envelopes. Most of the facts you state are mistaken due to your continued failure to read the record and cite it.

          o studies had been completed in Canada6,7 shortly before the anthrax incidents that suggested that tiny particles could leak and disperse from sealed envelopes . …. Defence Research Establishment, Suffield, Canada, September 2001. …
          journals.lww.com › Home › September/October 2003 – Volume 9 – Issue 5

        • DXer said

          The head of the CDC investigation says he was too busy to read the Canadian study on mailed anthrax that found that the anthrax leaked from the sealed envelope.

          The CDC employee that Ivins wrote misremembered the email. Then his botched recollection was repeated by the FBI in Summary at the same time the FBI intefered with and delayed production of the email for 1 1/2 years — until after the first press on the report.

      • DXer said

        Ed says the anthrax mailer did not intend to hurt anyone. That’s silly under Ed’s assumption that Ivins is the mailer. Dr. Ivins knew on October 4 that Stevens had inhalational anthrax. He in fact knew that he had died before the second mailing. Thus, if Ed thinks that the anthrax mailer did not expect anyone to be hurt, then is an additional reason to know Dr. Ivins is not responsible.

        More importantly, Ed nowhere addresses the fact that his B3 time now is explained in a 302 interview (1/25/2007) that contradicts the unsupported assertions by the lawyer in Summary. He explains that the reason that someone could come in on the weekend is to observe the health of the animals and record the deaths etc. and that it would take approximately 2 hours and was a one man job. Thus, although it did not come to Ivins’ mind — or at least was not written down by the FBI agent in 2005 — the contemporaneous records kept in the Lab Notebook WRONGFULLY WITHHELD BY THE FBI show that Dr. Ivins had every reason to be in the lab, even apart from his practice of coming there to shower. The reason Ed does not post the page of the 302 interview is his false accusation against Ivins just melts.

        Note that Ed nowhere altered his assessment of the Ivins Theory even though he went from thinking the genetics pinpointed Ivins specifically — to being told by the FBI that the genetics narrowed things only to 350!

    • DXer said

      Ed disagrees with the author of the book who says the FBI’s was grasping and it wasn’t there. The author of the book is the FBI’s expert and he agrees with the defense position, not the FBI’s position. End of story.

    • DXer said

      BTW, it is totally normal to want to throw out stuff that might be misunderstood. Ed once told the FBI I committed a serious terrorist act — even though I had spent the day telling him he was an idiot. (He reasoned to the FBI that I was merely creating the perfect alibi).

      But as the result, I had to do my laundry before I showed my bedroom to one of those beautiful female agents that Bruce discerned the FBI hires (for more effective questioning of us lonely males).

      I didn’t want her to see my dirty laundry.

      I own the same book and lots of other books that use codes — including the entire 39 Clues series and Michael Stadther’s wonderful books.

  12. richard rowley said

    And the part just before the section I gave is as follows:
    ———————————————-
    According to the FBI’s summary report (page 37):

    Dr. Ivins seemed to try to downplay his skill-set in ways that were wholly inconsistent with reality. He repeatedly and adamantly denied that he could make spores of this quality. […] However, Dr. Ivins unwittingly contradicted himself in his laboratory notebook, where he described the RMR-1029 that he had created as: “RMR-1029: :99% refractile spores; < 1% vegetative cells; < 1% non-refractile spores; : 1% debris.” (Laboratory notebook 1040, page 074, Attachment F.) This is evidence that he could, and did, create spores of the concentration and purity of the mailed spores, which he described as “99% refractile with no debris and some clumping” in a report dated March 12, 2002.
    ——————————————-
    Apparently neither the FBI nor Mister Lake can acknowledge that a specimen with ZERO debris is of a higher purity than one with 1% debris!
    Unbelievable!

    • BugMaster said

      “He repeatedly and adamantly denied that he could make spores of this quality.”

      As in DRIED spores of “this quality”. His high purity RMR-1029 material readily clumped in liquid. And clumps, when dried, tend to remain clumps.

  13. richard rowley said

    Has anyone seen this paragraph by Ed Lake at his website?????????
    ——————————————–
    So, I guess it’s just a matter of who you believe – people who were somewhat responsible for allowing a major crime to be committed by someone under their supervision or the FACTS which say that Ivins actually could and did create spores of the purity of those in the anthrax letters.
    ———————————————
    So:

    1) we mustn’t listen to Ivins’ coworkers’ claims that Ivins was innocent

    because

    2) they allowed him to commit the crime(s)!

    Can Lake really not see that this is assuming that which is in dispute?!? (ie whether Ivins is guilty)

  14. Just to answer the original question. The letter anthrax contained subtilis not in RMR-1029 and contained silicon not in RMR-1029. That proves the letter anthrax was not directly from RMR-1029 but regrown.

    The letters had 5+ grams in the first set and 2+ grams in the second set although there are those who sometimes argue over this. The FBI should clarify what info it has.

    Production of Bacillus Spores as a Simulant for Biological Warfare Agents
    Authors: Laurie F. Carey; Diane C. St. Amant; Mark A. Guelta; EDGEWOOD CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL CENTER ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD

    These people actually grew grams and grams of subtilis spores. They started out with empty plates and empty liter flasks, put growth media in them and put subtilis in them and actually grew bacteria and then turned them into spores and measure the weight they got. They checked the growth media every 24 hours and did experiments every 24 hours on them to test how far along they were.

    They used the New Brunswick C-25 floor shaker incubator unit to grow grams of subtilis in liquid media. They used the necessary square feet of plates to grow on plates and get grams and grams of spores after centrifuging and drying.

    This had to happen because the anthrax in the letters contained subtilis and silicon not in RMR-1029.

    To get 5 grams of dry spores you have to start with a large amount of growth media, somewhere from 5 liters to 25 liters or even 50 liters. Using twice as much bacteria to start can shorten the growth time by one generation’s growth time, but it doesn’t change the amount of growth media you need. The amount of growth media, how many liters, is determined by how much bacteria you end up with not how much you start with.

    The people who actually grew grams of bacteria report it took large scale equipment that doesn’t fit into Ivins’ glove box. You can see the picture of the C-25 New Brunswick 400 pound floor shaker incubator. Its bigger than a man. Centrifuges to do the job are also large, I posted links to them at Meryl Nass in 2008.

    It is not a matter of some notation in Ivins’ notebook suddenly changes everything. The Laura Carey et al people actually grew the grams and grams of powder that are the equivalent of what is in the letters. The second letters are reported as 99 percent pure in the recent FBI report. So they are stuck with that. Even one gram takes 3 to 14 days according to Carey et al, and that is using the C-25 400 pound floor incubator shaker and liquid media.

  15. We appear to have a flat contradiction between the FBI report that says harvest plates in 12 to 18 hours and the subtilis growth paper that says it takes 4 to 12 days. So how do we reconcile these? Hypothesis: the answer is that 12 to 18 hours is a lab protocol to get micrograms or milligrams of spores or bacteria and the paper is about growing grams for sending in letters to kill people.

    Suppose it takes 10 days for full growth. Suppose you start with 1 milligram equivalent of spores as live bacteria. You want 1 gram. So you want 1000. 2 to the 5 is 32, so 2 to the 10 is about 1000. So you need 10 doublings. (The rate of growth slows, but we ignore that.)

    After 1 day, you have 2 milligrams. Labman can stop here. He only needs 2 milligram or less to do an experiment. Mailerman can not stop with 2 milligram. Mailerman instead has to continue the full 10 days. If mailerman stops at day 9, he has 1 doubling to go, so he has only 1/2 gram instead of the full gram. Mailerman has to continue the full 10 days.

    The FBI was quoting Labman’s protocol not Mailerman’s protocol.

  16. Compare FBI footnote to the report linked to below AN IMPROVED METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF Bacillus subtilis var. niger SPORES FOR
    USE AS A SIMULANT FOR BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS- QUALITY ANALYSIS
    Diane C. St. Amant, Laurie F. Carey, Mark A. Guelta
    U.S. Army, Edgewood Chemical and Biological Command, APGEA, MD.

    The pdf doesn’t let you cut and paste like the FBI one. So I will refer to page numbers of pdf, not of the report.

    Read 2.9.1. page 12. This tells you that NSM refers to growth on plates.

    Go to section 3.2 page 16 and read Tables 1 to 4. The growth times are 4 to 12 days for the NSM, which is the plates in their experiment.

    Go to page 20, Table 6. This repeats the same information.

    Go to 3.1.1 Page 15. It says NSM, plates, take 4 times longer than liquid media when including preparation and harvesting/processing time.

  17. Footnote 25 of FBI report page 36 at bottom of page, page 40 of pdf.

    ==Quote below

    Each of these various devices plays a particular and critical role in the production of Ba spores. As a general matter, work on a pathogen of this type must be performed in a laboratory equipped with special safety devices and negative air pressure, so that any spills can be contained. With respect to spore production, generally speaking, a researcher would obtain a very small sample of spores from another source and transfer this sample to a growth medium, such as a Sheep’s Blood Agar (“SBA”) plate or a liquid preparation, that contained a nutrient source for the spores. An SBA plate could then be incubated to foster growth of spores. After an appropriate period of time, 12 to 18 hours was the standard protocol, the newly-grown spores would be harvested through an elaborate process, washed, and then spun down in a centrifuge to concentrate the spores. A fermentor can be used to grow large quantities of spores in a liquid preparation. Finally, as set forth supra in the Opportunity and Access section, a lyophilizer can be used to dry spores once they have been washed.

  18. Another issue is how many grams of spores were in the letters. If one gram of spores is in a letter, and one liter of growth media is needed to grow one gram of spores (with a good run) then one gram of growth media is needed for that letter. If a spore powder is spores and only spores and is 1 gram, and if it takes one liter of growth media to make 1 gram of pure powder, then one needs one gram of growth media.

    The Laurie F. Carey et al paper indicates the typical yield was more like .2 grams per liter in their experiments. (I am going by memory.)

    If a letter had 1 gram of pure spore powder, and the yield was .2 grams per liter, one needs 5 liters per letter. 5 such letters needs 25 liters.

    Ivins was shown using a glove box in a photo. That glove box didn’t look big enough for such a run. The paper used a floor shaker unit that weighed 400 pounds. If Ivins didn’t, his results would be worse, take longer and lower yield presumably.

  19. Suppose your take 2 1 liter containers of growth media. Imagine its milk to seem concrete. Call the containers A and B. In A we put a single bacterium. In B we put two.

    Suppose that a good run is 1 gram of spore equivalents, assuming a constant size of the spores. Suppose both containers have a good run. Then you end up with 1 gram of spores from each. But B will usually go faster by the time it takes a bacterium to split into two.

    • Note the container size is the same, 1 liter. The output is the same 1 gram. We get a yield of 1 gram per liter of growth media. This is true even though the starting number of bacteria is 2 times as many in case B as case A. Thus the final number of spores is a function of the growth media alone and not of the starting number of spores.

      • Final number of spores or grams (assuming a fixed size of spores) is a function of the liters of growth media (for the same growth media) and not of the starting number of spores.

  20. They have another paper here:

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA483822

    AN IMPROVED METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF Bacillus subtilis var. niger SPORES FOR
    USE AS A SIMULANT FOR BIOLOGICAL WARFARE AGENTS- QUALITY ANALYSIS
    Diane C. St. Amant, Laurie F. Carey, Mark A. Guelta
    U.S. Army, Edgewood Chemical and Biological Command, APGEA, MD.

    Please download them, you never know when they might not be there and at times they have been unavailable.

  21. Production of Bacillus Spores as a Simulant for Biological Warfare Agents
    Authors: Laurie F. Carey; Diane C. St. Amant; Mark A. Guelta; EDGEWOOD CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL CENTER ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA426293&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

    They used a

    New Brunswick c25 floor shaker incubator

    See page 12 of pdf, 2.9.2.

    This weighs 400 pounds.

    Note they were doing 1 liter flasks. Those produce in the best runs somewhat under a gram. To produce 5 to 10 grams for the first letters would require 5 to 10 liters.

    They started with 1ml of bacillus per liter of CD.

    Since RMR-1029 was used as a source, they still had to grow it because the letters contained subtilis and silicon not in RMR1029.

    Starting with more bacillus should shorten the production time, but it can not change the amount of growth media needed. The paper above also shows that yield is random and sometimes close to zero. It also shows that run time is 3 to 14 days with some runs duds at 14 days.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: