City reports CDC results from fecal samples--What does it mean?

Today, the city website reported:
Information received from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Monday, September 09, 2013

Today the City of Baker City received the following information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

• 81 goats tested; 1 positive for C. ubiquitum (making it unlikely source)
• 64 elk tested; 1 positive with species still unknown, but negative by C. parvum and C. hominis–specific PCR
• 10 human specimens tested; 9 positive; 7 are C. parvum IIaA15G2R1; most recent 2 resequencing
• 4 cattle tested (5 listed on packing sheet, but only 4 in box); all negative
• 4 water samples tested; all negative
• 1 positive EPA method 1623 slide (4 oocysts present) tested; could not detect Crypto DNA

This is complicated so you might want to read it more than once.

Day Late and a few Cow Pies Short

I said in an earlier blog that they might not get positive results because of the haphazard late sampling (after we found the cow pies on the trip of the 19th) and not asking Dennis Dorrah and I to go along to show them where all the cow pies were. I had already notified Dr. De bess of our findings.

The cattle tests were taken on samples that were from some cow pies that had been there for an unknown length of time, and it is not known if they are from calves that have been in the watershed. It is the calves that usually test positive for C. parvum. Calves also shed more crypto when they are younger, like July in this case. 

They apparently only tested four or fewer cow pies and there is no way to know whether the cow pies they tested were from the calves. They tested 64 elk scat samples. 

They probably did not test all the fecal material that Dennis and I found. They should have tested the calves that are in the herd and were in the area (Dennis Dorrah, Clair Button, and I, saw them at least twice and they were nearby when they tested) for C. parvum, but I am quite sure they didn't, and I doubt if they will. It is in the state's and the city's interest not to find a culprit in this case due to liability issues. That is what happened in the Milwaukee outbreak--no definitive cause found. 

Also, Dr. De Bess told me that the staining of the crypto oocysts found in the 913 oocyst water sample might make it impossible to genotype the oocysts, i.e., determine whether they were C. parvum. That was a huge mistake. I think that means they didn't split the sample so that they could test (genotype) any unstained material from the sample to find out whether it is C. parvum, and the staining, as Dr. DeBess suggested to me that it might, destroyed the possibility of matching the 913 water sample oocysts to the C. parvum oocysts found in diseased patients. Not finding C. Parvum in the cow pies is also problematic, in terms of  establishing the responsibility of cattle, but they didn't and probably won't test the calves. All the research, plus the results showing it isn't in the elk, suggests that it may have come from cows.

Here are seven important points to consider (there are no doubt others):

- Four cow fecal material samples (compared to 64 elk samples) does not prove that cows weren't responsible.

-  The results do not remove the responsibility of Public Works to report to the Council about crypto or cows in the watershed.

-  Why did they take 64 elk fecal samples, 81 mountain goat samples, but only 4 cow fecal samples?

- Why did Dr. De Bess ignore my phone call and not ask Dennis and I to go along even though I alerted him to our findings prior to his prominent trip with the Herald reporter(s) to Elk Creek?

-  Why didn't they try to get cow pie samples from the calves that were in the area during our trip on the 19th, during their sampling mission, or during the following weeks when Councilor Dennis Dorrah went up to try and and repair the fence to keep the cows out and yet still found them in the watershed?

-  Why did the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), or the state, destroy the ability to genotype the original 913 oocysts in the original water sample to see if it was Cryptosporidium parvum? By apparently staining the whole sample and not keeping anything aside for genotyping, that information will likely never be known.  

- Why was the effort by Dr. De Bess and his CDC companions so weak with regards to testing fecal material from the cows in the vicinity when he made his investigation? 4 cattle samples and 64 elk samples? There was ample fecal material outside the watershed fence when the Councilors and I made our trip to the watershed that could have been genotyped to determine whether the cows carried Cryptosporidium parvum that matched the Cryptosporidium parvum found in the Baker City citizens suffering from cryptosporidiosis.

End Note:
At least one Baker City cancer patient contracted symptoms resembling those of cryptosporidiosis in July, and he died not long thereafter, before experimental treatments, an individualized immunotherapy vaccine, could be implemented in an effort to save him.
__

_____

Crypto Crisis morphs into Council soap opera starring Clair Button as Blind Man

In this Edition:

-Crypto Crisis morphs into Council soap opera starring Clair Button as Blind Man [Edit 9/8]
-Golf Course operator Billy Cunningham said to have thrown in the towel.
__
Crypto Crisis morphs into Council soap opera starring Clair Button as Blind Man

In yesterday's Herald article on the developing Council soap opera, Councilor Clair Button is reported to have said:

In a Thursday interview, Button said he doesn’t believe any city employee is or has been negligent.“I haven’t seen anything to make me believe that somebody really screwed up something that they should have known better about,” Button said.“I don’t believe in making scapegoats. The Council was warned in the past that there is a risk. You can’t expect people to see the future. The Council wasn’t prescient, and we can’t expect the staff to be either.”

Prescient means:

having or showing knowledge of events before they take place. "a prescient warning"
synonyms: prophetic, predictive, visionary

 Negligence means:

(Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

Councilor Button seems to be trying to bury the responsibility and accountability issues under a blanket of bromidic sermons, but are they true?

Well, while it is true that people can't be expected to always predict the future, there are some situations or events that have easily predictable outcomes. For example, if you park your vehicle on a hill, leave it out of gear, don't put on the parking break, and don't turn the wheels toward the curb, you can predict with some certainty that it will roll down the hill, quite possibly resulting in some minor disaster.  You could say the driver wasn't "prescient" or you could say the driver was "negligent."  Which would you choose?

With this in mind, lets review some of the facts surrounding Baker City's crypto crisis.

1) There was a lapse of over one year between the time Public Works received positive crypto test results until the time city staff informed Council about it. The tests were conducted in order to let Council know how to proceed with regard to water treatment.

Could Council have been expected to predict that staff would not inform them of the test results? If Council weren't told of the results could they be reasonably expected to proceed with the water treatment discussion and solutions in a timely and responsible manner and be deemed negligent if they didn't?  Answer to all is obviously no.

On the other hand, if a public works employee or employees are waiting for test results they know are coming and don't read them or report them for over a year, that's not about prescience, it is simple negligence. 

2) The Watershed Management Plan with the state requires cows be kept out of the watershed, and the Watershed Report from 2011 references a fence that was supposed to be built in the spring of 2012 to keep them out, but it never was. Council did not know about the planned fence or that materials had been purchased for it. Council did not know that cows were regularly getting into the watershed until August 19th of this year because staff hadn't told them or the Forest Service. 

The Watershed Management Plan requires that cows be kept out of the watershed and calls for city and Forest Service employees to monitor the situation to keep them out. The reason they are to be kept out of the watershed is that they carry disease producing organisms like Giardia and Cryptosporidium. We all know that, but city drinking water personnel are supposed to be acutely aware of that fact and to protect us from such possibilities. If staff knew that cows were getting into the watershed since at least 2011 but did not "exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances" by informing the Council and building the fence that was planned to keep cows out, that is not a failure to predict the unknowable, it is, once again, negligence, because they knew it needed to be built to keep the cows out and help prevent a waterborne disease outbreak.

3) Public works director Owen told Council on March 27, 2012, that the backup drinking water well at the golf course had been inoperable for a year and could be worked out through the water fund. It still is not operable.

Public works director Owen and the water department personnel should have known that the Watershed Management Plan designates the golf course well as our second drinking water well in case of an emergency, like for example a crypto outbreak or a fire in the watershed. It's not a matter of prescience because the reason the plan calls for it is that an eventual emergency has already been predicted. Not using water funds to repair the well and allowing the well to remain inoperable was a "failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances." Negligence by definition.

4) The Public Works Director did not meet the qualifications and experience requirements in the Watershed Management Plan which are a degree with specialization in engineering or equivalent background when she was hired.

Responsibility for this one rests with both former and current City Councils and the City Manager. The Watershed Management Plan states:

Minimum education of key personnel in Watershed Management: 

 (a) Director of Public Works minimum qualifications: Graduation from a four year college or university with specialization in civil engineering and three years of progressive responsible professional experience in public works administration including supervisory capacity; or any combination of experience and education that demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed above.   

This provision is included in the Water Management Plan to insure that Baker City Residents have appropriately educated and adequately qualified personnel overseeing the safety and over-all quality of our drinking water. It is there so that you don't end up in a situation where you've got a grocery store clerk or a secretary in charge of your drinking water program. As George H.W. Bush would say--"Wouldn't be prudent." More negligence

There are more facts that I could bring forth, but for now, I rest my case.

Please don't get sidetracked by the rhetorical nonsense or outright distortions and apparent lies of one or more Councilors trying to get us focused on the tone of Council emails, and the idea that we've got "nice" Councilors and angelic competent staff fighting off the "mean-spirited"unwarranted attacks of a minority of "bad" Councilors. We don't.  It's not about some sort of politically correct soap opera, it's about qualifications, diligent management, prudence and accountability. Can you say "negligence?"
__
Golf Course operator Billy Cunningham said to have thrown in the towel.

Billy Cunningham is reported by three different knowledgable sources to have resigned as operator of Baker City's Quail Ridge Golf Course. The golf course has struggled to make ends meet, but particularly since the completion of the "back nine" holes over a decade ago.

One current plan under discussion is to is to turn it into a public, non-profit organization/corporation along the lines of the Anthony Lakes ski area, which is owned by the County, but run by a public non-profit organization.   More on this later I hope.
_____

Why is the Baker City Herald Promoting Water Filtration & Then Taking a Poll During A Crisis?

When I was in high school, I noted that the vast majority of my classmates in the social studies class had trouble passing pop quizzes and also the periodic tests that were announced many days in advance. It was clear to me that the primary reason for most of the average or failing scores was that, for whatever reason, they had not paid much attention in class and had not done their homework. In a "democracy," we have to hope that those who offer opinions and go to the voting booth have done theirs.  Unfortunately, this is often not the case, as the habits of high school often follow us into adult life, so people continue to issue opinions on subjects they know little about.

I have a degree in microbiology, albeit an old one, so I can't help but comment when such things as Cryptosporidium and water treatment arise.

On August 2, 2013, the Baker City Herald "Editorial Board" issued an editorial opinion, What's next with city's water, that recommended the city choose filtration over UV treatment, stating

"But in the wake of a week in which so many people were afflicted with stomach cramps, diarrhea and other unpleasant symptoms, in which restaurants and other businesses suffered during a busy weekend, we believe that extra cost is worth it." 

OK Herald, lets see the cost/benefit analysis.  When McDonalds shut down for three days, I was told that Taco Time did a boom business. A neighbor I spoke with came down with Crypto, but he favors UV treatment.

The reasons given for the Herald's opinion were:

But UV is not as effective as a filtration plant in removing viruses, UV has no effect on chemicals, and a UV system would not protect the water from dirt and ash that could foul streams were a wildfire to burn in the city’s watershed.

 They also tell us:

The extra capabilities of a filtration plant come at a cost of perhaps $15 million, compared with an estimated $2.5 million for a UV system.

There was no other discussion of costs, nor any reference for the source of their figures, or why their objections were relevant.

Then, after this very incomplete accounting, they put out a poll, What's Baker City's best water treatment option, as if everyone is informed, because, well, the Herald has informed us!

As I write, the vote stands, after 33 hours, as 59.8% in favor of filtration as the best option and 31.4% in favor of UV treatment. Only 102 people have voted, which I'm sure the Herald would agree, is not a number large enough to represent the 10,000 plus residents of Baker City. Perhaps all they had to go on was the Herald's recommendation. Why do they do these unscientific polls during a period of crisis right after they have issued an uninformative opinion that misleads the public? Kind of like asking Americans what they think of the passing something like the Patriot Act right after 911. These polls are almost completely worthless as gauges of actual, well thought out, public opinion, but I guess it gives people something to do and gives the Herald more web page hits while gathering support for their ill-advised notions.

And how is one to take the question?  Does "best" mean the option that will do the job of treating Crypto while being one that we can afford, or does "best" mean the option that will possibly result in purer water than UV will provide (even though we will play hell paying for it)?

That is a problem, especially if the opinion they give to their few thousand readers is in error or incomplete.  So let's "unpack" their information and reasons for recommending filtration.

There are three relevant questions:

What do we really need given the current and foreseeable conditions?

What can we afford given the the city's and the city resident's financial situation?

What is politically acceptable given the answers to the first two questions?

Do we want or need a water treatment system that can deal with every conceivable threat to human health, even when they don't currently exist in the watershed, and if we do, can a community struggling to finance other pressing infrastructure needs such as sewage treatment, streets, and aging water and sewer lines afford it? Do we need a Cadillac when a small hybrid car or Geo Metro will provide a solution to our problems?  The Herald doesn't really address the question of whether we can afford it.

The Herald tells us that:

"UV is not as effective as a filtration plant in removing viruses"

OK, so what? The Herald admits the city has a "long history of providing pure water." That water comes from a somewhat protected city watershed where human viruses are not a problem. Our watershed is not a source, such as the Colorado River, that has water passed through many communities and pastures where human viruses might be introduced to become a problem. Current conditions do not indicate that human viruses are, or will be a problem. They do indicate that Cryptosporidium is a problem, so we need a system like UV to treat it.

[Update 8/7/13: Turns out that while UV treatment for viruses may not be as effective as a pricey membrane filtration plant, the National Drinking Water Clearing House says "UV light effectively destroys bacteria and viruses" at the proper doses. See: Tech Brief--Ultraviolet Disinfection
For a more complete understanding, see: Section 13 Ultraviolet Light (p.258) in the EPA's LONG TERM 2 ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE TOOLBOX GUIDANCE MANUAL]

The Herald tells us that:

"UV has no effect on chemicals"

OK, so what? Our last water quality report (2010-2012), and many before it, provides testing results that show chemicals, including nitrates, nitrites, trihalomethanes and halocacetic acids are far below the acceptable level--barely detectable.

The water quality report also states that:

There were "approximately 29 synthetic organic chemicals tested for and not detected."

There were "approximately 21 volatile organic chemicals tested for and not detected."

"The 2012 hardness value for untreated water was 75 PPM [parts per million = mg/L]" [barely out of the 0 to 60 PPM soft water category] I.E., our water is almost soft, not very mineralized by "calcium and magnesium, and by a variety of other metals."  That's a good thing when you use UV treatment.

Levels for iron, manganese and flouride were all well within acceptable levels.

For more see: Interpreting Water Test Reports

Would levels of chemicals rise in case of a catastrophic fire? Yes, periodically, in which case we could switch to the well water we are using during the Crypto crisis, which would be safer when UV treatment is installed.

They say:

"a UV system would not protect the water from dirt and ash that could foul streams were a wildfire to burn in the city’s watershed."

True, but both sand and ceramic filtration units can be overwhelmed by the same, and a complicated, yet supposedly effective, activated carbon and membrane filtration system could cost anywhere from $18M to $25M or more, 6 to 8+ times as much as a $3M UV system. [Update 8/7/13: (AND) membrane filtration "requires prefiltrations for surface water—may include removal of turbidity, iron, and/or manganese. Hardness and dissolved solids may also affect performance." So membrane filtration prefiltration would also be affected by dirt and ash from a wildfire. ] [Update 8/16/13: the city of Pendleton uses a flocculation tank] According to a 2009 engineering report I posted yesterday (See also Table 2 of the report), membrane filtration would cost something like 25 times as much to maintain as would a UV system! We would also be able to use the paid for well system for catastrophic fire emergencies (as in a drought--thank former Public Works director Fleming I believe), and we are following the recommended guideline for fuels reduction in the watershed which helps to prevent catastrophic fire. Over time, as budget allows, we could also create settling tanks or basins to let any sediments settle out prior to treatment.

The Herald tells us:
"The extra capabilities of a filtration plant come at a cost of perhaps $15 million, compared with an estimated $2.5 million for a UV system."

The Herald has been very consistent in reporting that a filtration plant will cost us $15 million.  I would like to know where that figure comes from. The same 2009 engineering report I posted yesterday put the cost at 17.7 million dollars and that was four years ago. Those kinds of costs tend to go up--like everything else.

Is spending 18 to 25 million dollars for a Cadillac membrane filtration system, instead of a get-the-job-done $2 to 3.1M UV system going to be politically acceptable to the citizens of Baker City?  Not if they are allowed to vote on it in an actual election--but now people are in crisis mode and we we'll not likely get a vote.
__

As a quibbling former microbiologist, there is another thing I'd like to mention. The Herald published an article today in which they reported statements from the senior state epidemiologist, Dr. Bill Keene.

The Herald says that Dr. Keene said “I’m pretty sure mountain goats have never been tested (for crypto).” I doubt that he said that, as the most easily found academic report (See Table 2), which I found on Google right after the Crypto outbreak had been reported (and sent to Councilor Coles last night), says that both mountain goats and humans are a minor host for one species of Cryptosporidium, that is, Cryptosporidium muris.  Doesn't mean that the state will ultimately find that our furry friends are the "scapegoat" but it does seem to infer that they are a possibility, as I indicated days ago.

Oddly, the Herald chose to quote a passage from the same article that said "According to a 2004 article in Clinical Microbiology Reviews, crypto species "originating from wildlife... are mostly not human pathogens" instead of pointing out Table 2 which clearly states that both humans and mountain goats are a minor host for Cryptosporidium muris.

Additionally Dr. Keene confirmed my statement in the August 2nd blog that "These anecdotal reports seem to indicate that the number of cases in Baker City is far higher than the number of reported cases, quite possibly in the hundreds" when Dr. Keene told the Herald that "the total cases 'could easily be in the hundreds.'”

Thanks.
____

See also:

Comment on Cryptosporidium Outbreak in Baker City With Crypto timeline from Monday, November 14, 2011

Random Thoughts on the Baker City Crypto Outbreak

Updated Crypto Update: Comments and Questions

More later. . . .
 




  

Updated Crypto Update: Comments and Questions 8/4/13 7:17 PM

This update includes engineering reports and cost estimates from 2009 and 2012 for UV treatment and an article on the new, on cue, national security "threats."

                           Goodrich Reservoir, Baker City Watershed
The City of Baker City released another drinking water warning yesterday which confirms that Cryptosporidium is in the water supply. They state that "Water samples taken on July 31 were positive for Cryptosporidium in water from the watershed supply and treated water (distribution system)." 

How much Crypto is in the water supply? Are the concentrations they found significantly high, or rather low? What were the sources and what are the locations where positive samples were taken?  Why are they not releasing the information about the locations and concentrations? Where is the transparency that people so cherish but see so little of?

When governments don't release available information to the public, when there is no good reason not to release it, it makes people think they are trying to hide something.  Why would they want to cover-up that information?  People are still wondering why the city didn't tell us the details of how positive Crypto results were kept from the public and the Council for over a year in 2010 and 2011. No one has been held accountable publicly other than Mike Kee taking it upon himself, which only hides the actual details and the identity of those actually responsible.

I sent an email to City Manager Mike Kee and Public Works Director Michelle Owen this Morning asking for the locations and concentrations for the positive samples. I have not yet received a response.

[Update 1:52PM:  Since I posted this I see that Mike Kee has selectively released the information I asked for earlier (10 AM) today to their favored commercial media information massage outlet, the Herald, but neither Kee nor Michelle Owen has given this citizen blogger the courtesy of a response. They prefer to give it first to a corporation. (The Herald is owned by a corporation, Western Communications, Inc.) The city did not even post the information on our own city website before releasing it to the Herald (and still hasn't). Par for the course. The Herald seems to be updating as I write now.  Bottom line: it was found in Goodrich but they didn't test other possible watershed sources, which they say they are now doing]

__

In a comment on the Herald website, someone who calls himself "Jeff" references a YouTube video that I put up about two years ago.  SEE:

Dorrah & Calder Still Think Drinking Water Safe102511.mp4 

It is worth noting that in the video, Mike Kee reminds the Council, some of whom have been urging a go slow approach, that: 

"...we want to do everything we can to keep this water safe, that we are providing for our public, so anything we can do to move forward with this process, I think we should. Can we go slow and avoid spending money? Yes we can, but we need to keep moving forward."

I take that as a bit of push-back from the City Manager on the go-slow approach [even though they didn't follow through with additional testing]. It is also worth noting that in 2009, the price for the UV treatment was estimated to be only $2.5 million, and that compliance was required by October 2013 (Since delayed until 2016). Membrane filtration, in 2009, was estimated to cost about $17.7 M and cost over 25 times as much as UV to operate. By 2012, the estimated cost for UV treatment was $1.84M to $3.14M. While a go-fast approach (i.e., install some approved effective treatment ASAP--before the deadline) is almost unheard of for public safety compliance, it could have saved us from the illnesses, economic hit, and repuational loss, that we are now experiencing.

See Table 2 (about p. 5 or 6 depending on whose counting):
Click link below to read on Scribd.

2009 Disinfection Options to Comply with LT2ESWTR

  2009disinfectionoptionstocomplywithlt2eswtr-november09draft

See also page 6, Project Budget Schedule, UV Kick‐Off Meeting & Technology Workshop, Baker City, OR, January 12, 2012 (on Scribd):

  UV Kick‐Off Meeting & Technology Workshop, Baker City, OR, January 12, 2012

 __

Also on the Herald, one "Loran Joseph" states that:

The exposure was estimated to have occurred as late as July 26th. With a minimum 2 days before symptoms occur, plus lab test return time, the city couldn't have been informed of this more than a day before this article was released. The city is being very diligent. 

I agree that the city has been diligent since the time they were told of the infected citizens by the County Health Department. The testing issue is different though.

The city has said that they started using water from Goodrich Reservoir on the 15th. If that is a source of the Crypto [turns out it was confirmed as a source on 8/4/13], then exposure for citizens drinking water out of the tap could, and likely did, begin within one or two days, i.e., by the 17th, and certainly no later than the 18th. The city has not told us whether Goodrich Reservoir is a source of the Crypto, although I was told by Mike Kee on the 31st that they were going to collect goat droppings for testing. If Goodrich was confirmed as a source [it has been confirmed 8/4/13], then they could have confirmed the presence of Crypto, before using the water, by testing it a week prior to opening. (That is one reason the city needs to tell us where the source or sources of contamination were.)

Given the earlier detection of Crypto, instead of relying on the wishful thinking of Councilors about our "safe" water supply, and despite the lack of a requirement, the city should have been testing the water on a regular basis after the first round of testing ended. I believe the episode points to regulatory failure by the state and federal governments, and a lack of prudence by city officials and the Council.

Competence, foresight and prudence is what the Council gets elected for and what city staff gets paid for. If we continue to elect Councils whose primary concern is Main Street area businesses and the needs of the well off, and if the city is hiring employees according to the "Baker Buddy System" instead of on appropriate education and merit, and if they are going to continue to insist on remaining unaccountable, then we citizens will suffer continuing crises, elite theft, and inefficient government.

__

If you are really interested in the early history of the Crypto issue please read this previous blog:

Monday, November 14, 2011

Accountability for Baker City's Cryptosporidium Fiasco--is the elephant still in the room?

In This Edition:
- Review and Summary of Events
- Council responses to my question , i.e.: When were you first informed that Crypto was in the water?
- Crypto Time line, from Council reports and etc.
_________

The new, on cue, national security "threats."

Crying Wolf, Wolf, Wolf

By Moon Of Alabama

August 03, 2013 "Information Clearing House -  After weeks  under heavy pressure for limitless spying on people everywhere the U.S. intelligence services conveniently detect a "threat" of some undefined future attacks. The "detection", we are of course told, was only possible because of limitless spying on people everywhere:

The United States intercepted electronic communications this week among senior operatives of Al Qaeda, in which the terrorists discussed attacks against American interests in the Middle East and North Africa, American officials said Friday.

The intercepts and a subsequent analysis of them by American intelligence agencies prompted the United States to issue an unusual global travel alert to American citizens on Friday, warning of the potential for terrorist attacks by operatives of Al Qaeda and their associates beginning Sunday through the end of August.

Just a month ago we were told that the "terrorists" are changing their communication because of the NSA snooping leaks:

The Al-Qaeda and other terrorist are reportedly changing their communication methods in light of the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden about US led NSA 'surveillance programme'.
...
US officials said that virtually every terrorist organization including Al-Qaeda is changing the way they communicate to hide from the US surveillance after the revelations about the leaks were reported in the media.
...
Private analysis firm IntelCenter's Ben Venzke said that the leaks by Snowden serve as a wake-up call to extremists and other hostile actors to analyse how they are working and improve their security.

Is it not a bit weird that just a month after that "wake-up call" and the "changed communications" talks between "senior operatives of Al Qaeda" are now easily detectable by the same intelligence services that warned of those changes?

And what is it about these "terrorists" that the "threat" from them ends after August 31?

Even some "analysts and Congressional officials" the NYT mentions in one short paragraph find this somewhat suspicious:

Some analysts and Congressional officials suggested Friday that emphasizing a terrorist threat now was a good way to divert attention from the uproar over the N.S.A.’s data-collection programs, ...

Ahh - you don't say ...

But the sentence continues:

... and that if it showed the intercepts had uncovered a possible plot, even better.

So it would be even better if now, as a warning has been given, something would happen to some U.S. embassy in the Middle East. That then would justify the warning and of course also justify the intelligence services NSA's limitless spying on people everywhere that made the warning possible.

Hmm - how much does it cost, let's say in Yemen, to have some guys on a motorcycle fire a few shots at an embassy guard?

This article was originally posted at Moon Of Alabama