<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"<p>A National Academy of Sciences panel has revealed that the U.S.  Army failed to analyze fully the public exposure risks of deadly pathogens from  a Fort Detrick biodefense laboratory.<br />\n<br />\nThe panel urged the Army to improve  risk assessment in the future at the $680 million Maryland project. Ground was  broken for the new U.S. Army Medical Institute of Infectious Diseases lab in  August, approximately 2.5 years after an environmental impact statement that was  the focus of the panel was approved by federal regulators.<br />\n<br />\nThe scheduled  opening for the lab is May 2014. It will replace the current crowded facilities  that date to the 1960s.<br />\n<br />\nThe panel found that, despite the failures in  risk analysis, the safety procedures and regulations at the existing labs either  meet or exceed accepted standards, which provide for a high degree of confidence  in the protection of workers and the public.<br />\n<br />\nCharles N. Haas, a professor  of environmental engineering at Drexel University chaired the panel, which found  numerous flaws in the project's risk assessment, including the estimated effects  of a worst-case scenario that involved exhaust stacks releasing the Ebola virus  and the Q fever bacteria.<br />\n<br />\nAccording to the Army, such an event would  create insignificant concentrations on the ground in close proximity to the  exhaust stacks but would pose no threat to the community.<br />\n<br />\nThe panel,  however, said that the conclusion's environmental statement was &quot;lacking,  missing or not transparent,&quot; according to WJZ.com, which also noted the the  calculations by the committee &quot;indicated the potential for significantly higher  exposure.&quot;<br />\n<br />\nThe environmental statement, the panel said, also failed to  consider the threat of an insider with malicious intent or the potential for  exposures to those at Fort Detrick.<br />\n</p>"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://bioprepwatch.com/stories/510506591-panel-questions-risk-of-fort-detrick-lab>