It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Toxic Milk Mustaches

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:13 PM
The National Academy of Sciences has decided to publicly release a report about the threat of terrorist targeting our milk supply. Bruce Alberts, president of the Academy, defends the release of the report saying that the terrorist would gain nothing from information contained in the reports findings.

The study by Lawrence M. Wein and Yifan Liu of Stanford University discusses such questions as how terrorists could release botulinum toxin into the U.S. milk supply and what effective amounts might be.

Publication of the article had been delayed at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services (search). HHS spokesman Bill Hall said Tuesday the agency still feels the material shouldn't have been made public.

"We respect the Academy's position, but we don't agree with it," Hall said. The "consequences could be dire and it will be HHS, and not the Academy, that will have to deal with it."

Well, this is nothing suprising. I'm sure the next report will be about anthrax in our Kool-Aid.
Just a friendly reminder from Big Brother that we need to remain in constant states of fear.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:19 PM
Yeah - if we see the original article from Stanford, at best it was only ever a huge "what if"; it wasn't a clinical study, just two guys hypothesising.

Stanford linky

It does show though, how eager the media is to propogate panic and fear.

One thing is true though - this is nothing there that Joe Terrorist couldn't figure out himself.

Ah, and I thought I didn't drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant...all along it's been because I'm botulism intolerant....

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Tinkleflower]

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:24 PM
Well, while I do agree with your statement I would also like to say that perhaps an informed public is the best.

This man is an independent 3rd party researcher, aware of the many threats facing America. If this really is a threat, isn't it best to have people know about it and how to prevent victimization? If this actually did occur, and we found out the government knew about the possibility, wouldn't we scream CONSPIRACY that it was shielded from the public?

Seems like a double edged sword to me, no matter what we can always find fault somewhere.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 05:21 PM
Let's give the terrorists more ideas of how to kill us. Just like the 60 minutes article on how vulnerable our chemical plants are. Seriously, there are a lot of ways they can cause destruction and we need to be more secure. I guess it starts with awareness, but why does it take public outcry to resolve these issues? Our borders are wide open, yet we turn airliners back for one or two passengers. Doesn’t make sense.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 05:52 PM
Absolutely - but that's a big if.

And how would we prevent such an attack?

Rumours more often than not lead to panic and suspicion; neither are good tools to fight an enemy, real or perceived.

To be honest, his article truly does appear to be nothing more than a hypothetical; whilst I'm sure there are genuine threats (botulism is something we see every year in the US - largely do to home-canning procedures - and thus wouldn't be difficult to find and utilise), it would seem misguided to assume there's a real threat, in real terms, in the here and now, without further indication.

A third party researcher he may be - but then so are we

And I'm sure we can all find ways to theoretically devise weapons for use by terrorists.

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:04 PM
Whoa...I don't drink much milk anymore unless theres no spring water in the house. The thought of the crap(literally) that's been in the tap...turns me off the idea

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:30 PM
True, which is why I agreed that it is needless to be scared about it, but it is important to constantly upgrade our "defenses" and try to be ahead of the curve. Terrorists won't attack in conventional ways I am sure, the unconventional and the ideas for which we have no contingencies and protocols will be much more effective.

We have to think of everything before someone who wants to do us harm does. Additionally, maybe nothing short of a public outcry will let politicians know what to support, otherwise it may be just another thing on the long list of stuff to do. Public discussion raises awareness for civic engagement.

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 05:58 AM
I'm still curious as to how we'd prevent a "milk attack" of this nature.

Whilst I do agree that informing the public is generally a good thing; I truly don't think it's wise to let the public know about every single possible threat.


Party because the public in general too often cannot distinguish between a theoretical model and a verifiable threat; give someone half of the story, and they'll be more inclined to panic than to search out further knowledge.

Frequently, releasing a statement such as "Two students today published a hypothesis which discussed how....a theoretical enemy might attack using X method...." will result in many people only hearing "enemy might attack using X method".

To use a medical analogy; you can't be vaccinated against every disease on the planet; it's much smarter to assess your risk and act accordingly, but you can't demand protection against everything based upon a minute possibility that you'd encounter that threat - there must be a viable risk before you'd take action. To do otherwise would not only put you at risk from an extreme reaction, but would also render your defenses fairly useless...and that's a fairly good indicator of how perhaps we'd be risking more by trying to combat every terrorist possibility.

Realistically, terrorists could very easily obtain one of a million toxins and get it into the water/food system. There are literally endless supplies of naturally-occuring toxins, not to mention easily-obtained chemicals, and compounds which would be easy to obtain with a little research. What would we do to prevent these from getting in the wrong hands?

Would it not be more prudent to try and fight the "terrorist virus" at the source, rather than when it produces symptoms?

We can't live in a society where we live in fear of, and are defending ourselves against, every possible, vague, hypothetical threat. If we do - we're actually letting the terrorists win.

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:11 AM
sorry to burst your bubble, but your milk is already poisoned with growth hormones....courtesy of Monsanto....i wouldnt drink the filty goo if i were you

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 06:21 AM
I don't

But generally only because adult humans aren't really built to digest milk to begin with; doing so makes my tummy feel pretty grim.

That said, there are hormones and chemicals in most food we buy in the US - who here truly buys ONLY organic produce?

I know I sure as heck can't afford to do it constantly.

And much as I'd love it, my apartment isn't the best home for a cow, a goat and three chickens...

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:08 AM
Well, as long as it isn't the beer....

new topics


log in