Replies

I don't think the ESD journal says that weaponized anthrax sould be free of static electricity at all - it just repeats what the Wall Street Journal says. It adds that JOSTLING the envelope would create charge on the spores - which is true. If the envelope were shaken up and down that would cause the spores to rub against one another and the inside of the envelope - potentially creating charging, but likely not much charging. The act of passing through the sorting machine would not in itself creat charging - since passing through the sorting machine would not cause the spores to move against each other or the envelope.

I think you are very confused and muddled about the question of charge, aren't you?

I think Patrick is also confused about what he says - in fact he makes statements that are the complete opposite here:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/terror/front/1178295

First he says:

"To make the mailed spores suitable for military weapons, the electrical charge would have to be removed."

Then he says:

"The electrical charge helps make the spore become airborne at the slightest puff of air."

So he's saying that charged powders make better aerosols, right?

Also I thought you said Patrick said there was no silica. According to a quote here, he won't talk about silica:

"He said the spores would bear chemical traces of the material used in the wetting compound. Asked about a report that the spores in the senators' offices bore traces of silica, a drying agent, Patrick said: "I am not going to discuss silica, either the presence or the absence of it."

Then he says:

"The electrical charge helps make the spore become airborne at the slightest puff of air."

I think if you read that article again you'll see that William Patrick said no such thing. The writer of the article wrote that. You add quotes, but the writer did not. It's the AP writer's misinterpretation of what was said. It's a lot of people's misinterpretation and results from the comments about how the spores seemed to jump off the microscope slides, etc.

Presumably, that's also where you got your misinterpretation from.

The fact that spores were difficult to control on a microscope slide has nothing to do with how well it floats in the air.