Slashdot Mirror
USPS Irradiation Damages Electronics
meehawl writes: "Bummer. Turns out the USPS's new Electron Beams anthrax zappers can erase and sometimes permanently damage CompactFlash cards. I wonder what other sensitive electronics will get wiped, not to mention seeds, film, some plastics, and so on. I guess it's more reason to use Fedex and UPS, at least unless and until they deploy these beam weapons as well. All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people? Some people think using the beams will lead to more deaths and injuries among operators. Meanwhile, electron beam makers, SureBeam, just got an analyst upgrade." Err, and be careful what you irradiate.
"All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people? " What's next? "All this security measures for this 4 planes a year that get hijacked?" "All this bombs for this really small percentage of women that are being tortured?"
It isn't widely publicized, but a person known as Bruce Banner was involved in the development of the electron beam. During testing, he and the photographer that the Daily Bugle sent over to cover the event, Peter Parker, were caught inside the test chamber of the electron. Peter Parker also had the misfortune of having his pet spider with him at the time, which unfortunately did not survive being irradiated.
This can only lead us to one conclusion; Bruce Banner and Peter Parker are Batman and Robin.
-- Dan
That's an interesting question - what price a human life. Is 100 man years of inconvenience to everyone else worth say, one human life? Has anybody considered the thousands of man years invested in the WTC's construction. In some ways, those lost years might be considered part of the death toll. They have to now be re-spent for reconstruction. Time that people could have spent living or with their families.
``All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people''
What a short-sighted thing to say. You're whining that protections against the launch of a biological attack might erase your digital camera pictures? Firstly, it is the postal service's precautions that have limited the death toll to five; and secondly, if you mean to imply that a mere five deaths doesn't warrant this astounding level of inconvenience, then what death toll would be needed to justify these measures? ie, how long would you wait? This isn't like holding secret military tribunals or any of the other civil-liberty-violating measures that have been discussed -- this is a simple, safe, effective, and prudent thing to do. I'm sure that the first time a UPS package or FedEx package is found to contain Anthrax or anything similar, then the private couriers will immediately begin irradiating their packages too. In fact, it might even become required by law.
If you're sending something by mail that could perhaps be damaged by certain handling in the mail, you can write a message on the outside of the package requesting special handling. ``Photographs: do not bend.'' ``Perishable: do not freeze.'' Sensitive materials ranging from high speed film to live queen bees are routinely sent through the mail, and it works just fine. I'm sure ``Sensitive: Do not irradiate'' or something of that nature would work just fine. Your mail might be ever so slightly delayed due to the alternate handling, but you'll live.
I found the exact quote. I should have looked harder before making the original post, but the point is the same:
Taken from The Brothers Karamazov
Ivan: "Tell me yourself, I challenge you answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature that little child beating its breast with its fist, for instance--and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
Alyosha: "No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
There is cause for concern; true, anyone worried about their mail turning radioactive is misguided:
things don't become radioactive by being irradiated.
(except if it's fast neutron radiation, in which case radioactivity may be induced)
On the other hand there is cause for concern when it comes to the chemistry.
When organic compounds get hit by gamma radiation, radicals are formed,
chemical bonds are broken, etc. It's a big mess,
and given the huge diversity of substances being irradiated, it's far to early to tell if
dangerous compounds are formed or not. (probably mostly:not)
One example is that gamma radiation can cause oxygen to form ozone, which is poisonous.
...is what is going to happen when someone smuggles C4 onto a plane in his ass, and gets caught. Full-body-cavity searches for all passengers!
This is rapidly getting ridiculous. And I feel no safer.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I think what we're seeing is the first of many "oopses" that show that strong irradiation of mail may be approaching this problem in the wrong fashion. As I implied in the subject line, they're driving a finishing nail with a sledge hammer.
Rather than focus on irradication of what most probably is not there (anthrax), we'd do well to focus on methods that allow us to detect its presence in a non-destructive and non-damaging fashion to the contents of the mail. Once detected, we can use the irradication method, or perhaps we'd choose isolation and chemical testing in order to find the source of the moron that was putting anthrax in the mail.
For instance, we've come a long way in x-raying luggage, adding expert systems that attempt to assist the operator in identifying potentially hazardous items. Something similar is needed that can identify chemical compounds behind barriers such as paper, plastic, and perhaps even metal.
If I'm correct, what this method would need to look for (where anthrax is concerned) is a chemical residue or trace, in powder form. I like the idea of using a beam of radiation, since it can pass through a sealed package and its contents without causing us to become a society that searches people's mail by hand.
What I think would be optimum is a very low intensity radiation at just the right frequency to excite the structure of the Anthrax such that it immediately shows up as a "hot spot" on the detector circuitry, yet with the beam kept at a low enough power that flash memory cards don't get erased or damaged, film doesn't get fogged, paper doesn't release noxious fumes, etc...
Do I know how to accomplish this? Sorry, not my field... But I'm hoping someone whose field this is sees my comments. Perhaps it'll trigger an idea in the right direction.
So, what happens when a terrorist kills 5 Americans with a gun?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
"I am willing to bet that more than five people died last year from eating frensh fries. Why havn't this product that obviously kills people been removed from the market?"
If someone dies from eating french fries, it is probably because they choked to death or it was the last LDL placed on the cholesterol camel's back. In both cases, it was likely the fault of the person eating the fries, for either eating too quickly or eating too much fatty food.
The anthrax was thrust upon the postal workers, and the mail recipients, without their consent. If you are weighing the lives of 5 people against the blanking of a few memory cards and the people come up light, you need your scale calibrated.
"Death (even so-called "unnatural" death) is a consequence of life. If everytime someone dies, we remove or restrict what ever killed that person, this planet would be a boring place."
I couldn't agree more. If it ever became socially acceptable to hunt down and kill personal injury lawyers, I would be the first to lock and load. However, this is a process to remove anthrax from the world, not fries. Or diving boards. Or 'dangerous' toys. Or hot McDonald's coffee.
Though I mostly agree with your sentiment, I don't think it applies to this case.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
Oh dear..
I'm afraid your thinking is just a touch flawed. Yeah, Americans had their head in the anthrax bucket for a month straight, and it only killed a handful of people. By your logic, we should just dismiss what happened on 9/11 because only 3000 people died, and only a handful of buildings collapsed. We should go after Boeing because after all, they manufacture FLYING DEATH WEAPONS that PERMANENTLY DAMAGE stuff.
Don't be so dramatic. The same technology used to irradiate your Compact Flash at the post office is the same technology used to heat your damn burrito at CIrcle K. Take your tinfoil hat off and relax.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
I thought you needed a ton of permits to work with ionizing radiation, and it would stand to reason that to get them you would have to prove what you are doing is safe. How did they manage to get the permits and get this started so suddenly?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
It's the old "import an animal to destroy a local pest" problem all over again.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?
I was glad to see so many more people completely pissed off at that comment. The poster must not have heard that the last anthrax sent to DC was potent enough to kill "hundreds of thousands of people". When the government was too scared to open it thinking they couldn't contain it, I took notice.
It doesn't help much that I live about 15 minutes from West Trenton, NJ -- the source of all that Anthrax going to NYC and Washington.
Intelligent Life on Earth
I wonder if the irradiation process degrades latex?
We could be blameing the government for a rash of unwitting pregnancies.
Course, it won't affect the slashdot crowd. Slashdotters don't have sex, they fsck.
~z
sig?
In this cases it was not the workers that were irradiated. It was just the package. But I guess it cooked something, accounting for the fumes.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Even if you think some unknown number of destroyed compact flash cards is an acceptable price for killing bacterial spores, that will rarely be present, what about other things that can be damaged or destroyed? What about blood, stool and tissue samples that are mailed to medical labs for testing? How many people will die because the sample was degraded or destroyed, and the test result was incorrect? What about prescription medicines that are damaged by the radiation? Sure, the packages can be labelled. We all know how delivery services take careful note of labels on packages.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
There's good and bad in everything, I guess.
"If the existence of the entire universe, including your happiness, necessitated the torture of even one little girl, would you want it?"
Either way, the girl's a goner... (or am I misreading the question?)
Well yes you are right but.....
#1 the number one "victim" category for gun violence are criminals. Most gun crime is criminal-on-criminal. If my memory serves over half of the "victims" every year fall in this category
#2, only around 1,500-2,500 kids die every year from any type of gun violence. In any given year at least 2x that are killed by drunk drivers.
#3 on average around 40-50,000 people die in car accidents. Why not ban cars since you have no right at all to own or use them under state law and since public transportation is so much "safer"
Go ahead and ban guns and let's see who will not have them:
1. single mothers with small children living in the inner cities. You know... those areas where the cops can't be bothered to enforce the law because they don't have the balls to do it.
2. farmers living out in the countryside where it would take a hell of a long time to get a cop out to help them.
3. the elderly. Do you honestly think that without a gun that an elderly man or woman has even a shot of defending themselves against a violent offender?
It takes at least 15-20 minutes in most areas for a cop to respond to a call. key words: at least. Yes that means that while someone is breaking down your door with an intent on robbing you, raping you or murdering you or any combination of the above, you have no means without a gun to defend yourself against them. Do you honestly think they aren't armed? Yes, there is a chance you'll die, but there is also a chance you'll die from a heart attack the moment you wake up or get hit by a car on the way to work. You won't reduce the violent crime rate in THIS country by restricting access to guns because there are too many well-armed criminals already. Only their would-be victims will surrender their guns. You need to grow up and realize that the government cannot bring about a crime-free utopia. It's life, it isn't perfect and it won't conform to your petty legislation.
They've been saying this since the process started. In fact, the plastic bad that my irradiated mail arrived in had the following note on it:
The letter was yellow and fell apart to some extent when I opened the envelope.
Look pilgrim, for all I care you can stuff all the dreck that you want into your body.
I for my part only ask for a declaration of genetically engineered organisms on the food that I purchase.
Now, as a so much determined lobyist for a brave new world, I'm sure you can explain why the Monsantos of this world so vehemently fight such obligations.
Could it be that they know that I and hundreds of millions of people feeling the same way won't buy this shit?
Anxiously awaiting your answer...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
A shooter knows that when he takes aim at a group of people and fires that he could be held accountable, barring escape or suicide. This is what keeps most sociopaths in check: fear of accountability; fear of justice. At the same time this is what lets our nation sleep well at night: knowledge that criminals could be held accountable and could be brought to justice; not that they necessarily will be but that it is at least possible.
Anthrax and other bioagents are tele-weapons and as October showed us, remote biological assaults have far less potential for accountability; their perpetrators stand a far smaller chance of ever being brought to justice. That is why going after the people who would use these so-called asymmetric weapons is so critical. And in the meantime, since the nation (OK, senators, anchorpersons and postal workers) can't rely on anthrax flingers being be brought to justice, it's up to the government to give us Cipro, smallpox vaccines and irradiation, the next best things.
All this disruption for a campaign that killed five people?
Although the self-righteous amoung us have pounced on this statement, it's not out of line. We can't substantially change our way of life every time someone dies.
Look at automobiles. A 1981 VW Rabbit (Golf in Europe) weighed about 1,800lbs. A modern Golf weighs in at about 2,800lbs. Most of that weight gain is because of safety regulations requiring everything from stronger bumpers to airbags to bracing in the doors. In another 50 years, will economy cars weigh as much as Chevy Suburbans due to ever-increasing safety regulation?
What if it could be shown that taking people's guns away wuld prevent deaths? In the U.S. in 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. And no rational person could possibly claim that self-defense uses of firearms saved anywhere near that many lives. So does that death toll justify repealing the Second Amendment (right to bear arms)?
We are slowly paralyzing ourselves as a country. We need to realize that we can't legislate or regulate death out of existence. People are going to die, sometimes tragically before their time, no matter how many laws, procedures, rules, and regulations we put into place.
Of course I would. We make decissions like this *every single* day of your lives. You buy food which is cheap because it's shipped by (among other things) trucks and trains. Trucks and trains kill hundreds of people every year, thousands the world over. Pesticides, energy production, industrial waste. Accidents in factories, offices.
Every single day people die because we, as a society, have decided that, in exchange for the a certain level of comfort, we will sacrifice the lives of a few people. People die because of economic reasons, plain and simple. Just as I don't think cars should be banned because 5 people died in a car accident, I don't think all mail should be irradiated just because of a terrorist campaign that killed 5 people.
It's a simple exchange: comfort for life. We make it every day. I'm making it now. It's part of what makes us humans, a selfish ability to value our comfort over that of others.
But I wouldn't have it any other way.
What if you mother, father, wife or kids got anthrax from the mail? Would it be worth it then?
Please. Most of the threads here are just (forgive me for saying) moronic. "All this for just 5 deaths", "This is the last nail being hammered into our coffin", "Oh dear me... my rights have been violated". Please.
How many people buy a hard drive and expect it to be shipped in an envelope without padding or an anti-static bag? None. You ship me a drive like that, I'll send it right back without testing it. Sure, it might work; but that's not the point. It may or may not work very long. Not worth the risk.
Similarly, now when you ship a compact flash card, you'll have to protect it properly. Duh. A hard drive isn't susceptible to this beam because it is surrounded by the plastic case... which is covered on both sides with about 2 or maybe 3 mil of aluminum. So, from now on, ship compact flash cards wrapped in aluminum foil or, once "professional" baggies are available, use those.
An electron beam needn't be harmful, folks. I can't remember the exact equation of how far the electrons will penetrate, but in my work with Auger Electron Spectroscopy, a 3keV beam only gets me about a nanometer into the surface of a material. Going to higher energy proportionally increases the depth--but really this isn't something that's difficult to shield against. This isn't nearly as big a deal as people are making it out to be.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
I can see this being a really big deal to the type of people who'll have conniptions over anything sciencey and scary-sounding... you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".
I normally don't bother feeding the trolls (even with genetically-modified foods), but here I'll make an exception.
Ever hear of Monsanto?
They're a corporate giant thats a big player in the GM field. Based on their track record, I wouldn't trust them to provide food for my dog or cat...never mind for my own consumption.
Here are a few lowlights:
Monsanto recently sued canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement. The reason? His neighbour had been sowing Monsanto GM canola seed and some of the seed blew onto his property.
The Washington Post recently published this article detailing how for decades Monsanto dumped PCBs into streams in a small Alabama town despite having studies from the '60s describing the damage that was being done.
Monsanto is the parent company of Nutrasweet, one of the nastiest substances approved for human consumption.
Monsanto is also involved with a GM seed technology known as terminator. Terminator involves producing seeds that grow sterile plants, requiring the farmer to aquire new seeds from the company every growing season. It shouldn't take much imagination to realise that if these plants cross-polinate with unmodified plants, the results could be catastrophic.
Is this a company you would trust and whose products you want to be putting in your mouth?
Maybe next time you see people waving signs that that say "NO FRANKENFOODS", you might ask why before pointing the finger and screaming "Conspiracy nut!"
With other technologies, there's an element of trust involved. Break the trust and you will get flak every time you try to introduce something new...good or bad. Have the individuals making these sorts of decisions shown themselves to be responsible, looking out for our best interests? Here's your answer: After approving Nutrasweet for use in carbonated beverages, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr left his post and went to work for Nutrasweet's PR division.
You're using her as bait, Master!
The radiation level that the USPS is testing now (and maybe has in production already) is so high that even radiation-hardened microchips (for space and defense systems) cannot withstand it. Also, some packages have been reportedly catching on fire because of the high radiation levels.
I use thermal labels to address my business mail and I've had several returned with "Address Unreadable". The label turns jet black after irradiation.
It was lucky that I didn't use a thermal label for the return address as well or I never would have known that this was happening.
55 kGray = 5500 kilorad.
Radiation-hardened ICs can withstand "only" 300 kilorad .
Think it's safe to send your consumer-grade electronics through the mail?
The field of risk management is perhaps where society is at it's stupidest. If you calculate the dollars spent per saved life for supposed life saving actions, there is a span of 9 magnitudes, IIRC.
It's next to impossible to put forward such arguments, especially in the very emotional times after great losses of lives when safety decisions are made. Still, it's an undisputable fact that there is a limited amount of resources, and if you choose to put it where you can save one life for $100M, rather than where it can be done for $1k, you're not really saving lifes, even if you think you do.
About 6500 people die every day in the US. I haven't done the math, but I feel pretty safe saying that if we spent as much per life saved on other dangers than mailed anthrax, we would be bankrupt many times over.
So why does this happen? Because of the intense media coverage, anthrax is on everybodys mind, and the government has to "do something". Thus, it's really not about "saving lifes", but about PR and saving face.
I was under the impression that they were just doing letters. What point is it to do packages?
Why don't I just line my box with lead or aluminum foil (obviously if I know how to make anthrax, I can calculate how thick the foil needs to be). Then put my anthrax in it.
People get all kinds of letters from strange sources. But hardly ever strange packages, right? Except of course for public figures, but perhaps their mail should be treated differently.
It's just more SNAKE OIL designed to make everybody feel good. Like checking for nail clippers at the airport.
As for the five lives comment, well I guess in the USA we value whatever life is broadcast on the evening news. But I agree with the poster's sentiment, there's a balance to be made between the illusion of safety and the day-to-day functioning of society.
And even more surprising is that 25,000 people die silently of starvation every day.
Yet the government doesn't take notice of them.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
The anthrax was thrust upon the postal workers, and the mail recipients, without their consent. If you are weighing the lives of 5 people against the blanking of a few memory cards and the people come up light, you need your scale calibrated.
This isn't quite so simple. The question is whether to take a measure that might have prevented 5 people from being killed (and may not prevent any more, as those who wished such deaths can and will use alternate measures) but which in doing so cause property damage, perhaps personal injury, and certainly public expense.
That last bit is important. If by raising the taxes of every individual in the United States by $1000 this year you could save a life, would you do it? As for me, even if the person were (say) my little sister, whom I love dearly, I could not take responsibilty for placing some obligation (which taxes surely are!) on an unconsenting and uninvolved public. Surely, there is some point at which public expense to save lives is unquestionably justified -- that being the point when the every individual who would be obligated to pay considers it important enough to consent to the price voluntarily -- but how often does that happen?
circumvention device?
Wouldn't that violate the DMCA?
Reality has a liberal bias
I don't even have to repeat the quote from the title, you all know what it is. It is tasteless, uncaring, and selfish in a disturbing way.
It is even further disturbing to see the discussions about it here... how everyone who argues against such emotion gets even more selfish, uncaring responses, and how some people are relating this to deaths from drunk driving or careless eating.
This is a PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY MATTER. French fries don't kill you the same way anthrax does. Drunk driving is a result of irresponsible behavior and is not tolerated much at all in this country, and our society has gone to great lengths to prevent needless deaths from auto accidents in general... why could we not apply this to eliminating anthrax and other biological threats from our postal mail system?
Because you want to send a compact flash card unwrapped in a 34 cent envelope? Shame on you.
But it's not even that. It's that you think that your needs for freedom and convienience are more powerful and weighty than the public's need for safety and security. And on top of that, you implicitly and coldheartedly suggest that if those 5 people hadn't died yet, but they would if they stopped irradiation, you'd still consider stopping it because you don't want to risk damaging improperly marked electronic equipment.
It's not all of you. Some of you are actually appalled by this, as am I. But the rest of you... that's just sick. And, sadly, this kind of stuff happens all the time on here. And it's Michael who usually posts it, too. He does a poor job of weeding out such bad taste from what might be an interesting discussion. Rather than say "All because 5 people died...", we could ask "How can we eliminate the public health threat AND ensure the safety of our equipment?" The fact that it isn't appalling to you to say the former is appalling to the people among us who value human life, no matter how sick and fucked up it can be at times.
Ah, who's listening to me anyway? Go back to your coffee, games, and coding.
The anthrax was thrust upon the postal workers, and the mail recipients, without their consent. If you are weighing the lives of 5 people against the blanking of a few memory cards and the people come up light, you need your scale calibrated.
I'll bet more people have died from either stress induced heart attacks or suicide brought on by IRS audits than from anthrax. I don't see the federal government being willing to give up a little money in order to prevent those deaths.
Blanking a few CF isn't the issue, making it impossable to ship electronics, magnetic media, copy paper, any food item, etc. is the problem.
Consider, if there were no air travel, all of those people in N.Y. would still be alive! How dare you suggest their lives are less important than your ability to save a few short days when traveling across the country?!!!
So what you're saying is, this electron beam will kill anthrax, but it's easily blocked... so we all start using electron-beam-proof wrapping... and so does whoever has been mailing anthrax.
Gee, now I feel safe.
If what you're saying is right, what this means is that we're all just going to have to pay for more expensive wrapping for our mail, particularly for film, medicine, or electronics, for no actual benefit.
you know, the same ones who lobby against genetically-engineered foods with signs like "NO FRANKENFOODS!".
The biggest outrage is that the food makers want the right to not tell us that the food contains genetically modified material. What are they hiding? If they weren't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't have to lie about it.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
No. We're whining that the compactflash card that we pay $250 for online could show up damaged at our homes and never work right in the first place, because the postal service chose to do interesting things to its package en route. We're whining that our prescription-by-mail medicine may have been altered in unknown ways and may no longer make us well or may in fact be toxic.
I haven't been to a post office in a couple of weeks. Have they posted large safety orange "WARNING, WE IRRADIATE YOUR MAIL, YOUR FILM AND ELECTRONICS WILL BE DAMAGED AND YOUR MEDICINE WILL BECOME TOXIC" signs everywhere yet? How many dozens or hundreds of people die in the United States every year from slipping in the bathtub? what death toll are you waiting for to justify the banning of bathtubs?
You can't legislate away death. Living has risks. Tell the folks at the commerce department whose paper gave off toxic gas because it was irradiated that it's safe. I'm sure that'll be very comforting to the terrorists who have been mailing anthrax, to know that they can just write "do not irradiate" on their envelopes full of death. Look, if this is such a wonderful thing like you say it should be done to everything. If it can't be safely done to everything, maybe it shouldn't be done at all: creating a false sense of security is much worse than being insecure and knowing it.
A bucket of water can drown a dozen people if adminstered properly as well. So which should we ban, buckets or water?
What is bacillis thermophilus you ask? It a handy little bacteria that is commonly and legaly sent through the US Mail system by Medical and Dental professionals. Its used because it is highly resistant to heat, it will not grow until its heated to 140 C.
How it's used is, a spore sample is inserted into the office's autoclave, a steam heat sterilizer, with a normal load of instruments to be sterilized. The exposed sample is then send to a lab and cultured. If the B.thermophilis grows the autoclave must be fixed or adjusted, if it doesn't all is well.
Since the mail is now sterilized by irradiation, the B. thermophilis is dead and will never grow, and all of the autoclave check out good no matter how bad they may be!
Now where do you think your greater risk comes from, untested autoclaves at the dentist's office, or anthrax in the mail? Of course the samples can be sent by an alternate carrier that doesn't irradiate, but knowing how the dental profession marks up prices, every patient will pay for the once a month expense.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
So, what happens when a terrorist kills 5 Americans with a bomb strapped to his body ?
I'm sorry, but if one of those people were a close family member, then you'd care more about personal safety than some damn compact flash cards. I can't believe I actually had to read that.
Manufacturers of ant farms used for science education are starting to release a new product: cockroach farms. We've always known that after a nuclear war, all that would be left would be radiation resistant cockroaches. These enterprising entrepreneurs aren't going to wait until WWIII to use that characteristing to their advantage. The new procedures at the post office will ensure that the new product is a market success.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
What if your mother, farther, wife, or kids dies because their diabetes testing materials, or insulin, was irradiated by the USPS in transit to the pharmacy where you bought it and you didn't know about it, and their blood sugar test results are incorrect and they consequently eat too much, or too little, sugar?
What if their prescription medicine has been irradiated and has become toxic (due to chemical breakdown) and it kills them? Or if it just doesn't work any more and they die of what it was supposed to cure them of?
What if your grandmother's medicine arrives in the mail and they DID stick a warning label on it but she can't afford to get it replaced so she takes it anyway, it doesn't work, and she dies?
What would it be worth then?
The point is that they clearly haven't thought out all the consequences of this. They're so eager to prevent any further anthrax cases that they're not considering potential adverse consequences of their concept of a solution.
What about these fucking government beams on MY HERB, man!? Tha fuck's up with that shit?
--hongpong.com
So you could make a bag of anthrax that survives irradiation but is still contagious before openning the package.
Assuming that the irradiation will kill Anthrax in the first place. Bacteria can be very tough, consider the ammount of hassle the NASA went to to demontaminate the Viking probes. So that terrestrial microbes wouldn't contaminate Mars.
I'd bet that if you counted it up, more than 5 people died in fires caused by frying equipment.