How much information is too much?

[LeapFrog]

So the other day I am readying an article off google news concerning 'backyard dangers'. One of the listed hazards was infection by Baylisascaris, a parasitic worm found in raccoon feces. I hadn't really heard of this before and hit up wikipedia.

Although infection is rare it is serious (and there is no known treatment). Apparently in its standard host species (raccoons for example) the worm just lives in the intestines and generally doesn't cause any significant problems. However in humans the larva escape from the intestine and travel throughout the body. The eyes and brain are apparently common targets... sick stuff.

Anyways, getting to the point -- the following in the Wiki article caught my eye:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylisascaris
[ QUOTE ]

Bioterrorist potential

According to the Centers for Disease Control, several factors make Baylisascaris procyonis a feasible bioterrorist agent:

* The organism is ubiquitous in raccoon populations and therefore easy to acquire.
* Enormous numbers of eggs can be readily obtained, and these eggs can survive in an infectious form for prolonged periods of time.
* The eggs can remain viable in a dilute (0.5%-2%) formalin solution for an indefinite period of time.
* B. procyonis has a relatively small infectious dose.
* The organism causes a severe, frequently fatal infection in humans.
* No effective therapy or vaccine exists.

The eggs are relatively large and thus would readily be removed by standard filtration methods from municipal water supplies. However, it might be possible to introduce the eggs in smaller water systems, in posttreatment water supplies, or in certain food products.


[/ QUOTE ]

The question is, what good can disseminating this information possibly serve? If asked that question back in my teenage years I probably would have responded something along the lines of 'knowledge by itself is neither good nor evil, blah blah'. I am starting to rethink my position however. Thoughts?