Radioactive mail

[Sabriel]

Here's the text of an email we (university staff) received yesterday from the head of our doc/mail services:


"News reports regarding trace levels of radioactivity from damaged
nuclear power facilities in Japan being detected in rainwater as far
East as Massachusetts have caused some to question the possibility of
radioactive dust coming into the U.S. by riding on letters and packages
flowing through the international mail stream.

On March 16, the United States Postal Service experienced radiation
detection alarms being triggered at the New York and San Francisco
International Service Centers (ISCs), indicating a low-level exposure
risk. Inspections of these facilities were conducted, and it was
determined that it was safe for employees to return to work. The USPS
reported that both facilities showed radiation levels equivalent to
x-ray exposure, and would not pose a safety hazard to workers.

Resulting from the incident on March 16, the Postal Service has
implemented additional safety measures at ISCs to prevent employees and
postal customers from exposure to radiation from incoming international
mail. Postal inspectors, along with Customs and Border Protection
Officers, have been assigned to monitor international mail to ensure
that it does not present a health risk to the public and continues to be
safe for processing by postal employees."

My question is this: if the radiation is "equivalent to x-ray exposure," what does that mean if you're exposed to it--as a postal employee--all day, every day? It seems pretty harmful to me.

[Scruffy1]

1. Strange that no measurements were given.

But then if you work for the postal service you already know how incompetent and self serving postal "management" is.

[Junkdrawer]

2. Googled this link. Looks legit....

http://www.bu.edu/mailservices/

[RC]

3. I'm waiting for someone to come up with the idea that E-mails

are radioactive because the electricity they depend on was generated by nuclear power somewhere along the line.
This makes as much sense as most anything else the anti-nukers are coming up with lately.

BTY, the OP information sounds bogus. "...alarms being triggered at the New York and San Francisco
International Service Centers..." and nowhere in between?

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. "Nowhere in between?"

Would that be because International mail goes TO those 2 "International Centers" first, for distribution, and that is where they are monitored for things like radiation?
The point is that radiation IS being found on mail.
The point is radiation IS being found on people who have flown from Japan.
The point is radiation IS accumulative.

[Sabriel]

8. "Bogus" is dismissing any concern about radiation reports

If anxiety about radioactive particles cropping up globally makes me an "anti-nuker," then sign me up.

Do you have two kids who are more susceptible to radiation impact? If not, then STFU with your FUD campaign.

Pooh-poohing a legitimate concern does you no credit.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. People don't want to consider one exposure compounded by many sources.

I think the x-ray scanners in airports are doomed. We're all just getting too much exposure.

[Mnemosyne]

6. At least our electric bills will go down

when we start glowing in the dark.

[intaglio]

7. "Equivalent to x-ray exposure"

Pelvic/Abdominal x-ray CT? 30 milli Sv = 10 years background radiation = moderate lifetime risk of fatal cancer

Source Radiologyinfo.org

[bvar22]

9. What if you ALREADY had an X-Ray this year?

Are you NOW at double the risk?

A whole bunch of people have already been exposed to Medical X-Rays.
I've had at least two dental X-Rays this year.

I've never really understood those who want to discount the threat posed by additional radiation dumped into our environment by saying, "Oh, Its no more than an common X-RAY."

[intaglio]

10. You got it!

It's like they used to say, probably still do actually, "It's only twice than background radiation," which means you are getting 3 times the background radiation dose.