Hacker News Reader

Comment by admax88q | Hacker News Reader

> Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions

Who could possibly foresee that there could be other injuries, infections or conditions present in a fucking city.

I'm not clear on how this is a productive comment. We have 60 years more science on how bacterial infections work. It was only 10 years ago that it was found to be dangerous. How many things are you doing today that will be found appalling in 60 years?

I understand your concern and agree that we have a lot more knowledge now so we know better. However, it is hard to believe that no one thought something could go wrong during a simulated germ warfare attack on a major city. Furthermore, they violated the Nuremberg Code using their own citizens. So it is hard to absolve those involved of guilt simply due to their own ignorance. This is what makes me angry and I suspect it is what led the parent to use such colorful language.

I think it's hard to underestimate the degree to which our knowledge of biology has changed in the last 60 years. I'm sure there was the thought that something could go wrong, as almost always that's the case. That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds. Nonetheless the outrage here still isn't correlated with risk including the risks that for instance the current use of antibiotics on livestock introduce. If you want outrage, be outraged that we're destroying the main thing we have to protect ourselves against these sorts of threats.

> I think it's hard to underestimate the degree to which our knowledge of biology has changed [...]

That's not the issue. That relates to us understanding why it's dangerous. But wondering if it's dangerous and testing small and willing populations at first is something we knew how to do back then too.

> That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds.

If they thought it was harmless they'd have tested it at the military base first.

> If you want outrage, be outraged that [...]

I don't, thanks. And I don't appreciate the redirect. (I agree, but it's not the topic.)

Nothing he's doing today will be purposefully aimed at 800,000 people without their knowledge. If it is, he should think twice about what he's doing.

If he's working in a number of industries represented on HN, then that is in fact quite possible.

The difference is awareness. Everyone is aware that there are radiowaves flying everywhere that could one day give us cancer. Everyone is aware when they're using a cloud based email that it's on the internet. If they're not then shame on them, because the information is readily available. If said email provider is snooping on emails without informing, well then shame on them in the same way shame on the Gov for this. It's about making the people aware or not explicitly attempting to hide it.

Fitting username.

Actually the few cases (out of a population of a couple hundred thousands) of any symptoms would be well within the tolerance of a drug trial today.

First stage clinical trials have a much higher risk for the subjects, arguably stage two and three also. Even Aspirin has a higher fatality rate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com