Showed him posing in an airtight suit standing behind a bioreactor, as if to demonstrate how easy it could be done. First, if you have created membrane proteins, you are a seasoned professional, not an amateur as implied by much of the FBI material. Also, membrane proteins, presumably for medical research do not require biosecurity level (BSL) 3 or 4 level containment. Unless you are trained and supported in an advanced BSL laboratory, a small mistake will kill you when working with this (Ames) strain of anthrax.

So how much membrane protein are you producing? More than a few milligrams in the purified state would probably mean you are commerial scale, not research lab scale.

Bush is an idiot and the war is a catastrophe. The original reference was to a comparison of Iraq with the Nazi occupation and descruction of Spain. The Nazi's never had any good intentions. That is the only difference. Iraq is best described as "another Viet Nam". Most would like now to have never been there, but cant bear to turn and run.

My mistake. It seems Ross's Peabody came for other work, and he did win a George Polk award for the CIA Prison work. Egg's on my face, not O'Reilly's.

My apologies if someone else has pointed this out already, I don't have time to read all of the comments. Just came across this in researching a different matter, thought it had some bearing.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2475086

Above text links to a Ross appearance on the "O'Reilly Factor." I didn't watch the whole thing, but they start out by talking about sources. Seems relevant to the issue at hand.

It's also pretty funny that O'Reilly starts the segment by announcing that Ross has just won a "Polk" for the CIA Prisons story. As far as I can tell, Ross actually won a "Peabody" for the story, not a Polk. If you didn't know O'Reilly has a long and ridiculous history of "confusing" the two awards, mostly in his claim that he won one or the other for his work as a "journalist" (a show he used to be on won a Polk, not a Peabody. Whether or not he was involved is something I'm not qualified to assess.) In the part that I watched, Ross didn't bother to point out the mistake.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Not many people will argue that the Bush Administration "intended" for the Iraq occupation to turn into such a catastrophe. But it did. And it did because the post war planning was arguably non-existent, among other well documented reasons. I think a good analogy would be that drunk drivers don't "intend" to kill other people on their way home from the bar. But they do, and we make them pay a price for their criminal negligence.

On the silica vs Bentonite issue.

silica is a component of bentonite. If silica was found by and x-ray analysis it could confirm the presence of benontite. However, bentonite also contains aluminum, so the absence of aluminum suggests that any mineralization of the spores is not done with bentonite.

On the cell culture issue.

A bio-reactor is more or less complicated depending on the requirements of the cells being cultured. I haven't worked with anthrax spores or anything like them, but I have worked with 'difficult to culture' membrane proteins. Bioreactors can now be run in a sterile, prefabricated bag for low cost at relatively large scales. If you really used the recent advances in technology for chemical biology, you could probably do it in a room. Think of the amount of marijuana produced in a closet using current, optimised techniques vs a field in Mexico. If there's a market, someone will push the envelope of the production techniques.

the term sol-gel is ill-defined

sol gel recipes vary all over the map. Some are simple and some are extremely complicated.

I don't believe there was any bentonite and I don't believe Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks.

Again, the point of my post is that there was NO BENTONITE -- I really don't care in the slightest for purposes of this postif there was silica (since, as even Ross admitted, silica is used by a whole slew of countries besides Iraq in anthrax).

You are relying on Beecher's anonymous sources that say there were NO ADDITIVES PERIOD to prove there was no bentonite. Beecher is directly contradicted by this:

http://www.afip.org/images/public/nl081002.pdf

“Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,” said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. “This was a key component,” Mullick said. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.”

A named source who has done actual scientific testing on the anthrax in question.

And my sources for the lack of bentonite are NOT unnamed - I cite Beecher, the NYT, Lake, his sources, Gray, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION in both public and private denials, among others. Beecher has first-hand knowledge of the investigation -- he's a scientists in the FBI's lab at Quantico.

They are unnamed sources. If Beecher and the NYT are named sources then Ross and ABC are named sources. Laundering an unnamed source though a named reporter does not create a named source. That should be obvious.

Beecher - Anonymous sources contradicted by Mullick

NYT - Same as above

Lake & his sources - still waiting for a cite

Gray - ????

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION - cite please

Repeating from a previous post-If Beecher is at the center of the anthrax investigation, I am not sure why he is relying on an article written by an investigative journalist quoting unnamed sources.

My argument is that there was NO BENTONITE -- and all credible sources say that. Are you aware of any which claim otherwise?

There is so far no evidence of bentonite, except unnamed sources. While we can infer there was no bentonite, I have yet to see any science that makes that claim. Would I be surprised if there was no bentonite? No.

What do you mean by "unsourced" here? "Unsourced" means the absence of a source. How is Beecher not a source? How is Lake's comprehensive analysis of the pubicly available information not a source? Those ARE sources. You may not like the sources - you may think they are not dispositive - but they are sources.

Maybe I misunderstand your criticism of anonymous sources and of journalistic sourcing in general. If Beecher and Lake are sources for no bentonite then surely Ledeen is a source for WMDs in Iraq.

You think he's talking about the grade of anthrax here without having any idea what the tests revealed? He's just making it up?

Making what up? What is he supposed to be saying here? That not "weapons grade" means no additives? If so, that is a pretty big leap. Are you saying that Patrick did any actual testing or is basing his opinion on any actual testing?

Every source -- named source, including with first-hand knowledge - say there is no bentonite.

If Beecher is your source with first hand knowledge, his statement "Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters..." and then footnoting Matsumoto is a strange way to say first hand knowledge.

Damn, you are almost as stubborn as I am.

I have an idea, why don't you get someone who has done actual testing to speak on the record and say there is no bentonite instead of arguing with me.