Preparing for bioterrorism's unclear threat

Not all experts convinced that toxins are weapons of choice

09/16/2001

By RANDY LEE LOFTIS and ALEXANDRA WITZE / The Dallas Morning News

Four hours after the terrorist attacks Tuesday, a grim federal alert went out to the nation's health and emergency response personnel.

"CDC recommends that you initiate heightened surveillance for any unusual disease occurrence or increased numbers of illnesses that might be associated with today's events," the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told health departments.

Similar warnings went to water-treatment plants, chemical factories and nuclear plants. In a classified order, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission commanded nuclear plants and related facilities to go to "the highest level of security."

It was, officials from all the agencies say, strictly a precaution. No one knew whether the violence of the hijackings and attacks would be followed by a wave of environmental terrorism: black-market plutonium from the former Soviet Union or homegrown anthrax spread from the sky. An airliner crashing into a nuclear reactor. Poison in the water. Invisible death gripping the public.

Nothing like that is known to have happened Tuesday or afterward, and most experts agree that it would have been unlikely. They note that terrorists know it's far easier and probably more spectacular to kill people with a truck bomb or a fuel-heavy plane.

"I don't think ... [toxic agents] are likely to be terrorists' weapons of choice," said Amy Smithson, who studies chemical and biological weapons control for the Henry L. Stimson Center, a private think tank that specializes in international security in Washington, D.C. "I think we just had a shocking demonstration of that."

The big technological hurdles that terrorists face in launching a successful environmental assault – from brewing the toxins to delivering them effectively and not poisoning themselves – lead some experts to worry that bioterrorism is diverting attention from more certain threats such as explosives.

But others note that the simultaneous hijacking of four jetliners and their use as weapons of mass destruction also seemed improbable until Tuesday.

Many doctors say the worst-case consequences of an environmental attack could be unthinkable.

That's why Dr. Dennis Perrotta, Texas' state epidemiologist, made sure the CDC alert went out to doctors, labs, health departments and 911 centers.

"Nobody knows the likelihood of this happening, but most of us believe it's not zero," said Dr. Perrotta, who works for the Texas Department of Health. If it ever happens, he said, "we will lose many people – more than people are used to dying in this country."

Soot, dust and asbestos are the only known environmental risks in the New York and Washington assaults. Federal officials say there's no evidence that the hijacked planes carried chemical, biological or radiation hazards.

But health officials and emergency managers say they can't ignore the off chance.

"No city is prepared – there's a glaring example in front of us now," said Dr. Kathy J. Rinnert, a Dallas emergency physician who works with the federal Metropolitan Medical Response System. "It's going to happen in a major U.S. city in the next five years."

Bioterrorism – a catchall term that encompasses chemical, biological or radiological agents used as weapons – has burned into the world's consciousness since March 20, 1995. That's when members of the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult used sarin poison gas to kill 12 people and injure 5,000 in the Tokyo subways.

Less than a month later, the Oklahoma City bombing showed that the United States could be a terrorist target.

Since then, the federal anti-terrorism budget has swelled – $11.3 billion from $8.4 billion in 2000. Bioterrorism accounts for much of that figure.

However, several studies question whether the nation is preparingfor the right threat. Dr. Smithson at the Stimson Center said most of the money the federal government spends on its preparations would be better spent training and equipping local response personnel – almost always first on the scene.

The General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, reported last year that many federal officials have exaggerated the risk of ecological mayhem by downplaying the technical challenges that bioterrorists face. Several other organizations have reached the same conclusion.

A study last year by the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Washington concluded that the higher the death toll a terrorist wants, the harder it is to achieve with toxic substances. "There are few groups that can pull that off," institute president Michael Moodie said.

Experts say there's no proof that Osama bin Laden, who the United States suspects masterminded Tuesday's attacks, has been planning environmental warfare. But Mr. Moodie, formerly the top U.S. official in charge of chemical and biological arms control, said the Saudi-born dissident's brand of private terror escapes the scrutiny and regulation of treaties meant for governments.

But the United States must find new ways to stop well-financed, highly organized nongovernmental networks before they strike, instead of just planning responses, he said.

Dr. Smithson of the Stimson Center said that the development of a shadowy, international black market in toxins could have dire consequences.

"Many thousands of scientists" who worked at more than 50 chemical or biological weapons plants in the former Soviet Union have faced possible unemployment – and temptation – since their old government collapsed, she said.

At least 7,000 of them are considered potential security risks, on top of an estimated 2,000 former Soviet nuclear scientists, Dr. Smithson said.

"We know that Aum Shinrikyo was knocking on their door," Dr. Smithson said.