3rd class medical urinalysis?

Sylvain wrote:
wrote:

Why be concerned with a drug screen? The two main reasons why people
might worry about a drug screen a
1) An idiot who is using illegal drugs which will prevent him/her
from being a good pilot
2) An idiot's attempt to hide a serious medical condition that would
impair his/her ability to fly

If niether of these apply to you, then are you trolling?

Do you have teenage kids or live near some or spend some time on
campus (just to name a few obvious hazards but same goes if any of
your acquaintances smokes any); just walking in a room where someone
has smoked pot is enough for you to test positive; think about it if
your job depends on peeing in a cup once in a while...

Then there is the assumption that the tests don't fail (all tests
give either false negatives or false positives to some extents); do
you know for sure the list of substances -- many perfectly legitimate
-- that you might be using that could trigger a false positive?

--Sylvain

I have a lot of employees and would be employees that take drug screens for
the companies I represent and have spent a lot of time dealing with the
results and I'd be tickled to death if you could find me any proof that just
being in a room with a pot smoker is enough to make you test positive much
less being in one where someone has smoked in the past. If you test positive
for pot you got enough in you to get high.

You are right about the tests failing. Especially the quick tests. They fail
at a rate close to 50% both false positives and negatives that's why we
stopped using them. We use a lab with a mass spectrometer that could
probably tell what you had for dinner last Thursday. And a positive is a
positive only after a medical review officer talks to the tested individual
and finds out all the legal substances that they could have ingested that
might give a false positive.

Drug screens aren't perfect but the ones properly done are as close as we
can get right now.

BTW, I don't remember who in the thread mentioned it but the poppy seed
false positive is an urban myth.

Kingfish writes:

Old urban myth. You'd have to eat many bagels (or just scarf down a
few handfuls of seeds) to test positive.

Unfortunately, it's no myth. People have been fired and denied jobs because
of a positive drug test that resulted from eating poppy seeds. Sometimes just
one bagel with poppy seeds can do it. See

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

BTW, I don't remember who in the thread mentioned it but the poppy seed
false positive is an urban myth.

Nope. See

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

BTW, I don't remember who in the thread mentioned it but the poppy
seed false positive is an urban myth.

Nope. See

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

Read the last paragraph. Our testing lab uses 2500 ng/ml. Which is higher
than the one snopes quotes as the corrective action.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

You are right about the tests failing. Especially the quick tests. They
fail at a rate close to 50% both false positives and negatives that's why
we stopped using them. We use a lab with a mass spectrometer that could
probably tell what you had for dinner last Thursday. And a positive is a
positive only after a medical review officer talks to the tested
individual and finds out all the legal substances that they could have
ingested that might give a false positive.

I know this is getting out of the aviation thing; but, if these
advanced techniques you mention are so refined, how comes we often
hear about problems with professional athletes being falsely accused
of doping? Since there is a lot of money at stake, I wouldn't think
they go for the cheap version of the tests; pro athletes are surrounded
by physicians who should know better about what substances might or might
not cause a problem; the whole thing about chain of custody of the
samples should be taken care of very carefully because of they are under
a lot of scrutiny, etc. So, if they can't seem to get it right in such
a context, why should I trust my hypothetical employer on this issue?

(note that my current employer doesn't require such a test -- I don't
have teen age kids, and only smoked the thing where it was legal to do
so)

--Sylvain

On Apr 17, 11:50 am, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

BTW, I don't remember who in the thread mentioned it but the poppy
seed false positive is an urban myth.

Nope. See

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

Read the last paragraph. Our testing lab uses 2500 ng/ml. Which is higher
than the one snopes quotes as the corrective action.

Jamie & Adam, the boys who do MythBusters, actually showed this story
was true in one of their episodes, as I recall, as they ate the seeds
in increasing amounts and eventually produced a positive result. As I
recall the amount of bagel, bread, etc. was the amount anyone might
eat at a meal that included normal kinds of bread, or buns or even ...
yes ... bagels.

Anyway ... there seems to be a whole lotta worrying going on here. I
know someone who needs to have blood and urine tests every 3 or 4
weeks, and they never produce erroneous results just because of
eating ... or whatever ... normal living activities ... stop worrying
so much ... your blood sugar range, sugar or protein in your urine,
etc., are measured to a range, and if you are normal, or do normal
things, your tests will be normal.

Stop with all the hand wringing.

PPL-A

Sylvain wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

You are right about the tests failing. Especially the quick tests.
They fail at a rate close to 50% both false positives and negatives
that's why we stopped using them. We use a lab with a mass
spectrometer that could probably tell what you had for dinner last
Thursday. And a positive is a positive only after a medical review
officer talks to the tested individual and finds out all the legal
substances that they could have ingested that might give a false
positive.

I know this is getting out of the aviation thing; but, if these
advanced techniques you mention are so refined, how comes we often
hear about problems with professional athletes being falsely accused
of doping? Since there is a lot of money at stake, I wouldn't think
they go for the cheap version of the tests; pro athletes are
surrounded by physicians who should know better about what substances
might or might not cause a problem; the whole thing about chain of
custody of the samples should be taken care of very carefully because
of they are under a lot of scrutiny, etc. So, if they can't seem to
get it right in such a context, why should I trust my hypothetical
employer on this issue?

(note that my current employer doesn't require such a test -- I don't
have teen age kids, and only smoked the thing where it was legal to
do so)

--Sylvain

The pro athletes have real good lawyers. Add to that (like that isn't
enough) a lot of the things that athletes use are already in the human
system naturally and the performance improvement comes from increasing the
amount that is there.

As far as trusting you employer I don't ask you to. We always use a third
party lab that then uses an independent medical review officer.

Since you mentioned good tests you'd be surprised at some of the
organizations that use the cheap tests. We had an employee that failed for
cocaine on a Tuesday and admitted to me that he had used it Sunday
afternoon. He thought it was strange though that we caught him because the
day before his FEDERAL probation officer had tested him with the little
instant read cups on Monday and he passed.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:15:04 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:


I always drink extra coffee before the medical. I'd be terribly
embarrassed to have no pulse (not to mention that it might be
disqualifying), and coffee really gets my heart going.

Coffee and the caffeine it contains can raise blood pressure and cause
diuresis.

Now who to copy if I ever want to pose as a humorless schmuck!

Blame me. I didn't include an "emoticon" for the literally challenged.
Of course, I also don't reply to that particular poster, so that those of
us with kill files even saw that abuse of electrons is your fault.

You're hereby docked one coffee flagon.

- Andrew

On Apr 16, 7:35 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

On Apr 17, 7:05 am, "Finn" wrote:
Hi all, going for my medical soon and was wondering if I will be
subject to a drug-screen urinalysis as well as other urine tests. I've
tried looking for the info but could not find it. thanks, Jon

Finn

Why be concerned with a drug screen? The two main reasons why people
might worry about a drug screen a
1) An idiot who is using illegal drugs which will prevent him/her from
being a good pilot
2) An idiot's attempt to hide a serious medical condition that would
impair his/her ability to fly

Or, 3) He's really worried about the prostrate exam but is too shy to ask
about it so he asked about the drug screen instead?


Some great replies! Can't a guy just be curious without being called
an idiot?

Why be concerned with a drug screen? The two main reasons why people
might worry about a drug screen a
1) An idiot who is using illegal drugs which will prevent him/her from
being a good pilot
2) An idiot's attempt to hide a serious medical condition that would
impair his/her ability to fly


I have been subject to random screens for 8 yrs as an air traffic
controller, and am currently enrolled (3 yrs) in a random program that
is required to use my USCG Captain's license. I was going to ask if my
enrollment might qualify/replace a screen at the medical exam. No need
now. Finn (drug free idiot)