• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Most Popular Myths In Science

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Originally posted by: Xanis
Originally posted by: Citrix
so can i get high with poppy seed bagels?

No, you can get just a high enough level of opiates to register on a drug screening. I would imaging to get high of poppy seed bagels, you would have to A LOT of them.

Correct:

Drug tests don't look for THC, they look for the cehcmicals they break down into. That's how eating a poppy seed bagel can cause a false positive.

Most drugs of abuse that are analyzed are actually analyzed via your metabolite; most things get metabolized one way or another in your body and furthermore most extraction techniques may hydrolyze or oxidize the metabolite. Furthermore just about all analytes are derivatized with some tri-methyl silane (TMS) something or another. For instance when testing for cocaine, a laboratory is actually testing for benzoylecgonine.

I failed to mention it earlier, but in regards to that poppy seed "myth" everything is also dependent on what is called the Cutoff - otherwise known as LOQ (Limit of Quantitation) in other analytical industries. The cutoff is essentially the point where anything at or above is reported as positive and anything below is negative. There is another number called the LOD (Limit of Detection or simply Detection Limit) that is the lowest number you can see. For example, if I remember correctly at the lab I worked at the LOD for THC (actually the derivatized metabolite) was 2 ng/mL however the cutoff was 15 ng/mL. Meaning that we could actually quantitatively detect down to 2ng/mL however we only reported those results that were 15 and above. This is done for many reasons, and in the drug testing business the biggest one may be the situation where you have a result that is 15.1ng/mL and somebody may try to argue that because it is so close to 15 how do you know it is accurate? Well we know because our accuracy actually goes all of the way down to 2, so it is like people who test positive from 2.0ng/mL - 14.9ng/mL get a sort of free ride (also why some people think they can easily 'fake' a drug screen after smoking pot - we can actually see it but it just may barely be under the cutoff and as such is reported as negative).
So getting back to opiates, the typical cutoff level is 2000ng/mL, meaning that you need to have more than just a little poppy seeds in you to even get anywhere near that level. Furthermore, and my memory is pretty hazy on this (I actually hated that job so I have tried to forget most of it) for a person to be reported as positive for codeine they must have both morphine and codeine as positive (i.e. >2000ng/mL). It has something to do with how codeine will break down into morphine in drug form, however it may not do so if it was consumed as poppy seeds - or something like that. So if for some bizarre reason you did test positive for codeine but negative for morphine your results will actually be reported as negative for everything.

Or I can have that completely turned around and swapped out codeine with morphine, I don't remember it 100% spot on but it is still something along those same lines.

To clear things up for you,

Morphine:
B) Metabolites
1) Codeine, minor (active) (Hoskin & Hanks, 1990; Glare & Walsh, 1991).
a) Codeine is a minor metabolite of morphine, formed by oxidative reaction via o-methylation. Free codeine and codeine conjugates have been found in human urine (Glare & Walsh, 1991; Hoskin & Hanks, 1990).
2) Morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G), (inactive) (Prod Info Duramorph(R), 1994; Hoskin & Hanks, 1990; Glare & Walsh, 1991).
a) Morphine-3-glucuronide is the principle metabolite of morphine quantitatively but is inactive (Glare & Walsh, 1991). Approximately 90% of a given dose is conjugated to morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) and morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) (Hoskin & Hanks, 1990; Glare & Walsh, 1991).


That being said the false positive come from those home testing kits, not some hospital lab...however for total accuracy the urine should be sent to a properly equipped laboratory.
 
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GuideBot
So let me get this straight. Politicians debate the issue. Scientists debate the issue. But, because I'm not a scientist, I can't possibly be influenced by science and therefore must be politically influenced into my opinion?

:roll:

I would say that someone who has looked at the issue from a scientific perspective would recognize that there is evidence both for and against it, and thus would not dismiss it outright as a myth. I personally don't consider myself a greater authority on the issue than scientists who have actually studied global warming or the lack thereof, and therefore would not deign to dismiss the work of qualified scientists as a "myth."

...or your opinion might be that the evidence supporting global warming is narrow-sighted and thusly disqualifying it's support as a valid scientific claim. I can take 2 weeks out of my bank statements and go "woah, my bank account steadily increased $1000 per day. I will be rich in no time!" instead of realizing that I also spend money as well. It's the same with global warming. You can take a small span of time showing a steady increase in temperature, find a coinciding change in greenhouse gasses, and make the claim supporting global warming -or you could look at the broad picture and realize that nothing's really changing.

I'm not debating whether or not global warming exists or whether we cause it. It's plainly obvious why global warming is not on the list of the most popular myths in science - its existence is debateable at worst, and the vast majority of scientists believe it exists. And yet you say it should be on a list that it clearly should not be on unless it is proven one way or the other. From that I assumed you were either motivated by politics or you are an idiot. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and for that I apologize.
 
Originally posted by: GuideBot
I don't see how .9999.... could be 1. They're different numerical values and are represented by different symbols. How are they equal? 😕

They are not different numerical values and different symbols can be used to represent the same value.
 
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: GuideBot
I don't see how .9999.... could be 1. They're different numerical values and are represented by different symbols. How are they equal? 😕

They are not different numerical values and different symbols can be used to represent the same value.

sqrt(-1) = i.
 
Originally posted by: Queasy
Link - 20 total so click through to see them all
Eating a poppy seed bagel mimics opium use

Purveyors of this urban legend call on a popular Seinfeld episode for support. It turns out there's truth behind the comedy: tests suggest ingesting just two poppy seed bagels may produce a positive result for opiates on a drug screen.

heh

Yup, your body processes poppies the same way as heroin and some other drugs made from poppies. The process releases a chemical into your waste and that is what urine tests test for.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GuideBot
So let me get this straight. Politicians debate the issue. Scientists debate the issue. But, because I'm not a scientist, I can't possibly be influenced by science and therefore must be politically influenced into my opinion?

:roll:

I would say that someone who has looked at the issue from a scientific perspective would recognize that there is evidence both for and against it, and thus would not dismiss it outright as a myth. I personally don't consider myself a greater authority on the issue than scientists who have actually studied global warming or the lack thereof, and therefore would not deign to dismiss the work of qualified scientists as a "myth."

...or your opinion might be that the evidence supporting global warming is narrow-sighted and thusly disqualifying it's support as a valid scientific claim. I can take 2 weeks out of my bank statements and go "woah, my bank account steadily increased $1000 per day. I will be rich in no time!" instead of realizing that I also spend money as well. It's the same with global warming. You can take a small span of time showing a steady increase in temperature, find a coinciding change in greenhouse gasses, and make the claim supporting global warming -or you could look at the broad picture and realize that nothing's really changing.

I'm not debating whether or not global warming exists or whether we cause it. It's plainly obvious why global warming is not on the list of the most popular myths in science - its existence is debateable at worst, and the vast majority of scientists believe it exists. And yet you say it should be on a list that it clearly should not be on unless it is proven one way or the other. From that I assumed you were either motivated by politics or you are an idiot. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and for that I apologize.

Well said.:thumbsup:

GuideBot would do well to read that carefully more than once, and very slowly.
 
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: jman19
Originally posted by: GuideBot
I don't see how .9999.... could be 1. They're different numerical values and are represented by different symbols. How are they equal? 😕

They are not different numerical values and different symbols can be used to represent the same value.

sqrt(-1) = i.

Good example.
 
Originally posted by: Babbles
That poppy seed thing really is not true any longer. Current extraction and derivatizing methods in addition to the instrument method eliminates a false positive that could arise from poppy seed consumption. With that being said, there is a slim chance of it being detected as a false positive in what is called in ELISA - an immunoassay - screening test. However under current drug testing guidelines, all samples that are tested as positive in an ELISA screen go through a GC/MS (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) confirmation. At which point any potential false positives are eliminated.

So if you are using opiates and think you can use poppy seeds as an excuse, you are fooling yourself.

Just for the record I did "forensic toxicology" (i.e. piss testing) for approximately two years and have first hand experience extracting and analyzing samples for all of the common drugs of abuse including opiates.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

😉
 
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Originally posted by: Babbles
That poppy seed thing really is not true any longer. Current extraction and derivatizing methods in addition to the instrument method eliminates a false positive that could arise from poppy seed consumption. With that being said, there is a slim chance of it being detected as a false positive in what is called in ELISA - an immunoassay - screening test. However under current drug testing guidelines, all samples that are tested as positive in an ELISA screen go through a GC/MS (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) confirmation. At which point any potential false positives are eliminated.

So if you are using opiates and think you can use poppy seeds as an excuse, you are fooling yourself.

Just for the record I did "forensic toxicology" (i.e. piss testing) for approximately two years and have first hand experience extracting and analyzing samples for all of the common drugs of abuse including opiates.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/poppyseed.asp

😉

And that article mirrors some of the exact same stuff I mentioned in another post, namely the cutoff limit.
What I said:
So getting back to opiates, the typical cutoff level is 2000ng/mL, meaning that you need to have more than just a little poppy seeds in you to even get anywhere near that level. Furthermore, and my memory is pretty hazy on this (I actually hated that job so I have tried to forget most of it) for a person to be reported as positive for codeine they must have both morphine and codeine as positive (i.e. >2000ng/mL).

What Snopes said:
Because the drug screen for the presence of opiates is so sensitive, some agencies that rely on it have since raised the cut-off level for a positive to 2000 ng/mL, which eliminates many of the poppy seed false positives.

Additionally some of the stuff they reference was written in 1987 and 1988, and something things have changed between now and the nearly twenty years ago when that data was generated. They cite examples of things happening as far back as 1990 and 1994 - and again, I even stated in my original post that things have changed, which should imply that it was indeed more problematic in the past.

So if you were trying to be clever or something, I don't think it quite worked out for you.
 
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Global warming needs to be #1 on that list.

Ummm... ok... while global warming may or may not exist, the list is made up of myths that have been proven one way or another. Global warming is still a widely accepted scientific theory.

This is why science and politics should not mix. :roll:

Politics? Who said anything about politics? 😕

Global warming is a contentious political issue, thus people's views on it are influenced by their political persuasions. The fact that it is debated by scientists who know what they're talking about and yet it's dismissed as a myth by some guy on an Internet forum is evidence of the effects of the politicization of global warming.

So let me get this straight. Politicians debate the issue. Scientists debate the issue. But, because I'm not a scientist, I can't possibly be influenced by science and therefore must be politically influenced into my opinion?

:roll:
Al Gore made a movie that says global warming exists, and Al Gore invented the internet, therefore global warming exists.

Forget 0.999...=1, that is a sound scientific proof.
 
Back
Top