Issue #2
October 2001
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Anthrax Scare
by Sten Grynir
Every day for the past few weeks the news has been full of anthrax stories: this person has received an envelop with a mysterious white powder; that person has had anthrax spores detected on his skin; a location somewhere has tested positive for low levels of anthrax spores.
The reports have been alarming, even while assurances were being given that the general public was in no great danger. Some of the alarm stems from confusion, however. The reports have been contradictory, and strangely uninformative. Much of the lack of information has to do with the nature of the tests that are performed.
A series of questions should be answered by the Center for Disease Control and state health authorities. These include:
- Is there more than one kind of test for anthrax spores? If so, how do these test differ in method, sensitivity and speed? What measures are taken to insure that the results of a given test are not contaminated by material from a previous test?
- Are these tests susceptible to false positives? If so, what rate of false positives can be expected from each? This is a particularly important question for public confidence, since a test with a 2% false positive rate can be expected to give one erroneous finding of anthrax presence for every fifty tests done. When large numbers of people or places are tested, confirmations of anthrax presence will occur even when no anthrax exists.
- How common is the presence of very low levels of anthrax spores in the environment even when no human agent of distribution exists? That is, do anthrax spores occur naturally in the normal environment, although at too low a level to cause disease? If this is true, anthrax tests may detect these spores and people may falsely leap to the conclusion that their presence indicates malicious intent.
- What measures exist to clean a contaminated environment once anthrax spores have been detected. Are common household agents of any value in this effort, or does decontamination require special measures only available to the government? If common household chemicals, or UV light, or any other measure available to the public will work, it would be a great comfort to those concerned about the possibility of their home or office becoming contaminated.
These questions can be easily answered by the authorities. They should be answered swiftly if anthrax anxiety is not to get out of hand.
Editor's Note: The November 15 issue of New York Stringer will contain an article on anthrax that will provide information on the nature of the disease, its routes of dissemination, treatments, and virulity of its various forms. Some of the questions raised in the present article will be answered then.
Click on underlined by-lines for the author’s home page.
New York Stringer is published by NYStringer.com. For all communications, contact David Katz, Editor and Publisher, at david@nystringer.c om
All content copyright 2002 by nystringer.com