I guess that makes you wrong again, doesn't it? It wasn't I who said that, it was William Patrick III and the ESD (Electro Static Discharge) Journal. I just found their statements much more compelling and believable than the nonsense in Gary Matsumoto's article in Science.
Here's the USPS statement again:
If the powder were derived from a highly sophisticated process, however, it would contain very small particles and be highly charged with static electricity. A less sophisticated process yields a course-appearing powder comprised of large particles (10-20 microns) and is not particularly difficult to handle.
Here's what I say on my site:
Static charges in the spores probably saved lives by keeping the spores from being easily dispersed. A Dec. 3, 2001, article in the Wall Street Journal described the effect this way:
According to scientists who have made anthrax for use in weapons in the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, the presence of an electrostatic charge may have saved American lives. While some of the charged particles can still become airborne -- where they are the most deadly -- much of the material tends to cling to surfaces.
And:
The sticking tendency may have made cross-contamination of mail more likely, according to one senior Federal Bureau of Investigation official involved in the investigation, because the spores would have been prone to attach themselves to envelopes and surfaces.
However, the spores would be less likely to float. "Electrostatically charged materials are very hard to disseminate," explained Bill Patrick, a scientist who helped develop anthrax-loaded weapons for the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s.
The Science article [by Gary Matsumoto] says just the opposite:
The Senate anthrax spores carried like electrical charges, and some experts believe that they were added deliberately to aid dispersal.
And:
[Stuart] Jacobsen says that friction would add static electricity only to surfaces: "If anything, the sorting machine's pinch rollers and the envelopes should get charged," he says, "not the spores inside."
But according to the ESD (Electro Static Discharge) Journal:
The Anthrax may have had its static charges removed before mailing. However, normal handling may have reintroduced electrostatic charges. We in the ESD industry know that mail-sorter machines could have created triboelectric charges by jostling the letters containing the powder.
So, the static charge was created by "jostling the letters". The powder inside was jostled around, and that's what caused the spores to pick up the static charge. And,
These static charges also promoted contact cross-contamination with mail and mail sorting machines. However, they also helped to keep the spores from becoming airborne which would have posed a much greater threat.
So far, there doesn't seem to be anything in the Science article that holds up under close examination. It seems to be totally based upon rumor and speculation - while ignoring facts and direct observation.
The USPS statement is very general and clearly isn't intended to be some official US statement about how the anthrax was made or anything like that. It just warns the USPS employees about the dangers of anthrax - particularly the most dangerous kind of anthrax. Some of the spores in the Senate letter were highly charged with static electricity as a result of their handling by postal machines. The USPS statement doesn't say where that charge came from. It just says it's something to be careful about.
Ed