Since you addressed your reply to me I should point out that this isn't my work but a copy of an article that was sent to me. That being said I don't see much information in the quotes you are referencing that wasn't covered in the article. It doesn't deny that these weapons exist, nor that they are horrible.

Obviously the point of the article was not intended to give us a false sense of security but just to point out the difficulty of delivering such devices. As your own quote points out, they require low-flying planes or bombs with a relatively small blast radius.

In fact I would refer you to his closing paragraph:

"Finally, there are millions of caveats to everything I wrote
here and you can think up specific scenarios where my advice isn't the best. This letter is supposed to help the greatest number of people under the greatest number of situations. If you don't like my work, don't nit pick, just sit down and explain chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare in a document
around three pages long yourself. This is how we, the people of the United States, can rob these people of their most desired goal, your terror."

This is nothing more than a guide that provides the reader with a series of common sense ways of dealing with a situation like this one if they were ever unfortunate enough to be exposed to it. I would love to have the time to take off of work to research all of the sources that you've gathered but frankly I just don't have the luxury. That being said I am happy to have at least read a concise, abridged version of those sources. If you would like to take the time to write an article yourself, I would happily read that one as well.

__________________
1988 420SEL 170K