Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview With Richard Spertzel

Aired October 13, 2001 - 07:47   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN ANCHOR: Americans jittery about terror and the anthrax cases in Florida and New York are poor salt on the raw nerves of Americans. How real is the anthrax threat and can individuals do anything to protect themselves?

For some insight we're joined by Dr. Richard Spertzel. He's a biologist who headed the U.N. studies of Iraq's biological weapons programs in the 1990s.

Thanks so much for joining us here today. Dr. Spertzel, how jittery should American's be? How nervous should they be about these reports of white powder in envelopes?

RICHARD SPERTZEL, ANTHRAX EXPERT: Well, Jeanne, I always maintain that Americans should not really be scared, they should be alert, they should be aware. The chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time on an individual basis is extremely remote.

MESERVE: And is it difficult to spread anthrax in this form?

SPERTZEL: If the individuals doing it know what they're doing it would be not difficult. The problem is in drying anthrax and getting it into a form that would readily become airborne and, as a result, be able to inhale into the lungs.

MESERVE: How good is the testing of anthrax?

SPERTZEL: The testing for anthrax can be very sensitive and very accurate. In Iraq we actually retrieved just swabs from bombs that had been destroyed some eight years previously. And by PCR and DNA technology were able to pick up evidence of anthrax some eight years later.

MESERVE: But if you have a case of white powder in an envelope -- we're hearing about initial testing being positive or negative. Are those initial test quick and are they reliable?

SPERTZEL: The early tests -- given enough presence of the sample or of anthrax in the sample those tests should be accurate and they should be reliable. But it really depends on what techniques are being used. I'm not aware of the specific tests employed in the New York case. As a result, I cannot comment on those test.

MESERVE: there appears to have been some delay in the testing in New York by the FBI. Did that put more people at risk potentially?

SPERTZEL: I'm not aware that there was a delay. I thought that the initial powder had been tested not just once but a couple times. Now in terms of the patient then it would be a matter of who called it to the attention of the authorities first? As I understand it that was done by the individual's physician.

MESERVE: And NBC didn't apparently inform a wide number of employees that this was going on. Was that the right thing to do in this instance? Would this have only made people panicky or would it have be wise to alert people to this possibility.

SPERTZEL: At the time the letter arose -- or arrived at the studios it probably would have caused more panic than was warranted. There's been many, many letter hoaxes for anthrax from the early 1990s onward so that every instance of a letter arriving with a powder does not mean that it's a realistic hoax. But it's a very fine line to decide when and where to alert the employee, the public and when not to.

MESERVE: and we have to leave it there. Dr. Richard Spertzel, thank you so much for joining us here today.

SPERTZEL: You're welcome, Jeanne.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com