Prime Time Replay:


Leonard A. Cole, Ph.D.
on the dangers of biological warfare



MsgId: *breakthrough(1)
Date: Wed Apr 16 20:23:24 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

Welcome to Breakthrough Medicine. I'm Madeleine Lebwohl, and tonight I'll be speaking with Dr. Leonard Cole, an expert on biological warfare.
MsgId: *breakthrough(2)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:02:20 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

Hi, Madeleine, glad to be here.
MsgId: *breakthrough(4)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:05:56 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

Dr. Cole, let's start by discussing what got you interested in biological warfare.
MsgId: *breakthrough(5)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:07:51 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

In the late 1970's, and early 80's, information surfaced about the army's germ warfare tests over American cities. The testing had been conducted in the 1950's and 60's. The subject fascinated me and I ended up writing a book about it: Clouds of Secrecy, in 1988. In the course of learning about the tests, I learned about biological and then chemical warfare issues as well.

Particularly compelling was the number of citizens who were uninformed human subjects of the army's experiments. Tens of millions of Americans apparently were exposed to bacteria and chemicals during these tests. The army said that the bacteria were harmless, but the medical literature of the time suggested that these bacteria could cause health risks.

MsgId: *breakthrough(8)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:11:07 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

Should the public think that this could never happen again?
MsgId: *breakthrough(9)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:12:43 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

The Pentagon says that this testing stopped after 1969, and I have no evidence that outdoor testing is done in heavily populated areas. Although there is outdoor testing with bacteria and chemicals in certain locations, in particular, Dugway Proving Ground, 70 miles from Salt Lake City, is one location.
MsgId: *breakthrough(10)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:14:26 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

In your book, The Eleventh Plague, you mention that bacteria have been released in the New York City subway system. At the time, was the public told about this?
MsgId: *breakthrough(11)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:16:58 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

All of the testing was secret, and we didn't learn about any of the tests until the late 1970's and into the 80's. Among the 239 tests over populated areas, that the army admitted to, one included releasing bacteria in the New York City subway system in 1966. Among the bacteria used then, and still being used in Utah, are bacillus subtilis, ordinarily considered harmless. But when concentrated and blown into someone's face, who is very young or very old, or immune compromised, these bacteria can be dangerous.
MsgId: *breakthrough(13)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:21:49 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

These bacteria may not be dangerous, but what is the possibility that deadly bacteria could be released in the same way?
MsgId: *breakthrough(14)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:23:51 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

The purpose of the tests was to answer your question. And the army learned that more harmful bacteria could be extremely dangerous to large numbers of people who would have been exposed. The government has estimated that 200 lbs. of anthrax germs released from a low flying airplane, could kill up to 3 million people.
MsgId: *breakthrough(15)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:24:31 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

So in some ways this is as good a weapon as a nuclear bomb.
MsgId: *breakthrough(16)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:27:14 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

A nuclear device would have more predictable effects, and clearly would be highly destructive, whatever the weather conditions, and would assuredly leave a dangerous radiation field in the aftermath of an explosion. But the effect of the release of bacteria would be dependent on weather conditions especially, wind currents, and if in sunlight, the bacteria would more likely be rendered ineffective by the sun's ultraviolet light.

But under 'ideal' weather conditions, the anthrax would survive, reach the targets, and people would be inhaling as few as 8 or 10 thousand bacteria, which is a lethal dose. The size of that cluster of bacteria is so small as to be invisible to the human eye.

MsgId: *breakthrough(18)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:31:26 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

Does the average citizen have to worry about this? Is there a way to protect yourself?
MsgId: *breakthrough(19)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:35:46 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

This is one of many risks that if we spend too much time thinking about can drive us crazy. I would worry more about the number of hand guns that are available in huge numbers. As far as protection, many biological agents are susceptible to treatment by vaccine or antibiotics if countered in time. The army is trying to develop detection systems that could identify concentrations of pathogens.
MsgId: *breakthrough(20)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:37:50 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

Considering how easily you can introduce bacteria into the atmosphere, how come more military uses haven't happened?
MsgId: *breakthrough(21)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:39:57 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

There are several probable reasons. Some biological agents would not be seen as reliable and too dependent on weather conditions. Terrorist groups, especially, might be unfamiliar with the techniques of developing such agents. And I do not minimize the importance of the sense of repugnance that many people feel about inflicting disease on others.

Of course, some individuals or rogue states might ignore the moral issue. But the fact is that because most civilized society would deplore the use of biologicals, and thoroughly condemn any would-be user, this has helped as a disincentive.

MsgId: *breakthrough(23)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:43:30 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

But people don't seem to hesitate as much with the use of chemical weapons. Why is that?
MsgId: *breakthrough(24)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:46:18 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

Even chemical weapons have been used infrequently though more than biologicals. I think biological weapons have an edge of repugnance beyond any other weapon. Almost all societies invest huge amounts of resources to fight disease and to maintain health. To purposely inflict disease seems a particularly perverse action.

During the past ten years, many conflicts, for example, in El Salvador, Uganda, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and elsewhere, were suspended in order to administer vaccines to civilians. It seems unlikely that an army willing to suspend fighting to help fight disease, would immediately turn around and inflict disease.

MsgId: *breakthrough(26)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:51:58 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

There's been activity surrounding the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans chemical weapons. How do you see US policy on this -- do we join it ourselves?
MsgId: *breakthrough(27)
Date: Wed Apr 16 21:54:38 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

This treaty goes into effect April 29. The US is not yet a party because the Senate has not ratified the aggreement. I anticipate a Senate vote next week. Ratification requires a two-thirds majority. Although there is some opposition led by Senator Helms, who thinks the treaty is not sufficiently verifiable, an overwhelming majority of the public and military leaders and intelligence officials have indicated support. I think it would be tragic if the Senate does not ratify. The US is eliminating its chemical arsenal anyway. By joining we would only be encouraging others to do the same.

Most supporters recognize that no treaty is foolproof. But they also see this treaty as advantageous to US security and 'effectively' verifiable. If we do not join we will be signalling to the world that we do not much care if other countries develop chemical arsenals. Also, we will be indirectly suggesting the same for biological arsenals.

I develop this argument further in an op-ed piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on April 13.

[Editor's note: The Senate did ratify the treaty after all.]

MsgId: *breakthrough(32)
Date: Wed Apr 16 22:03:43 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

Can public support affect what the government does about chemical or biological weapons?
MsgId: *breakthrough(33)
Date: Wed Apr 16 22:05:57 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

Without doubt. Although most senators have clearly indicated they support ratification of the Chemical Weapons Treaty, some have not declared themselves. It would be very important for citizens to contact their senators to urge them to ratify the convention.
MsgId: *breakthrough(34)
Date: Wed Apr 16 22:08:24 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

To get back to biological weapons, the image of CNN reporters holding gas masks during the Gulf War was a vivid reminder of what can happen if someone threatens to use biological or chemical weapons. How close could that ever be here?
MsgId: *breakthrough(35)
Date: Wed Apr 16 22:11:04 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

Your question points to a remarkable picture on the cover of my new book, The Eleventh Plague. It is a photo of Isaac Stern, in formal clothes, playing a violin, and wearing a gas mask while in Israel during the Gulf War, in anticipation of a gas or biological attack. That is a poignant reminder to all civilized people of the barbarity of these weapons. It should be an incentive to try all the more to rid the planet of these terrible weapons.
MsgId: *breakthrough(36)
Date: Wed Apr 16 22:12:07 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

But when a biological weapon was used in America, would a gas mask have helped?
MsgId: *breakthrough(37)
Date: Wed Apr 16 22:19:52 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

The one large scale biological terrorism incident involved Salmonella food poisoning in 1984. Certainly, gas masks would have meant nothing in that situation. Sadly, nor would antibiotics or vaccines have helped if more lethal germs were used. So there are circumstances when we cannot do much to counteract such an attack. But there are many dangers that we face in life that we can do little about, not only natural catastrophes like hurricanes and earthquakes, but , at least for the moment, threats come from knife-wielding or gun wielding people who have gone berserk, and other such unfortunate human behaviors. By elimating chemical and biological arsenals and removing these weapons from publicity, we decrease interest in them, and we decrease the chances that they would be used.
MsgId: *breakthrough(39)
Date: Wed Apr 16 22:24:59 PDT 1997
From: moderator At: 206.80.165.21

Dr. Cole, I certainly hope you're right -- that they won't be used. Thank you for joining me tonight on Breakthrough Medicine. It's been fascinating talking to you about biological weapons and their consequences.
MsgId: *breakthrough(40)
Date: Wed Apr 16 22:25:31 PDT 1997
From: Dr._Leonard_Cole At: 206.80.165.21

Thank you for letting me share some ideas with you. And goodnight!


Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI Toons

Questions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.


Copyright (C) 1997 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.