Posted by Racer on August 31, 2008, at 0:56:29
In reply to Re: P.S. » dbc, posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 22:41:49
> > but the only reason to do those would be what...security clearances?
>
> I don't know why. I just know they can. They can detect picograms/gram, or parts per trillion, in hair. Very costly to do it, though. You would need a good reason.
>
> Lar
>My ex's younger son was drug tested for a job -- standard urine -- and came back showing clear evidence of extensive use of methamphetamine. I'm not saying this because of the relationship, since he and I never got along, but I did know the kid -- he did NOT do meth, just not his style. He drinks with his friends, probably not to excess, and has smoked pot a few times -- here in this area of California, that really isn't outside the norm. No meth -- he just ain't that kind.
Job screening urine test showed serious addiction levels of meth -- not casual, even if regular, use. Lab was considered by all quite reputable and reliable. So, kid's hair was sent off to prove the test wrong -- and came back negative.
An investigation showed the the tech who set up the test had swapped samples to help out a buddy -- ex's kid just got the lucky number on it. Just outcome all around -- kid was hired, I think the company even compensated him for the delay in starting the job as apology.
So, confirming the results of a urine screen is one reason to go for a hair test. And I can see using the hair test on someone with a history of substance use to prevent fraud in the urine test.
And I'm sure James Bond's hair was tested...
poster:Racer
thread:849204
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080822/msgs/849372.html