What does the department of energy know about biological laboratories?
Now, if we're talking about tracing the uranium from a dirty bomb? Yeah, I'd listen to the expertise of the DoE.
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22087 readers
14 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The reason the FBI and Energy department are significant is the FBI - it's not just a bunch of gumshoes. They have scientists. They have a lab at Fort Detrick, which does bio forensic research. And the Energy Department oversees the national laboratories, like Lawrence Livermore, which invented fusion. They have scientists under their command. And so they're able to look at this more so than other agencies from a scientific perspective.
Keep in mind that the Energy Department says it most likely came from a lab, but with low confidence.
[...] the FBI was an agency that had assessed it a leak from the lab with moderate confidence. There were four other agencies that said it probably arose naturally from an animal with low confidence. And at that time, the Energy Department was agnostic. It didn't have a position one way or the other.
What's happened is they've done an update to this report, and the Energy Department's position has shifted. It's gone from saying, well, we don't know to, we think it's most likely it did come from a lab, though with low confidence.
I'm not saying this means it's not the case, just that it's not as clear-cut as the title of the post makes it seem.
And that makes sense that it's low confidence, given China isn't cooperating.
That's always kinda been my assumption, but not like it's just China to blame. Their Wuhan lab was funded by many other countries. We played with fire and got burned, is how I view it