The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950 • Hacker News Board

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#101

Post by somebehemoth » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

mentat wrote: post #88

admax88q wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#102

Post by alexggordon » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

I grew up in St. Louis and I found out about chemical testing[0] that went on here awhile ago.

I think the scariest part was that I'm sure it was specifically tested in a low-income area purposely, because the people there could probably do less about it. A relevant bit from the article:

> Spates, now 57 and retired, was born in 1955, delivered inside her family's apartment on the top floor of the since-demolished Pruitt-Igoe housing development in north St. Louis. Her family didn't know that on the roof, the Army was intentionally spewing hundreds of pounds of zinc cadmium sulfide into the air.

> Three months after her birth, her father died. Four of her 11 siblings succumbed to cancer at relatively young ages.

The fact that there probably are still people in the US government making similar decisions makes me a lot more nervous about life.

[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/army-sprayed-st-louis-with-to...

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#103

Post by dimino » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 5:41 PM UTC

abhinai wrote: post #10

"... the court held that the government was immune to a lawsuit for negligence and that they were justified in conducting tests without subjects' knowledge.". I sincerely hope there was some rationale to this decision that I do not know or understand. Otherwise it would be very hard for me to have any faith left in our judicial system.

I know this kind of comment happens a lot, and I'm not just focusing exclusively on you when I say this, but I find it hard to believe you woke up this morning, did some stuff, read this article, and at that point no longer had any faith left in our judicial system.

I'm risking sounding pedantic, but it wearies me to read sweeping platitudes like this -- no faith? You'd not sue your doctor if he cut the wrong leg off? I'm not even sure what "faith" means in this sense -- trust without evidence? You shouldn't have had "faith" in the first place, if that's the case.

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#104

Post by dimino » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 5:44 PM UTC

discardorama wrote: post #99

bayesianhorse wrote: post #3

To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. The background seems to be that they wanted to test the distribution of the bacteria rather than the effects on humans (which they thought to be zero any way). Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions, it's not clear that the death was entirely the fault of the particul…

> To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. It's the "seem to have thought" that I have a problem with. How thoroughly did they do their research? It is one thing if someone puts his finger up and says, "hmm, I think it's safe". It's another if rigorous, thorough tests are done that show conclusively that the bacteria is safe. Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The…

Probably, yes, assuming you mean "will effect the severity of your sentence".

Intent matters.

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#105

Post by dr_zoidberg » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 5:55 PM UTC

dr_zoidberg wrote: post #30

halviti wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're curious about the chemtrail crowd, I'd recommend the "documentary" 'what in the world are they spraying' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA It's one of the many conspiracy type videos out there, and I don't endorse the content in any way.. I just find this stuff fascinating

What I always found "fascinating" about conspiracy theories is how educated, smart people can be convinced by some of them. It's just something that I can't understand.

For my comment I received many downvotes and also many upvotes (net change was downward, but my karma has been jumping around for about 5 hours now), for pointing out a fact that I find baffling, without criticizing anyone in particular. I'd like to understand why this happened, if possible.

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#106

Post by jakeogh » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 5:55 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #32

dr_zoidberg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I always found "fascinating" about conspiracy theories is how educated, smart people can be convinced by some of them. It's just something that I can't understand.

What seems to happen is that you come across a compelling set of evidence. The evidence is faked, or skewed heavily, but it might be hard to know this. And, as presented, the cases are usually pretty good. If you're unable to immediately dispute them, it isn't totally irrational to think they might be real. This is the reason I don't watch documentaries on modern "issues". The story presented is all very manipulated…

An effective tactic to prevent people from looking into something is to promote obviously false information, bonus if it's offensive, and associate it with information that can be verified. Another related tactic is for people who have a long track record of promoting false information promote something that's verifiable. That way people will dismiss real information that has been associated with bs. There is a paper, by a good friend of mine on this "Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11", and links to much more info in my profile.

And I agree, there are many documentaries on modern issues that are pure junk.

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#107

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

discardorama wrote: post #99

bayesianhorse wrote: post #3

To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. The background seems to be that they wanted to test the distribution of the bacteria rather than the effects on humans (which they thought to be zero any way). Add to that the fact that bacterial infections often hitchhike on other injuries, infections or conditions, it's not clear that the death was entirely the fault of the particul…

> To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria. It's the "seem to have thought" that I have a problem with. How thoroughly did they do their research? It is one thing if someone puts his finger up and says, "hmm, I think it's safe". It's another if rigorous, thorough tests are done that show conclusively that the bacteria is safe. Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The…

> Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid?

This is more like firing directly into a group of people, but believing the gun is a harmless reproduction (or perhaps a paintball marker) when it actually a real weapon loaded with live ammo.

And, yes, in that case it would be valid, at least to the extent that the crime you would be guilty of, if any, with that belief would be substantial less than the one you would be guilty of if you believed it was a live weapon and committed the same act.

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#108

Post by krylon » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

dr_zoidberg wrote: post #30

halviti wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're curious about the chemtrail crowd, I'd recommend the "documentary" 'what in the world are they spraying' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA It's one of the many conspiracy type videos out there, and I don't endorse the content in any way.. I just find this stuff fascinating

What I always found "fascinating" about conspiracy theories is how educated, smart people can be convinced by some of them. It's just something that I can't understand.

I have read somewhere that conspiracy theories are the pattern matching algorithms in our brains running wild, seening connections where there aren't any. The thing is, our brains are really good at detecting patterns. So good, that sometimes, in fact, we will see patterns where there aren't any. And that's where paranoia and conspiracies and conspiracy theories come in.

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#109

Post by WorldWideWayne » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #81

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...the moment you start believing in one you will start believing in most of them. Maybe what you're seeing is more like belief in the possibility rather than belief in the fact. For instance, after I learned about Operation Northwoods and a half a dozen other cases, I am completely open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job. (edit: And people who are not open to that possibility seem completely illogical…

> inside job An "inside job" comes across like the government explicitly set the terrorists on the path they took (or some of the terrorists were government agents). It seems more likely to me that certain elements in the government could have become aware of the plot and turned a blind eye.

Talking about the government as if it were a single unit seems inappropriate. There are many groups and many people within the government and within the military and the intelligence agencies. I don't think it would be very hard for a determined group to infiltrate and hide within the government.

I do think it's a lot more complicated than "the government" knew or "the government" did not know.

Re: The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

#110

Post by dlitz » Fri, Jul 10, 2015, 6:25 PM UTC

abhinai wrote: post #10

"... the court held that the government was immune to a lawsuit for negligence and that they were justified in conducting tests without subjects' knowledge.". I sincerely hope there was some rationale to this decision that I do not know or understand. Otherwise it would be very hard for me to have any faith left in our judicial system.

It was 1981. To this into perspective, marital rape only became illegal in New York in 1984, and in all 50 US states in 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_%28United_States_...

It was never okay, but people didn't think much about 'radical' ideas such as 'informed, enthusiastic consent' back then.