Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The military tested bacterial weapons in San Francisco in 1950

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 142 posts

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

#121

Post by mentat »

chrismarlow9 wrote: post #117
mentat wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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

#122

Post by mentat »

somebehemoth wrote: post #101
mentat wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suspe…

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.

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

#123

Post by chrismarlow9 »

mentat wrote: post #121
chrismarlow9 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#124

Post by nsxwolf »

nnbvv wrote: post #97
nsxwolf wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you think there are astroturfers for this? Do you really believe the government hangs out on Hacker News to propagandize support for testing biological weapons on unwitting citizens? That sounds really paranoid.

Many large governments do this. The US does too probably: "It has been reported that HBGary Federal was contracted by the U.S. government to develop astroturfing software which could create an "army" of multiple fake social media profiles.[36][37]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBGary#Astroturfing

But this would be such a sinister thing - testing bioweapons on citizens - that catching an astroturfer would be a huge scandal. It wouldn't be worth the risk. This isn't fracking.

Downvoters: If you really think I'm wrong, then this is the story of the century. Stop whatever you're doing and start a doxxing effort against these astroturfers. You believe the government is literally trying to shape opinion in favor of killing its own citizenry. What could be more important than this story? Get to it. This is Pulitzer stuff.

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

#126

Post by alexggordon »

alexggordon wrote: post #102

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 Pr…

The MSDS[0] for ZnCdS is pretty telling, for those who are interested.

[0] https://www.mpbio.com/includes/msds/ghs/en/MP_MSDS_219945_US...

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

#127

Post by rev_bird »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #58
wodzu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find fascinating about the conspiracy theories is that the moment you start believing in one you will start believing in most of them. As if the logic gate in the brain suddenly stopped working.

Pardon me for this comment, I'm low on coffee this morning. It's going to be mostly rambling, but I'll try to keep it short. I remember reading and hearing that one of the reasons young people get addicted to things like heroin, etc., is due to the fact that schools, parents and government told them that things like beer and marijuana were deadly in any amount - then they would go on to have a few beers at a party, a…

This was certainly my experience to some extent, though I am having trouble connecting it to the conspiracy theory thread. It's a basic credibility problem – if the grown-ups lied to us about weed, why should we believe them about heroin? etc.

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

#128

Post by fineman »

mentat wrote: post #122
somebehemoth wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 suspe…

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 antibiotic…

> 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.)

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

#129

Post by golergka »

flashman wrote: post #57
golergka wrote: post #48

They did indeed break the code, in particular, provisions 1 and 9 (it is unclear whether they implemented facilities for point 7 or not), however: they reasonably believed that the experiment was harmless (and they were mostly right, given the experiment's scale), and the data they collected would be very usable for saving civilian lives in case of bacterial attack. So, I'm not saying that it's OK, but it's unreasona…

They clearly weren't harmless, human experimentation can always be argued to save lives (regardless of its morality), and such offences should be under strict liability (which applies whether or not the act was malicious etc).

> clearly weren't harmless

From what I've read, it seems to be the opposite: it was reasonable to assume, to a certain extent, that they were, indeed, harmless. But I agree that the certainty level was not high enough to conduct experiment on such a big number of participants. (I want to point out, we're only discussing the harmlessness here, not the other points like consent).

> can always be argued to

This is a horrible phrase. You can take any statement, and disregard it because it "can always be argued for". I think in this particular case, the benefit of these experiments is pretty clear.

> such offences should be under strict liability

This I agree with.

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

#130

Post by golergka »

markonthewall wrote: post #49
golergka wrote: post #48

They did indeed break the code, in particular, provisions 1 and 9 (it is unclear whether they implemented facilities for point 7 or not), however: they reasonably believed that the experiment was harmless (and they were mostly right, given the experiment's scale), and the data they collected would be very usable for saving civilian lives in case of bacterial attack. So, I'm not saying that it's OK, but it's unreasona…

I am not sure how you could possibly tolerate that military entity broke the law and made biological experiments on humans, especially when the said experiments resulted in a tragic loss of lives. This is pure evil.

> how you could possibly tolerate

I never said I tolerated that.

Also, I think that I explained all the "why's" behind my position pretty clearly in the original comment.

> This is pure evil.

This is bad. Labeling acts like this "pure evil" really diminishes the label.

Post reply on HN