Last Saturday, the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) conducted an experiment to determine how biological agents might be spread around the outside of its facility and how it might better assess and decontaminate exposed people. The official announcement is here.
The test consists of the release of a powder simulating a biological attack at the Pentagon South Parking Lot and the subsequent clean-up. Some 200 volunteers are expected to participate. Key to this test is the use of helicopters landing and taking off from the Pentagn South Parking Lot, and a decontamination unit at the Navy Annex. The simulant powder contains a harmless inert bacterium found in soil, water, and air. A similar test was conducted in 2007.
I covered the 2007 event as well. Then, as they did now, PFPA declined to address what the "harmless inert bacterium"' was. Based on the description, I continue to believe that it was Bacillus subtilis, or B. globigii (BG), commonly used to simulate the physical characteristics of Bacillus anthracis (anthrax). The reason you don't find it named in the press release is that there is a bit of controversy as to whether BG spores can aggravate respiratory problems such as asthma. BG spores still, however, represent the best simulant to mimic how anthrax spores would move around in the atmosphere. I didn't find any news agencies covering this event other than the Washington Examiner, which discusses the test in more detail.
A stream of harmless garden powder used for crop dusting was released at about 8 a.m. at the Pentagon South Parking Lot. Volunteers were exposed to the powder and decontaminated close to the nearby Navy Annex. A helicopter also landed and departed from the other side of the lot to measure the amount of powder that the chopper kicked up into the air.
The Pentagon Force Protection Agency, in cooperation with Arlington County and other federal and local agencies, conducted the test. Similar tests were held in 2005 and 2007. Contaminant samples were taken from volunteers' heads, shoulders, hands, and rings they were assigned to wear. A subset of volunteers were also issued watches, glasses and car keys to test the powder's effect on those items. They were then decontaminated and re-sampled.
It's good, in a way, to see this kind of experimentation take place. If (not when) such a bioterrorist incident were to occur, at the least there are some experienced persons who know what to expect - assuming that the attack was conducted with anthrax. Because of the environmental hardiness of anthrax spores, they pose a persistent hazard and decontamination would be necessary. If the bioterrorist incident used a virus or less hardy bacteria, decontamination might not be required. Extending that thought, these tests don't do much to clarify the physical behavior of the majority of potential bio threats that might be employed. But it's our nature to plan for the worst case scenario, isn't it?
Comments