February 26, 2006
— Ace Scan down for the last update.
This has happened before. Ricin is derived from castor beans, and some tests to determine the presence of ricin merely indicate the presence of castor beans or its non-toxic derivatives.
I'm sure some of you have. It just seems like every time something scary happens within our borders, if it can be attributed to something innocent/stupid/whatever, it is.
Posted by: Zorachus at February 27, 2006 03:01 AM (yJ5ul)
Posted by: ts at February 27, 2006 04:23 AM (xBr+X)
Posted by: Botec at February 27, 2006 04:38 AM (FRPwD)
Posted by: spurwing plover at February 27, 2006 04:42 AM (AlCYT)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 06:06 AM (pzen5)
For example, one field test simply tests for the presence of protein in the sample. Any protein! So, for example, whole grain flour will test positive.
Q. How does the kit work?
A. The kit measures the presence or absence of protein in a sample. Protein is found in all living materials including biohazardous bacteria and in any toxins. The presence of protein (shown by a change to a purple color in the Protein Solution) indicates the possibility that a biological agent may be present: all biological materials and many toxins contain protein.
Q. Has the product been field tested?
A. The BioCheck Kit was extensively field tested. It was used more than 50 times in response to actual 911 calls. In more than 80% of calls, the suspicious material (e.g. powdered sugar, dry wall dust) could be ruled out immediately as a possible bioterror agent. Common safe substances that would give a positive result with the product (such as whole wheat flour and yeast) rarely caused citizens to call 911. The above was from this PDF document at Laurus Systems.
Another test says its results will be inaccurate in the presence of bleach.
1. There is a possibility that factors such as technical or procedural errors,as well as other substances in the samples may interfere with the test and cause erroneous results.
2. Adulterants, such as bleach in specimens, may produce erroneousresults regardless of the method of analysis. Translation of both of the above: the field tests performed on site can NEVER produce a definitive positive result. They're not designed to, and by nature will produce a high percentage of false positives. They MUST be followed up by lab analysis.
The media, who are not trained in science or laboratory procedure, will almost always misinterpret and over-report these preliminary tests.
Posted by: Mark @ a marble desk at February 27, 2006 09:55 AM (uHh8R)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 27, 2006 03:02 PM (FrkSZ)
"Well, in my heart, I'm, for Bush but in my bush, I'm for Hart."
Posted by: gene berman at March 01, 2006 01:35 AM (s0Fgh)
62 queries taking 1.9813 seconds, 244 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.