Bioterrorism 1

Running head: BIOTERRORISM

An Evaluation of the Bioterror Threat

McKenzie Piper
Glen Allen High School
 Bioterrorism 2

Introduction

In contrast with natural disasters and forms of physical terrorism, the threat of

bioterrorism is not often taught or broadcasted. Though it is not as common as bombings and

shootings, biological and chemical weapons pose just as imminent danger. The largest source of

fear surrounding bioterrorism is the uncertain nature and innumerable possibilities of attack.

Biological and chemical toxins are much more difficult to discover, classify, and trace, especially

because many of them take hours, days, or weeks to display symptoms of illness in the victim.

The lack of research and public information on the topic yields the question, should we be

worried about bioterrorism?

Historical Context/Background Information

In his historical review of biological warfare, Riedel details the first account of

bioterrorism. Though not originally labeled as such, the phenomena began as early as 600 BC.

They didn’t know why exactly it worked, but it was common to use “filth and cadavers, animal

carcasses, and contagion” which yielded “devastating effects and weakened the enemy.”

Strategies such as these, along with polluting wells and other water sources, continued into the

20th century, encompassing even the American Civil War. Riedel’s account of the bioterror

timeline draws the comparison between these crude tactics and the prevalence and detrimental

effects of the Black Death. Though unsophisticated, this method of biological warfare attack is

consistent with the technology present at that time, and it serves as one of the earliest accounts of

how deadly disease was used as a weapon. To offer a push into the more recent past, Riedel’s

historical review also names the “New World” smallpox utilization by Pizzaro and Amherst to

infect indigenous people and diminish anti-imperialistic resistance.

 Bioterrorism 3

In addition, the History of Vaccines database offers even more recent information on the

creation and testing of biological and chemical warfare materials in the United States.

Highlighting the possibility of domestic use brings up an important note on the home front

bioterror threat. For example, in the 20th century, the United States military developed and tested

biological weapons from 1949 to 1969 in Biological Warfare Laboratories based in Camp

Detrick, Maryland. Here, they “weaponized several biological agents,” among these were

anthrax and botulinum toxin. This article from the vaccine database also took on a governmental

perspective, including information on the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, a national

treaty ratified in 1975 by over 100 nations, including the U.S. However, the Soviet Union is said

to have mass produced the smallpox virus among other biological weapons even after signing

this treaty (Biological weapons, bioterrorism, and vaccines, 2018). Though the article does not

specifically warn readers about an impending biological doom, including facts like this imply the

relevance and urgency of the issue.

Though the CDC is a government agency, the information offered seemed to stress the

unlikelihood of a bioterror attack in the U.S. According to the CDC, the main reasons

bioterrorism poses such a threat is because the materials to produce a deadly attack are readily

available, requiring very little expertise or money. Anthrax, though it is one of the most common

biological pathogenic microorganisms, is not contagious from person to person. However, it does

come in three (all potentially lethal) forms: inhalational, cutaneous, and intestinal. An element

that the CDC skimmed over is one of the most dangerous things about anthrax exposure which is

that symptoms of sickness can take as long as seven days to arise while the bacterium is brewing

in the victim’s system. Furthermore, the symptoms’ similarities to a common cold or flu warrants

victims to wait it out to see if their sickness clears up before seeing a doctor. This added time
 Bioterrorism 4

allows for further development of the anthrax bacterium. The treatment for anthrax is a 60-day

antibiotic course, however, this “treatments” relies almost entirely on the victims seeking

medical attention within days of exposure (Bioterrorism, 2017). The CDC’s nonchalance in

describing anthrax specifically is contrasted by the biological evidence provided in Goodsell’s

breakdown of an anthrax encounter (Goodsell, 2002).

Biological/Chemical Processes Sources

When evaluating the probability of an anthrax epidemic, it is important to note that the

bacteria cannot be transferred from person to person – it is most commonly contracted from

contact with infected products or animals. However, this Protein Data Bank highlights that no

direct contact is needed for the most fatal form: inhalation. Once a victim encounters the

bacterium, its toxin is a deadly trio of exotoxins – toxins released by living bacteria – which are

released after the spores are lodged in the skin or lungs. This is a small, yet integral detail other

sources fail to describe. The first part of the toxin is the protective antigen. This is the delivery

mechanism that finds cells and delivers the next two parts of the trio: the edema factor and the

lethal factor. Rather than seeking out healthy cells to weaken, the protective antigen determines

the weakest cells to which the other factors of the bacteria will be the most effective and

therefore damaging, making it even more lethal than cyanide. Whereas a single anthrax molecule

can be the cause of death, one cyanide molecule matches one protein molecule of its host

(Goodsell, 2002).

Furthermore, what makes anthrax in particular so powerful is the Bacillus anthracis

bacteria’s ability to form endospores, allowing it to manifest in non-living conditions and

withstand extreme climate. Though during this time, the bacteria is not reproducing, once it

reaches “friendly climate or conditions,” Bacillus anthracis is ready to re-germinate into its
 Bioterrorism 5

active state, thus restoring its power to infect. Additionally, this endosporic ability has virtually

no time limit; the anthrax bacterium can survive thirty-six years in its dormant state and will still

be just as viable (Schoenfelder, 2011). Again, the more science-heavy sources tend to suggest a

greater need for preventative measures than the broader sources.

Long-term Health Effects Sources

According to the experts from the PTSD Research Quarterly, sufferers of biological or

chemical attacks tend to struggle severely with PTSD, especially as a result of the limited

medical treatment for the plethora of illnesses they may develop as results of the toxin they came

in contact with. This source makes the argument that more bioterrorism preparedness is

necessary even stronger, especially in cooperation with the biological evidence presented in

previous sources. In an Oklahoma City bombing case study, analysts revealed that there are

mainly two categories of people affected: direct exposure and vulnerable to exposure. For those

directly impacted, many develop “PTSD, depression, and alcohol use” to cope with the trauma.

As for those were vulnerable to exposure, only those who previously suffer from mental illness

tend to show the same severity of illness. The prevalence of mental illness in addition to obvious

physical trauma further complicates the issue of bioterrorism, making it more of a concern than

the CDC source conveyed. For example, those who were vulnerable, but without preexisting

mental instability, even still report “an altered sense of safety and hypervigilance” (Hall, et al.,

2002).

Conclusion

Whereas basic present information on bioterrorism and its likelihood suggests that it is

not something to fret in the near future, the historical trends and scientific fact warrant increased
 Bioterrorism 6

public awareness and protection in the event of a planned attack or accidental outbreak. The

CDC, as a government health-related agency appears to want to provide broad basics and

reassure Americans of their safety, which is understandable given the image of security they

wish to portray. However, sources like Goodsell’s biological breakdown of anthrax (2002), along

with the psychological detriments detailed by Hall, et al. (2002) provide a basis for the notion

that these topics should be better understood by more people to preserve the safety of the people.

References

(2017). Bioterrorism. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from

https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/toolstemplates/entertainmented/tips/

Bioterrorism.html.

(2018). Biological weapons, bioterrorism, and vaccines. History of Vaccines. Retrieved from

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/biological-weapons-bioterrorism-and-

vaccines.

Goodsell, D. (2002). Anthrax toxin. Protein Data Bank. Retrieved from http://pdb101.rcsb.org/

motm/28.

Hall, M. J., Norwood, A. E., Ursano, R. J., Fullerton, C. S., & Levinson, C. J. (2002).

Psychological and behavioral impacts of bioterrorism. PTSD Research Quarterly, 13(4).

Retrieved from https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/newsletters/research-

quarterly/v13n4.pdf.

Riedel, S. (2004). Biological warfare and bioterrorism: a historical review. Proceedings (Baylor
 Bioterrorism 7

University. Medical Center), 17(4), 400–406. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/pdf/bumc0017-0400.pdf.

Schoenfelder, S. (2011). Anthrax. Austin Community College. Retrieved from

http://www.austincc.edu/ microbio/2993s/ba.htm.