SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Homeland Security -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jill who wrote (736)12/12/2001 3:59:36 PM
From: RocketMan  Respond to of 827
 
My non-medical guess on the reversed frequency of cutaneous vs inhalational is that it may be related to the quality of the spores. Naturally occuring anthrax appears as a large number of clumped spores, and don't easily penetrate the inner part of the lung. But with a cut, the large number of clumped spores can begin an infection. With the engineered anthrax, the single spores more easily penetrate the lung, but if the smaller number of isolated spores land on a cut, the body's immune system might respond more effectively.



To: Jill who wrote (736)12/12/2001 4:19:59 PM
From: Snowshoe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 827
 
I think that the general population is less likely to have susceptible cuts than those historically affected by skin anthrax, i.e. farmers, ranchers etc.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News