Am I the only one that feels this article is a tad sensationalist? let's assume the perpetrators actually held a sex party that went out of control:

* Every party I've seen/attended had strict rules on STD/STI's and Drug Use. No reason to think this one would not as well, unless there's evidence of bugchasing or used needles we're not being told about.

* bodily fluids such as urine or ejaculate are relatively inert; when surgeons get urine in a body cavity accidentally, they don't rush to clean it, as it doesn't cause damage.

* no reports of blood anywhere in the mess.

* Outside of the pure grossness of the situation, there is nothing that should trigger fears of a biohazard, provided someone cleans it up.

The fact that the police are treating this like Fukushima should be considered Negligent Investigation on behalf of the police officers, which is a civil tort. It was a crazy sex party; clean up, move on and let insurance adjusters handle it.

>Every party I've seen/attended had strict rules on STD/STI's and Drug Use. No reason to think this one would not as well

There no reason to think it did, either.

Regardless of how inert non-blood fluids are, it's no reason to discount the possibility of contact infection.

It's a bit sensationalist to call it a "biohazard", but not necessarily innacurate, and certainly not negligent.

Have the parties you've seen/attended resulted in the location being trashed like the pictures show? Because if not, it might be the case that this particular sex party was not up to your usual standards, and making statements about the strict rules that usually apply are probably not relevant.