Category: GAO


Every once in a while a dialogue comes through (via comments) on a post that is worthy of further debate. Below is just the kind of dialogue I’m refering to. I hope you will agree.

 

Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Unedited) Satellite Image

 

Save_PIADC writes:

Thanks for your coverage.

The internal DHS Study Committee (SSRA) was about as close to an “inside job” as you could assemble and virtually all of the panelists had glaring conflicts of interest and personal stakes in seeing this project move forward.

Both of the USDA “independent experts” on the SSRA, Drs. Cyril Gay and Randall Leavings, were also members of the initial NBAF site visit team. Their efforts as site visit team members, largely informed the decision of siting NBAF in Kansas. They may have also met with Senator Pat Roberts during their 2007 site visits in Kansas.

SSRA members Steve Bennett, Dr. Michelle Colby, Dr. Bruce Harper and Dr. Joanne Jones-Meehan are all DHS employees. The notion that they would cast a skeptical eye towards a pet project of the DHS Secretary is laughable.

SSRA member Dr. David Brake is a contractor for DHS at Plum Island and his firm would have a vested financial stake in an expanded DHS countermeasure enterprise at NBAF.

SSRA member Dr. Josh Fine (SAIC) is also a contractor for DHS at Plum Island. His firm, SAIC, could potentially stand to gain a windfall if selected to provide SETA contract support at NBAF.

SSRA member Dr. Ted Schroeder is a professor at Kansas State. No conflict of interest there;) SSRA member Dr. Charles Hobbs is a “senior scientist emeritus” at the Lovelace Respiratory Reserach Institute. Lovelace’s President and CEO, Dr. Robert Rubin, was appointed in 2007 by then-Governor Kathleen Sebelius to serve on the “NBAF in Kansas Task Force.” Of course, there is no chance that Dr. Hobbs would come out against a major policy goal of his instiution’s President and CEO.

Other than the two HHS members, the SSRA panelists were riddled with ethical, professional, personal and financial conflicts of interest.

Continue reading

Advertisements

A report released today by the National Research Council, solidified concerns brought forth by two grassroot, non-profits who opposed and fought the placement of the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF) from being sited in North Carolina and Georgia. Both groups, the Granville Non Violent Action Team (GNAT) and AthensFAQ brought forth the same credible arguments presented in the NRC’s report. The report titled: “Evaluation of a Site-Specific Risk Assessment for the Department of Homeland Security’s Planned National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas” (that’s a mouth-full) was completed by DHS in June 2010.

The NRC report finally sheds some much-needed light on DHS’s flawed methodology and skewed data the agency used to justify the NBAF’s risk to near-by communities and livestock populations.

Upon review of the DHS assessment, the National Research Council found “several major shortcomings.” Based on the DHS risk assessment, there is nearly a 70 percent chance over the 50-year lifetime of the facility that a release of FMD could result in an infection outside the laboratory, impacting the economy by estimates of $9 billion to $50 billion. The present Research Council report says the risks and costs of a pathogen being accidently released from the facility could be significantly higher. The committee found that the SSRA has many legitimate conclusions, but it was concerned that the assessment does not fully account for how a Biosafety-Level 3 Agriculture and Biosafety-Level 4 Pathogen facility would operate or how pathogens might be accidently released. In particular, the SSRA does not include important operation risks and mitigation issues, such as the risk associated with the daily cleaning of large animal rooms. It also fails to address risks that would likely increase the chances of an FMD leak or of the disease’s spread after a leak, including the NBAF’s close proximity to the Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine clinics and KSU football stadium or personnel moving among KSU facilities.

Matt DeGennaro of AthensFAQ sums the report up quite nicely, “WE TOLD YOU SO” (and all we had was Google). Critical thinking  suggest this report should lay to rest once and for all, the federally funded bio-hazard, right? No, not if the Kansas Congressional Delegation has its way.

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has chosen Manhattan as the site for the new NBAF. The construction of this cutting edge facility must move forward to safely conduct critical research to protect our nation’s agriculture sector and food supply. The National Research Council’s study is helpful to DHS as it continues in its design phase of the NBAF facility. We are also pleased that it confirms the importance of building a new NBAF to protect our nation. However, we are concerned that some of the findings do not seem to account for mitigation and safety plans that DHS has already said will be put in place. These efforts should not be discounted. We are confident this facility will be the safest research laboratory in the world and its mission is critical in order to protect our nation’s food supply.”

Absent critical thinking, politicos from the Kansas Congressional Delegation obviously can’t read !  U.S. Senator Pat Roberts knows first hand what an outbreak of FMD would do to his state. Sen. Roberts you see was the President of the U.S. during a government exercise known as Crimson Sky. Here is what he said about the mock FMD outbreak during a Senate Hearing ( To Review BioSecurity Preparedness and Efforts to Address AgroTerrorism Threats).

Senator ROBERTS.
Back in 2002, I joined an exercise held by the department called Crimson Sky. That was sort of a misnomer because it followed the experience of Great Britain in regards to their problems with their livestock herds. They used that method in regards in incinerating the animals, which is probably the worst thing you could have done, as we found out.
There wasn’t anybody else in town, so I played the role of President in this exercise, and it simulated the intentional introduction of foot and mouth disease in five different locations. By the way,the person who did that was from Iraq, at least in the exercise. The impact was incredible. In 6 days, if you do not detect the disease, that is when this or the effects of the disease first become obvious, and then it is too late. All of our exports stop. People in the cities discovered that their food doesn’t come from grocery stores, and panic set in. The markets went crazy.

Basically, we had States calling out the National Guard. That is when we had the National Guard in the States, not over in Iraq and in Afghanistan and everywhere else, setting up all sorts of border situations so livestock in Texas couldn’t go to Oklahoma; Oklahoma couldn’t go to Kansas; Kansas couldn’t go to Nebraska; etc.,etc. It got pretty rough except everybody finally realized that all of the States were involved and we had to do something.

As President, I stopped the movement of all livestock. The Secretary of Commerce said you couldn’t do that. So I fired him, and it felt very good. But it was absolute chaos and not only for 1 year and not only for livestock, but every crop. So if you talk about a real problem, that was a real problem.
So, Chuck, can you tell me are you still conducting these kind of exercises? You probably don’t want to have me play President, but at any rate, are we doing the exercises that we need to do in conjunction with your compatriots up there on the panel, and has that impacted the way you do business?

Senator ROBERTS. We had to terminate almost every herd in America. I mean that was the end result. It was an incredible experience when you really finally got down to the final answer to stop what was going on. We had to call out the National Guard and call out the military. Quite frankly, we ran out of ammunition. It was a mess, and then you had PETA on television, and I can’t describe the utter chaos that happened.

See folks this is the bottom line; Federal grant dollars have a way of creating amnesia. Here we have a person who knows first hand the economic damage caused by a mock- outbreak of FMD  in the state of Kansas but continues to push for the NBAF.  I don’t live in Kansas but if I did I’d be concerned, very concerned. Maybe real-life is too much for some people to believe, but when you involve their wallets everything changes, doesn’t it Sen. Roberts?

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3



Part 4



Source: Washington’s Blog

The FDA is close to approving genetically modified (gm) salmon. See this and this.

We know that at least some genetically modified foods may harm the environment. See this.

And serious questions have been raised about whether some gm foods might increase allergies or cause other health problems in humans and other organisms. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
Indeed, as Mother Jones pointed out last week, gm salmon may itself increase allergies:

Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen called the company’s food safety tests “woefully incomplete,” and the group pointed out that the FDA approval panel is mostly comprised of GE [i.e. genetic engineering] cheerleaders, with no fish ecologists or allergists. Why’s an allergist important? Because the company’s own tests suggest that the new salmon could be much more allergenic than regular salmon.

In order to understand the allergy tests, a bit of backstory on how AquAdvantage salmon are made is necessary. First, genetic engineers create a “diploid” fish, meaning like people, it has two sets of chromosomes. Then, to make the final market product, they add genetic material from other fish and breed a new salmon with three sets of chromosomes—a “triploid” female that can’t reproduce. AquaBounty researchers compared the allergenicity—or potential to cause an allergic reaction—of a control group of salmon to both the genetically engineered diploids and triploids. They found (PDF, see page 102) that the diploid salmon were 40 percent more allergenic than the control, while the triploid group was 19 percent more allergenic.

AquaBounty says that the triploids’ allergenicity level wasn’t statistically significant, and although the diploids’ level is significant, it doesn’t matter because only triploids will be sold. But Hansen of the Consumers Union finds a few problems with this argument. For starters, the test wasn’t double blind, meaning the researchers knew which fish were part of which test group. Second, the sample size of triploid fish was tiny—only six fish in all. Third, although AquaBounty is going to try to turn all its market-bound fish into triploid sterile females, the process isn’t perfect, and some 5 percent could end up as the more allergenic diploid. Especially scary when you consider that unlike the triploids, the diploids aren’t sterile. So if they escaped, they could breed with wild salmon.

The FDA simply doesn’t have enough information to determine whether AquaBounty’s salmon are likely to cause more allergic reactions than their non-GE counterparts. But there is good reason to be concerned about the potential allergenicity of all GE foods, says Margaret Mellon, director of the scientist Union of Concerned Scientsts’ Food and Environment Program. “You have this technology that allows you to essentially move proteins around from food to food,” she says. “You can move a highly allergenic protein into a new food, and no one will know to avoid the new food.”

Indeed, a 1996 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that people who were allergic to Brazil nuts were also allergic to soy beans that had been implanted with a Brazil nut protein. There is also some evidence that even proteins don’t usually cause allergies can become allergenic when they are moved to a new food. A 2005 Australian study found that mice who were fed peas containing a typically non-allergenic protein from kidney beans experienced allergic reactions.

Another worry is that potentially allergenic GE crops might “escape” into foods. In the late ’90s, the pharmaceutical giant Aventis introduced StarLink, a genetically engineered variety of corn. StarLink was approved for sale in the US, but only for non-food uses, since it contained a potentially allergenic protein. But then, traces of it started turning up in food (most famously, Taco Bell taco shells), and 28 people claimed they had suffered allergic reactions to foods containing StarLink. Although the CDC later found no medical evidence that any of those people had an allergy to the corn, an EPA advisory panel acknowledged that the CDC’s tests did “not eliminate StarLink…protein as a potential cause of allergic symptoms.”

The bottom line: It’s not that genetically engineered foods are inherently more allergenic than traditional foods, but transfering genes does make it more likely that allergens might pop up in unexpected places. “There can be a lot of unintended side effects when you do genetic modification, which means you have to test very carefully,” says Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the watchdog group Food and Water Watch. “In the case of salmon, one test on six fish just seems very insufficient for something that will open the floodgates to other GE meat and fish.”
Allergic reactions can – in a small percentage of people – be more severe than just a sniffle or stomach ache. Some people die from allergic reactions.

At least genetically modified salmon will be labeled as such, so people can avoid it if they wish. Right?

Wrong.

As the Washington Post notes:

The FDA says it cannot require a label on the genetically modified food once it determines that the altered fish is not “materially” different from other salmon – something agency scientists have said is true.

Perhaps more surprising, conventional food makers say the FDA has made it difficult for them to boast that their products do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

Unfortunately, stifling the ability of producers of traditional foods to tell consumers they are not using an additive is nothing new. For example, Monsanto has sued milk producers who labeled their product as not containing growth hormone.

Similarly, Scientific American notes that gm seed producers control research, so that independent scientists can’t study the effects of gm:

Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops.

Liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians should all be up in arms about this.

We have a right to know what we’re eating.

Postscript: Farmed salmon contains less of the healthy Omega 3 fatty acids and more pollutants than wild salmon. See this and this. GM salmon will be farmed (unless it escapes into the ocean). So eating wild salmon may potentially be one way to avoid gm salmon, reduce exposure to pollutants, and increase healthy Omega 3s.

The reason that wild salmon has more Omega 3s than farmed salmon is that wild salmon eat Omega 3 rich foods. It is the same reason that grass-fed beef contains more Omega 3s than beef from cows fed corn, meat or other “modern” feeds. See this and this.

Eating Omega 3 rich foods can increase gray matter in adults and boost neurological development in children. Conversely, low dietary levels of Omega 3s in mothers can reduce their kids’ IQ.

This is not entirely surprising, given that (1) our brains are about 60% fat, and (2) leading nutritionists say that humans evolved to consume alot of Omega 3 fatty acids in the wild game and fish which they ate (more), and that a low Omega 3 diet is a very new trend within the last 100 years or so

In a Press Release this past week, Congressman Tim Bishop of New York stated that it is “highly unrealistic” that the sale of Plum Island (PIADC) at an “estimated value of $50-80 million could possibly cover the over $650 million cost of constructing NBAF”.

“Highly Unrealistic”? You think?  On what planet does the sale of a $50-80 million piece of  highly contaminated government property pay for the construction of a new $650 million facility?

First of all let’s not forget the  Congressional Research Service estimated back in 08′ that the clean-up of  Plum Island would top $100 million and that was their best estimate at the time.

Bottom line, DHS has toyed with the sale of Plum Island (PIADC) for almost two years now as noted in a previous post I wrote back in 08′, yet they (DHS) still have not completed a Congressionally mandated comprehensive risk assessment of the NBAF’s actual final design. Moreover, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has completed 4 oversight reports on High-Containment Biosafety Laboratories in the U.S.; two specifically analysing the methodology used to justify the research slated for Plum Island’s (PIADC) replacement the NBAF. Isn’t it past time for this Bush-era knee jerk, behemoth to disappear? It was and still is a bad  idea and;

Given our nation’s mounting budget deficits, many have questioned the wisdom of spending approximately $1 billion of taxpayer dollars to create a massive new research facility that would duplicate many of the functions currently served by Plum Island and other existing facilities.  

Congressman Bishop has the right idea, we should tell Price and the other members of the House subcommittee on Homeland Security we do not support this project. Why? Think of it this way, here we are three years into the project, now Kansas and DHS are pushing lawmakers for a biological TARP bail-out in the name of national security. Or is it really more about research grants and corporate profits? If you’re a critical thinker you already have the answer.

Just, where are those Teabaggers when you need them?

Remember NBAF? Thank you, GNAT! | Click to visit their website | NoBio.org

Source: Barton Kunstler, Ph.D | The Huffington Post

Earlier this year, during an audit of the nation’s largest Level-4 BioSafety Lab (BSL-4) at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland, 9,220 vials of ebola, anthrax, botulinum, equine encephalitis virus, and other deadly germs were discovered in the proverbial dusty old storage area. No one even knew the vials existed and thus no one knows for sure whether any are missing.

But not to worry, according to officials. The vials were old and lost long before new documentation procedures were put in place. Besides, the lab is being expanded and updated with the latest security devices. Such reassuring mantras resound after every oil and chemical spill, radioactive discharge from nuclear power plant (more frequent than generally realized), black-market uranium sale, and mishandled nuclear bomb: “It may seem dangerous, but trust us – there wasn’t enough poison to hurt a fly and besides, we’re sure we recovered everything.”

Very likely – hopefully – at Fort Detrick they did. But the most important question remains unanswered: can any BSL-4, the labs with the deadliest, often highly contagious, bacteria and viruses, ever be truly fail-safe? After all, at some point that old storeroom in Fort Detrick was state-of-the-art. Human error applies not only to daily procedures, but to equipment that always seems so pristine when new. Proponents of BSL-4s argue that without these research labs we stand defenseless against a natural outbreak of disease or bio-terrorist attack. And, they say, the labs are so safe that the chances of a disease-spreading breach approach zero.

The problem is, neither of these assertions is strictly true. Vaccines against Level-4 Ebola and Marburg viruses have been developed in Level-2 labs by inserting their DNA into non-pathogenic viruses that can trigger immune responses just as definitively as the deadly pathogen. Scientists can therefore develop vaccines against deadly bacteria and viruses without actually handling the germs themselves. And the Level-4 labs may very well make our world more dangerous rather than safer and more secure. However modern and up-to-date a laboratory, it is still subject to human error, violence, neglect, and systemic breakdown. The Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak in Great Britain in 2007 was due, according to the British government’s inquiry, to “poor training and incompetence” and a “creeping degradation of standards”, while the 2001 outbreak was attributed by the government to an employee who smuggled out a vial of FMD from his lab.

Image: Plum Island's Lab 257

“Creeping degradation” is probably responsible for most industrial and infrastructural accidents. The case of Plum Island off the northeast coast of Long Island, New York, home to a now-closed Level-4 lab, illustrates the problem. Many believe Plum Island responsible for Lyme Disease, borne by deer swimming five miles from the island to the Connecticut coast near Lyme where the first outbreaks occurred. Lab 257 by Michael Carroll details how protocols and procedures at Plum Island eventually unraveled. Countless small oversights and flaws in equipment, procedures, and human judgment tend to build up over time to generate distinct vulnerabilities until an otherwise controllable opportunistic event spins out of control.

It is often claimed that BSL-4s have a flawless safety record, although the 9,220 recovered vials seem to undermine that claim. More importantly, only two Level-4 labs have operated in the United States until recently and their documentation has been in disarray, as Fort Detrick’s spokesperson admitted to explain how the vials went missing.

There is, in fact, no real documentation that BSL-4 labs have been operating safely. As with the oft-ignored low-level radioactive releases from nuclear power plants, small accidents can be ignored or covered up; it takes a major disaster to enter public consciousness. Recently, the city of Boston had to admit that the news of the infection of three BSL-2 lab workers in a lab had been suppressed by the lab and city officials. Mayor Menino assured us that if the public had been in danger, they would have told us sooner. Granted, Level-2 labs are not built to be foolproof and the diseases harbored there are far milder than in BSL-4s, but when infection at a BSL-2 is kept under wraps, would a more serious threat have been publicized, especially with no real emergency response mechanism in place in most communities?

According to the Sunshine Project, “Three Texas A&M University biodefense researchers were infected with the biological weapons agent Q Fever in 2006. The infections were confirmed in April of that year, but Texas A&M officials did not report them to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), as required by law. Instead, Texas A&M officials covered the infections up until now, illegally failing to disclose them despite freedom of information requests dating back to October 2006.” This was in addition to a brucella infection at the lab, news of which was also withheld from the public. In response to these events, the Center for Disease Control ordered the lab to shut down its bioweapons research, citing – in a detailed report issued August 31, 2007 – a host of violations of basic safety protocols at the lab. Other accidents at BSL-3s have recently occurred at the University of New Mexico (anthrax, 2003 and unidentified pathogen in 2004); Medical University of Ohio (2004, Level-3 Valley Fever); University of Chicago (2005, Level 3, possibly anthrax or plague); and UC Berkeley (2005, Level 3 aerosolized, weaponized Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever). From 2005-2006, University of Wisconsin at Madison (UW) researchers made and manipulated copies of the Ebola virus genome even though the federal government stipulates that such research must take place at a BSL-4. (It should be noted that Level-3 pathogens can be every bit as dangerous as Level 4s and include many of the more contagious germs; it’s just they’ve been shown to respond to antibiotics). All these cases occurred after 2001, when the through-the-mail anthrax attacks supposedly led to tighter security and more sophisticated protocols at BSL-3s and BSL-4s.

The dangers posed by biolabs often fly under the radar, but that may be changing. The General Accounting Office, in a report released this past September 21st, stated that the rapid – and often unregulated – proliferation of Level 3 and Level 4 labs places the public at significant risk. The public would do well to question the knee-jerk “security at all costs” policy of the federal government which threatens to build up stores of the world’s deadliest organisms across the United States. As for proponents’ arguments that the labs are absolutely safe and absolutely necessary, we shall address them soon in another post.

 

f_hazard_220_299

A hearing slated for later today will examine the latest findings made by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding the oversight and expansion of  high-containment laboratories in the United States. In their report, the GAO focused on the  Bio-Safety level 3 & 4 laboratories both operational and planned i.e. National Bio and Agro Defense facility (NBAF), for obvious reasons; these facilities conduct research on the deadliest most dangerous pathogens or select agents. Interesting enough, was GAO’s cited reason for the study; “public concern” regarding over-sight and accidental or intentional release of select agents.  In short, opposition to these facilities nation-wide has turned those  “living in the shadows” into activist, lobbyist and educators, all working to prevent or stop construction or expansion of the biolab slated for their area.

U.S. laboratories working with dangerous biological pathogens (commonly referred to as high containment laboratories) have proliferated in recent years. As a result, the public is concerned about the oversight of these laboratories. The deliberate or accidental release of biological pathogens can have disastrous consequences.

Ample evidence exist and experts agree that many incidents or accidents go “unreported and unrecorded”. Consider the Sunshine Project’s investigation into Texas A&M, Ed Hammond uncovered a serious incident that even the CDC; which regulates some of these facilities, missed. Texas A&M ended up paying a $1 million dollar fine for the incident but the findings by Hammond suggested that far more incidents are taking place than the public knows, which if left “as is” puts us all at risk. Consider the following from a report by the Congressional Research Office’s, Issues for Congress report released in June of this year.

The experts we spoke with also stated that it is highly probable that many incidents go unreported and unrecorded because of the lack of such serious consequences. Such underreporting represents lost opportunities to analyze and learn lessons that can provide a basis for continuing improvement and maintenance of laboratory safety.

We as a Nation cannot continue to ignore issues at hand with regard to the operation of  high-containment laboratories and their dual -use research. It is, pardon the pun a double-edged sword for all concerned but Congress must act on the recommendation of the GAO once and for all before it is too late. 

What the GAO found:

The recent expansion of high-containment laboratories in the United States began in response to the need to develop medical countermeasures after the anthrax attacks in 2001. Understandably, the expansion initially lacked a clear, governmentwide coordinated strategy. In that emergency situation, the expansion was based on individual agency perceptions of the capacity their highcontainment labs required as well as the availability of congressionally approved funding. Decisions to fund the construction of high-containment labs were made by multiple federal agencies in multiple budget cycles. Federal and state agencies, academia, and the private sector considered their individual requirements, but an assessment of national needs was lacking. Even now, after more than 7 years, GAO was unable to find any projections based on a governmentwide strategic evaluation of future capacity requirements set in light of existing capacity; the numbers, location, and mission of the laboratories needed to effectively counter biothreats; and national public health goals. Such information is needed to ensure that the United States will have facilities in the right place with the right specifications.

Continue reading

Fact Check: The number of registered BSL-3 labs rose from 415 in 2004 to 1,362 by 2008, the GAO found

Fact Check: The number of registered BSL-3 labs rose from 415 in 2004 to 1,362 by 2008, the GAO found

Source: The Boston Herald | The Associated Press  

A national strategy is needed for overseeing the expanding number of laboratories designed for research on the world’s deadliest pathogens, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.

Since the fatal anthrax attacks of 2001, the number of so-called high-containment labs has increased, but no federal agency knows whether their number meets or exceeds the national need or is at a level that can be operated safely, the GAO said in the 104-page document.

The federal watchdog agency recommended that the White House national security advisor, in consultation with the National Intelligence Council and the secretaries of health, agriculture, defense, and homeland security, identify a single entity to oversee the growth of high-containment labs.

The overseer would determine the number, location, and mission of the laboratories needed to effectively counter biological threats. It also would analyze the risks associated with the laboratories’ expansion and determine how much oversight is needed.

The agency would then develop national standards for designing, building, commissioning and operating the labs.

High-containment labs are rated either Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3), for work with agents such as anthrax and tuberculosis bacteria that may cause serious illness or death if inhaled, or BSL-4, which is reserved for potentially lethal agents that lack vaccines or other treatments, such as the Marburg and Ebola viruses. Workers in BSL-4 labs must wear protective suits with a self-contained oxygen supply.

For most of the past 50 years, only two U.S. entities had BSL-4 labs: the Army biodefense center at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. Three more were built between 1990 and 2000, at Georgia State University in Atlanta; the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas; and the privately funded Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, Texas.

Since the 2001 anthrax mailings that killed five people and sickened 17 others, seven new BSL-4 facilities are in the works. Three will be at Fort Detrick, including a replacement for the existing lab there. The others will be in Manhattan, Kan.; Boston; Galveston, Texas, and Richmond, Va.

The GAO said no one knows how many BSL-3 labs exist or are planned, since only those that work with dangerous “select agents” must register with the CDC. The number of registered BSL-3 labs rose from 415 in 2004 to 1,362 by 2008, the GAO found.

The report comes on the eve of a Senate subcommittee hearing on biolab security, and a National Research Council review of health and safety risks at an Army biodefense lab under construction at Fort Detrick in Frederick.

Source: TrTeam59’s | Youtube Channel Anthrax-War| By Eric Nadler and Bob Coen| Transformer Films

About the Documentary:

For filmmaker Bob Coen, who was raised in Zimbabwe where the former white regime has been accused of unleashing anthrax against the black population, biological weapons have a deep personal meaning. He embarks on a journey that raises troubling questions about the FBI’s investigation of the 21st century’s first act of biological terrorism.

Coen’s investigation takes him from the U.S. to the U.K. and from the edge of Siberia to the tip of Africa. In a rare interview, Coen confronts “Doctor Death” Wouter Basson, who headed Project Coast, the South African apartheid-era bio-warfare program. Project Coast used germ warfare against select targets within the country’s black population.

Anthrax War also investigates the mysterious deaths of some of the world’s leading anthrax scientists, including Dr. David Kelly, the UK’s top military microbiologist, the Soviet defector Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, and Dr. Bruce Ivins. The FBI claims – despite the doubts of highly ranked U.S. officials – that Ivins was the only person behind the U.S. anthrax murders.

In tracing the 2001 bio-terror attacks in the U.S. to the heart of the U.S. bio-defense program, this film raises an alarm. These attacks that helped prepare a country for war have also spawned a multi-billion dollar bio-defense boom. The line between bio-offense and bio-defense is becoming extremely thin. Biological weapons research is now being conducted by corporations and private labs without effective government oversight. The international treaty prohibiting the development of offensive bio-weapons may no longer be sufficient to keep the world from drifting towards the unthinkable biological warfare.

One aspect of this film hits home; right here in North Carolina, thanks to Richard Burr (R-NC) who as Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness crafted legislation dubbed Project Bioshield aka Bio-Shield, BARDA and others. Pay close attention to what is disclosed about the legislation in the film and then think about the H1N1 vaccine.

One last thing, everyone who was involved in stopping the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF) from coming to Butner  should find the contents of this film chilling. Furthermore, you deserve a pat on the back (insert pat here), the prospects of a post-NBAF town to me is unimaginable, especially after watching this film.

Here is Anthrax War, presented in 6 parts.

Anthrax War Part 1

Anthrax War Part 2

Anthrax War Part 3

Continue reading

Image: NOBIO.ORG

Image: NOBIO.ORG

Updated 7:00 PM EST | The latest GAO report regardng the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility(NBAF) has been released, you can find it here.

The legislative wrangling over intial funding for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) may have hit a brick wall if you believe the latest findings in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report obtained by the Washington Post. This report marks the second time the GAO found “Homeland Security’s risk analysis for the NBAF was not “scientifically defensible”, for any mainland site not just Kansas’ tornado alley.

The NBAF despite what you read in mainstream media, will be the largest BSL 4 AG facility in the world. This sets this facility apart from all other BSL4 facilities now operational including the CDC. Why? The NBAF will conduct research on a wide variety of large animals according to the DHS’s own documents as many as 30,192 animals total. (See pages 329-343 of the Feasibility Study) Conducting research on a 1400+ lbs. animal poses unique challenges not found at any facility currently operational in the US. Moreover, FMD can be carried out of the lab in many ways even in the researchers lungs and it will only take that ONE mistake.

FMDV can be found in all secretions and excretions from acutely infected animals, including expired air, saliva, milk, urine, feces and semen. Pigs, in particular, produce large quantities of aerosolized virus.

 In humans, FMDV may be carried in the nasal passages for a period of time.

Highly contagious animal diseases like foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) are often referred “economic diseases” because of the economic harm they can cause, i.e., Crimson sky. Ironically, Kansas’ own Senator Roberts participated in the government exercise, so he knows first hand what is at stake. Consider England’s FMD outbreak;

 What do we know now? This one mistake cost the UK billions, citizens their lively-hoods and millions of animals were slaughtered, (culled) some animals were infected, others were not infected but, were slaughtered (culled) to stop the spread of the disease, as would be the case surrounding a FMD release from the NBAF. Given the fact that a lab was the known source of the leak (through DNA sequencing, a genetic match of the virus type was made) not a terrorism attack or a natural occurrence of FMD, should this not bring the risk of an accidental release front and center in the debate instead of a justification for such a facility? Citizens deserve accurate information.

There are many other things about the NBAF, DHS didn’t disclose in their site visits; but you can find it in the NBAF Feasibilty Study obtained through a FOIA request.

SCIF Room

The NBAF will have a SCIF room which states for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. “There are SCIFs in the U.S. Capitol, where members of the U.S. Congress are briefed on military secrets. In U.S. nuclear labs, computers that store weapons data are housed inside SCIFs. Components of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, such as the new National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) (Click here to view a Power Point Presentation on the NBACC at Fort Detrick, Maryland) have or will have SCIFs.” 

 Why is this in an Ag facility?

The NBAF will house an Insectary

From 2-2 of the DEIS

Supporting laboratory modules to include insectary spaces necessary to support the research. The BSL-2 insectary is for the combined functions of breeding, rearing, manipulating, and holding/incubating of arthropod vectors used in the research programs. Other insectary research spaces within BSL-3E and BSL-3Ag would be used for holding infected live insects or arthropods and for virus transmission studies to and from both infected and non-infected large animals and small animals.

In the event of an accidental release of any infected or contaminated  insects from the insectary, DHS proposes wide spread aerial spraying of pesticides to contain the spread of disease. Are you aware Lyme’s disease and West Nile Virus both originated very near Plum Island Animal Disease Center, the facility the NBAF will replace. See (Table 2.5.1-2, Page 2-42 and Paragraph 3 last sentence page 3-218 of the Draft Enviromental Impact Statement). Read Page D-9 for more.

The NBAF will research Avian Flu and Newcastle Disease

On page 161 of the Feasibility Study under “Program – Detailed Space List”  Avian Influenza has 2 rooms dedicated to it with a total of 1344 square feet, Newcastle disease is also mentioned. It is a NEPA violation to not have these “new” viruses listed as part of the Environmental Impact Study. Remember DHS only list 8 diseases,why were these virues excluded?

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: