Urinalysis Drug Tests

[anganb]

Urinalysis Drug Tests

Testing is most frequently performed on small samples of urine,
although hair, saliva, and blood can also be used. Urine samples are
collected by personnel under carefully controlled circumstances to
avoid mismatches resulting in false positives, and to prevent
adulteration of the specimen by the swapping of samples or the
addition of foreign substances. In particular, urine samples heavily
diluted with water can skewer results, and so highly diluted specimens
are routinely rejected. In certain legal cases involving individuals
known to be repeat drug offenders, personnel are usually required to
witness the sample being provided in order to ensure that no
adulteration has taken place.

Samples can be tested at the same site in which they were provided.
More frequently, it is shipped to a large facility that specializes in
mass-testing specimens. Care must be taken in shipping to ensure the
integrity of the specimen, and those that indicate contamination are
not processed. A special tamper-proof seal is routinely placed on
bottles to indicate whether or not this has occurred
http://www.getgift.com.cn/Drug-Testing.htm

[NW_Pilot]

"anganb" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Urinalysis Drug Tests
>
> Testing is most frequently performed on small samples of urine,
> although hair, saliva, and blood can also be used. Urine samples are
> collected by personnel under carefully controlled circumstances to
> avoid mismatches resulting in false positives, and to prevent
> adulteration of the specimen by the swapping of samples or the
> addition of foreign substances. In particular, urine samples heavily
> diluted with water can skewer results, and so highly diluted specimens
> are routinely rejected. In certain legal cases involving individuals
> known to be repeat drug offenders, personnel are usually required to
> witness the sample being provided in order to ensure that no
> adulteration has taken place.
>
> Samples can be tested at the same site in which they were provided.
> More frequently, it is shipped to a large facility that specializes in
> mass-testing specimens. Care must be taken in shipping to ensure the
> integrity of the specimen, and those that indicate contamination are
> not processed. A special tamper-proof seal is routinely placed on
> bottles to indicate whether or not this has occurred
> http://www.getgift.com.cn/Drug-Testing.htm
>

And? 80% test positive because they are on some sort of prescription dope
anyway!

[the warlock society]

anganb wrote:
> Urinalysis Drug Tests
>
> Testing is most frequently performed on small samples of urine,
> although hair, saliva, and blood can also be used. Urine samples are
> collected by personnel under carefully controlled circumstances to
> avoid mismatches resulting in false positives, and to prevent
> adulteration of the specimen by the swapping of samples or the
> addition of foreign substances. In particular, urine samples heavily
> diluted with water can skewer results, and so highly diluted specimens
> are routinely rejected. In certain legal cases involving individuals
> known to be repeat drug offenders, personnel are usually required to
> witness the sample being provided in order to ensure that no
> adulteration has taken place.
>
> Samples can be tested at the same site in which they were provided.
> More frequently, it is shipped to a large facility that specializes in
> mass-testing specimens. Care must be taken in shipping to ensure the
> integrity of the specimen, and those that indicate contamination are
> not processed. A special tamper-proof seal is routinely placed on
> bottles to indicate whether or not this has occurred
> http://www.getgift.com.cn/Drug-Testing.htm

guilty until proven innocent; it's the american way!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

NW_Pilot wrote:
> "anganb" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Urinalysis Drug Tests
>>
>> Testing is most frequently performed on small samples of urine,
>> although hair, saliva, and blood can also be used. Urine samples are
>> collected by personnel under carefully controlled circumstances to
>> avoid mismatches resulting in false positives, and to prevent
>> adulteration of the specimen by the swapping of samples or the
>> addition of foreign substances. In particular, urine samples heavily
>> diluted with water can skewer results, and so highly diluted
>> specimens are routinely rejected. In certain legal cases involving
>> individuals known to be repeat drug offenders, personnel are usually
>> required to witness the sample being provided in order to ensure
>> that no adulteration has taken place.
>>
>> Samples can be tested at the same site in which they were provided.
>> More frequently, it is shipped to a large facility that specializes
>> in mass-testing specimens. Care must be taken in shipping to ensure
>> the integrity of the specimen, and those that indicate contamination
>> are not processed. A special tamper-proof seal is routinely placed on
>> bottles to indicate whether or not this has occurred
>> http://www.getgift.com.cn/Drug-Testing.htm
>>
>
> And? 80% test positive because they are on some sort of prescription
> dope anyway!


Not even close and I paid for over 450 drug screens on employees this year.

[Gatt]

"the warlock society" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> guilty until proven innocent; it's the american way!

This is sobering: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

According to "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" the War on Some Drugs has
cost $44 billion dollars, put nearly 10,000 Americans in prison, and drugs
are cheaper and more accessible to kids and inmates now than alcohol or
cigarettes. The FBI keeps raiding the Lakota indians for growing
hemp--which the government taught and encouraged them to grow in the first
place--to feed their buffalo and livestock, and so Americans are being made
destitute for something that -looks- like marijuana.

I occasionally fish around to find statistics on the percentage of aviation
accidents in which drugs (and which ones) and alcohol are involved. It's
as ridiculous to believe there aren't pilots who use drugs out there as it
is to believe the are pilots who aren't alcoholics, chain smokers or
terrible drivers, but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot
stories, you don't hear much about it. I suspect that's because aviator
mentality is a little more disciplined and self-policing; we understand
what's at stake if they blow it, so I'm not gonna get loaded on beer or
Benadryl and go flying on a Friday night, but that doesn't mean I don't
drink beer.

A former acquaintance told me that she was first explosed to cocaine until
her mom starting hanging out with airline pilots in the early '80s, and
didn't get into it because if adults were doing it it clearly wasn't cool.
That's kind of a backwardass way to keep your kids off drugs, I guess. My
dad's "I brought you into the world, and I can make another one just like
you" worked pretty well. :>

-c

[Gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> Not even close and I paid for over 450 drug screens on employees this
> year.

Fascinating. I have questions for you, if you don't mind.

1) What do the employees do?
2) What was the ballpark failure rate?
3) What drugs/alcohol are most likely to show up?
4) How did postive or negative results align with job performance. IE, were
you -surprised- that somebody failed (or passed) based on their performance,
were otherwise-stellar employees let go because of the results? And,
lastly:
5) Was it worth it?

Usually you hear statistics from police, users, activists or just people
like me who simply view it as a (sometimes necessary) invasion of privacy,
so your insight is valuable.

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Not even close and I paid for over 450 drug screens on employees this
>> year.
>
> Fascinating. I have questions for you, if you don't mind.
>
> 1) What do the employees do?

Everything from Bank officers to minimum wage labor. The bell curve on this
group skews towards the lower end of the spectrum though.


> 2) What was the ballpark failure rate?

On new hires and random in service it is about 10% and all but 2 or 3 a year
come from the low end of the labor pool.

On post accident it is around 30% failure. By it's very nature the post
accident skews more towards the lower end of the wage base.

I did look about a year ago at only the <$10.00/hr applicants and it was
about 20% positive on new hires.

> 3) What drugs/alcohol are most likely to show up?

THC (The Stuff that makes Pot enjoyable) is number one with about 70% of the
positives showing THC.

40% show Amphetamines

10% show Cocaine

The other stuff tested for only shows up occasionally though PCP is up
because there seems to be a bunch of pot out there that is laced with it.

And those percentages don't add up to 100 because several have multiple
drugs in them. Most notably I don't remember the last positive for
Amphetamines I saw that didn't also have THC.


> 4) How did postive or negative results align with job performance. IE,
> were you -surprised- that somebody failed (or passed) based on
> their performance, were otherwise-stellar employees let go because of
> the results? And, lastly:


We've only got 4 or 5 positives from random over the last couple of years
and we the 2 probable cause tests we did this year both were positive.

Because most of the positives come from pre-hire tests it's hard to say.
Though on the rare occasion that we have allowed a positive applicant to
reapply and retest at a latter date they don't usually work out. Off the top
of my head I can only think of 1 out of 10 over the last 3 years that
failed, reapplied, was hired and was actually a good worker.



> 5) Was it worth it?

Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was before we
put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5% discount on work comp.



>
> Usually you hear statistics from police, users, activists or just
> people like me who simply view it as a (sometimes necessary) invasion
> of privacy, so your insight is valuable.
>
> -c

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "the warlock society" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>> guilty until proven innocent; it's the american way!
>
> This is sobering: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
>
> According to "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" the War on Some Drugs
> has cost $44 billion dollars, put nearly 10,000 Americans in prison, and
> drugs are cheaper and more accessible to kids and inmates now than alcohol
> or cigarettes.

I would have guessed that those numbers were ANNUAL, not historic.

Somewhere in his writings, Thomas Jefferson scoffed at the notion of his day
that potatoes had odd side effect and should be banned. IIRC, he not only
was skeptical of the potato BS, but also about holding it to be illegal.

[Gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> 5) Was it worth it?
>
> Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was before we
> put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5% discount on work
> comp.


Thanks for the info. I have friends who are ex-probation officers, college
professors, youth drug and alcohol counselors, etc, so we talk about this
kind of stuff (usually while drinking beer or whiskey and eating enough
barbequed red meat to kill us all.) Definately interesting hearing
different perspectives.

-c

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> 5) Was it worth it?
>>
>> Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was before
>> we put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5% discount on work
>> comp.
>
>
> Thanks for the info. I have friends who are ex-probation officers,
> college professors, youth drug and alcohol counselors, etc, so we talk
> about this kind of stuff (usually while drinking beer or whiskey and
> eating enough barbequed red meat to kill us all.) Definately interesting
> hearing different perspectives.
>

Now, if you were around here you'd add cigars and change the red meat to
venison, by which you'd live much longer.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> 5) Was it worth it?
>>
>> Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was
>> before we put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5%
>> discount on work comp.
>
>
> Thanks for the info. I have friends who are ex-probation officers,
> college professors, youth drug and alcohol counselors, etc, so we
> talk about this kind of stuff (usually while drinking beer or whiskey
> and eating enough barbequed red meat to kill us all.) Definately
> interesting hearing different perspectives.
>
> -c

Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be
legalize pot. Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it
that are in place for alcohol. THe additional factor that makes me not want
to hire an applicant that smokes pot is that if they are willing to break
one law they are probably more willing to break others. The same goes for an
applicant with DUI or other alcohol related crimes.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Gatt wrote:
> but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot
>stories,

Of which, this one has always stood out for me.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07LA118&rpt=p

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200711/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:7b2c50e23c020@uwe:

> Gatt wrote:
>> but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot
>>stories,
>
> Of which, this one has always stood out for me.
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07LA118&rpt=p
>

Another fine old airplane rendered envirnmentally safe.



Bertie

[Gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be
> legalize pot.

Ditto. Fight the war on drugs against the hard or imported stuff and
legalize and tax pot to pay for it.

>Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it that are in
>place for alcohol. THe additional factor that makes me not want to hire an
>applicant that smokes pot is that if they are willing to break one law
>they are probably more willing to break others.

That's a tricky call, because there are a few facets we see here in Oregon:
People who wouldn't take a dollar off an empty street without looking around
to see if somebody might have dropped it, and who wouldn't ever hurt anybody
or mess with their property, but who would violate the MJ laws because they
simply don't like the government telling them what they can't do with their
own bodies.

Another example is a guy I know of who was mugged, stabbed and crippled.
He's been on heavy pain medication for so long it started to change his
personality, so he quit and started smoking pot instead. The state will
allow him to use it for medicinal purposes, but he refused to get licensed
for it because he believes as soon as he does, the Feds have his name on a
list of known users.

> The same goes for an applicant with DUI or other alcohol related crimes.

Well, in Oregon you don't go to jail for possessing or using pot but they'll
hammer you for a DUI, which makes sense because the police have figured out
that drunk drivers kill people and pot smokers don't. I liked what some
comedian said about Jerry Garcia, which is that he smoked all the pot in the
world but what actually killed him was too many Twinkies.

-c

[Gatt]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in news:7b2c50e23c020@uwe:
>>> but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot stories,
>>
>> Of which, this one has always stood out for me.
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07LA118&rpt=p
>>
>
> Another fine old airplane rendered envirnmentally safe.

"During the course of the interviews detectives determined that both the
pilot and passenger had each consumed between 8 to 10 beers between 1800 and
2400 on March 29, 2007. Prior to the flight, the pilot and passenger had
departed from a local bar in Los Banos where patrons had overheard
discussions between them about doing some "crazy" aerobatics."

Yeeesh!

My favorite so far is the guy, iirc, that did a loop near Tacoma Narrows and
fell out.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
>> news:7b2c50e23c020@uwe:
>>>> but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot stories,
>>>
>>> Of which, this one has always stood out for me.
>>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07LA118&rpt=p
>>>
>>
>> Another fine old airplane rendered envirnmentally safe.
>
> "During the course of the interviews detectives determined that both
> the pilot and passenger had each consumed between 8 to 10 beers
> between 1800 and 2400 on March 29, 2007. Prior to the flight, the
> pilot and passenger had departed from a local bar in Los Banos where
> patrons had overheard discussions between them about doing some
> "crazy" aerobatics."
>
> Yeeesh!
>
> My favorite so far is the guy, iirc, that did a loop near Tacoma
> Narrows and fell out.
>


Must have been a pretty crappy loop.



Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it that are in
>>place for alcohol. THe additional factor that makes me not want to hire an
>>applicant that smokes pot is that if they are willing to break one law
>>they are probably more willing to break others.
>
> That's a tricky call, because there are a few facets we see here in
> Oregon: People who wouldn't take a dollar off an empty street without
> looking around to see if somebody might have dropped it, and who wouldn't
> ever hurt anybody or mess with their property, but who would violate the
> MJ laws because they simply don't like the government telling them what
> they can't do with their own bodies.
>

Another good example are alot of otherwise law abiding folks that carry
concealed weapon for their own protection.

[NW_Pilot]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Gatt wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Not even close and I paid for over 450 drug screens on employees this
>>> year.
>>
>> Fascinating. I have questions for you, if you don't mind.
>>
>> 1) What do the employees do?
>
> Everything from Bank officers to minimum wage labor. The bell curve on
> this group skews towards the lower end of the spectrum though.
>
>
>> 2) What was the ballpark failure rate?
>
> On new hires and random in service it is about 10% and all but 2 or 3 a
> year come from the low end of the labor pool.
>
> On post accident it is around 30% failure. By it's very nature the post
> accident skews more towards the lower end of the wage base.
>
> I did look about a year ago at only the <$10.00/hr applicants and it was
> about 20% positive on new hires.
>
>> 3) What drugs/alcohol are most likely to show up?
>
> THC (The Stuff that makes Pot enjoyable) is number one with about 70% of
> the positives showing THC.
>
> 40% show Amphetamines
>
> 10% show Cocaine
>
> The other stuff tested for only shows up occasionally though PCP is up
> because there seems to be a bunch of pot out there that is laced with it.
>
> And those percentages don't add up to 100 because several have multiple
> drugs in them. Most notably I don't remember the last positive for
> Amphetamines I saw that didn't also have THC.
>
>
>> 4) How did postive or negative results align with job performance. IE,
>> were you -surprised- that somebody failed (or passed) based on
>> their performance, were otherwise-stellar employees let go because of
>> the results? And, lastly:
>
>
> We've only got 4 or 5 positives from random over the last couple of years
> and we the 2 probable cause tests we did this year both were positive.
>
> Because most of the positives come from pre-hire tests it's hard to say.
> Though on the rare occasion that we have allowed a positive applicant to
> reapply and retest at a latter date they don't usually work out. Off the
> top of my head I can only think of 1 out of 10 over the last 3 years that
> failed, reapplied, was hired and was actually a good worker.
>
>
>
>> 5) Was it worth it?
>
> Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was before we
> put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5% discount on work
> comp.
>
>
>
>>
>> Usually you hear statistics from police, users, activists or just
>> people like me who simply view it as a (sometimes necessary) invasion
>> of privacy, so your insight is valuable.
>>
>> -c
>
>
>

Yea, but if they disclose a prescription for an Opiate they will pass the
test or if they have other prescriptions for other controlled substances
they cannot be claimed positive in a drug test as it's a legal prescription.
I know people that are prescribed THC pill and Cannabis form and all pass
their drug tests are work! Most other drugs are not even tested for unless
it's sent to a lab and specifically checked. Then ask your self who is smart
and buy's urine and uses a heat pack or condom full of clean urin to avoid
detection usually the paid class that is paid more money?

[NW_Pilot]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Gatt wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> 5) Was it worth it?
>>>
>>> Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was
>>> before we put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5%
>>> discount on work comp.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the info. I have friends who are ex-probation officers,
>> college professors, youth drug and alcohol counselors, etc, so we
>> talk about this kind of stuff (usually while drinking beer or whiskey
>> and eating enough barbequed red meat to kill us all.) Definately
>> interesting hearing different perspectives.
>>
>> -c
>
> Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be
> legalize pot. Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it
> that are in place for alcohol. THe additional factor that makes me not
> want to hire an applicant that smokes pot is that if they are willing to
> break one law they are probably more willing to break others. The same
> goes for an applicant with DUI or other alcohol related crimes.
>

Cannabis is legal in a lot of states for medical!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" < wrote

> Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be legalize
> pot. Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules on it that are in
> place for alcohol.

IF you did that, are tests accurate to tell you if the person smoked last night,
or if he had a small amount before he came to work that morning, and got tested
two hours after he got to work that morning?

It just seems like it would be tough to impossible to enforce, to me.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"NW_Pilot" <> wrote

>. Then ask your self who is smart and buy's urine and uses a heat pack or
>condom full of clean urin to avoid detection usually the paid class that is
>paid more money?

When I have been tested (CDL) they give you a very short period of time to
report for the test, and you never know what day the test will be. You would
have to have your clean specimen ready all the time, and I'm not sure, but I
think they can tell from decomposition factors, if it is fresh or not, and just
being warm is not the only factor involved.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Morgans wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" < wrote
>
>> Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be
>> legalize pot. Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules
>> on it that are in place for alcohol.
>
> IF you did that, are tests accurate to tell you if the person smoked
> last night, or if he had a small amount before he came to work that
> morning, and got tested two hours after he got to work that morning?
>
> It just seems like it would be tough to impossible to enforce, to me.

Nope they are not and you are right it is would be a problem. My bet though
is that a mouth swab or some other sort of test to check for estimated time
of use could be developed.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

NW_Pilot wrote:
>>
>
> Yea, but if they disclose a prescription for an Opiate they will pass
> the test or if they have other prescriptions for other controlled
> substances they cannot be claimed positive in a drug test as it's a
> legal prescription. I know people that are prescribed THC pill and
> Cannabis form and all pass their drug tests are work! Most other
> drugs are not even tested for unless it's sent to a lab and
> specifically checked. Then ask your self who is smart and buy's urine
> and uses a heat pack or condom full of clean urin to avoid detection
> usually the paid class that is paid more money?

Yes a prescription for a prescription drug will clear them from a positive
result. What we do though is we require that once the person's prescription
ends they are required take another test. As far as prescribed THC goes I
know it is out there but I've yet to see a prescription for it.

And the using clean pee seldom works. It is either to hot or to cold. We
catch 8 or 9 a year trying to do it. Also, there is random testing after
hire and they never know when that is going to happen.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

NW_Pilot wrote:
>
> Most other
> drugs are not even tested for unless it's sent to a lab and
> specifically checked.


Oh and I forgot to mention we run a 7 panel test and the smallest I know
anyone runs is a 5 panel.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" < wrote
>>
>>> Glad I could add a data point for you. My personal feelings would be
>>> legalize pot. Though I'd apply the same workplace and driving rules
>>> on it that are in place for alcohol.
>>
>> IF you did that, are tests accurate to tell you if the person smoked
>> last night, or if he had a small amount before he came to work that
>> morning, and got tested two hours after he got to work that morning?
>>
>> It just seems like it would be tough to impossible to enforce, to me.
>
> Nope they are not and you are right it is would be a problem. My bet
> though is that a mouth swab or some other sort of test to check for
> estimated time of use could be developed.

Years ago they were touting a new (at the time) eye movement test, that
would indicate such.

[Gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

>> It just seems like it would be tough to impossible to enforce, to me.
>
> Nope they are not and you are right it is would be a problem. My bet
> though is that a mouth swab or some other sort of test to check for
> estimated time of use could be developed.

They do mouth swabs in some situations. Apparently (says an industry
source) there's some margin of error; somebody who used that day and would
have failed a UA passed the swab test. This woman worked for a company
that sold a UA test kit, a masking agent to beat that kit, and about six
months after they released thta they released an advanced UA test kit that
detected the masking agent.

Interesting racket.

-c

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Gatt wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> It just seems like it would be tough to impossible to enforce, to
>>> me.
>>
>> Nope they are not and you are right it is would be a problem. My bet
>> though is that a mouth swab or some other sort of test to check for
>> estimated time of use could be developed.
>
> They do mouth swabs in some situations. Apparently (says an industry
> source) there's some margin of error; somebody who used that day and
> would have failed a UA passed the swab test. This woman worked for
> a company that sold a UA test kit, a masking agent to beat that kit,
> and about six months after they released thta they released an
> advanced UA test kit that detected the masking agent.
>
> Interesting racket.
>
> -c

Here's a tip for everyone. NEVER accept one of the quickie tests that the
results show up on the panel on the cup. They are worst than useless. Both
false positives and negatives at about a 30% rate. I bring this up because
of the comments about masking agents like URinLuck. (Gotta love that name.)
A test sent to a proper lab will send back an "adulterated" result almost
everytime.

[Denny]

Slightly off topic: A neurologist at our hospital had a vendetta
against the head of the pathology department... He decided to prove
that our hospital pathology lab was incompetent <and by inference the
chief also> and obtained urine from his dog and sent it in as
speciment for a patient with some obscure kidney disease diagnosis...

Well, the automated testing machine flagged it as an abnormal, the
tech looked at the print out and couldn't figure a diagnosis and took
it to the chief to make a diagnosis ... The chief took one look at the
results and said that is not human urine... The brown stuff proceeded
to hit the fan from there...

We can tell a lot from urine... We can especially tell when ur in
trouble...

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Gatt wrote:

>
>My favorite so far is the guy, iirc, that did a loop near Tacoma Narrows and
>fell out.
>
>-c

Seatbelts man...thats what they're for.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in
news:7b4513a882822@uwe:

> Gatt wrote:
>
>>
>>My favorite so far is the guy, iirc, that did a loop near Tacoma
>>Narrows and fell out.
>>
>>-c
>
> Seatbelts man...thats what they're for.
>


Pretty easy to unlatch them doing aerobatics. It's happened to me (back
seat of a Decathlon and the student managed to unlatch my belt with the
stick just before a slow roll) You really need at least a lap belt backup.

Bertie