Talk:Plum Island Animal Disease Center

Untitled
The NY Press article says it's BSL4 -Rory096 04:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Novel
Does the fact that the DeMille novel is set in a fictionalized version of this place belong in the article? Rlquall 00:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC) NY Press is a RAG! Talk about irresponsible reporting. Plum has no level 4. That's why a new facility is being built elsewhere to replace Plum. NY politicians prevented building of a level 4 at Plum. Considering that Plum researches next generation vaccine and antiviral development, I really don't think they need to buy "madicine" from someone else.

Sir, We have the madicine for FMD.This madicine is able to cure the animal within two three days .If you want to try this maidcine it will help to save the animals.This madicine is proven. If you are the well wisher of animals,please reply

regards,

M.K.Sharma sharmamk@shreecementltd.com

Category
Although this appears to be a 'defensive' (as opposed to offensive) facility, should it not have the Category:Biological warfare facilities tag added ?--Aspro 09:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

plum island
I suggest you check out the book "lab 257"  for more info on plumb island.

Arydberg (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Building 101
I'm proposing to merge that article here. I don't think that building 101 is that interesting. Sure you can milk the sources for verifiable facts about the building, but there's nothing special about it. Nobody seems to have written any article, let alone book, just about that building. Building 257 had some conspiracy theory going, but 101 is mundane. About half the article on 101 is not even about 101, but about related stuff. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: meets WP:GNG. --IvoShandor (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? Just asserting it doesn't make it true. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources provided are enough to confer notability on the building, whether or not you, or anyone else thinks there is anything special about it, or that I "milked sources" is irrelevant. Instead of disparaging and condemning my work, try doing something to actually improve the encyclopedia. --IvoShandor (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And please, show me the half of the article that is about related stuff. --IvoShandor (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not too mention you have already merged these articles without consensus, when there is obvious opposition. Quit being so smug and domineering, this is ridiculous. I have attempted to work with you despite your tone and attitude. I'm done dealing with you, this is going to require an RFC. --IvoShandor (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been, and still am, completely willing to discuss it, but your tactics were all wrong. You shouldn't just be able to unilaterally decide what happens, that's all I am trying to say, and by all appearances it seemed that was what you wanted. If I have misinterpreted our interaction then the egg is on my face. --IvoShandor (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY and WP:OWN Xasodfuih (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not applicable, see WP:DICK. --IvoShandor (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've summarized the articles you wrote here because those building were (until decommissioned) part of this facility. This article still needs quite a bit of work, but I'm engaged in a FAR right now, so it will have to wait. Based on your attempt to remove those summaries, I have the impression that you decided to write separate articles about the buildings instead of improving this article for egotistic purposes. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I've linked the sub-articles you've created in text from here (they were in the see also section). This should be a reasonable compromise, entirely in accordance with WP:MOS. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote the articles because I think they are notable, and needed articles, no other reason. Why are you targeting these articles? Why not target Building 470? But you don't seem to care about that article or Fort Detrick nearly as much as you do these. I have no attachment to the articles, show me how they are not notable, then merge them. Reasons such as "not very interesting" or "special" are insuffcient. Instead of impugning my motives, perhaps you should take a long look at yours. --IvoShandor (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, stepping back and thinking about it for a moment, I think we are both mis-communicating, and misinterpreting words and actions. Like I said, I am willing to discuss, and can compromise too. OK? Merge Building 101, if more sources turn up it can be pulled out. Building 257 definitely meets GNG I think, if simply because of Carroll's book, even if some of it has been questioned, and I'm not arguing that it hasn't. Thoughts? --IvoShandor (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Building 257
The same goes for this building. While the number 257 was used by the fringe theorist Michael Carroll in the title of his book, there's little specific information to make this building notable. A review pointed out that "The title, Lab 257, is undoubtedly intended to stir the imagination into a comparison with Japanese Unit 731 and offers an aborted attempt that the would-be founding father of the establishment was a German BW scientist." (see Building_257 for ref) The CNN ref given in that article uses "Lab 257" to mean the whole facility, not just that building.

This article isn't long enough to justify sub-articles for every building, which mostly repeat information herein. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: meets WP:GNG. --IvoShandor (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

definition of terms
As a victim of Lyme disease (as in Lyme, Conn.) it is difficult to remain reasonable when reading what appears to be more government PR about a facility that began through Operation PaperClip after WW2, bringing in Hitler's top bio-warfare expert (the Mengele of 'animals')Please someone, fill in the actual documents obtained that prove this statement! I believe that the short-sightedness so common to anything written about 'animals' has occurred in this article. Define human as OPPPOSED to animal.... How many diseases (think H1N1) are completely limited to the species that it is most APPARENT in? It seems extremely convenient that the disease most studied at Plum Island, and for which it is most notorious - Lyme disease- is not mentioned. If anthrax or even HOOF-and-mouth disease (interesting that the word FOOT was used instead) can be contracted by humans, then the distinction of 'animal' rather than just 'disease' laboratory is moot. Just the word Anthrax, not to mention the conviction of a 'terrorist' for having it and other 'animal' diseases in her purse,is likely to elicit - terror - in people who think that they may have come in contact with it, as the government itself has done about 'swine' flu, so the many extremely dangerous and deadly diseases kept in freezers on this island have caused so much concern about human safety that Homeland Security has seen fit to take over control of the island facility. The word 'claims' regarding the diseases that broke out withing shouting distance of these labs, sounds to me like pure propaganda. This is nothing new to the millions who suffer from Lyme disease, sister to Syphilis (think - Tuskegee). Lyme borreliosis 'broke out' across a narrow sound from Plum Island, on the mainland, in an area from which it got its name. This fact is not mentioned in the 'article'. Like almost all diseases of 'animals' studied and imported to Plum Island, humans are just as vulnerable. There have been numerous DOCUMENTED outbreaks in workers ( who have most often been 'silenced'/fired (hence the extreme reaction to the anthrax 'attacks' post 9/11). It would be very interesting if people who studied this particular strain of a spirochetal disease that occurs in more modest from all over the world, (as they did the H1N1 strain of 'swine' flu) divulged the source of the strain - biowarfare labs IN the USA. As is known is most parts of the world, spirochetal diseases such as borrelia and Syphilis,(sister diseases) are animal diseases that affect the human animal perhaps even more devastatingly than other species.  It is also known (and acknowledged by the CDC) that BIRDS carry ticks,the carrier and 'deliverer' of numerous diseases,(Lyme particularly) especially in the larval stages and therefore the 'Bird Sanctuary' on Plum Island was an absurd risk considering the statement that "all animals on the island were instantly shot' (which is false). Where did new ones come from if they were all shot? What happened when the Army handed the Island over to private contractors? Why are birds not considered dangerous carriers of the numerous deadly diseases studied in a lab repeatedly cited by the government itself as below standards in the containment of live bacteria? It would be extremely useful if an 'expert' contributed information about the complete loss of electricity in at least one of the labs following a direct hit by a hurricane (especially considering the imminent hit by Earl). There was an acknowledged Meltdown resulting in live 'samples' of many deadly diseases on that occasion. It would be extremely useful if people not suffering from Lyme memory 'holes' such as myself were to contribute to this 'article' regarding the DOCUMENTED (some through the Freedom of Information Act) breakdowns, releases, etc., and particularly the specific diseases known to have been imported and studied on this island. It would also be interesting if an ornithologist identified the birds that nest there and those that use the island during their migrations across the continent... The Vectors for many diseases, including ticks, have also been heavily studied (in my opinion, since I don't have the exact references) on Plum Island. The language used to describe the Island, and to describe the non-governmental sources for information on it, is interesting to note. Was this 'article' completely 'lifted' from a government statement? Is there anyone out there who can answer this question and other statements that I have made? PLEASE? -especially since I may actually die from this disease, as have others, and have already endured disability/pain and other miseries because of it, as has a very large number of citizens of the States surrounding the initial outbreak. Actually, the CDC recognizes it as an epidemic that is endemic in every state save Hawaii (including Alaska)and estimates 200,000 NEW cases per year in the USA.(CDC site) In MY country, Canada, the authorities still insist that it is a very rare occurrence in spite of our closeness to the most heavily infested areas of the USA just across a paper border. Strangely enough,the matter of Lyme disease is very important to those of us who have it. (note, there is also no mention of Oscar short-listed documentary 'Under Our Skin'. Must that also be listed as fiction in this article? Whatever population is left in Tuskegee is similarly interested in the 'study' that the Armed Forces conducted in their community. Perhaps a map showing the route of transmission and occurrence of West Nile virus from its 'home' in Africa to the New England area and beyond would also be enlightening. M. Lapointe, Ontario Canada (any bets that I am on a 'List' now? apologies for loss of unbiased writing..this IS a 'discussion'?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.67.30 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of uncited material
I found the following to be uncited, unscientific, and ridiculous on the face of it, so I've pulled it from the article. Wikipedia isn't the place for promoting conspiracy theory nonsense.

"According to 'The Independent', a local newspaper in the town of East Hampton, New York, a creature dubbed 'The Montauk Monster' washed ashore at Ditch Plains Beach on July 12, 2008. It was filmed & photographed by local press and at first glance was thought to have been a raccoon based on its dental patterns & front paws.  However, scientists & animal control officers that studied the creature closely were never able to identify it as a known species.

No fewer than 3 unidentified creatures have been washed ashore on various beaches in New York or its boroughs, all assumed to have come from Plum Island due to the currents & close proximity to the mainland. Two of the three creatures were unidentifiable as a known species and resembled 'laboratory signature' physiology. One scientist concluded that at least one of the creatures appeared to have been a 'cross' or 'hybrid' between two separate animal species. One of the creatures found was humanoid in appearance & described by police as possibly being a 'neurosurgery' patient. This conclusion was based upon 5 holes drilled into the skull in various locations. The body had no identifying marks or fingerprints & the fingers were elongated. Police acknowledge but have repeatedly refused to discuss the incident or any details regarding it. Jesse Ventura, host of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura covers this topic in depth on the premier show of the series' second season."


 * Oh, man. Thank you for removing such tripe. I can't believe I never noticed that change, I'm not around as much as I used to be but I'll keep a better eye on this article. IvoShandor (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed this several times, some IP keeps adding it back.IvoShandor (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's right! And to quote a catchphrase that seems to be all the rage these days, "There's really now way around this".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.52.168 (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Listed for sale.
https://rc.gsa.gov/ResourceCenter/PRHomePage/loadProperty.do?propId=14024 This seems to be listed for sale, along with everything on it. 76.28.77.142 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309171500/http://www.usaha.org/news/newsletter/USAHA-Newsletter-Oct2003.pdf to http://www.usaha.org/news/newsletter/USAHA-Newsletter-Oct2003.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309171459/http://www.wood.army.mil/chmdsd/pdfs/Jan-June%202005/BookReviews.pdf to http://www.wood.army.mil/chmdsd/pdfs/Jan-June%202005/BookReviews.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507175716/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/08/the_montauk_monster.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/08/the_montauk_monster.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why Quality Level is Low
Dear Wiki-editors, please make sure you understand the meaning of the text in referenced material before you edit.

After all: "With the uncertainty surrounding the outbreak of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, we want to reassure our readers across the globe that our volunteers are working to bring you a trusted source of unbiased information. Throughout these challenging times, knowledge must and will remain open for all. "

Using the word "knowledge" in the goal above is ambitious. There is very little knowledge in Wikipedia.

Because of page nazis and influence by government and mainstream establishements, I do not change the myriad errors, some comical, some devious, found in its pages. It's a waste of time.

Within this article, in the History section, some unqualified editor alleged that the facility was remodeled to develop 'anti-animal biological" warfare or weapons. This is most-risible.  The referenced source states thus: " Research on foreign animal diseases was originally done with the intent of developing biological weapons."  Nowhere in this text can one derive, unless purposely intending to make a joke, that the biological weapons were intended to be used against animals.  Clearly the meaning is that animal pathogens were being studied so as to use these pathogens as weapons against an non-animal enemy.

Cheers! 71.221.167.115 (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

July 2022
What's wrong with "federal" and "foreign"? 's changes appear accurate. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The center does not do research only on "animal disease[s] or pest[s], whether terrestrial or aquatic, not known to exist in the United States or its territories", it investigates all animal disease of concerns to livestock. Hoof-and-mouth disease is a good example. Also, there is only one government of the entire United States, the federal government, so specifying "federal" is unnecessary and confusing when "United States government" is simple, easily understandable, and sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The latter of these arguments is patently untrue. There are clear differences between federal government and state government, and many entities refer to either or both as "government" which is otherwise vague. In addition, it could be argued that there are multiple ways to interpret "United States government building" as it could refer to a building of the United States Government or a government building within the United States.
 * I would suggest that to dodge the issue altogether, it be referred to as a DHS building research facility, which it is. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. @Beyond My Ken, I had examined the citation before making my revert.  In the future, before making edits, please examine relevant citations before making your changes.  The citation is here:  https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/piadc_fact_sheet.pdf
 * Federal vs. Government: It is part of Homeland Security, which is Federal.  Changing this to government is a random reduction in precision of the article, hence why I reverted it.  Though I assume good faith in your edits, I suggest you also assume good faith in another editor's reverts.  If you change the meaning of an article, especially without providing additional citations, there is probably something wrong with your change if it is reverted, and you should investigate why.  A quick check at the citation should have elucidated this.
 * Foreign vs Animal: Also in that citation:  "PIADC has been protecting the nation’s agriculture against the accidental or intentional introduction of transboundary animal diseases "  That statement is clear that it is for diseases of foreign origin and introduction of them.
 * Again, please do not change the meaning of an article without first at least checking the citation, or asking yourself WHY a revert may have occurred. If you have a better citation, please provide it, and do NOT engage in edit warring.
 * Lastly, I do not appreciate your hostile tone where you typed "restore CORRECT content, previous info was innaccurate, do not restore" in your commit. Emphasis yours.   @GabberFlasted @Beyond My Ken @Invasive Spices Top5a (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ell, if you'd rather WP:OWN the article rather than have it be more informative for the reader, so be it, but your sophistry doesn't make it so. Beyond My Ken (talk)
 * Please illustrate to me how this has anything to do with WP:OWN. You made unsubstantiated edits to an article, and when they were reverted, you chose to be hostile and combative. I'm all ears.  Furthermore, I suggest you quit it with your ad hominem attacks.  How is my explanation sophistry?  As a longtime editor, you should be familiar with WP:CIV.  Top5a (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very cogently put . GabberFlasted (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers -- just detailing my thought process in the most aboveboard manner possible, such that any inaccuracies in my reasoning or assumptions might be discussed. Unfortunately, some other editors choose to rather provide nothing in return except for snark and attacks.  =\ Top5a (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Eponymous
"Isolated on the eponymous Plum Island off the eastern tip of Long Island, New York, the center[...]"

This usage of eponymous implies that the island is named after the facility, not the other way around. It would be cleaner to remove "the eponymous" altogether. 2601:194:300:9740:6D3C:DA24:8114:C253 (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Seems like a reasonable change ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)