From forens-owner Sun Apr 1 16:45:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05551 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:45:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from neuman.interaccess.com (from.interaccess.com [207.208.131.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05546 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from interaccess.com (d203.focal10.interaccess.com [207.208.141.203]) by neuman.interaccess.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f31KiGp12313 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 15:44:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3AC7931A.B2B2380E@interaccess.com> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 15:44:10 -0500 From: "Hayden B. Baldwin" Organization: Forensic Enterprises, Inc. http://www.feinc.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "forens@statgen.ncsu.edu" Subject: Gregory S. Love Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I am trying to find anyone with knowledge on an individual purporting to be a forensic expert by the name of Gregory S. Love from Kenya, Africa If anyone has any information please email me direct. Thanks, Hayden mailto:hbaldwin@interaccess.com From forens-owner Mon Apr 2 08:04:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13799 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13794 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:04:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:04:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Marilyn Harris ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id IAA13795 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 06:18:31 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Marilyn Harris ] >From forens-owner Mon Apr 2 06:18:30 2001 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12808 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 06:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x7b0k6 (p43t1.std.dialup.ncf.carleton.ca [134.117.137.74]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with SMTP id GAA04297 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 06:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20010402102551.00677ebc@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:25:51 -0400 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Marilyn Harris Subject: New Report Says Second Gunman Fired at Kennedy Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id GAA12809 For those who are interested, the actual study can be read: "Echo Correlation Analysis and the Acoustic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination Revisited" by D.B. Thomas in the Science and Justice journal. http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Thomas.pdf Regards, Marilyn ------------- Washington Post article --------------------- http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56560-2001Mar25.html Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll' New Report Says Second Gunman Fired at Kennedy By George Lardner Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 26, 2001; Page A03 The House Assassinations Committee may have been right after all: There was a shot from the grassy knoll. That was the key finding of the congressional investigation that concluded 22 years ago that President John F. Kennedy's murder in Dallas in 1963 was "probably . . . the result of a conspiracy." A shot from the grassy knoll meant that two gunmen must have fired at the president within a split-second sequence. Lee Harvey Oswald, accused of firing three shots at Kennedy from a perch at the Texas School Book Depository, could not have been in two places at once. A special panel of the National Academy of Sciences subsequently disputed the evidence of a fourth shot, contained on a police dictabelt of the sounds in Dealey Plaza that day. The panel insisted it was simply random noise, perhaps static, recorded about a minute after the shooting while Kennedy's motorcade was en route to Parkland Hospital. A new, peer-reviewed article in Science and Justice, a quarterly publication of Britain's Forensic Science Society, says the NAS panel's study was seriously flawed. It says the panel failed to take into account the words of a Dallas patrolman that show the gunshot-like noises occurred "at the exact instant that John F. Kennedy was assassinated." In fact, the author of the article, D.B. Thomas, a government scientist and JFK assassination researcher, said it was more than 96 percent certain that there was a shot from the grassy knoll to the right of the president's limousine, in addition to the three shots from a book depository window above and behind the president's limousine. G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel to the House Assassinations Committee, said the NAS panel's study always bothered him because it dismissed all four putative shots as random noise -- even though the three soundbursts from the book depository matched up precisely with film of the assassination and other evidence such as the echo patterns in Dealey Plaza and the speed of Kennedy's motorcade. "This is an honest, careful scientific examination of everything we did, with all the appropriate statistical checks," Blakey said of Thomas's work. "It shows that we made mistakes, too, but minor mistakes. The main thing is when push comes to shove, he increased the degree of confidence that the shot from the grassy knoll was real, not static. We thought there was a 95 percent chance it was a shot. He puts it at 96.3 percent. Either way, that's 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' " The sounds of assassination were recorded at Dallas police headquarters when a motorcycle patrolman inadvertently left his microphone switch in the "on" position, deluging his transmitting channel with what seemed to be motorcycle noise. Using sophisticated techniques, a team of scientists enlisted by the House committee filtered out the noise and came up with "audible events" within a 10-second time frame that it believed might be gunfire. The Warren Commission had concluded in 1964 that only three shots, all from behind, all from Oswald's rifle, were fired in Dealey Plaza as the motorcade passed through. But the House experts, after extensive tests, found 10 echo patterns that matched sounds emanating from the grassy knoll, traveling carefully measured distances to nearby buildings and then bouncing off them to hit the open motorcycle transmitter. They also placed the unknown gunman behind a picket fence at the top of the grassy knoll, in front of and to the right of the presidential limousine. The House committee concluded that this shot missed, and that Kennedy was killed by a final bullet from Oswald's rifle. Thomas, by contrast, believes it was the shot from the knoll, seven-tenths of a second earlier, that killed the president. The NAS panel, assigned to conduct further studies after the committee closed down, said in 1982 that the noises on the tape previously identified as gunshots "were recorded about one minute after the president was shot." The NAS experts, headed by physicist Norman F. Ramsey of Harvard, reached that conclusion after studying the sounds on the two radio channels Dallas police were using that day. Routine transmissions were made on Channel One and recorded on a dictabelt at police headquarters. An auxiliary frequency, Channel Two, was dedicated to the president's motorcade and used primarily by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry; its transmissions were recorded on a separate Gray Audograph disc machine. The shooting took place within an 18-second interval that began with Curry in the lead car announcing on Channel Two that the motorcade was approaching a triple underpass and ended with the chief stating urgently: "Go to the hospital." What seemed to be the gunshots were picked up on Channel One during that interval. The NAS panel pointed out that Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker could be heard on both channels saying, ". . . Hold everything secure . . ." seemingly about a half-second after the last gunshot on Channel One. Curry had already told everyone on Channel Two a minute earlier to go to the hospital. As a result, the Ramsey panel concluded that the supposed gunshot noises came "too late to be attributed to assassination shots." What actually happened was that Curry issued his "go to the hospital" order right after the first shots were fired, wounding Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally. The final bullet was fired in almost the same instant that Curry uttered his command. A minute later, Decker, riding in the same car with Curry, grabbed the mike and issued his orders to "hold everything secure." The NAS experts made several errors, Thomas said, but their biggest mistake was in using Decker's words to line up the two channels. They ignored a much clearer instance of cross talk when Dallas police Sgt. S. Q. Bellah can be heard on both channels, asking: "You want me to hold this traffic on Stemmons until we find out something, or let it go?" Those remarks come 179 seconds after the last gunshot on Channel One and 180 seconds after Curry's order to "go to the hospital" on Channel Two. When Bellah's words are used to line up the two channels, Thomas found, the gunshot sounds "occur at the exact instant that John F. Kennedy was assassinated." How is it, then, that Decker's remarks on Channel One come a full minute after Curry's on Channel Two and yet a half-second after the last gunshot on Channel One? "It's a misplaced bit of speech," Thomas said in an interview. "An overdub. The recording needle for Channel One probably jumped. You can hear Decker giving a whole set of instructions on Channel Two, but on Channel One, you get only a fragment, '. . . hold everything secure. . . .' " According to Thomas, the NAS panel made other mistakes: in calculating the position of the grassy knoll shooter, in fixing the time of that shot and in stating the Channel Two recorder had stopped when it hadn't. In all, Thomas said, the chances of the NAS panel having been right were 1 in 100,000. House committee experts James Barger, Mark Weiss and Eric Aschkenasy, have always held firm to their findings of a shot from the knoll. Similarly, Ramsey, as chairman of the NAS panel, said last weekend that he was "still fairly confident" of his group's work, but he said he wanted to study the Science and Justice article before making further comment. He said he did not recall the Bellah cross talk. © 2001 The Washington Post Company ------------------------------------------------------- From forens-owner Mon Apr 2 08:06:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13893 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:06:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13888 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:06:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:06:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Civil War (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Please reply to sender, no owner-forens ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 16:57:44 EST From: Razzskull@aol.com To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Civil War I recently received a call from a man in Winchester Virginia who purchased a "haver sac" from a friend that he thinks is Civil War Era used for carrying personal items. It looks like it has blood spatter on it and he's looking for someone to confirm if it is human vs animal and if it can be dated. If anyone is interested or can recommend someone who is please e-mail me off-line. Thanks in advance, Clare From forens-owner Mon Apr 2 08:07:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14116 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:07:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14111 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:07:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:05:11 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Reddy Chamakura" ] >From forens-owner Sun Apr 1 11:05:10 2001 Received: from hotmail.com (f45.law12.hotmail.com [64.4.19.45]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01842 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 11:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 1 Apr 2001 08:04:36 -0700 Received: from 12.88.164.207 by lw12fd.law12.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 01 Apr 2001 15:04:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [12.88.164.207] From: "Reddy Chamakura" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Change of URL Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:04:36 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2001 15:04:36.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[11373570:01C0BABD] Dear Listmembers: URL for Reddy's Forensic Page has changed. I have obtained a permanent domain name and Reddy's Forensic Page is now located at: http://www.forensicpage.com/ Reddy Chamakura New York reddy@forensicpage.com _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Mon Apr 2 22:42:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26383 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f241.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.241]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26378 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:42:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:42:22 -0700 Received: from 35.9.49.149 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:42:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [35.9.49.149] From: "Kelly Esslinger" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: pyrolysis Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:42:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2001 02:42:22.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[B56D1BC0:01C0BBE7] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk
I apoligize if this is a "dumb question" in the forensic realm, but if you were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis GC-MS (after every run)....and you did several trials with the same evidence (paint chips for example from the same source) to see what may happen to your results.....(and you can change the time/temp slightly or drastically since you are doing several trials)
 
What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you expect to see in each instance?)
Thanks for any and all imput!
Kelly

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From forens-owner Tue Apr 3 00:01:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27222 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:01:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27217 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:01:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id i.9c.d13a7a3 (3955); Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9c.d13a7a3.27faa4bd@aol.com> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:59:57 EDT Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9c.d13a7a3.27faa4bd_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_9c.d13a7a3.27faa4bd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/2/01 10:50:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kjessling@hotmail.com writes: > > I apoligize if this is a "dumb question" in the forensic realm, but if you > were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis GC-MS (after > every run)....and you did several trials with the same evidence (paint > chips for example from the same source) to see what may happen to your > results.....(and you can change the time/temp slightly or drastically since > you are doing several trials) > > What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you expect > to see in each instance?) > Thanks for any and all imput! > Kelly > > Kelly I have wondered the same thing myself. Using paint as an example, we know that paint is not just paint but a vast number of different kinds of materials under the heading of "coatings." Trade paints are different from automotive paints which are different from marine paints and so on. We developed pyrolysis/GC/MS years ago for paints that might not even still exist today. So how do we know that the old protocols still work on the new paints when we are comparing two paint samples. If we use the same settings on our py/gc/ms on automotive paints as we do on house paint, do we get the right answer to the question that asks if the two paints could have originated from the same source. Who has established and validated the paint analysis protocols for forensic paint analysis for the new paint systems that are put on the market continually to satisfy the Volatile Organic Compound regulations of the Clean Air Act? For what it is worth, if you change the settings on the py/gc/ms, pyrolysis step you can get different data. You just have to collect the data to satisfy yourself on your own system. Fred Whitehurst --part1_9c.d13a7a3.27faa4bd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/2/01 10:50:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kjessling@hotmail.com writes:



I apoligize if this is a "dumb question" in the forensic realm, but if you
were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis GC-MS (after
every run)....and you did several trials with the same evidence (paint
chips for example from the same source) to see what may happen to your
results.....(and you can change the time/temp slightly or drastically since
you are doing several trials)

What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you expect
to see in each instance?)
Thanks for any and all imput!
Kelly



Kelly
I have wondered the same thing myself.  Using paint as an example, we know
that paint is not just paint but a vast number of different kinds of
materials under the heading of "coatings." Trade paints are different from
automotive paints which are different from marine paints and so on.  We
developed pyrolysis/GC/MS years ago for paints that might not even still
exist today.  So how do we know that the old protocols still work on the new
paints when we are comparing two paint samples.  If we use the same settings
on our py/gc/ms on automotive paints as we do on house paint, do we get the
right answer to the question that asks if the two paints could have
originated from the same source.  Who has established and validated the paint
analysis protocols for forensic paint analysis for the new paint systems that
are put on the market continually to satisfy the Volatile Organic Compound
regulations of the Clean Air Act?

For what it is worth, if you change the settings on the py/gc/ms, pyrolysis
step you can get different data.  You just have to collect the data to
satisfy yourself on your own system.
Fred Whitehurst --part1_9c.d13a7a3.27faa4bd_boundary-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 3 04:01:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA29464 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (host000012.arnet.net.ar [200.45.0.12] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA29459 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 29946 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2001 07:56:48 -0000 Received: AntiBombing Version 0.08 by GCM Received: ThePolice Version 0.02 by GCM Received: from host000004.arnet.net.ar (HELO mail1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.4) by host000012.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 3 Apr 2001 07:56:48 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:55:51 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:44:23 -0300 Received: (qmail 22640 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2001 02:44:22 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 3 Apr 2001 02:44:22 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA26435; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:42:58 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA26383 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f241.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.241]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA26378 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 22:42:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 2 Apr 2001 19:42:22 -0700 Received: from 35.9.49.149 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:42:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [35.9.49.149] From: "Kelly Esslinger" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: pyrolysis Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:42:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2001 02:42:22.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[B56D1BC0:01C0BBE7] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk
I apoligize if this is a "dumb question" in the forensic realm, but if you were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis GC-MS (after every run)....and you did several trials with the same evidence (paint chips for example from the same source) to see what may happen to your results.....(and you can change the time/temp slightly or drastically since you are doing several trials)
 
What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you expect to see in each instance?)
Thanks for any and all imput!
Kelly

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From forens-owner Tue Apr 3 13:55:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA07113 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spn25c0.fiu.edu (spf02n09a0-boot.fiu.edu [131.94.68.193] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07108 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:55:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.94.53.148] by spn25c0.fiu.edu (InterMail vK.4.03.03.00 201-232-128 license 840fca18751889914c07c5419b2f6990) with ESMTP id <20010403175243.SAHF19388.spn25c0@[131.94.53.148]>; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:52:43 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: estauf01@fiu.edu (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:58:41 -0400 To: kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Eric Stauffer Subject: Re: pyrolysis Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1225801770==_ma============" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --============_-1225801770==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kelly, Usually the pyrolysis used for analytical purpose is called "flash" pyrolysis because there is in fact no real temperature ramp. The problem you have in a Py-GC-MS is that you do not want (except for some special application) have an injection of compounds in your GC that will last 30 minutes. You want to concentrate as much as possible and be sure that the span of injection is very short, otherwise your chromatographic resolution will severely suffer. Now, "flash" pyrolysis is called so since the ramp temperature goes up to 10'000 =99C per s. In other terms, it is an instanteneous application of the temperature to the item, so it pyrolyze almost instantaneously and inject all the volatiles at once into your GC. Designing a ramp temperature in the pyrolyzer is something that should be easily done, however you need to know for what purpose first. Do not forget that if your sample is made of different compounds pyrolyzing at different temperatures, they will not be injected into the GC at the same time if you use a ramping pyrolysis and thus you will have something like a two-dimensional separation (pyrolysis ramp + GC). However, these two dimensions will not be represented on your chromatogram. =46urthermore, pyrolysis products of a pure substance will depend on the temperature of the pyrolysis and you will observe different products at different temperatures. SO, if you use a ramp, the same substance if not completely pyrolysis at the beginning may give you different products along the time. Refer to Applied pyrolysis handbook, by Thomas Wampler, Marcel Dekker for more information. Hope this helps, Regards, Eric >I apoligize if this is a "dumb question" in the forensic realm, but >if you were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis >GC-MS (after every run)....and you did several trials with the same >evidence (paint chips for example from the same source) to see what >may happen to your results.....(and you can change the time/temp >slightly or drastically since you are doing several trials) > >What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you >expect to see in each instance?) >Thanks for any and all imput! >Kelly > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at >http://explorer.msn.com -- "The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them." Sir Robert Peel, 1829 ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Stauffer Graduate Student International Forensic Research Institute Department of Chemistry =46lorida International University Miami, FL-33199 USA ----------------------------------------------------------- --============_-1225801770==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: pyrolysis
Kelly,

Usually the pyrolysis used for analytical purpose is called "flash" pyrolysis because there is in fact no real temperature ramp.

The problem you have in a Py-GC-MS is that you do not want (except for some special application) have an injection of compounds in your GC that will last 30 minutes. You want to concentrate as much as possible and be sure that the span of injection is very short, otherwise your chromatographic resolution will severely suffer.

Now, "flash" pyrolysis is called so since the ramp temperature goes up to 10'000 =99C per s. In other terms, it is an instanteneous application of the temperature to the item, so it pyrolyze almost instantaneously and inject all the volatiles at once into your GC.

Designing a ramp temperature in the pyrolyzer is something that should be easily done, however you need to know for what purpose first. Do not forget that if your sample is made of different compounds pyrolyzing at different temperatures, they will not be injected into the GC at the same time if you use a ramping pyrolysis and thus you will have something like a two-dimensional separation (pyrolysis ramp + GC). However, these two dimensions will not be represented on your chromatogram.

Furthermore, pyrolysis products of a pure substance will depend on the temperature of the pyrolysis and you will observe different products at different temperatures. SO, if you use a ramp, the same substance if not completely pyrolysis at the beginning may give you different products along the time.

Refer to Applied pyrolysis handbook, by Thomas Wampler, Marcel Dekker for more information.

Hope this helps,

Regards,

Eric





I apoligize if this is a "dumb question" in the forensic realm, but if you were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis GC-MS (after every run)....and you did several trials with the same evidence (paint chips for example from the same source) to see what may happen to your results.....(and you can change the time/temp slightly or drastically since you are doing several trials)
 
What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you expect to see in each instance?)
Thanks for any and all imput!
Kelly

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--
"The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them." Sir Robert Peel, 1829

-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Stauffer
Graduate Student
International Forensic Research Institute
Department of Chemistry
=46lorida International University
Miami, FL-33199
USA
-----------------------------------------------------------
--============_-1225801770==_ma============-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 3 18:31:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12230 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.149.16.4] (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA12225 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:31:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by [209.149.16.4] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 3 Apr 2001 22:31:16 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:23:19 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com'" , kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: pyrolysis Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:23:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0BC8C.AEA1B350" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BC8C.AEA1B350 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it works by trying it with known standards. Whether you go through a process you formally call "validation" or not, in every case you always compare unknown samples to known standards run under the same conditions. After all, what "validation" of a test method really boils down to is nothing more than running test samples of known standards and seeing if you can discriminate between them consistently, so if you routinely run comparison standards in every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of validation every time you do the analysis. I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates (combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis products. I don't know the likelihood of the latter, since I'm not a paint analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on how similar the different paint formulations are. If they're not identical, it seems to me that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis products in an identical pattern (just as no two different chemical compounds can produce the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern depends on the specific chemical structure; and under the same conditions, ion fracture of the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every time; while the fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which is different from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same extent, every time). Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination technique, and in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray. Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their molecular fracture into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of individual components of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint will dictate the pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will produce. The fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully controlled by the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and predictable. By "predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are highly reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis make sense from a chemical pathway standpoint. Pyrolysis produces a series of oxidation reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the natural laws of organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise. Identical pyrolysis of different individual compounds producing exactly the same products seems unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex mixtures of compounds the chances against different mixtures producing the same products in the same pattern must be astronomical. No, I haven't calculated those odds (I wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint formulations), but my conclusion is based on understanding how chemical reactions work. Two different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction products through the exact same process (much less two different mixtures of many different reactants producing identical products). To produce the same product, either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or the processes the two reactants are subjected to have to be different (i.e. follow different pathways to the same end result). That's the nature of chemical reactions. That's how I see it, for what it's worth. Pyrolysis GC experts and paint analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area of personal expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please point it out to me and everyone else so we can all learn something. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 00:00 To: kjessling@hotmail.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pyrolysis In a message dated 4/2/01 10:50:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kjessling@hotmail.com writes: I apoligize if this is a "dumb question" in the forensic realm, but if you were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis GC-MS (after every run)....and you did several trials with the same evidence (paint chips for example from the same source) to see what may happen to your results.....(and you can change the time/temp slightly or drastically since you are doing several trials) What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you expect to see in each instance?) Thanks for any and all imput! Kelly Kelly I have wondered the same thing myself. Using paint as an example, we know that paint is not just paint but a vast number of different kinds of materials under the heading of "coatings." Trade paints are different from automotive paints which are different from marine paints and so on. We developed pyrolysis/GC/MS years ago for paints that might not even still exist today. So how do we know that the old protocols still work on the new paints when we are comparing two paint samples. If we use the same settings on our py/gc/ms on automotive paints as we do on house paint, do we get the right answer to the question that asks if the two paints could have originated from the same source. Who has established and validated the paint analysis protocols for forensic paint analysis for the new paint systems that are put on the market continually to satisfy the Volatile Organic Compound regulations of the Clean Air Act? For what it is worth, if you change the settings on the py/gc/ms, pyrolysis step you can get different data. You just have to collect the data to satisfy yourself on your own system. Fred Whitehurst ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BC8C.AEA1B350 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it works by trying it with known standards.  Whether you go through a process you formally call "validation" or not,  in every case you always compare unknown samples to known standards run under the same conditions.  After all, what "validation" of a test method really boils down to is nothing more than running test samples of known standards and seeing if you can discriminate between them consistently, so if you routinely run comparison standards in every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of validation every time you do the analysis.  I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates (combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis products.  I don't know the likelihood of the latter, since I'm not a paint analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on how similar the different paint formulations are.  If they're not identical, it seems to me that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis products in an identical pattern (just as no two different chemical compounds can produce the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern depends on the specific chemical structure; and under the same conditions, ion fracture of the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every time; while the fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which is different from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same extent, every time).  Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination technique, and in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray.
 
Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their molecular fracture into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of individual components of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint will dictate the pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will produce.  The fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully controlled by the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and predictable.  By "predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are highly reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis make sense from a chemical pathway standpoint.  Pyrolysis produces a series of oxidation reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the natural laws of organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise.  Identical pyrolysis of different individual compounds producing exactly the same products seems unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex mixtures of compounds the chances against different mixtures producing the same products in the same pattern must be astronomical.  No, I haven't calculated those odds (I wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint formulations), but my conclusion is based on understanding how chemical reactions work.  Two different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction products through the exact same process (much less two different mixtures of many different reactants producing identical products).  To produce the same product, either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or the processes the two reactants are subjected to have to be different (i.e. follow different pathways to the same end result).  That's the nature of chemical reactions.
 
That's how I see it, for what it's worth.  Pyrolysis GC experts and paint analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area of personal expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please point it out to me and everyone else so we can all learn something.
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 00:00
To: kjessling@hotmail.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: pyrolysis

In a message dated 4/2/01 10:50:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kjessling@hotmail.com writes:



I apoligize if this is a "dumb question" in the forensic realm, but if you
were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis GC-MS (after
every run)....and you did several trials with the same evidence (paint
chips for example from the same source) to see what may happen to your
results.....(and you can change the time/temp slightly or drastically since
you are doing several trials)

What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you expect
to see in each instance?)
Thanks for any and all imput!
Kelly



Kelly
I have wondered the same thing myself.  Using paint as an example, we know
that paint is not just paint but a vast number of different kinds of
materials under the heading of "coatings." Trade paints are different from
automotive paints which are different from marine paints and so on.  We
developed pyrolysis/GC/MS years ago for paints that might not even still
exist today.  So how do we know that the old protocols still work on the new
paints when we are comparing two paint samples.  If we use the same settings
on our py/gc/ms on automotive paints as we do on house paint, do we get the
right answer to the question that asks if the two paints could have
originated from the same source.  Who has established and validated the paint
analysis protocols for forensic paint analysis for the new paint systems that
are put on the market continually to satisfy the Volatile Organic Compound
regulations of the Clean Air Act?

For what it is worth, if you change the settings on the py/gc/ms, pyrolysis
step you can get different data.  You just have to collect the data to
satisfy yourself on your own system.
Fred Whitehurst
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BC8C.AEA1B350-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 3 19:36:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12948 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:36:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12943 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:36:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.f6.8b958ac (4009); Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:35:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:35:19 EDT Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Cfwhiteh@aol.com, kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f6.8b958ac.27fbb837_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_f6.8b958ac.27fbb837_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > Subj: RE: pyrolysis > Date: 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time > From: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us (Robert Parsons) > To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com ('Cfwhiteh@aol.com'), kjessling@hotmail.com, > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > > > > Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it works by trying it > with known standards. Whether you go through a process you formally call > "validation" or not, in every case you always compare unknown samples to > known standards run under the same conditions. After all, what > "validation" of a test method really boils down to is nothing more than > running test samples of known standards and seeing if you can discriminate > between them consistently, so if you routinely run comparison standards in > every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of validation every > time you do the analysis. I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum > of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical > chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis > program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion > chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass > spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates > (combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that > the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two > formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis > products. I don't know the likelihood of the latter, since I'm not a paint > analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on how similar the > different paint formulations are. If they're not identical, it seems to me > that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis products in an > identical pattern (just as no two different chemical compounds can produce > the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern depends on the > specific chemical structure; and under the same conditions, ion fracture of > the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every time; while the > fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which is different > from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same extent, every time). > Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination technique, and > in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray. > > Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their molecular fracture > into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of individual components > of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint will dictate the > pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will produce. The > fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully controlled by > the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and predictable. By > "predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are highly > reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis make sense from > a chemical pathway standpoint. Pyrolysis produces a series of oxidation > reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the natural laws of > organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise. Identical pyrolysis > of different individual compounds producing exactly the same products seems > unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex mixtures of compounds > the chances against different mixtures producing the same products in the > same pattern must be astronomical. No, I haven't calculated those odds (I > wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint formulations), but my > conclusion is based on understanding how chemical reactions work. Two > different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction products through > the exact same process (much less two different mixtures of many different > reactants producing identical products). To produce the same product, > either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or the processes > the two reactants are subjected to have to be different (i.e. follow > different pathways to the same end result). That's the nature of chemical > reactions. > > That's how I see it, for what it's worth. Pyrolysis GC experts and paint > analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area of personal > expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please point it out to me > and everyone else so we can all learn something. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > Bob What is a "known" paint standard. What does it mean to be "known." Must we know all the components or simply know the origin? What is the likelihood that two paint samples which give the same pyrogram will be the same? What is the error rate of opining that they are the same? Where did we get that error rate? I know that you have said that you do not have that information. Does anyone on this list have that information? Do we settle for the pyrogram being the same? Then why do we saddle the analyst with the "MS" in the py-GC/MS? And if we use the mass spec should we compare the mass spectra of the different pyrolyzates indicated by the pyrogram of total ion counts from the different species eluting. And if we do compare the mass spectra, how many of those spectra do we compare before the error rate is brought down to an "acceptable" level if we neglect comparison of some of those spectra? I agree that intuitively it would seem that a very "busy" pyrogram matching another very busy pyrogram would indicate that the two materials were of the same composition. Do we run off gut feelings or articulated reasoning beyond "hunch." Fred Whitehurst --part1_f6.8b958ac.27fbb837_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:


Subj: RE: pyrolysis
Date: 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us (Robert Parsons)
To:    Cfwhiteh@aol.com ('Cfwhiteh@aol.com'), kjessling@hotmail.com,
forens@statgen.ncsu.edu




Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it works by trying it
with known standards.  Whether you go through a process you formally call
"validation" or not,  in every case you always compare unknown samples to
known standards run under the same conditions.  After all, what
"validation" of a test method really boils down to is nothing more than
running test samples of known standards and seeing if you can discriminate
between them consistently, so if you routinely run comparison standards in
every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of validation every
time you do the analysis.  I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum
of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical
chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis
program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion
chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass
spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates
(combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that
the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two
formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis
products.  I don't know the likelihood of the latter, since I'm not a paint
analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on how similar the
different paint formulations are.  If they're not identical, it seems to me
that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis products in an
identical pattern (just as no two different chemical compounds can produce
the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern depends on the
specific chemical structure; and under the same conditions, ion fracture of
the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every time; while the
fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which is different
from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same extent, every time).  
Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination technique, and
in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray.

Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their molecular fracture
into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of individual components
of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint will dictate the
pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will produce.  The
fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully controlled by
the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and predictable.  By
"predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are highly
reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis make sense from
a chemical pathway standpoint.  Pyrolysis produces a series of oxidation
reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the natural laws of
organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise.  Identical pyrolysis
of different individual compounds producing exactly the same products seems
unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex mixtures of compounds
the chances against different mixtures producing the same products in the
same pattern must be astronomical.  No, I haven't calculated those odds (I
wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint formulations), but my
conclusion is based on understanding how chemical reactions work.  Two
different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction products through
the exact same process (much less two different mixtures of many different
reactants producing identical products).  To produce the same product,
either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or the processes
the two reactants are subjected to have to be different (i.e. follow
different pathways to the same end result).  That's the nature of chemical
reactions.

That's how I see it, for what it's worth.  Pyrolysis GC experts and paint
analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area of personal
expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please point it out to me
and everyone else so we can all learn something.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


Bob
What is a "known" paint standard.  What does it mean to be "known."  Must we
know all the components or simply know the origin?  What is the likelihood
that two paint samples which give the same pyrogram will be the same?  What
is the error rate of opining that they are the same?  Where did we get that
error rate?  I know that you have said that you do not have that information.
 Does anyone on this list have that information?  Do we settle for the
pyrogram being the same?  Then why do we saddle the analyst with the "MS" in
the py-GC/MS?  And if we use the mass spec should we compare the mass spectra
of the different pyrolyzates indicated by the pyrogram of total ion counts
from the different species eluting.  And if we do compare the mass spectra,
how many of those spectra do we compare before the error rate is brought down
to an "acceptable" level if we neglect comparison of some of those spectra?  

I agree that intuitively it would seem that a very "busy" pyrogram matching
another very busy pyrogram would indicate that the two materials were of the
same composition.  Do we run off gut feelings or articulated reasoning beyond
"hunch."
Fred Whitehurst --part1_f6.8b958ac.27fbb837_boundary-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 3 20:21:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13630 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r16.mx.aol.com (imo-r16.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.70]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13625 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:21:32 -0400 (EDT) From: ForensicRe@aol.com Received: from ForensicRe@aol.com by imo-r16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id i.81.9211c42 (3945); Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:20:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <81.9211c42.27fbc2de@aol.com> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 20:20:46 EDT Subject: Re: Inks/Alternate Light Sources To: lonniekendoll@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 127 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 03/30/2001 6:25:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lonniekendoll@hotmail.com writes: > Polilight PL500 tunable light source You might get some results with the dark blue to blue-green excitation filters on the Polilight and orange to red filters. It all depends on the inks. The UV sensative ink used for postage meters will go off like a dayglow neon sign, but you can get that with the blue filters for halogen flashlights (roughly equivalent to a Schott BG-12 for x times the price). However, for differentiation of inks by luminescence, most emission of interest is in the far red and near IR. The Polilight is a great source for this, but you need to see in the IR. You could use an IR sensitive TV camera or night vision goggles with suitable cut-off filters. Polilight made a unit already set up for this sort of thing and may still do so (Foster + Freeman in the UK and Projectina in Switzerland certainly still do). For general background and how-to details on home made units, see the articles in the bibliography attached to ASTM standard guide E1422 on ink examinations. The section in the guide on optical examinations should also help get you started. Peter Tytell, NYC From forens-owner Tue Apr 3 21:14:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA14287 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com (imo-r20.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.162]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14282 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:14:15 -0400 (EDT) From: ForensicRe@aol.com Received: from ForensicRe@aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id i.71.c236393 (3945); Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <71.c236393.27fbcf3a@aol.com> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:13:30 EDT Subject: Re: Forensic Eponyms and toponyms To: dr_anil@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 127 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I recall a Marsh (?) test for arsenic (?), but can't find the Lucas. However in looking for it I did find a reference to Rollet's Tables for the=20 determination of stature -- data at least a century out of date. Also for the old timers, a few from Turner (1949): Reinsch test for arsenic, with the Gutziet test (using the Gutziet aparatus)= =20 as confirmation for the arsenic deposit.=20 The Sch=F6nbein test, the Prussian Blue test, and Liebig's test -- all for=20 cyanides. Roussin's test for nicotine (soon to be Schedule 1 stuff). Tests for barbituric acid derivatives include Millon's Reagent and Fabre's=20 Test. Ranwenz's Test and Ekkert's Test are recommended for Phenobarital. for morphine Turner lists Fr=F6hde's Test (with umlaut), the Marquis Test, a= nd=20 Husemann's Test (a modification of an earlier method by Erdman). There seem to be lots of these in the older literature. Things are so=20 impersonal today. Peter Tytell, NYC From forens-owner Tue Apr 3 23:43:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15579 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:43:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA15574 for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:43:46 -0400 (EDT) From: SciGuyPate@aol.com Received: from SciGuyPate@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id y.40.9c8e6a5 (4444) for ; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:43:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40.9c8e6a5.27fbf24e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:43:10 EDT Subject: Bacteria in Blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 127 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hello, I am a sophomore in highschool and I am doing a Science Fair Project. I got= =20 announced to go to the State Science Fair, and my project title is called=20 "GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE ON THE FORMATION= =20 OF =DF-PHENYLETHYLAMINE IN DECOMPOSING BLOOD: A STUDY OF FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY= " =20 I have an abstract if you would like to see my experiment design, but my=20 question to you is how much blood is an human blood? If you don't know, do=20 you know any profession that might could help me? Thank you for your help. Adam From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 00:02:52 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15960 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f59.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.59]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA15955 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:02:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:02:20 -0700 Received: from 35.9.11.176 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:02:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [35.9.11.176] From: "Kelly Esslinger" To: SciGuyPate@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Bacteria in Blood Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:02:20 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Apr 2001 04:02:20.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[0BB811E0:01C0BCBC] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk

Hi Adam,

I think what you're asking is how much blood is in the average human body??  I belive it is between 6-8 pints in an average person (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). If you're asking what blood is composed of... there's the liquid portion or "plasma" and the cellular part.  The cell types are red blood cells (RBC), white blood cells (WBC), and platelets.  I used to know the percentages...but it escapes me at the moment.

Best of luck,

Kelly

>From: SciGuyPate@aol.com
>To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
>Subject: Bacteria in Blood
>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:43:10 EDT
>
>Hello,
>I am a sophomore in highschool and I am doing a Science Fair Project. I got
>announced to go to the State Science Fair, and my project title is called
>"GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE ON THE FORMATION
>OF ß-PHENYLETHYLAMINE IN DECOMPOSING BLOOD: A STUDY OF FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY"
>I have an abstract if you would like to see my experiment design, but my
>question to you is how much blood is an human blood? If you don't know, do
>you know any profession that might could help me? Thank you for your help.
>
>Adam

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 06:52:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19630 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:52:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19625 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:52:21 -0400 (EDT) From: SciGuyPate@aol.com Received: from SciGuyPate@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id y.40.9ca6822 (25719) for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40.9ca6822.27fc56c5@aol.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:51:49 EDT Subject: Correction in Bacteria in Blood To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 127 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Sorry for this correction, but I read my question again and I stated "how much bacteria is in the human blood" But let me correct myself "How much bacteria is in the human blood whenever the body is decomposing/dead" I know the temperatures have a big difference in the formation of it but maybe you could give me some type of information. Thanks Adam From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 08:53:35 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA21387 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil (DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.132]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21382 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:53:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <22CMR716>; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:51:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4E0277823564D411905E00A0C9EA331845C8C6@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Correction in Bacteria in Blood Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:52:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD06.164359E0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD06.164359E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" As a general rule, blood is sterile (no viable bacteria) during life and remains so after death until they get in from some other site, typically from the gut in a non-traumatic death. You are correct that temperature plays an important role in both rate of decomposition as well as rate of bacterial growth (and type and amount of bacterial metabolic projects.) Start doing your literature search, see what names come up most often in the papers most relevant to your topic, then ask one of those people for further guidance. (I'm assuming that your biology or chemistry teacher feels this is beyond his/her expertise, but you might ask him/her to help you with an introduction to one of these people, a favorite professor from college, or other local professional with this general area of interest.) David W. Hause, LTC MC Pathology Division General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473 ph. 573-596-1509 David.Hause@amedd.army.mil -----Original Message----- From: SciGuyPate@aol.com [mailto:SciGuyPate@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 5:52 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Correction in Bacteria in Blood Sorry for this correction, but I read my question again and I stated "how much bacteria is in the human blood" But let me correct myself "How much bacteria is in the human blood whenever the body is decomposing/dead" I know the temperatures have a big difference in the formation of it but maybe you could give me some type of information. Thanks Adam ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD06.164359E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Correction in Bacteria in Blood

As a general rule, blood is sterile (no viable = bacteria) during life and remains so after death until they get in from = some other site, typically from the gut in a non-traumatic death.  = You are correct that temperature plays an important role in both rate = of decomposition as well as rate of bacterial growth (and type and = amount of bacterial metabolic projects.)  Start doing your = literature search, see what names come up most often in the papers most = relevant to your topic, then ask one of those people for further = guidance.  (I'm assuming that your biology or chemistry teacher = feels this is beyond his/her expertise, but you might ask him/her to = help you with an introduction to one of these people, a favorite = professor from college, or other local professional with this general = area of interest.)

David W. Hause, LTC MC
Pathology Division
General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital
Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473
ph. 573-596-1509
David.Hause@amedd.army.mil
-----Original Message-----
From: SciGuyPate@aol.com [mailto:SciGuyPate@aol.com]=
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 5:52 AM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Correction in Bacteria in Blood


Sorry for this correction, but I read my question = again and I stated "how
much bacteria is in the human blood"  But = let me correct myself "How much
bacteria is in the human blood whenever the body is = decomposing/dead"  I know
the temperatures have a big difference in the = formation of it but maybe you
could give me some type of information.

Thanks
Adam

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD06.164359E0-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 11:01:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23285 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web13307.mail.yahoo.com (web13307.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.43]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA23280 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20010404150015.91788.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.79.108.58] by web13307.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 04 Apr 2001 08:00:15 PDT Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 08:00:15 -0700 (PDT) From: John Lentini Reply-To: johnlentini@yahoo.com Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Fred: The need for gathering every brand of paint ever made and determining whether it might give the same pyrogram exists only if someone is really going to make some significant inferences from the analysis. Many forensic examinations result in an "exclusion" of the trace evidence from the known source as the origin of the trace evidence from the suspect. Certainly, you would not question the validity of such exclusions, even in the absence of an empirically determined "error rate." If the only conclusion that the forensic scientist reaches is "Using this method of analysis, I cannot eliminate the suspect's car as the source of the paint on the victim," it seems to me that it is not necessary to survey the known universe to determine the frequency of occurrance of paints that also cannot be excluded. In almost all cases, there is much other background evidence (that which lead the police to the subject), as well as other chemical evidence (SEM/EDX, solubility, color tests, etc.). The technique of pyrolysis/gc/ms is a powerful tool. To answer the original question, changing pyrolysis parameters will likely cause different pyrograms. If the questioned and known are indistinguishable under two different pyrolysis programs, that is another point of similarity, or another attempt to make a distinction that failed. Fred Wrote: > Bob > What is a "known" paint standard. What does it > mean to be "known." Must we > know all the components or simply know the > origin? What is the likelihood > that two paint samples which give the same > pyrogram will be the same? What > is the error rate of opining that they are the > same? Where did we get that > error rate? I know that you have said that you > do not have that information. > Does anyone on this list have that > information? Do we settle for the > pyrogram being the same? Then why do we saddle > the analyst with the "MS" in > the py-GC/MS? And if we use the mass spec > should we compare the mass spectra > of the different pyrolyzates indicated by the > pyrogram of total ion counts > from the different species eluting. And if we > do compare the mass spectra, > how many of those spectra do we compare before > the error rate is brought down > to an "acceptable" level if we neglect > comparison of some of those spectra? > > I agree that intuitively it would seem that a > very "busy" pyrogram matching > another very busy pyrogram would indicate that > the two materials were of the > same composition. Do we run off gut feelings > or articulated reasoning beyond > "hunch." ===== Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. -Einstein John J. Lentini, johnlentini@yahoo.com Certified Fire Investigator Fellow, American Board of Criminalistics http://www.atslab.com 800-544-5117 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 15:23:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28176 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:23:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28171 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:23:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (d704.pppdel.vsnl.net.in [202.54.58.104]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9383840DEF; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 00:59:37 +0000 (IST) Message-ID: <3ACB7012.D8155EDC@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:33:47 +0530 From: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" , alhunt@sprint.ca Subject: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Respected list members, I have received an Email from one Allan, who wants to ask me something on fingerprints. I don't know the answer. He is probably not a member of this group (otherwise he would have put the question straight to this group perhaps). His Email is alhunt@sprint.ca And Here is his question (I too would be interested in knowing the answer) ****beginning of question****** Dear Professor, My wife has expressed interest in the forensic field of finger printing. In particular, she has wondered if the three fingerprint types can be traced to three ethnic groups. Do you have any experience or thoughts on this issue? Thank you, Alan ****end of question****** Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 15:39:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28553 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m09.mx.aol.com (imo-m09.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.164]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28548 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:39:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.53.48d5b7a (4323); Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53.48d5b7a.27fcd237@aol.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:38:31 EDT Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Cfwhiteh@aol.com, kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_53.48d5b7a.27fcd237_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_53.48d5b7a.27fcd237_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/01 6:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum of knowledge about it and it > seems to me (as an experienced analytical chemist) that if you analyze two > paint samples with the same pyrolysis program, GC program, and MS > conditions, and it produces the same total ion chromatograms with the same > retention times, and furthermore, the mass spectra of the ion peaks in the > TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates (combustion products) have been > produced, then you have demonstrated that the two paint samples are either > the same formulation or are two formulations that for some reason produce > Bob Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the mass spectra of the materials found in the pyrogram. Of course you and I would wonder why would one then use the mass spec. But if indeed the mass spec is being used as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much error would that introduce into the process? We have pyrograms that appear to be the same. And very complex, of course. So why do we need the mass spec? Fred Whitehurst --part1_53.48d5b7a.27fcd237_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/01 6:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:


I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum of knowledge about it and it
seems to me (as an experienced analytical chemist) that if you analyze two
paint samples with the same pyrolysis program, GC program, and MS
conditions, and it produces the same total ion chromatograms with the same
retention times, and furthermore, the mass spectra of the ion peaks in the
TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates (combustion products) have been
produced, then you have demonstrated that the two paint samples are either
the same formulation or are two formulations that for some reason produce
the exact same pyrolysis products.

Bob

Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the mass spectra of
the materials found in the pyrogram.  Of course you and I would wonder why
would one then use the mass spec.  But if indeed the mass spec is being used
as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much error would that
introduce into the process?  We have pyrograms that appear to be the same.  
And very complex, of course.  So why do we need the mass spec?

Fred Whitehurst --part1_53.48d5b7a.27fcd237_boundary-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 15:42:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA28677 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA28672 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:42:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.3b.12c1f879 (4323); Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3b.12c1f879.27fcd2e3@aol.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:41:23 EDT Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Cfwhiteh@aol.com, kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3b.12c1f879.27fcd2e3_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_3b.12c1f879.27fcd2e3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/01 6:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > If they're not identical, it seems to me that they're not likely to produce > identical pyrolysis products in an identical pattern (just as no two > different chemical compounds can produce the exact same mass spectra, > because the fracture pattern depends on the specific chemical structure; > and under the same conditions, ion fracture of the same compound will > proceed exactly the same way every time; while the fracture of a different > compound will proceed in way which is different from the first compound's > pattern to exactly the same extent, every time). Bob A problem you run into is that no two spectra taken of the same material will be exactly alike. So how much difference is different when comparing two different materials subjected to pyrolysis conditions? Fred Whitehurst --part1_3b.12c1f879.27fcd2e3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/3/01 6:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:


If they're not identical, it seems to me that they're not likely to produce
identical pyrolysis products in an identical pattern (just as no two
different chemical compounds can produce the exact same mass spectra,
because the fracture pattern depends on the specific chemical structure;
and under the same conditions, ion fracture of the same compound will
proceed exactly the same way every time; while the fracture of a different
compound will proceed in way which is different from the first compound's
pattern to exactly the same extent, every time).  


Bob
A problem you run into is that no two spectra taken of the same material will
be exactly alike.  So how much difference is different when comparing two
different materials subjected to pyrolysis conditions?  
Fred Whitehurst --part1_3b.12c1f879.27fcd2e3_boundary-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 15:57:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29008 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29003 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by email.exchange.umkc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:57:03 -0500 Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C0BD2107A@UMKC-MAIL02> From: "Moenssens, Andre" To: "'Dr. Anil Aggrawal'" , "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" , alhunt@sprint.ca Subject: RE: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:56:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk There has been only a limited amount of research published on the frequency with which the basic pattern types (arches, loops, whorls) occur among different ethnic groups. In my "Fingerprint Techniques" (1971 - now out of print, but to be updated and republished later this year), I report, in Chapter 11, that the German researcher G. G. Wendt listed the following percentage frequencies of the three basic patterns in populations of different ethnic background: Bushmen: Arches 13.4%; Loops 68.2%; Whorls 18.4% Europides: Arches 6.4%; Loops 64.8%; Whorls 28.8% Negroids: Arches 6 %; Loops 62.8%; Whorls 31.2% Hindus: Arches 3%; Loops 59.4 %; Whorls 37.6% American Indians: Arches 5.4%; Loops 56%; Whorls 38.6% Mongolians: Arches 2.4%; Loops 51.8%; Whorls 45.8% In the United States, it is generally reported that in a significant population sample of our population, it will typically be discovered that among the so-called Western populations, roughly 5% of all patterns are arches, approx. 65% are loops, and approx. 30% will be whorls. The greatest ethnic differences that have been noted are among Asians, who tend to have fewer arches and more whorls; also Native Australians, who have significantly more arches, and fewer whorls. I do not know if more recent studies are available. Andre Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law University of Missouri at Kansas City Kansas City, MO 64110 Website: www.forensic-evidence.com -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Anil Aggrawal [mailto:dr_anil@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:04 PM To: Forensic Newsgroup (main); alhunt@sprint.ca Subject: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups Respected list members, I have received an Email from one Allan, who wants to ask me something on fingerprints. I don't know the answer. He is probably not a member of this group (otherwise he would have put the question straight to this group perhaps). His Email is alhunt@sprint.ca And Here is his question (I too would be interested in knowing the answer) ****beginning of question****** Dear Professor, My wife has expressed interest in the forensic field of finger printing. In particular, she has wondered if the three fingerprint types can be traced to three ethnic groups. Do you have any experience or thoughts on this issue? Thank you, Alan ****end of question****** Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 16:12:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29324 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:12:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns2.seanet.com (dns2.seanet.com [199.181.164.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA29319 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 8sv5f01 (ip-64-38-143-173.dialup.seanet.com [64.38.143.173]) by dns2.seanet.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f34KCIn11126 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001e01c0bd43$aec553c0$ad8f2640@8sv5f01> From: "Bob Kegel" To: "Forensic Science List" Subject: Interesting Technology Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 13:13:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The technology described in this article, http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2000/oct-dec/3dimaging.html , has great potential for imaging footwear impressions, toolmarks, and plastic impressions. Quick-Time VR demos are available at http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2000/oct-dec/3dimaging_files/tablet_demo.html . LPO Bob Kegel Aberdeen Police Dept. Aberdeen, WA From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 16:39:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA29777 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp05.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA29772 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:39:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 19270 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2001 20:39:21 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp05.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Apr 2001 20:39:21 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for SMTP.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.70]) with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 20:22:19 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Wed Apr 04 13:39:30 2001 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:39:19 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 13:38:27 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com, kjessling@hotmail.com, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pyrolysis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk While pyrolysis gc or gc/ms are excellent tools in examining such things as binders and polymers that make up paint, data from such instruments should not be considered only as part of the paint analysis scheme. Very useful data will come from micro/FTIR instrumentation as well as heaven forbid, polarized light microscopic examination. I think that we are immersing ourselves in an instrumental analysis quagmire, and forgetting or worse, eliminating classical microscopic/chemical analyses that allow for excellent dicriminatory observations. I suppose that if you dont wave a chart around with rather ambiguous spectral data then you haven't "scientifically" demonstrated anything. Gee, sometimes I look into a microscopes ocular and can say, Hey! These samples don't look anything alike." As far as I am aware, one can only determine if the paints are consistent and could share a common source by the aforementioned analytical technique, not that they were actually from a specific source. Of course if you have a physical "match", an examiner with a hand lens his providing better information than the guy with the $90,000 instrument and the compressed spectral library he paid handsomely for. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 17:43:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00981 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:43:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from deimos.email.Arizona.EDU (IDENT:root@deimos-adm.email.Arizona.EDU [128.196.133.166]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00976 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:43:21 -0400 (EDT) From: banders@email.arizona.edu Received: by deimos.email.Arizona.EDU (5.1.056) id 3AB8AE980012FDA5; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:42:58 -0700 Message-ID: <3AB8AE9A0000CD3E@deimos.email.Arizona.EDU> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:42:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C0BD2107A@UMKC-MAIL02> Subject: RE: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups To: "Moenssens, Andre" , "'Dr. Anil Aggrawal'" , "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" , alhunt@sprint.ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id RAA00977 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Physical anthropologists have done a bit of research in this area. Look in the the American Journal of Physical Anthropology under the topic Dermatoglyphics. Bruce Anderson, PhD Office of the Medical Examiner Tucson, Arizona - Original Message -- >There has been only a limited amount of research published on the frequency >with >which the basic pattern types (arches, loops, whorls) occur among different >ethnic groups. In my "Fingerprint Techniques" (1971 - now out of print, >but to >be updated and republished later this year), I report, in Chapter 11, that >the >German researcher G. G. Wendt listed the following percentage frequencies >of the >three basic patterns in populations of different ethnic background: >Bushmen: Arches 13.4%; Loops 68.2%; Whorls 18.4% >Europides: Arches 6.4%; Loops 64.8%; Whorls 28.8% >Negroids: Arches 6 %; Loops 62.8%; Whorls 31.2% >Hindus: Arches 3%; Loops 59.4 %; Whorls 37.6% >American Indians: Arches 5.4%; Loops 56%; Whorls 38.6% >Mongolians: Arches 2.4%; Loops 51.8%; Whorls 45.8% > >In the United States, it is generally reported that in a significant population >sample of our population, it will typically be discovered that among the >so-called Western populations, roughly 5% of all patterns are arches, approx. >65% are loops, and approx. 30% will be whorls. The greatest ethnic differences >that have been noted are among Asians, who tend to have fewer arches and >more >whorls; also Native Australians, who have significantly more arches, and >fewer >whorls. >I do not know if more recent studies are available. > >Andre Moenssens >Douglas Stripp Professor of Law >University of Missouri at Kansas City >Kansas City, MO 64110 >Website: www.forensic-evidence.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dr. Anil Aggrawal [mailto:dr_anil@hotmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:04 PM >To: Forensic Newsgroup (main); alhunt@sprint.ca >Subject: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups > > >Respected list members, >I have received an Email from one Allan, who wants to ask me something >on fingerprints. I don't know the answer. He is probably not a member of >this group (otherwise he would have put the question straight to this >group perhaps). His Email is >alhunt@sprint.ca >And Here is his question (I too would be interested in knowing the >answer) >****beginning of question****** >Dear Professor, > >My wife has expressed interest in the forensic field of finger printing. >In particular, she has wondered if the three fingerprint types can be >traced to three ethnic groups. Do you have any experience or thoughts on >this issue? > >Thank you, > >Alan >****end of question****** >Sincerely >Professor Anil Aggrawal >Professor of Forensic Medicine >Maulana Azad Medical College >S-299 Greater Kailash-1 >New Delhi-110048 >Phone: 6465460, 6413101 >Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com >Page me via ICQ #19727771 >Websites: >1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology >http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html >2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page >http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html >3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page >http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 > >*Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I >tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being >called when the top doctors have failed!* > `\|||/ > (@@) >ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ >_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| >___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ >_____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ > > > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 18:58:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA01813 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.240.232.234] ([64.240.232.234]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA01808 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbpdmail01.surfcity-hb.org by [64.240.232.234] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 22:56:16 UT Received: by HBPDMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:58:46 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE0070078@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Breyer, Chris" To: "'Cfwhiteh@aol.com'" , rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: pyrolysis Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:58:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5A.CD296F88" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5A.CD296F88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Quoting below: *So why do we need the mass spec? * Why, because instrumentation is all-powerful, and the more the merrier! (If this sounds sarcastic to you, you are correct--I apologize, and send this anyway) Chris Breyer -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:39 PM To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Cfwhiteh@aol.com; kjessling@hotmail.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pyrolysis In a message dated 4/3/01 6:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates (combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis products. Bob Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the mass spectra of the materials found in the pyrogram. Of course you and I would wonder why would one then use the mass spec. But if indeed the mass spec is being used as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much error would that introduce into the process? We have pyrograms that appear to be the same. And very complex, of course. So why do we need the mass spec? Fred Whitehurst ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5A.CD296F88 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252"
Quoting below:  *So why do we need the mass spec? *
 
Why, because instrumentation is all-powerful, and the more the merrier!
(If this sounds sarcastic to you, you are correct--I apologize, and send this anyway)
 
Chris Breyer
-----Original Message-----
From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:39 PM
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Cfwhiteh@aol.com; kjessling@hotmail.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: pyrolysis

In a message dated 4/3/01 6:37:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:


I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum of knowledge about it and it
seems to me (as an experienced analytical chemist) that if you analyze two
paint samples with the same pyrolysis program, GC program, and MS
conditions, and it produces the same total ion chromatograms with the same
retention times, and furthermore, the mass spectra of the ion peaks in the
TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates (combustion products) have been
produced, then you have demonstrated that the two paint samples are either
the same formulation or are two formulations that for some reason produce
the exact same pyrolysis products.

Bob

Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the mass spectra of
the materials found in the pyrogram.  Of course you and I would wonder why
would one then use the mass spec.  But if indeed the mass spec is being used
as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much error would that
introduce into the process?  We have pyrograms that appear to be the same.  
And very complex, of course.  So why do we need the mass spec?

Fred Whitehurst
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5A.CD296F88-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 19:17:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02130 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.149.16.4] (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA02125 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:17:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by [209.149.16.4] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 23:17:22 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:09:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: pyrolysis Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:09:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5C.4D71ABF0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5C.4D71ABF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" WARNING - LONG DISCUSSION (at least it's been a while)...... Fred, "Known" means you know the origin. You don't necessarily have to know (and may not be able to know) all the components. That's why you characterize it during the analysis. You then base conclusions on that chemical characterization in comparison to the characterization of the unknown. If the degree of characterization is sufficiently discriminatory in your professional judgment, soundly based on the laws of chemistry, then you can make discriminating conclusions. We've had similar discussions before, and I'm afraid I have to repeat myself: not all things are quantifiable, and not all error rates are determinable. The last time this conversation came up, someone pointed out that paint formulations change so rapidly that it's impossible to build a database that would be complete enough to determine valid error rates, because there would always be plenty of samples encountered in cases with formulations not yet in the database. Even if you could build a database with every single paint ever produced in it, and demonstrated that your analytical method could successfully distinguish between every single pair of paints in that database, in every possible combination, with a zero error rate, you still could not rule out a misidentification involving a new paint never before analyzed. If you can't determine an error rate, does that mean information gleaned from the analysis of these paints is without value? Of course not. When you have insufficient data to allow you to calculate a specific error rate (or an objective likelihood/frequency of match figure), then you fall back on sound logical reasoning based on established scientific principles. I'll give you an example. Can forensic chemists absolutely prove through hard experimental data that there is no other chemical compound in existence that produces a mass spectrum identical to that of cocaine? No we can't, because not every chemical compound in existence has been analyzed by mass spectroscopy, not every chemical compound extant is even known to us, and new compounds are created every day. But we can still confidently and unequivocally state that no other compound will produce the exact same mass spectrum because our knowledge of the laws of chemistry tell us that is so. Two different chemical structures cannot produce identical mass fragments, because if the whole molecules are not identical, than neither can all the fragments of those molecules be identical. Pyrolysis GC/MS can be applied in the same fashion. Py-GC-MS is even more discriminating than MS would be alone, because it adds retention times and a pyrogram to the data set; likewise, it is more discriminating than py-GC alone would be. But whether you do py-GC alone or py-GC-MS, as Greg pointed out it's still not the only exam you do - you add those results to the results of microscopic exams, solubility tests, fracture matches, IR spectroscopy, and whatever else you need to characterize the sample you're dealing with. You do multiple types of tests based on different principles because they not only give you more total data, they tend to compensate for each others' weaknesses, excluding each others' possible false positives or negatives, thereby giving you more reliable and conclusive results. That's why you may not just "settle for the pyrogram being the same" in some cases - the mass spectra of the component peaks in the pyrogram give you additional data above and beyond that contained in the pyrogram alone. When py-GC-MS is being done, I seriously doubt the MS is just being used as an overpriced detector - it's being specifically used for the extra data that mass spectra provide. It's akin to the movement towards GC/MS in fire debris analysis instead of relying on GC alone. In most cases, the GC alone will conclusively identify the class of your flammable liquid residue (because the capillary chromatogram will be sufficiently complex to do that), but in some cases, the additional discriminating power afforded by identifying some of the individual components (peaks) in the chromatogram will be needed. Likewise, py-GC-MS offers additional discriminating power over py-GC alone. Is py-GC alone sufficient in some, many, or even most cases? It may well be, but I don't know because it's not my field and my experience regarding it is limited. It may be a case where you are not trying to identify a specific substance but rather are trying to see if it is different from comparison standards in some demonstrable way; i.e., whether you can include or exclude it as a possible "match." If it isn't different in a demonstrable way (if you can't demonstrate an exclusion), that is an inclusion - and an inclusion can be useful information even if you can't identify exactly what the analyte is. In any event, a standard principle in analytical chemistry is that you never rely on just one type of exam for an identification (or a determination of inclusion). You're always going to do another type of exam for corroboration. You ask "How many mass spectra in the pyrogram are compared?" That's a good question, and I suspect it's dictated by experience and expertise in the specialty. In fire debris analysis, a well-trained, experienced examiner knows where the potential "problem" areas are with regard to a possibly ambiguous chromatogram, and he or she will compare the mass spectra of those suspect peaks to make the distinction. Other peaks that research and experience have shown do not introduce ambiguity into a chromatographic pattern identification do not routinely have their mass spectra compared. I suspect it is the same with pyrograms - only those peaks in the pyrogram which have reason to be suspect or which are considered tell-tale "markers" are compared by their mass spectra. (Am I right, paint analysts?). As far as "no two spectra taken of the same material will be exactly alike," that is both true and false. It's true that no two measurements of any kind will be EXACTLY (to an infinite decimal point) the same. But there is a point beyond which a miniscule difference has no significance and is effectively no difference at all. Recognizing significant from insignificant "differences" is where professional expertise comes in. Examples: If you're talking IR spectra, the concentration, crystalline matrix effects in a KBr pellet (how well you grind it), and water content of the sample, and instrument calibration differences, can cause shifts in amplitude of the peaks, sharpness/resolution of the peaks, and maybe even subtle, small shifts in wavelength readings, but for the same organic compound the proportional relationships between the peaks (on both axes) will be the same, as will the overall pattern of peaks, every single time. In MS, different tuning parameters, EM voltage settings, etc., can cause changes in relative amplitude of the signals for ion peaks in the mass spectrum; in rare cases where the two largest ion peaks are of very similar abundance and widely separated in mass, differential tuning (favoring one portion of the mass range over another in sensitivity) may even change which of the two is assigned as the base peak; but if the instrument is working properly (as determined by running calibration samples), then the mass assignments of all the ions and the overall pattern of the mass spectrum will be the same, every single time. Yes there may be very minor, spurious peaks attributable to background noise (column bleed, etc.) that will vary from run to run, and if you have too dilute a sample, you may not see some of the smallest peaks from the ions of lowest abundance that you would see in a more concentrated sample, but none of this is due to differences in the mass spectrum of the analyte - the mass spectrum (ion fragmentation pattern) of the analyte itself WILL be the same, every time, if the conditions are the same. An electron beam at a specific energy level striking a cloud of molecules of a specific compound will fragment those molecules into the same combination of ions, with the same relative abundances, every single time (the same bonds break, forming the same ions, at the same frequencies). You can't change that without changing the chemical structure of the original analyte itself. Oh sure, if you take the measured percentages of each ion species present out to enough decimal places, you'll eventually find a random difference, but those differences will be insignificantly small and are due to imperfections in the instrument's ability to measure and quantify the relative abundances to that level (again, no measurement can be 100% accurate). Such differences are understandable, explainable (accounted for), and are of no consequence. The point is, a well-trained and experienced analyst knows which differences are relevant (true differences) and which are not. That's why you have professional chemists, not machines and not lab techs, making the final call. Yes we can quantify many things, and institute many statistical methodologies to assist us in professional decision making, but we'll never entirely eliminate subjective professional judgment from the mix. We live in a world that tries to reduce everything to a neat, easily understandable, and unmistakably objective number, and which demands an unequivocal "yes" or "no" to every question, but only those ignorant of science think that it's as simple as all that. Science isn't black and white - if it were, you could give any reasonably intelligent person an analytical "recipe card" to follow, and they'd get the right answers without any science education at all. It doesn't work that way - scientific processes and conclusions are conditional, and require the unquantifiable professional judgment of well-educated scientists. Like it or not, all analyses call for a degree of human interpretation and professional judgment, and those things just can't be neatly reduced to numbers. At some point, you still have to rely on the scientist's professional expertise for an answer, and sometimes the answer is no more definite than "maybe" or "it depends." Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 19:35 To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Cfwhiteh@aol.com; kjessling@hotmail.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pyrolysis Fred wrote: Bob What is a "known" paint standard. What does it mean to be "known." Must we know all the components or simply know the origin? What is the likelihood that two paint samples which give the same pyrogram will be the same? What is the error rate of opining that they are the same? Where did we get that error rate? I know that you have said that you do not have that information. Does anyone on this list have that information? Do we settle for the pyrogram being the same? Then why do we saddle the analyst with the "MS" in the py-GC/MS? And if we use the mass spec should we compare the mass spectra of the different pyrolyzates indicated by the pyrogram of total ion counts from the different species eluting. And if we do compare the mass spectra, how many of those spectra do we compare before the error rate is brought down to an "acceptable" level if we neglect comparison of some of those spectra? I agree that intuitively it would seem that a very "busy" pyrogram matching another very busy pyrogram would indicate that the two materials were of the same composition. Do we run off gut feelings or articulated reasoning beyond "hunch." Fred Whitehurst and also: Bob Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the mass spectra of the materials found in the pyrogram. Of course you and I would wonder why would one then use the mass spec. But if indeed the mass spec is being used as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much error would that introduce into the process? We have pyrograms that appear to be the same. And very complex, of course. So why do we need the mass spec? Fred Whitehurst and also: Bob A problem you run into is that no two spectra taken of the same material will be exactly alike. So how much difference is different when comparing two different materials subjected to pyrolysis conditions? Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: Subj: RE: pyrolysis Date: 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us (Robert Parsons) To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com ('Cfwhiteh@aol.com'), kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it works by trying it with known standards. Whether you go through a process you formally call "validation" or not, in every case you always compare unknown samples to known standards run under the same conditions. After all, what "validation" of a test method really boils down to is nothing more than running test samples of known standards and seeing if you can discriminate between them consistently, so if you routinely run comparison standards in every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of validation every time you do the analysis. I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates (combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis products. I don't know the likelihood of the latter, since I'm not a paint analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on how similar the different paint formulations are. If they're not identical, it seems to me that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis products in an identical pattern (just as no two different chemical compounds can produce the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern depends on the specific chemical structure; and under the same conditions, ion fracture of the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every time; while the fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which is different from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same extent, every time). Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination technique, and in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray. Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their molecular fracture into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of individual components of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint will dictate the pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will produce. The fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully controlled by the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and predictable. By "predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are highly reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis make sense from a chemical pathway standpoint. Pyrolysis produces a series of oxidation reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the natural laws of organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise. Identical pyrolysis of different individual compounds producing exactly the same products seems unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex mixtures of compounds the chances against different mixtures producing the same products in the same pattern must be astronomical. No, I haven't calculated those odds (I wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint formulations), but my conclusion is based on understanding how chemical reactions work. Two different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction products through the exact same process (much less two different mixtures of many different reactants producing identical products). To produce the same product, either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or the processes the two reactants are subjected to have to be different (i.e. follow different pathways to the same end result). That's the nature of chemical reactions. That's how I see it, for what it's worth. Pyrolysis GC experts and paint analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area of personal expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please point it out to me and everyone else so we can all learn something. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5C.4D71ABF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
WARNING - LONG DISCUSSION (at least it's been a while)......
 
Fred,
 
"Known" means you know the origin.  You don't necessarily have to know (and may not be able to know) all the components.  That's why you characterize it during the analysis.  You then base conclusions on that chemical characterization in comparison to the characterization of the unknown.  If the degree of characterization is sufficiently discriminatory in your professional judgment, soundly based on the laws of chemistry, then you can make discriminating conclusions.
 
We've had similar discussions before, and I'm afraid I have to repeat myself:  not all things are quantifiable, and not all error rates are determinable.  The last time this conversation came up, someone pointed out that paint formulations change so rapidly that it's impossible to build a database that would be complete enough to determine valid error rates, because there would always be plenty of samples encountered in cases with formulations not yet in the database.  Even if you could build a database with every single paint ever produced in it, and demonstrated that your analytical method could successfully distinguish between every single pair of paints in that database, in every possible combination, with a zero error rate, you still could not rule out a misidentification involving a new paint never before analyzed.  If you can't determine an error rate, does that mean information gleaned from the analysis of these paints is without value?  Of course not.  When you have insufficient data to allow you to calculate a specific error rate (or an objective likelihood/frequency of match figure), then you fall back on sound logical reasoning based on established scientific principles.  I'll give you an example.  Can forensic chemists absolutely prove through hard experimental data that there is no other chemical compound in existence that produces a mass spectrum identical to that of cocaine?  No we can't, because not every chemical compound in existence has been analyzed by mass spectroscopy, not every chemical compound extant is even known to us, and new compounds are created every day.  But we can still confidently and unequivocally state that no other compound will produce the exact same mass spectrum because our knowledge of the laws of chemistry tell us that is so.  Two different chemical structures cannot produce identical mass fragments, because if the whole molecules are not identical, than neither can all the fragments of those molecules be identical.
 
Pyrolysis GC/MS can be applied in the same fashion.  Py-GC-MS is even more discriminating than MS would be alone, because it adds retention times and a pyrogram to the data set; likewise, it is more discriminating than py-GC alone would be.  But whether you do py-GC alone or py-GC-MS, as Greg pointed out it's still not the only exam you do - you add those results to the results of microscopic exams, solubility tests, fracture matches, IR spectroscopy, and whatever else you need to characterize the sample you're dealing with.  You do multiple types of tests based on different principles because they not only give you more total data, they tend to compensate for each others' weaknesses, excluding each others' possible false positives or negatives, thereby giving you more reliable and conclusive results.  That's why you may not just "settle for the pyrogram being the same" in some cases - the mass spectra of the component peaks in the pyrogram give you additional data above and beyond that contained in the pyrogram alone.  When py-GC-MS is being done, I seriously doubt the MS is just being used as an overpriced detector - it's being specifically used for the extra data that mass spectra provide.  It's akin to the movement towards GC/MS in fire debris analysis instead of relying on GC alone.  In most cases, the GC alone will conclusively identify the class of your flammable liquid residue (because the capillary chromatogram will be sufficiently complex to do that), but in some cases, the additional discriminating power afforded by identifying some of the individual components (peaks) in the chromatogram will be needed.  Likewise, py-GC-MS offers additional discriminating power over py-GC alone.  Is py-GC alone sufficient in some, many, or even most cases?  It may well be, but I don't know because it's not my field and my experience regarding it is limited.  It may be a case where you are not trying to identify a specific substance but rather are trying to see if it is different from comparison standards in some demonstrable way; i.e., whether you can include or exclude it as a possible "match."  If it isn't different in a demonstrable way (if you can't demonstrate an exclusion), that is an inclusion - and an inclusion can be useful information even if you can't identify exactly what the analyte is.  In any event, a standard principle in analytical chemistry is that you never rely on just one type of exam for an identification (or a determination of inclusion).  You're always going to do another type of exam for corroboration. 
 
You ask "How many mass spectra in the pyrogram are compared?"  That's a good question, and I suspect it's dictated by experience and expertise in the specialty.  In fire debris analysis, a well-trained, experienced examiner knows where the potential "problem" areas are with regard to a possibly ambiguous chromatogram, and he or she will compare the mass spectra of those suspect peaks to make the distinction.  Other peaks that research and experience have shown do not introduce ambiguity into a chromatographic pattern identification do not routinely have their mass spectra compared.  I suspect it is the same with pyrograms - only those peaks in the pyrogram which have reason to be suspect or which are considered tell-tale "markers" are compared by their mass spectra. (Am I right, paint analysts?).
 
As far as "no two spectra taken of the same material will be exactly alike,"  that is both true and false.  It's true that no two measurements of any kind will be EXACTLY (to an infinite decimal point) the same.  But there is a point beyond which a miniscule difference has no significance and is effectively no difference at all.  Recognizing significant from insignificant "differences" is where professional expertise comes in.  Examples:  If you're talking IR spectra, the concentration, crystalline matrix effects in a KBr pellet (how well you grind it), and water content of the sample, and instrument calibration differences, can cause shifts in amplitude of the peaks, sharpness/resolution of the peaks, and maybe even subtle, small shifts in wavelength readings, but for the same organic compound the proportional relationships between the peaks (on both axes) will be the same, as will the overall pattern of peaks, every single time.  In MS, different tuning parameters, EM voltage settings, etc., can cause changes in relative amplitude of the signals for ion peaks in the mass spectrum; in rare cases where the two largest ion peaks are of very similar abundance and widely separated in mass, differential tuning (favoring one portion of the mass range over another in sensitivity) may even change which of the two is assigned as the base peak; but if the instrument is working properly (as determined by running calibration samples), then the mass assignments of all the ions and the overall pattern of the mass spectrum will be the same, every single time.  Yes there may be very minor, spurious peaks attributable to background noise (column bleed, etc.) that will vary from run to run, and if you have too dilute a sample, you may not see some of the smallest peaks from the ions of lowest abundance that you would see in a more concentrated sample, but none of this is due to differences in the mass spectrum of the analyte - the mass spectrum (ion fragmentation pattern) of the analyte itself WILL be the same, every time, if the conditions are the same.  An electron beam at a specific energy level striking a cloud of molecules of a specific compound will fragment those molecules into the same combination of ions, with the same relative abundances, every single time (the same bonds break, forming the same ions, at the same frequencies).  You can't change that without changing the chemical structure of the original analyte itself.  Oh sure, if you take the measured percentages of each ion species present out to enough decimal places, you'll eventually find a random difference, but those differences will be insignificantly small and are due to imperfections in the instrument's ability to measure and quantify the relative abundances to that level (again, no measurement can be 100% accurate).   Such differences are understandable, explainable (accounted for), and are of no consequence. The point is, a well-trained and experienced analyst knows which differences are relevant (true differences) and which are not.  That's why you have professional chemists, not machines and not lab techs, making the final call.
 
Yes we can quantify many things, and institute many statistical methodologies to assist us in professional decision making, but we'll never entirely eliminate subjective professional judgment from the mix.  We live in a world that tries to reduce everything to a neat, easily understandable, and unmistakably objective number, and which demands an unequivocal "yes" or "no" to every question, but only those ignorant of science think that it's as simple as all that.  Science isn't black and white - if it were, you could give any reasonably intelligent person an analytical "recipe card" to follow, and they'd get the right answers without any science education at all.  It doesn't work that way - scientific processes and conclusions are conditional, and require the unquantifiable professional judgment of well-educated scientists.  Like it or not, all analyses call for a degree of human interpretation and professional judgment, and those things just can't be neatly reduced to numbers.  At some point, you still have to rely on the scientist's professional expertise for an answer, and sometimes the answer is no more definite than "maybe" or "it depends."
 
Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 19:35
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Cfwhiteh@aol.com; kjessling@hotmail.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: pyrolysis

Fred wrote:  
Bob
What is a "known" paint standard.  What does it mean to be "known."  Must we
know all the components or simply know the origin?  What is the likelihood
that two paint samples which give the same pyrogram will be the same?  What
is the error rate of opining that they are the same?  Where did we get that
error rate?  I know that you have said that you do not have that information.
 Does anyone on this list have that information?  Do we settle for the
pyrogram being the same?  Then why do we saddle the analyst with the "MS" in
the py-GC/MS?  And if we use the mass spec should we compare the mass spectra
of the different pyrolyzates indicated by the pyrogram of total ion counts
from the different species eluting.  And if we do compare the mass spectra,
how many of those spectra do we compare before the error rate is brought down
to an "acceptable" level if we neglect comparison of some of those spectra?  

I agree that intuitively it would seem that a very "busy" pyrogram matching
another very busy pyrogram would indicate that the two materials were of the
same composition.  Do we run off gut feelings or articulated reasoning beyond
"hunch."
Fred Whitehurst
and also: 
Bob

Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the mass spectra of
the materials found in the pyrogram.  Of course you and I would wonder why
would one then use the mass spec.  But if indeed the mass spec is being used
as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much error would that
introduce into the process?  We have pyrograms that appear to be the same.  
And very complex, of course.  So why do we need the mass spec?

Fred Whitehurst
and also:
 Bob
A problem you run into is that no two spectra taken of the same material will
be exactly alike.  So how much difference is different when comparing two
different materials subjected to pyrolysis conditions?  
Fred Whitehurst

 
In a message dated 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:


Subj: RE: pyrolysis
Date: 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us (Robert Parsons)
To:    Cfwhiteh@aol.com ('Cfwhiteh@aol.com'), kjessling@hotmail.com,
forens@statgen.ncsu.edu




Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it works by trying it
with known standards.  Whether you go through a process you formally call
"validation" or not,  in every case you always compare unknown samples to
known standards run under the same conditions.  After all, what
"validation" of a test method really boils down to is nothing more than
running test samples of known standards and seeing if you can discriminate
between them consistently, so if you routinely run comparison standards in
every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of validation every
time you do the analysis.  I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum
of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical
chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis
program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion
chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass
spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates
(combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that
the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two
formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis
products.  I don't know the likelihood of the latter, since I'm not a paint
analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on how similar the
different paint formulations are.  If they're not identical, it seems to me
that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis products in an
identical pattern (just as no two different chemical compounds can produce
the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern depends on the
specific chemical structure; and under the same conditions, ion fracture of
the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every time; while the
fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which is different
from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same extent, every time).  
Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination technique, and
in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray.

Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their molecular fracture
into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of individual components
of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint will dictate the
pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will produce.  The
fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully controlled by
the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and predictable.  By
"predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are highly
reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis make sense from
a chemical pathway standpoint.  Pyrolysis produces a series of oxidation
reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the natural laws of
organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise.  Identical pyrolysis
of different individual compounds producing exactly the same products seems
unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex mixtures of compounds
the chances against different mixtures producing the same products in the
same pattern must be astronomical.  No, I haven't calculated those odds (I
wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint formulations), but my
conclusion is based on understanding how chemical reactions work.  Two
different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction products through
the exact same process (much less two different mixtures of many different
reactants producing identical products).  To produce the same product,
either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or the processes
the two reactants are subjected to have to be different (i.e. follow
different pathways to the same end result).  That's the nature of chemical
reactions.

That's how I see it, for what it's worth.  Pyrolysis GC experts and paint
analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area of personal
expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please point it out to me
and everyone else so we can all learn something.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5C.4D71ABF0-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 19:19:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA02242 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:19:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.149.16.4] (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA02237 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by [209.149.16.4] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 4 Apr 2001 23:19:20 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:11:28 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: RE: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:11:27 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5C.938DD280" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5C.938DD280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Interesting. I'm of Italian and Anglo-Saxon descent, but my fingerprints are 30% arches, 60% loops, and 10% whorls. I wonder if there are some non-Europeans in my ancestry? ;) (Yes, I'm being facetious) Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Moenssens, Andre [mailto:MoenssensA@umkc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 15:57 To: 'Dr. Anil Aggrawal'; Forensic Newsgroup (main); alhunt@sprint.ca Subject: RE: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups There has been only a limited amount of research published on the frequency with which the basic pattern types (arches, loops, whorls) occur among different ethnic groups. In my "Fingerprint Techniques" (1971 - now out of print, but to be updated and republished later this year), I report, in Chapter 11, that the German researcher G. G. Wendt listed the following percentage frequencies of the three basic patterns in populations of different ethnic background: Bushmen: Arches 13.4%; Loops 68.2%; Whorls 18.4% Europides: Arches 6.4%; Loops 64.8%; Whorls 28.8% Negroids: Arches 6 %; Loops 62.8%; Whorls 31.2% Hindus: Arches 3%; Loops 59.4 %; Whorls 37.6% American Indians: Arches 5.4%; Loops 56%; Whorls 38.6% Mongolians: Arches 2.4%; Loops 51.8%; Whorls 45.8% In the United States, it is generally reported that in a significant population sample of our population, it will typically be discovered that among the so-called Western populations, roughly 5% of all patterns are arches, approx. 65% are loops, and approx. 30% will be whorls. The greatest ethnic differences that have been noted are among Asians, who tend to have fewer arches and more whorls; also Native Australians, who have significantly more arches, and fewer whorls. I do not know if more recent studies are available. Andre Moenssens Douglas Stripp Professor of Law University of Missouri at Kansas City Kansas City, MO 64110 Website: www.forensic-evidence.com -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Anil Aggrawal [mailto:dr_anil@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:04 PM To: Forensic Newsgroup (main); alhunt@sprint.ca Subject: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups Respected list members, I have received an Email from one Allan, who wants to ask me something on fingerprints. I don't know the answer. He is probably not a member of this group (otherwise he would have put the question straight to this group perhaps). His Email is alhunt@sprint.ca And Here is his question (I too would be interested in knowing the answer) ****beginning of question****** Dear Professor, My wife has expressed interest in the forensic field of finger printing. In particular, she has wondered if the three fingerprint types can be traced to three ethnic groups. Do you have any experience or thoughts on this issue? Thank you, Alan ****end of question****** Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5C.938DD280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Fingerprints related to ethnic groups

Interesting.  I'm of Italian and Anglo-Saxon = descent, but my fingerprints are 30% arches, 60% loops, and 10% = whorls.  I wonder if there are some non-Europeans in my ancestry? = ;)  (Yes, I'm being facetious)

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Moenssens, Andre [mailto:MoenssensA@umkc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 15:57
To: 'Dr. Anil Aggrawal'; Forensic Newsgroup (main); = alhunt@sprint.ca
Subject: RE: Fingerprints related to ethnic = groups


There has been only a limited amount of research = published on the frequency with
which the basic pattern types (arches, loops, = whorls) occur among different
ethnic groups. In my "Fingerprint = Techniques" (1971 - now out of print, but to
be updated and republished later this year), I = report, in Chapter 11, that the
German researcher G. G. Wendt listed the following = percentage frequencies of the
three basic patterns in populations of different = ethnic background:
Bushmen: Arches 13.4%; Loops 68.2%; Whorls = 18.4%
Europides: Arches 6.4%; Loops 64.8%; Whorls = 28.8%
Negroids: Arches 6 %; Loops 62.8%; Whorls = 31.2%
Hindus: Arches 3%; Loops 59.4 %; Whorls 37.6%
American Indians: Arches 5.4%; Loops 56%; Whorls = 38.6%
Mongolians: Arches 2.4%; Loops 51.8%; Whorls = 45.8%

In the United States, it is generally reported that = in a significant population
sample of our population, it will typically be = discovered that among the
so-called Western populations, roughly 5% of all = patterns are arches, approx.
65% are loops, and approx. 30% will be whorls. The = greatest ethnic differences
that have been noted are among Asians, who tend to = have fewer arches and more
whorls; also Native Australians, who have = significantly more arches, and fewer
whorls.
I do not know if more recent studies are available. =

Andre Moenssens
Douglas Stripp Professor of Law
University of Missouri at Kansas City
Kansas City, MO 64110
Website: www.forensic-evidence.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Anil Aggrawal [mailto:dr_anil@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:04 PM
To: Forensic Newsgroup (main); = alhunt@sprint.ca
Subject: Fingerprints related to ethnic = groups


Respected list members,
I have received an Email from one Allan, who wants = to ask me something
on fingerprints. I don't know the answer. He is = probably not a member of
this group (otherwise he would have put the question = straight to this
group perhaps). His Email is
alhunt@sprint.ca
And Here is his question (I too would be interested = in knowing the
answer)
****beginning of question******
Dear Professor,

My wife has expressed interest in the forensic field = of finger printing.
In particular, she has wondered if the three = fingerprint types can be
traced to three ethnic groups. Do you have any = experience or thoughts on
this issue?

Thank you,

Alan
****end of question******
Sincerely
Professor Anil Aggrawal
Professor of Forensic Medicine
Maulana Azad Medical College
S-299 Greater Kailash-1
New Delhi-110048
Phone: 6465460, 6413101
Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com
Page me via ICQ #19727771
Websites:
1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic = Medicine and Toxicology
http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html
2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page
http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.ht= ml
3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine = Page
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235

*Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as = a career, and I
tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the = honor of being
called when the top doctors have failed!*
  `\|||/
   (@@)
ooO (_) Ooo________________________________
_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
_____|_____Please pardon the = intrusion_|____|_____


------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD5C.938DD280-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 4 23:22:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04843 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from f04n01.cac.psu.edu (f04s01.cac.psu.edu [128.118.141.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04838 for ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [130.203.169.87] (tnt3-169-87.cac.psu.edu [130.203.169.87]) by f04n01.cac.psu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA58726; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:22:19 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: rpw109@email.psu.edu Message-Id: Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:21:21 -0400 To: Recipient List Suppressed:; From: RP Withington Subject: Forensic Entomology Workshop Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Announcing the Ninth Annual Workshop on Forensic Entomology offered by the Entomology Department at The Pennsylvania State University. The workshop is led by Dr. K.C. Kim, Board Certified Forensic Entomologist, and runs from Wednesday, 23 May 2001 to Friday, 25 May 2001. This course is designed for forensic investigators working for law-enforcement agencies, including state police, municipal police, forensic pathologists, and coroners. The course has been approved by the State Board of Coroners and covers the principles of forensic entomology, the ecology of necrophagous arthropod communities, and forensic entomological analysis. For course information, contact: Dr. K.C. Kim The Pennsylvania State University 501 ASI Building University Park, PA 16802-3508 Phone: (814) 865-1895 E-mail: kck@psu.edu For course registration, contact: Ag. Short Courses and Conferences The Pennsylvania State University 306 Ag. Administration Building University Park, PA 16802-2601 Phone: (814) 865-8301 FAX: (814) 865-7050 TTY: (814) 865-1204 Please visit our Web sites at: http://www.ento.psu.edu/ForensicSC/index.htm http://conferences.cas.psu.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert P. Withington III Frost Entomological Museum University Park, PA 16802 U.S.A. Telephone: (814) 863-2865 (w) (814) 861-4305 (h) FAX: (814) 865-3048 (w) (814) 861-4305 (h) E-mail: rpw109@psu.edu From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 01:54:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA06312 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA06307 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 01:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.net ([12.73.41.67]) by mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with ESMTP id <20010405055326.BHVK1582.mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net@att.net> for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 05:53:26 +0000 Message-ID: <3ACC0878.662D2A39@att.net> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:54:00 -0700 From: "John P. Bowden" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pyrolysis References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------364FEB0D72F16E5A9F02CA53" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --------------364FEB0D72F16E5A9F02CA53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just my two cent worth regarding Mr. Parson's discussion of Mass Spectrometry. First an infrared spectrum of a chemical substance is a physical property attributable to that compound (and often its enantiomer). There are, of course, matrix effects because the materials often interact with the matrix. Perhaps this is why the IR spectra of dilute solutions is the most favored by practitioners of the method. Mass Spectrometry is anything but a property of the compound. The structure of the material certainly impacts the fragmentation pattern, but many other considerations are involved. Most mass spectrometers have built in electronic features, separate from the settings addressed in the "calibration" process. One traditional purpose for these was to make the mass spectra from quadrupole instruments look more like those from magnetic sector instruments. It should be remembered as well, calibration aside, that mass spec detectors are not equally as sensitive at different mass/charge ratios. There are many, many methods of ionization available in mass spectrometry. In referring to an electron beam, Bob is limiting his discussion to only one type of ion source, namely electron ionization (EI), more anciently called electron impact. The electron beam serves only to kick out an additional electron to form the molecular ion. Even with an average of 70eV electrons, not all electrons have the same energy (review Boltzmann distribution). The molecular ions produced have a wide range of energies. Quoting from the 'bible of mass spectrometry', Interpretation of Mass Spectra, 4th Ed., University Science Books, Mill Valley, 1993, authored by F. W. McLafferty and F. Turecek: "The initially formed [molecular ions] range from cold to 'red hot'; not surprisingly, these thus show a wide range of decomposition behavior." For a more detailed discussion of this subject see Chapter 7: "Theory of Unimolecular Ion Decompositions." Just as we have "professional chemists . . . making the final call," we should rely on a professional mass spectrometrist to explain the extremely complex physics of ion formation and decomposition. Separation and detection are also very complex processes. John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant Dum Spiro Spero Robert Parsons wrote: > WARNING - LONG DISCUSSION (at least it's been a > while)......Fred,"Known" means you know the origin. You don't > necessarily have to know (and may not be able to know) all the > components. That's why you characterize it during the analysis. You > then base conclusions on that chemical characterization in comparison > to the characterization of the unknown. If the degree of > characterization is sufficiently discriminatory in your professional > judgment, soundly based on the laws of chemistry, then you can make > discriminating conclusions.We've had similar discussions before, and > I'm afraid I have to repeat myself: not all things are quantifiable, > and not all error rates are determinable. The last time this > conversation came up, someone pointed out that paint formulations > change so rapidly that it's impossible to build a database that would > be complete enough to determine valid error rates, because there would > always be plenty of samples encountered in cases with formulations not > yet in the database. Even if you could build a database with every > single paint ever produced in it, and demonstrated that your > analytical method could successfully distinguish between every single > pair of paints in that database, in every possible combination, with a > zero error rate, you still could not rule out a misidentification > involving a new paint never before analyzed. If you can't determine > an error rate, does that mean information gleaned from the analysis of > these paints is without value? Of course not. When you have > insufficient data to allow you to calculate a specific error rate (or > an objective likelihood/frequency of match figure), then you fall back > on sound logical reasoning based on established scientific > principles. I'll give you an example. Can forensic chemists > absolutely prove through hard experimental data that there is no other > chemical compound in existence that produces a mass spectrum identical > to that of cocaine? No we can't, because not every chemical compound > in existence has been analyzed by mass spectroscopy, not every > chemical compound extant is even known to us, and new compounds are > created every day. But we can still confidently and unequivocally > state that no other compound will produce the exact same mass spectrum > because our knowledge of the laws of chemistry tell us that is so. > Two different chemical structures cannot produce identical mass > fragments, because if the whole molecules are not identical, than > neither can all the fragments of those molecules be > identical.Pyrolysis GC/MS can be applied in the same fashion. > Py-GC-MS is even more discriminating than MS would be alone, because > it adds retention times and a pyrogram to the data set; likewise, it > is more discriminating than py-GC alone would be. But whether you do > py-GC alone or py-GC-MS, as Greg pointed out it's still not the only > exam you do - you add those results to the results of microscopic > exams, solubility tests, fracture matches, IR spectroscopy, and > whatever else you need to characterize the sample you're dealing > with. You do multiple types of tests based on different principles > because they not only give you more total data, they tend to > compensate for each others' weaknesses, excluding each others' > possible false positives or negatives, thereby giving you more > reliable and conclusive results. That's why you may not just "settle > for the pyrogram being the same" in some cases - the mass spectra of > the component peaks in the pyrogram give you additional data above and > beyond that contained in the pyrogram alone. When py-GC-MS is being > done, I seriously doubt the MS is just being used as an overpriced > detector - it's being specifically used for the extra data that mass > spectra provide. It's akin to the movement towards GC/MS in fire > debris analysis instead of relying on GC alone. In most cases, the GC > alone will conclusively identify the class of your flammable liquid > residue (because the capillary chromatogram will be sufficiently > complex to do that), but in some cases, the additional discriminating > power afforded by identifying some of the individual components > (peaks) in the chromatogram will be needed. Likewise, py-GC-MS offers > additional discriminating power over py-GC alone. Is py-GC alone > sufficient in some, many, or even most cases? It may well be, but I > don't know because it's not my field and my experience regarding it is > limited. It may be a case where you are not trying to identify a > specific substance but rather are trying to see if it is different > from comparison standards in some demonstrable way; i.e., whether you > can include or exclude it as a possible "match." If it isn't > different in a demonstrable way (if you can't demonstrate an > exclusion), that is an inclusion - and an inclusion can be useful > information even if you can't identify exactly what the analyte is. > In any event, a standard principle in analytical chemistry is that you > never rely on just one type of exam for an identification (or a > determination of inclusion). You're always going to do another type > of exam for corroboration. You ask "How many mass spectra in the > pyrogram are compared?" That's a good question, and I suspect it's > dictated by experience and expertise in the specialty. In fire debris > analysis, a well-trained, experienced examiner knows where the > potential "problem" areas are with regard to a possibly ambiguous > chromatogram, and he or she will compare the mass spectra of those > suspect peaks to make the distinction. Other peaks that research and > experience have shown do not introduce ambiguity into a > chromatographic pattern identification do not routinely have their > mass spectra compared. I suspect it is the same with pyrograms - only > those peaks in the pyrogram which have reason to be suspect or which > are considered tell-tale "markers" are compared by their mass spectra. > (Am I right, paint analysts?).As far as "no two spectra taken of the > same material will be exactly alike," that is both true and false. > It's true that no two measurements of any kind will be EXACTLY (to an > infinite decimal point) the same. But there is a point beyond which a > miniscule difference has no significance and is effectively no > difference at all. Recognizing significant from insignificant > "differences" is where professional expertise comes in. Examples: If > you're talking IR spectra, the concentration, crystalline matrix > effects in a KBr pellet (how well you grind it), and water content of > the sample, and instrument calibration differences, can cause shifts > in amplitude of the peaks, sharpness/resolution of the peaks, and > maybe even subtle, small shifts in wavelength readings, but for the > same organic compound the proportional relationships between the peaks > (on both axes) will be the same, as will the overall pattern of peaks, > every single time. In MS, different tuning parameters, EM voltage > settings, etc., can cause changes in relative amplitude of the signals > for ion peaks in the mass spectrum; in rare cases where the two > largest ion peaks are of very similar abundance and widely separated > in mass, differential tuning (favoring one portion of the mass range > over another in sensitivity) may even change which of the two is > assigned as the base peak; but if the instrument is working properly > (as determined by running calibration samples), then the mass > assignments of all the ions and the overall pattern of the mass > spectrum will be the same, every single time. Yes there may be very > minor, spurious peaks attributable to background noise (column bleed, > etc.) that will vary from run to run, and if you have too dilute a > sample, you may not see some of the smallest peaks from the ions of > lowest abundance that you would see in a more concentrated sample, but > none of this is due to differences in the mass spectrum of the analyte > - the mass spectrum (ion fragmentation pattern) of the analyte itself > WILL be the same, every time, if the conditions are the same. An > electron beam at a specific energy level striking a cloud of molecules > of a specific compound will fragment those molecules into the same > combination of ions, with the same relative abundances, every single > time (the same bonds break, forming the same ions, at the same > frequencies). You can't change that without changing the chemical > structure of the original analyte itself. Oh sure, if you take the > measured percentages of each ion species present out to enough decimal > places, you'll eventually find a random difference, but those > differences will be insignificantly small and are due to imperfections > in the instrument's ability to measure and quantify the relative > abundances to that level (again, no measurement can be 100% > accurate). Such differences are understandable, explainable > (accounted for), and are of no consequence. The point is, a > well-trained and experienced analyst knows which differences are > relevant (true differences) and which are not. That's why you have > professional chemists, not machines and not lab techs, making the > final call.Yes we can quantify many things, and institute many > statistical methodologies to assist us in professional decision > making, but we'll never entirely eliminate subjective professional > judgment from the mix. We live in a world that tries to reduce > everything to a neat, easily understandable, and unmistakably > objective number, and which demands an unequivocal "yes" or "no" to > every question, but only those ignorant of science think that it's as > simple as all that. Science isn't black and white - if it were, you > could give any reasonably intelligent person an analytical "recipe > card" to follow, and they'd get the right answers without any science > education at all. It doesn't work that way - scientific processes and > conclusions are conditional, and require the unquantifiable > professional judgment of well-educated scientists. Like it or not, > all analyses call for a degree of human interpretation and > professional judgment, and those things just can't be neatly reduced > to numbers. At some point, you still have to rely on the scientist's > professional expertise for an answer, and sometimes the answer is no > more definite than "maybe" or "it depends." Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 19:35 > To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Cfwhiteh@aol.com; > kjessling@hotmail.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Re: pyrolysis > > Fred wrote: > Bob > What is a "known" paint standard. What does it mean to be > "known." Must we > know all the components or simply know the origin? What is > the likelihood > that two paint samples which give the same pyrogram will be > the same? What > is the error rate of opining that they are the same? Where > did we get that > error rate? I know that you have said that you do not have > that information. > Does anyone on this list have that information? Do we > settle for the > pyrogram being the same? Then why do we saddle the analyst > with the "MS" in > the py-GC/MS? And if we use the mass spec should we compare > the mass spectra > of the different pyrolyzates indicated by the pyrogram of > total ion counts > from the different species eluting. And if we do compare > the mass spectra, > how many of those spectra do we compare before the error > rate is brought down > to an "acceptable" level if we neglect comparison of some of > those spectra? > > I agree that intuitively it would seem that a very "busy" > pyrogram matching > another very busy pyrogram would indicate that the two > materials were of the > same composition. Do we run off gut feelings or articulated > reasoning beyond > "hunch." > Fred Whitehurstand also: Bob > > Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the > mass spectra of > the materials found in the pyrogram. Of course you and I > would wonder why > would one then use the mass spec. But if indeed the mass > spec is being used > as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much > error would that > introduce into the process? We have pyrograms that appear > to be the same. > And very complex, of course. So why do we need the mass > spec? > > Fred Whitehurstand also: Bob > A problem you run into is that no two spectra taken of the > same material will > be exactly alike. So how much difference is different when > comparing two > different materials subjected to pyrolysis conditions? > Fred Whitehurst In a message dated 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM > Eastern Daylight Time, > rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > > > > > Subj: RE: pyrolysis > > Date: 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time > > From: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us (Robert Parsons) > > To: Cfwhiteh@aol.com ('Cfwhiteh@aol.com'), > > kjessling@hotmail.com, > > forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > > > > > > > > > Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it > > works by trying it > > with known standards. Whether you go through a process > > you formally call > > "validation" or not, in every case you always compare > > unknown samples to > > known standards run under the same conditions. After all, > > what > > "validation" of a test method really boils down to is > > nothing more than > > running test samples of known standards and seeing if you > > can discriminate > > between them consistently, so if you routinely run > > comparison standards in > > every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of > > validation every > > time you do the analysis. I don't do pyrolysis work, but > > I have a modicum > > of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an > > experienced analytical > > chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the > > same pyrolysis > > program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces > > the same total ion > > chromatograms with the same retention times, and > > furthermore, the mass > > spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same > > pyrolysates > > (combustion products) have been produced, then you have > > demonstrated that > > the two paint samples are either the same formulation or > > are two > > formulations that for some reason produce the exact same > > pyrolysis > > products. I don't know the likelihood of the latter, > > since I'm not a paint > > analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on > > how similar the > > different paint formulations are. If they're not > > identical, it seems to me > > that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis > > products in an > > identical pattern (just as no two different chemical > > compounds can produce > > the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern > > depends on the > > specific chemical structure; and under the same > > conditions, ion fracture of > > the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every > > time; while the > > fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which > > is different > > from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same > > extent, every time). > > Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination > > technique, and > > in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray. > > > > Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their > > molecular fracture > > into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of > > individual components > > of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint > > will dictate the > > pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will > > produce. The > > fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully > > controlled by > > the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and > > predictable. By > > "predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are > > highly > > reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis > > make sense from > > a chemical pathway standpoint. Pyrolysis produces a > > series of oxidation > > reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the > > natural laws of > > organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise. > > Identical pyrolysis > > of different individual compounds producing exactly the > > same products seems > > unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex > > mixtures of compounds > > the chances against different mixtures producing the same > > products in the > > same pattern must be astronomical. No, I haven't > > calculated those odds (I > > wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint > > formulations), but my > > conclusion is based on understanding how chemical > > reactions work. Two > > different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction > > products through > > the exact same process (much less two different mixtures > > of many different > > reactants producing identical products). To produce the > > same product, > > either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or > > the processes > > the two reactants are subjected to have to be different > > (i.e. follow > > different pathways to the same end result). That's the > > nature of chemical > > reactions. > > > > That's how I see it, for what it's worth. Pyrolysis GC > > experts and paint > > analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area > > of personal > > expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please > > point it out to me > > and everyone else so we can all learn something. > > > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > > Forensic Chemist > > Regional Crime Laboratory > > at Indian River Community College > > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > > --------------364FEB0D72F16E5A9F02CA53 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just my two cent worth regarding Mr. Parson's discussion of Mass Spectrometry. First an infrared spectrum of a chemical substance is a physical property attributable to that compound (and often its enantiomer). There are, of course, matrix effects because the materials often interact with the matrix. Perhaps this is why the IR spectra of dilute solutions is the most favored by practitioners of the method.

Mass Spectrometry is anything but a property of the compound. The structure of the material certainly impacts the fragmentation pattern, but many other considerations are involved.

Most mass spectrometers have built in electronic features, separate from the settings addressed in the "calibration" process. One traditional purpose for these was to make the mass spectra from quadrupole instruments look more like those from magnetic sector instruments.

It should be remembered as well, calibration aside, that mass spec detectors are not equally as sensitive at different mass/charge ratios.

There are many, many methods of ionization available in mass spectrometry. In referring to an electron beam, Bob is limiting his discussion to only one type of ion source, namely electron ionization (EI), more anciently called electron impact. The electron beam serves only to kick out an additional electron to form the molecular ion. Even with an average of 70eV electrons, not all electrons have the same energy (review Boltzmann distribution). The molecular ions produced have a wide range of energies.

Quoting from the 'bible of mass spectrometry', Interpretation of Mass Spectra, 4th Ed., University Science Books, Mill Valley, 1993, authored by F. W. McLafferty and F. Turecek: "The initially formed [molecular ions] range from cold to 'red hot'; not surprisingly, these thus show a wide range of decomposition behavior." For a more detailed discussion of this subject see Chapter 7: "Theory of Unimolecular Ion Decompositions."

Just as we have "professional chemists . . . making the final call," we should rely on a professional mass spectrometrist to explain the extremely complex physics of ion formation and decomposition. Separation and detection are also very complex processes.

John P. Bowden
Forensic Consultant
Dum Spiro Spero

Robert Parsons wrote:

 WARNING - LONG DISCUSSION (at least it's been a while)......Fred,"Known" means you know the origin.  You don't necessarily have to know (and may not be able to know) all the components.  That's why you characterize it during the analysis.  You then base conclusions on that chemical characterization in comparison to the characterization of the unknown.  If the degree of characterization is sufficiently discriminatory in your professional judgment, soundly based on the laws of chemistry, then you can make discriminating conclusions.We've had similar discussions before, and I'm afraid I have to repeat myself:  not all things are quantifiable, and not all error rates are determinable.  The last time this conversation came up, someone pointed out that paint formulations change so rapidly that it's impossible to build a database that would be complete enough to determine valid error rates, because there would always be plenty of samples encountered in cases with formulations not yet in the database.  Even if you could build a database with every single paint ever produced in it, and demonstrated that your analytical method could successfully distinguish between every single pair of paints in that database, in every possible combination, with a zero error rate, you still could not rule out a misidentification involving a new paint never before analyzed.  If you can't determine an error rate, does that mean information gleaned from the analysis of these paints is without value?  Of course not.  When you have insufficient data to allow you to calculate a specific error rate (or an objective likelihood/frequency of match figure), then you fall back on sound logical reasoning based on established scientific principles.  I'll give you an example.  Can forensic chemists absolutely prove through hard experimental data that there is no other chemical compound in existence that produces a mass spectrum identical to that of cocaine?  No we can't, because not every chemical compound in existence has been analyzed by mass spectroscopy, not every chemical compound extant is even known to us, and new compounds are created every day.  But we can still confidently and unequivocally state that no other compound will produce the exact same mass spectrum because our knowledge of the laws of chemistry tell us that is so.  Two different chemical structures cannot produce identical mass fragments, because if the whole molecules are not identical, than neither can all the fragments of those molecules be identical.Pyrolysis GC/MS can be applied in the same fashion.  Py-GC-MS is even more discriminating than MS would be alone, because it adds retention times and a pyrogram to the data set; likewise, it is more discriminating than py-GC alone would be.  But whether you do py-GC alone or py-GC-MS, as Greg pointed out it's still not the only exam you do - you add those results to the results of microscopic exams, solubility tests, fracture matches, IR spectroscopy, and whatever else you need to characterize the sample you're dealing with.  You do multiple types of tests based on different principles because they not only give you more total data, they tend to compensate for each others' weaknesses, excluding each others' possible false positives or negatives, thereby giving you more reliable and conclusive results.  That's why you may not just "settle for the pyrogram being the same" in some cases - the mass spectra of the component peaks in the pyrogram give you additional data above and beyond that contained in the pyrogram alone.  When py-GC-MS is being done, I seriously doubt the MS is just being used as an overpriced detector - it's being specifically used for the extra data that mass spectra provide.  It's akin to the movement towards GC/MS in fire debris analysis instead of relying on GC alone.  In most cases, the GC alone will conclusively identify the class of your flammable liquid residue (because the capillary chromatogram will be sufficiently complex to do that), but in some cases, the additional discriminating power afforded by identifying some of the individual components (peaks) in the chromatogram will be needed.  Likewise, py-GC-MS offers additional discriminating power over py-GC alone.  Is py-GC alone sufficient in some, many, or even most cases?  It may well be, but I don't know because it's not my field and my experience regarding it is limited.  It may be a case where you are not trying to identify a specific substance but rather are trying to see if it is different from comparison standards in some demonstrable way; i.e., whether you can include or exclude it as a possible "match."  If it isn't different in a demonstrable way (if you can't demonstrate an exclusion), that is an inclusion - and an inclusion can be useful information even if you can't identify exactly what the analyte is.  In any event, a standard principle in analytical chemistry is that you never rely on just one type of exam for an identification (or a determination of inclusion).  You're always going to do another type of exam for corroboration. You ask "How many mass spectra in the pyrogram are compared?"  That's a good question, and I suspect it's dictated by experience and expertise in the specialty.  In fire debris analysis, a well-trained, experienced examiner knows where the potential "problem" areas are with regard to a possibly ambiguous chromatogram, and he or she will compare the mass spectra of those suspect peaks to make the distinction.  Other peaks that research and experience have shown do not introduce ambiguity into a chromatographic pattern identification do not routinely have their mass spectra compared.  I suspect it is the same with pyrograms - only those peaks in the pyrogram which have reason to be suspect or which are considered tell-tale "markers" are compared by their mass spectra. (Am I right, paint analysts?).As far as "no two spectra taken of the same material will be exactly alike,"  that is both true and false.  It's true that no two measurements of any kind will be EXACTLY (to an infinite decimal point) the same.  But there is a point beyond which a miniscule difference has no significance and is effectively no difference at all.  Recognizing significant from insignificant "differences" is where professional expertise comes in.  Examples:  If you're talking IR spectra, the concentration, crystalline matrix effects in a KBr pellet (how well you grind it), and water content of the sample, and instrument calibration differences, can cause shifts in amplitude of the peaks, sharpness/resolution of the peaks, and maybe even subtle, small shifts in wavelength readings, but for the same organic compound the proportional relationships between the peaks (on both axes) will be the same, as will the overall pattern of peaks, every single time.  In MS, different tuning parameters, EM voltage settings, etc., can cause changes in relative amplitude of the signals for ion peaks in the mass spectrum; in rare cases where the two largest ion peaks are of very similar abundance and widely separated in mass, differential tuning (favoring one portion of the mass range over another in sensitivity) may even change which of the two is assigned as the base peak; but if the instrument is working properly (as determined by running calibration samples), then the mass assignments of all the ions and the overall pattern of the mass spectrum will be the same, every single time.  Yes there may be very minor, spurious peaks attributable to background noise (column bleed, etc.) that will vary from run to run, and if you have too dilute a sample, you may not see some of the smallest peaks from the ions of lowest abundance that you would see in a more concentrated sample, but none of this is due to differences in the mass spectrum of the analyte - the mass spectrum (ion fragmentation pattern) of the analyte itself WILL be the same, every time, if the conditions are the same.  An electron beam at a specific energy level striking a cloud of molecules of a specific compound will fragment those molecules into the same combination of ions, with the same relative abundances, every single time (the same bonds break, forming the same ions, at the same frequencies).  You can't change that without changing the chemical structure of the original analyte itself.  Oh sure, if you take the measured percentages of each ion species present out to enough decimal places, you'll eventually find a random difference, but those differences will be insignificantly small and are due to imperfections in the instrument's ability to measure and quantify the relative abundances to that level (again, no measurement can be 100% accurate).   Such differences are understandable, explainable (accounted for), and are of no consequence. The point is, a well-trained and experienced analyst knows which differences are relevant (true differences) and which are not.  That's why you have professional chemists, not machines and not lab techs, making the final call.Yes we can quantify many things, and institute many statistical methodologies to assist us in professional decision making, but we'll never entirely eliminate subjective professional judgment from the mix.  We live in a world that tries to reduce everything to a neat, easily understandable, and unmistakably objective number, and which demands an unequivocal "yes" or "no" to every question, but only those ignorant of science think that it's as simple as all that.  Science isn't black and white - if it were, you could give any reasonably intelligent person an analytical "recipe card" to follow, and they'd get the right answers without any science education at all.  It doesn't work that way - scientific processes and conclusions are conditional, and require the unquantifiable professional judgment of well-educated scientists.  Like it or not, all analyses call for a degree of human interpretation and professional judgment, and those things just can't be neatly reduced to numbers.  At some point, you still have to rely on the scientist's professional expertise for an answer, and sometimes the answer is no more definite than "maybe" or "it depends." Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com [mailto:Cfwhiteh@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 19:35
To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us; Cfwhiteh@aol.com; kjessling@hotmail.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: pyrolysis

Fred wrote: 

Bob
What is a "known" paint standard.  What does it mean to be "known."  Must we
know all the components or simply know the origin?  What is the likelihood
that two paint samples which give the same pyrogram will be the same?  What
is the error rate of opining that they are the same?  Where did we get that
error rate?  I know that you have said that you do not have that information.
 Does anyone on this list have that information?  Do we settle for the
pyrogram being the same?  Then why do we saddle the analyst with the "MS" in
the py-GC/MS?  And if we use the mass spec should we compare the mass spectra
of the different pyrolyzates indicated by the pyrogram of total ion counts
from the different species eluting.  And if we do compare the mass spectra,
how many of those spectra do we compare before the error rate is brought down
to an "acceptable" level if we neglect comparison of some of those spectra?

I agree that intuitively it would seem that a very "busy" pyrogram matching
another very busy pyrogram would indicate that the two materials were of the
same composition.  Do we run off gut feelings or articulated reasoning beyond
"hunch."
Fred Whitehurstand also: Bob

Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the mass spectra of
the materials found in the pyrogram.  Of course you and I would wonder why
would one then use the mass spec.  But if indeed the mass spec is being used
as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much error would that
introduce into the process?  We have pyrograms that appear to be the same.
And very complex, of course.  So why do we need the mass spec?

Fred Whitehurstand also: Bob
A problem you run into is that no two spectra taken of the same material will
be exactly alike.  So how much difference is different when comparing two
different materials subjected to pyrolysis conditions?
Fred Whitehurst  In a message dated 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:
 
 

Subj: RE: pyrolysis
Date: 4/3/01 6:31:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us (Robert Parsons)
To:    Cfwhiteh@aol.com ('Cfwhiteh@aol.com'), kjessling@hotmail.com,
forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
 
 
 

Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it works by trying it
with known standards.  Whether you go through a process you formally call
"validation" or not,  in every case you always compare unknown samples to
known standards run under the same conditions.  After all, what
"validation" of a test method really boils down to is nothing more than
running test samples of known standards and seeing if you can discriminate
between them consistently, so if you routinely run comparison standards in
every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of validation every
time you do the analysis.  I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum
of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical
chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis
program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion
chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass
spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates
(combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that
the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two
formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis
products.  I don't know the likelihood of the latter, since I'm not a paint
analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on how similar the
different paint formulations are.  If they're not identical, it seems to me
that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis products in an
identical pattern (just as no two different chemical compounds can produce
the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern depends on the
specific chemical structure; and under the same conditions, ion fracture of
the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every time; while the
fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which is different
from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same extent, every time).
Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination technique, and
in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray.

Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their molecular fracture
into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of individual components
of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint will dictate the
pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will produce.  The
fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully controlled by
the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and predictable.  By
"predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are highly
reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis make sense from
a chemical pathway standpoint.  Pyrolysis produces a series of oxidation
reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the natural laws of
organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise.  Identical pyrolysis
of different individual compounds producing exactly the same products seems
unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex mixtures of compounds
the chances against different mixtures producing the same products in the
same pattern must be astronomical.  No, I haven't calculated those odds (I
wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint formulations), but my
conclusion is based on understanding how chemical reactions work.  Two
different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction products through
the exact same process (much less two different mixtures of many different
reactants producing identical products).  To produce the same product,
either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or the processes
the two reactants are subjected to have to be different (i.e. follow
different pathways to the same end result).  That's the nature of chemical
reactions.

That's how I see it, for what it's worth.  Pyrolysis GC experts and paint
analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area of personal
expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please point it out to me
and everyone else so we can all learn something.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


 
--------------364FEB0D72F16E5A9F02CA53-- From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 02:27:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06689 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:27:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dfw-smtpout3.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout3.email.verio.net [129.250.36.43]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06684 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:27:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [129.250.38.61] (helo=dfw-mmp1.email.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout3.email.verio.net with esmtp id 14l3Ec-0003V3-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:27:10 +0000 Received: from [168.191.203.140] (helo=roo.dna-view.com) by dfw-mmp1.email.verio.net with esmtp id 14l3Eb-00054z-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:27:09 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010404230902.00aba220@pop.ncal.verio.com> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:27:58 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: pyrolysis In-Reply-To: <20010404150015.91788.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 08:00 AM 4/4/01 -0700, John Lentini wrote: >Fred: > >The need for gathering every brand of paint ever >made and determining whether it might give the >same pyrogram exists only if someone is really >going to make some significant inferences from >the analysis. If then. I believe that the result "same pyrogram" might be usefully quantified even without a detailed study of various kinds of paint. For suppose that you tell me only this: that 90% of the time that you found "same pyrogram", the samples turned out to be identical (whatever that means). Then it is appropriate for me to use that average value (in technical terms, to infer a likelihood ratio of 90%/10% = 9) in any particular case wherein you testify to "same pyrogram". I assume that if you happen to know from your experience that (despite the lack of exhaustive and formal study) the kind of paint involved in some case is particularly generic and the overall 90% "exclusion" rate may be optimistic for that class of paints, you will warn me. Otherwise, it should be quite appropriate for me to evaluate the significance of the testimony based on averages. Charles Brenner forensic mathematics http://dna-view.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 06:53:16 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08877 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 06:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA08872 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 06:53:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA15194; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 06:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 06:53:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Bob Kegel cc: Forensic Science List Subject: Re: Interesting Technology In-Reply-To: <001e01c0bd43$aec553c0$ad8f2640@8sv5f01> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Well, not to put in too much of a plug, but for you folk in the DC area, the Applied Imagery and Pattern Recognition Workshop recently had a conference on 3D reconstruction. It featured forensic aspects of 3D reconstruction . Folk interested in the technology might take a look at the AIPR workshop home page: www.aipr-workshop.org In particular, you might be interested in the proceedings from the 1999 workship on "3D Visualization for Data Exploration and Decision Making" SPIE Proceedings vol 3905. billo On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Bob Kegel wrote: > From: Bob Kegel > > The technology described in this article, > http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2000/oct-dec/3dimaging.html , has great potential > for imaging footwear impressions, toolmarks, and plastic impressions. > Quick-Time VR demos are available at > http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2000/oct-dec/3dimaging_files/tablet_demo.html . > > LPO Bob Kegel > Aberdeen Police Dept. > Aberdeen, WA > From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 10:42:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11548 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:42:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r13.mx.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11543 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:42:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id p.64.cae6a7b (4325); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:42:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <64.cae6a7b.27fdde3c@aol.com> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:42:04 EDT Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us, Cfwhiteh@aol.com, kjessling@hotmail.com, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_64.cae6a7b.27fdde3c_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_64.cae6a7b.27fdde3c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/4/01 4:39:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, glaskows@co.kern.ca.us writes: > > While pyrolysis gc or gc/ms are excellent tools in examining such things as > binders and polymers that make up paint, data from such instruments should > not be considered only as part of the paint analysis scheme. Very useful > data will come from micro/FTIR instrumentation as well as heaven forbid, > polarized light microscopic examination. > > I think that we are immersing ourselves in an instrumental analysis > quagmire, and forgetting or worse, eliminating classical > Greg I doubt that any of us would disagree with you about microscopy and its power in discrimination. On another note, you speak, of course about FTIR data for binder/coating analysis. This is an interesting twist. If py-GC/MS is so discriminating then why do we not just use it and throw out the rest of the instrumental techniques. The protocol would be, of course, to use optical microscopy to find samples that do not "match" and all of those left over would be put through the py-GC/MS. It seems that if we are using these other techniques, SEM/EDXA, FTIR, Raman, etc., then we must feel that py-GC/MS alone has an error rate that is to be avoided by the confirmation with other instruments. Fred Whitehurst --part1_64.cae6a7b.27fdde3c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/4/01 4:39:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
glaskows@co.kern.ca.us writes:



While pyrolysis gc or gc/ms are excellent tools in examining such things as
binders and polymers that make up paint, data from such instruments should
not be considered only as part of the paint analysis scheme. Very useful
data will come from micro/FTIR instrumentation as well as heaven forbid,
polarized light microscopic examination.

I think that we are immersing ourselves in an instrumental analysis
quagmire, and forgetting or worse, eliminating classical


Greg
I doubt that any of us would disagree with you about microscopy and its power
in discrimination.  On another note, you speak, of course about FTIR data for
binder/coating analysis.  This is an interesting twist.  If py-GC/MS is so
discriminating then why do we not just use it and throw out the rest of the
instrumental techniques.  The protocol would be, of course, to use optical
microscopy to find samples that do not "match" and all of those left over
would be put through the py-GC/MS.  It seems that if we are using these other
techniques, SEM/EDXA, FTIR, Raman, etc., then we must feel that py-GC/MS
alone has an error rate that is to be avoided by the confirmation with other
instruments.
Fred Whitehurst --part1_64.cae6a7b.27fdde3c_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 10:58:10 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA11902 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r13.mx.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11897 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:58:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Cfwhiteh@aol.com Received: from Cfwhiteh@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id v.64.cae6a7d (4325); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <64.cae6a7d.27fde1d2@aol.com> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:57:22 EDT Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: breyerc@hbpd.org, Cfwhiteh@aol.com, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_64.cae6a7d.27fde1d2_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_64.cae6a7d.27fde1d2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/4/01 7:04:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, breyerc@HBPD.org writes: > > > > > > Quoting below: *So why do we need the mass spec? * > > Why, because instrumentation is all-powerful, and the more the merrier! > (If this sounds sarcastic to you, you are correct--I apologize, and send > this anyway) > > Chris Breyer > Chris I have had this thought myself in the past. If we validate up front, determine possible error rate up front, and find that "the more the merrier" is not cost effective, we may spend it up front for validation but save millions and speed up the process and get as good a scientific answer in the long run. Rather than have field personnel waiting months and even years for forensic opinions we may find that we speed up the process signficantly without undue cost in error rate. Fred Whitehurst --part1_64.cae6a7d.27fde1d2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/4/01 7:04:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, breyerc@HBPD.org
writes:







Quoting below:  *So why do we need the mass spec? *

Why, because instrumentation is all-powerful, and the more the merrier!
(If this sounds sarcastic to you, you are correct--I apologize, and send
this anyway)

Chris Breyer


Chris
I have had this thought myself in the past.  If we validate up front,
determine possible error rate up front, and find that "the more the merrier"
is not cost effective, we may spend it up front for validation but save
millions and speed up the process and get as good a scientific answer in the
long run. Rather than have field personnel waiting months and even years for
forensic opinions we may find that we speed up the process signficantly
without undue cost in error rate.
Fred Whitehurst --part1_64.cae6a7d.27fde1d2_boundary-- From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 12:37:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13514 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov ([167.72.128.51]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13509 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:37:19 -0400 (EDT) From: hgriffi@wsp.wa.gov Message-Id: <200104051637.MAA13509@sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu> Received: by wsp-dc-exch1.wsp.wa.gov with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:38:22 -0700 To: charles@dna-view.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pyrolysis Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:57:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I totally agree with you that a tremendous number of problems can be approached using Bayes reasoning. However, one of the issues with paint analysis is that all samples from one source are not created equal. I disagree that interpretation of variations in data forever has to be left to experience. There are a lot of people working on using multivariate statistics/chemometrics/artificial neural networks in order to understand what a person does when they use experience to interpret large quantities of data with slight variations. Do you have any input on this treatment of forensic data? Helen Griffin ---------- From: Charles H. Brenner To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pyrolysis Date: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:27PM At 08:00 AM 4/4/01 -0700, John Lentini wrote: >Fred: > >The need for gathering every brand of paint ever >made and determining whether it might give the >same pyrogram exists only if someone is really >going to make some significant inferences from >the analysis. If then. I believe that the result "same pyrogram" might be usefully quantified even without a detailed study of various kinds of paint. For suppose that you tell me only this: that 90% of the time that you found "same pyrogram", the samples turned out to be identical (whatever that means). Then it is appropriate for me to use that average value (in technical terms, to infer a likelihood ratio of 90%/10% = 9) in any particular case wherein you testify to "same pyrogram". I assume that if you happen to know from your experience that (despite the lack of exhaustive and formal study) the kind of paint involved in some case is particularly generic and the overall 90% "exclusion" rate may be optimistic for that class of paints, you will warn me. Otherwise, it should be quite appropriate for me to evaluate the significance of the testimony based on averages. Charles Brenner forensic mathematics http://dna-view.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 17:53:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18335 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:53:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18330 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:53:42 -0400 (EDT) From: FBI1028@cs.com Received: from FBI1028@cs.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.29.12e93a84 (4469); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.12e93a84.27fe433b@cs.com> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:52:59 EDT Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 113 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk > Hello, my name is Todd, I'm a senior in high school. I was wondering if you > know anything about how a sarcomere shortens and gets longer in isotonic and > isometric movements. What about the Z-band, H-zone and I-bands? How about > troponin, tropomyosin, and actin play an important part in it? I'm so > confused. Please let me know if you can help me, I have to know this > information for a project. > > Thank, > TODD > From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 18:39:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18940 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [209.149.16.4] (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA18935 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:39:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by [209.149.16.4] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 5 Apr 2001 22:39:41 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:31:46 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: pyrolysis Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:31:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0BE20.3252EC20" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BE20.3252EC20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mr. Bowden's two cents are certainly worth another penny or two of mine. He is of course correct that I was speaking only of quadrupole electron impact MS, not chemical ionization, ion trap, time-of-flight, MS-MS, or any other method. My methodological bias as a drug analyst is showing, since quad EI is the mode of MS used in drug analysis 99% of the time (although switching to another ionization mode such as CI or negative ion EI can be helpful in bringing out additional details in difficult cases, if your instrument has that capability). It may very well be that a form of MS other than EI is more useful in paint analysis, at least in some instances. I would also agree that an MS specialist would be likely to provide a much better in-depth discussion of the nuances of MS than a lowly general drug analyst like me. ;) You'll have to forgive my oversimplification of a complex topic, but I wasn't prepared to give an in-depth dissertation of exactly how mass spec works, nor would many want to read it. For any interested in such specific details, I would refer them to McLafferty's "bible" as Mr. Bowden did. I would again agree that there are many factors to be considered in analyzing a mass spectrum, and I alluded to some of the parameters in EI MS that can influence what you see in the results. I would further agree that sensitivity of different mass spec detectors varies, based on many things including basic design, electron voltage, filament age, electron multiplier efficiency, and how many samples have gone through the system since you last cleaned the ion source (again, I'm most familiar with EI). But a difference in sensitivity affects only the limit of detection for ions produced, it doesn't affect the identity of the ions produced - i.e., using a less sensitive instrument you may not see all the ion peaks that a more sensitive instrument would show, but all the peaks seen in the less sensitive instrument will also be seen in the more sensitive one, plus additional peaks of too low abundance to be seen on the less sensitive instrument. There may be more peaks seen in the one spectrum versus the other, but there will be no DIFFERENT peaks, if you understand my meaning (again assuming same type of instrument). However, I would not agree that the mass spectrum is not a property of the compound's molecular structure. It most certainly is. I don't have the 4th edition of his text, but as McLafferty says in the Introduction to the 3rd edition, "...the basic purpose of the mass spectrometer is to convert the sample into measurable products that are indicative of the original molecule." Given specific MS parameters, the ion fragmentation pattern is a direct result of the molecular structure of the analyte species, and will be reproduced consistently under those same parameters. If that were not true, you could not interpret mass spectra to elucidate structure (ion fracture would be unpredictable)and you could not use literature spectra to identify unknowns, yet both these things can be, and are, routinely and properly done. Direct comparison of the MS of a known standard to that of your unknown on your own instrument under the same analytical conditions is certainly the best way to do an identification, and will produce the most nearly identical spectra for the same compound; but you can easily compare the quad EI MS of a drug (cocaine, e.g.) produced by an instrument in my laboratory to the published MS of that same drug produced by any quad EI MS in the world (assuming proper calibration), and still justifiably make a conclusive identification. I.e., the spectra will still "match" and any minor "differences" will be understandable, expected, and of no factually significant consequence. The point is that mass spectra via a given method of ionization are, by their nature and by the nature of chemical principles, consistently and reliably reproducible; not that they are absolutely identical every time. If I was unclear about that, I apologize. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: John P. Bowden [mailto:jaybow@att.net] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 01:54 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: pyrolysis Just my two cent worth regarding Mr. Parson's discussion of Mass Spectrometry. First an infrared spectrum of a chemical substance is a physical property attributable to that compound (and often its enantiomer). There are, of course, matrix effects because the materials often interact with the matrix. Perhaps this is why the IR spectra of dilute solutions is the most favored by practitioners of the method. Mass Spectrometry is anything but a property of the compound. The structure of the material certainly impacts the fragmentation pattern, but many other considerations are involved. Most mass spectrometers have built in electronic features, separate from the settings addressed in the "calibration" process. One traditional purpose for these was to make the mass spectra from quadrupole instruments look more like those from magnetic sector instruments. It should be remembered as well, calibration aside, that mass spec detectors are not equally as sensitive at different mass/charge ratios. There are many, many methods of ionization available in mass spectrometry. In referring to an electron beam, Bob is limiting his discussion to only one type of ion source, namely electron ionization (EI), more anciently called electron impact. The electron beam serves only to kick out an additional electron to form the molecular ion. Even with an average of 70eV electrons, not all electrons have the same energy (review Boltzmann distribution). The molecular ions produced have a wide range of energies. Quoting from the 'bible of mass spectrometry', Interpretation of Mass Spectra, 4th Ed., University Science Books, Mill Valley, 1993, authored by F. W. McLafferty and F. Turecek: "The initially formed [molecular ions] range from cold to 'red hot'; not surprisingly, these thus show a wide range of decomposition behavior." For a more detailed discussion of this subject see Chapter 7: "Theory of Unimolecular Ion Decompositions." Just as we have "professional chemists . . . making the final call," we should rely on a professional mass spectrometrist to explain the extremely complex physics of ion formation and decomposition. Separation and detection are also very complex processes. John P. Bowden Forensic Consultant Dum Spiro Spero ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BE20.3252EC20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mr. Bowden's two cents are certainly worth another penny or two of mine.  He is of course correct that I was speaking only of quadrupole electron impact MS, not chemical ionization, ion trap, time-of-flight, MS-MS, or any other method.  My methodological bias as a drug analyst is showing, since quad EI is the mode of MS used in drug analysis 99% of the time (although switching to another ionization mode such as CI or negative ion EI can be helpful in bringing out additional details in difficult cases, if your instrument has that capability).  It may very well be that a form of MS other than EI is more useful in paint analysis, at least in some instances.  I would also agree that an MS specialist would be likely to provide a much better in-depth discussion of the nuances of MS than a lowly general drug analyst like me. ;)  You'll have to forgive my oversimplification of a complex topic, but I wasn't prepared to give an in-depth dissertation of exactly how mass spec works, nor would many want to read it.  For any interested in such specific details, I would refer them to McLafferty's "bible" as Mr. Bowden did.
 
I would again agree that there are many factors to be considered in analyzing a mass spectrum, and I alluded to some of the parameters in EI MS that can influence what you see in the results.  I would further agree that sensitivity of different mass spec detectors varies, based on many things including basic design, electron voltage, filament age, electron multiplier efficiency, and how many samples have gone through the system since you last cleaned the ion source (again, I'm most familiar with EI).  But a difference in sensitivity affects only the limit of detection for ions produced, it doesn't affect the identity of the ions produced - i.e., using a less sensitive instrument you may not see all the ion peaks that a more sensitive instrument would show, but all the peaks seen in the less sensitive instrument will also be seen in the more sensitive one, plus additional peaks of too low abundance to be seen on the less sensitive instrument. There may be more peaks seen in the one spectrum versus the other, but there will be no DIFFERENT peaks, if you understand my meaning (again assuming same type of instrument).
 
However, I would not agree that the mass spectrum is not a property of the compound's molecular structure.  It most certainly is.  I don't have the 4th edition of his text, but as McLafferty says in the Introduction to the 3rd edition, "...the basic purpose of the mass spectrometer is to convert the sample into measurable products that are indicative of the original molecule."  Given specific MS parameters, the ion fragmentation pattern is a direct result of the molecular structure of the analyte species, and will be reproduced consistently under those same parameters.  If that were not true, you could not interpret mass spectra to elucidate structure (ion fracture would be unpredictable)and you could not use literature spectra to identify unknowns, yet both these things can be, and are, routinely and properly done. 
 
Direct comparison of the MS of a known standard to that of your unknown on your own instrument under the same analytical conditions is certainly the best way to do an identification, and will produce the most nearly identical spectra for the same compound; but you can easily compare the quad EI MS of a drug (cocaine, e.g.) produced by an instrument in my laboratory to the published MS of that same drug produced by any quad EI MS in the world (assuming proper calibration), and still justifiably make a conclusive identification.  I.e., the spectra will still "match" and any minor "differences" will be understandable, expected, and of no factually significant consequence.  The point is that mass spectra via a given method of ionization are, by their nature and by the nature of chemical principles, consistently and reliably reproducible; not that they are absolutely identical every time.  If I was unclear about that, I apologize.
 

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

-----Original Message-----
From: John P. Bowden [mailto:jaybow@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 01:54
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: pyrolysis

Just my two cent worth regarding Mr. Parson's discussion of Mass Spectrometry. First an infrared spectrum of a chemical substance is a physical property attributable to that compound (and often its enantiomer). There are, of course, matrix effects because the materials often interact with the matrix. Perhaps this is why the IR spectra of dilute solutions is the most favored by practitioners of the method.

Mass Spectrometry is anything but a property of the compound. The structure of the material certainly impacts the fragmentation pattern, but many other considerations are involved.

Most mass spectrometers have built in electronic features, separate from the settings addressed in the "calibration" process. One traditional purpose for these was to make the mass spectra from quadrupole instruments look more like those from magnetic sector instruments.

It should be remembered as well, calibration aside, that mass spec detectors are not equally as sensitive at different mass/charge ratios.

There are many, many methods of ionization available in mass spectrometry. In referring to an electron beam, Bob is limiting his discussion to only one type of ion source, namely electron ionization (EI), more anciently called electron impact. The electron beam serves only to kick out an additional electron to form the molecular ion. Even with an average of 70eV electrons, not all electrons have the same energy (review Boltzmann distribution). The molecular ions produced have a wide range of energies.

Quoting from the 'bible of mass spectrometry', Interpretation of Mass Spectra, 4th Ed., University Science Books, Mill Valley, 1993, authored by F. W. McLafferty and F. Turecek: "The initially formed [molecular ions] range from cold to 'red hot'; not surprisingly, these thus show a wide range of decomposition behavior." For a more detailed discussion of this subject see Chapter 7: "Theory of Unimolecular Ion Decompositions."

Just as we have "professional chemists . . . making the final call," we should rely on a professional mass spectrometrist to explain the extremely complex physics of ion formation and decomposition. Separation and detection are also very complex processes.

John P. Bowden
Forensic Consultant
Dum Spiro Spero

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BE20.3252EC20-- From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 19:57:01 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19925 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net (dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net [129.250.36.42]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19920 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 19:57:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [129.250.38.62] (helo=dfw-mmp2.email.verio.net) by dfw-smtpout2.email.verio.net with esmtp id 14lJca-0004u8-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:57:00 +0000 Received: from [168.191.206.146] (helo=roo.dna-view.com) by dfw-mmp2.email.verio.net with esmtp id 14lJcZ-0000W3-00 for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:56:59 +0000 Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010405163948.00b0b810@pop.ncal.verio.com> X-Sender: cbrenner@pop.ncal.verio.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:57:42 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Charles H. Brenner" Subject: Re: pyrolysis In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010404230902.00aba220@pop.ncal.verio.com> References: <20010404150015.91788.qmail@web13307.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In my zeal to present a simple approach, at 11:27 PM 4/4/01 -0700, I claimed: >For suppose that you tell me only this: that 90% of the time that you >found "same pyrogram", the samples turned out to be identical (whatever >that means). Then it is appropriate for me to use that average value (in >technical terms, to infer a likelihood ratio of 90%/10% = 9) in any >particular case wherein you testify to "same pyrogram". Bill Thompson has kindly pointed out to me that this is too simple. To make a likelihood ratio, it seems unavoidable to consider separately the rate of "same pyrogram" results among identical samples (this rate may be 100%), and most especially the rate among non-identical samples. Estimating those two rates may not be difficult, but probably is more difficult than what I originally had in mind. I hope that part of my point -- the idea that it is appropriate to use average statistics when they represent all the information that is available -- remains valid. Regards to all, Charles Brenner From forens-owner Thu Apr 5 23:16:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22334 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (host191006.arnet.net.ar [200.45.191.6] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA22329 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:16:29 -0400 (EDT) From: FBI1028@cs.com Received: (qmail 25732 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2001 00:40:32 -0000 Received: from host000020.arnet.net.ar (HELO smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.20) by host191006.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 6 Apr 2001 00:40:32 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:31:43 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.677.67); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:55:40 -0300 Received: (qmail 16408 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2001 21:54:44 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 5 Apr 2001 21:54:44 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA18376; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:53:43 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA18335 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:53:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18330 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from FBI1028@cs.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 7.29.12e93a84 (4469); Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.12e93a84.27fe433b@cs.com> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:52:59 EDT Subject: Re: pyrolysis To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, kjessling@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 113 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk > Hello, my name is Todd, I'm a senior in high school. I was wondering if you > know anything about how a sarcomere shortens and gets longer in isotonic and > isometric movements. What about the Z-band, H-zone and I-bands? How about > troponin, tropomyosin, and actin play an important part in it? I'm so > confused. Please let me know if you can help me, I have to know this > information for a project. > > Thank, > TODD > From forens-owner Fri Apr 6 15:36:56 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA05253 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:36:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cursor02.cursor.hr ([213.149.43.2]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05248 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 15:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mega ([213.149.36.225]) by cursor02.cursor.hr (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.5) with SMTP id 2001040621480655:32019 ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:48:06 +0200 Message-ID: <001001c0be08$2b3233a0$e12495d5@mega> From: "Janko" To: "forensic discussion group" Subject: Electric shock death Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 21:38:55 +0200 Organization: private MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Cursor02/Web/Cursor(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 06.04.2001 21:48:08, Serialize by Router on Cursor02/Web/Cursor(Release 5.0.5 |September 22, 2000) at 06.04.2001 21:48:15, Serialize complete at 06.04.2001 21:48:15 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0BE18.D343C3A0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0BE18.D343C3A0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Do anybody know a example or case that the death occurs caused by the = electric shock produced by the police forces or similar electric shock = baton ??? That's a relevant question in one case on the Court in Zagreb. Prof Jelic, Zagreb, Croatia janko.jelic@cursor.hr ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0BE18.D343C3A0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2"
Do  anybody know a example or case that  = the=20 death occurs caused by the electric shock produced by the police = forces or=20 similar electric shock baton ??? That's a relevant question in one = case on=20 the Court in Zagreb.
 
Prof Jelic, Zagreb, Croatia
 
janko.jelic@cursor.hr ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0BE18.D343C3A0-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 6 23:51:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA11171 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:51:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.inland.net (ns1.inland.net [207.155.59.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA11166 for ; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from user (iii-pm3-1-38.inland.net [209.85.112.53]) by ns1.inland.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA05944; Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004301c0bf16$33fbce60$357055d1@inland.net> From: "M. Horton" To: "John P. Bowden" , "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" References: <3AC08A57.D01CAD01@hotmail.com> <3AC0E75C.F7D2F93E@att.net> <3AC117A3.2D1B12E0@att.net> Subject: Forensic Grant Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 20:52:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0040_01C0BEDB.86B380C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C0BEDB.86B380C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm presently writing a grant to get resources to write a laboratory = manual with high school level, authentic forensics labs. All of the = books out there are either too elementary or too fake. I have two = requests: 1) The grant is mostly for professional development. Are there = conferences, college courses, etc. in the Southern California or at = least South Western United States that may be helpful to me? If = possible, please give approximate dates and admission prices. 2) I know that I can always turn to this list for answers, but are there = a few people who would allow me to contact them frequently to overlook = what I'm doing and provide professional feedback? Again, Southern = California would be nice so that we may meet face-to-face occasionally = and I might be able to come to the lab and see the procedures first = hand. I've already begun to use some of these labs this year and would like to = develop more and make them more professional. The ones that I've done = so far are: Kastle-Meyer, Paper Chromatography, Thin-Layer = Chromatography, HPLC Simulation, Polarizing Microscope examination, = index of refraction, and several toxicology type unknown analyses. The = kids love it and they are really labs that I've always done, just with a = new and interesting slant. Thanks in advance, M. Horton Physics/Chem. Teacher, Dept. Chair Perris High School Perris, CA ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C0BEDB.86B380C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm presently writing a grant to get resources to = write a=20 laboratory manual with high school level, authentic forensics = labs.  All of=20 the books out there are either too elementary or too fake.  I have = two=20 requests:
1) The grant is mostly for professional = development.  Are=20 there conferences, college courses, etc. in the Southern California or = at least=20 South Western United States that may be helpful to me?  If = possible, please=20 give approximate dates and admission prices.
 
2) I know that I can always turn to this list for = answers, but=20 are there a few people who would allow me to contact them frequently to = overlook=20 what I'm doing and provide professional feedback?  Again, Southern=20 California would be nice so that we may meet face-to-face occasionally = and I=20 might be able to come to the lab and see the procedures first = hand.
 
I've already begun to use some of these labs this = year and=20 would like to develop more and make them more professional.  The = ones that=20 I've done so far are: Kastle-Meyer, Paper Chromatography, Thin-Layer=20 Chromatography, HPLC Simulation, Polarizing Microscope examination, = index of=20 refraction, and several toxicology type unknown analyses.  The kids = love it=20 and they are really labs that I've always done, just with a new and = interesting=20 slant.
Thanks in advance,
M. Horton
Physics/Chem. Teacher, Dept. = Chair
Perris High=20 School
Perris, CA
------=_NextPart_000_0040_01C0BEDB.86B380C0-- From forens-owner Sun Apr 8 02:47:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA26217 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:47:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (oe48.law12.hotmail.com [64.4.18.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA26212 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:47:23 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [62.212.46.101] From: "Michael Martynenko" To: "Janko" Cc: References: <001001c0be08$2b3233a0$e12495d5@mega> Subject: Re: Electric shock death Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 12:41:24 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0044_01C0C029.38C376A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2001 06:47:23.0716 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4469040:01C0BFF7] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C0C029.38C376A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some times ago Knobloh have described death of driver caused by = electricity impact from the car. The characteristics are the same as in = electric shock button - high V and law A. As for my, I think that the = death was caused by cardiovascular pathology.=20 The chief of medical examiners' office Tel.:(73512)753175 Michael Martynenko ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Janko=20 To: forensic discussion group=20 Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 1:38 AM Subject: Electric shock death Do anybody know a example or case that the death occurs caused by = the electric shock produced by the police forces or similar eleshock = baton ctric ??? That's a relevant question in one case on the Court in = Zagreb. =20 Prof Jelic, Zagreb, Croatia =20 janko.jelic@cursor.hr ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C0C029.38C376A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Some=20 times ago Knobloh have described death of driver caused by electricity = impact=20 from the car. The characteristics  are the same as in electric = shock button=20  – high V and law A. = As for my, I=20 think that the death was caused by cardiovascular=20 pathology. 
 The chief of medical examiners' = office
Tel.:(73512)753175
 Michael = Martynenko
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Janko=20
To: forensic=20 discussion group
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 = 1:38=20 AM
Subject: Electric shock = death

Do  anybody know a example or case that  = the=20 death occurs caused by the electric shock produced by the police = forces=20 or similar eleshock baton ctric ??? That's a relevant question in = one=20 case on the Court in Zagreb.
 
Prof Jelic, Zagreb, Croatia
 
janko.jelic@cursor.hr ------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C0C029.38C376A0-- From forens-owner Sun Apr 8 14:01:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01999 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:01:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01994 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:01:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esmefluff (ip72.indianapolis17.in.pub-ip.psi.net [38.33.134.72]) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA14971 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013c01c0c06d$44f8d3e0$48862126@esmefluff> From: "Deborah M. Nolan" To: Subject: shockbelt issue Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 13:48:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0139_01C0C032.9731E060" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C0C032.9731E060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Does anybody know how to contact Professor Jelic? I attempted to email = him at the address below (twice) and the messages were returned as = undeliverable because of fatal address errors. Thanks, Deborah Do anybody know a example or case that the death occurs caused by the = electric shock produced by the police forces or similar electric shock = baton ??? That's a relevant question in one case on the Court in Zagreb. =20 Prof Jelic, Zagreb, Croatia =20 janko.jelic@cursor.hr "I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish He=20 didn't trust me so much." - Mother Teresa ------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C0C032.9731E060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Does anybody know how to contact Professor = Jelic? =20 I attempted to email him at the address below (twice) and the messages = were=20 returned as undeliverable because of fatal address errors.
 
Thanks,
Deborah
 
 
Do  anybody know a example or case that  = the=20 death occurs caused by the electric shock produced by the police = forces or=20 similar electric shock baton ??? That's a relevant question in one = case on=20 the Court in Zagreb.
 
Prof Jelic, Zagreb, Croatia
 
janko.jelic@cursor.hr
 
"I know God will not give me anything I can't = handle. I=20 just wish He
didn't trust me so much."     - = Mother=20 Teresa
------=_NextPart_000_0139_01C0C032.9731E060-- From forens-owner Sun Apr 8 19:59:15 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA05278 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:59:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f302.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.30.177]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA05273 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 16:58:37 -0700 Received: from 35.12.7.34 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Apr 2001 23:58:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [35.12.7.34] From: "Kelly Esslinger" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Compilation of responses on Pyrolysis Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 19:58:37 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2001 23:58:37.0808 (UTC) FILETIME=[D41BBF00:01C0C087] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk
Thank you to everyone who responded to my question.  For those who are interested...here are the compiled responses I received.  I'm pleased it sparked such a great discussion!
Regards,
Kelly Esslinger
______________________________________________________________
If you  were to change the ramp time and/or temperature for pyrolysis GC-MS (after
every run)....and you did several trials with the same evidence (paint
chips for example from the same source) to see what may happen to your
results.....(and you can change the time/temp slightly or drastically since
you are doing several trials)

What could happen as a result to your analysis? (i.e what would you expect
to see in each instance?)
Thanks for any and all imput!
Kelly

_____________________________________________________________

Kelly
I have wondered the same thing myself. Using paint as an example, we know
that paint is not just paint but a vast number of different kinds of
materials under the heading of "coatings." Trade paints are different from
automotive paints which are different from marine paints and so on. We
developed pyrolysis/GC/MS years ago for paints that might not even still
exist today. So how do we know that the old protocols still work on the new
paints when we are comparing two paint samples. If we use the same settings
on our py/gc/ms on automotive paints as we do on house paint, do we get the
right answer to the question that asks if the two paints could have
originated from the same source. Who has established and validated the paint
analysis protocols for forensic paint analysis for the new paint systems that
are put on the market continually to satisfy the Volatile Organic Compound
regulations of the Clean Air Act?

For what it is worth, if you change the settings on the py/gc/ms, pyrolysis
step you can get different data. You just have to collect the data to
satisfy yourself on your own system.
Fred Whitehurst

____________________________________________________________

Kelly, It would be a good experiment for you to do. Try to only change one
parameter at a time though. It has been a long time since I performed
pyrolysis, but here are some thoughts. I like to think of mass spec with the
analogy of crushing a bag of walnuts with a hammer. Too large a hammer (high
electron volts) will pulverize the walnuts into nut-meal that looks like all
other nut-meals. A hammer too small (low electron volts) will not break any
of the walnuts open. If we do not break any walnuts open we do not know if
they are walnuts are fakes made to look like walnuts. Ideally we use a
hammer (~70 evolts) that will leave some whole nuts, and some cracked open
nuts of various sizes.

Pyrolysis temperatures are the hammers used before injection. A pyrolysis
temperature too high will break the material too much and cause the
"nut-meal" effect. A temperature too low will not produce volatile products
that chromatograph easily. Temperature ramp times were kept high to produce
a tight plug entering the column instead of a slow bleeding injection that
would degrade resolution. A stepped ramp may release entrained volatiles
before pyrolysis. Our goal was to get chromatograms with many peaks in our
region of interest. First and second generation pyrolyzers were used. Sample
size, placement, contact, etc. were all facets to control.

Very early Illinois sent out a round robin on white automotive paints.
Although the labs did well in differentiating the paints, there was no
standardization.

I encourage you to experiment and document. Remember, even experiments that
do not work are noteworthy and valuable.

EarlNMeyer@aol.com

______________________________________________________

Usually the pyrolysis used for analytical purpose is called "flash" pyrolysis because there is in fact no real temperature ramp.

The problem you have in a Py-GC-MS is that you do not want (except for some special application) have an injection of compounds in your GC that will last 30 minutes. You want to concentrate as much as possible and be sure that the span of injection is very short, otherwise your chromatographic resolution will severely suffer.

Now, "flash" pyrolysis is called so since the ramp temperature goes up to 10'000 ™C per s. In other terms, it is an instanteneous application of the temperature to the item, so it pyrolyze almost instantaneously and inject all the volatiles at once into your GC.

Designing a ramp temperature in the pyrolyzer is something that should be easily done, however you need to know for what purpose first. Do not forget that if your sample is made of different compounds pyrolyzing at different temperatures, they will not be injected into the GC at the same time if you use a ramping pyrolysis and thus you will have something like a two-dimensional separation (pyrolysis ramp + GC). However, these two dimensions will not be represented on your chromatogram.

Furthermore, pyrolysis products of a pure substance will depend on the temperature of the pyrolysis and you will observe different products at different temperatures. SO, if you use a ramp, the same substance if not completely pyrolysis at the beginning may give you different products along the time.

Refer to Applied pyrolysis handbook, by Thomas Wampler, Marcel Dekker for more information.

Hope this helps,

Regards,

Eric

_____________________________________________________________________

Of course, the answer is that you know whether or not it works by trying it with known standards. Whether you go through a process you formally call "validation" or not, in every case you always compare unknown samples to known standards run under the same conditions. After all, what "validation" of a test method really boils down to is nothing more than running test samples of known standards and seeing if you can discriminate between them consistently, so if you routinely run comparison standards in every analysis then in a way you are performing a kind of validation every time you do the analysis. I don't do pyrolysis work, but I have a modicum of knowledge about it and it seems to me (as an experienced analytical chemist) that if you analyze two paint samples with the same pyrolysis program, GC program, and MS conditions, and it produces the same total ion chromatograms with the same retention times, and furthermore, the mass spectra of the ion peaks in the TICs reveal that the same pyrolysates (combustion products) have been produced, then you have demonstrated that the two paint samples are either the same formulation or are two formulations that for some reason produce the exact same pyrolysis products. I don't know the likelihood of the latter, since I'm not a paint analyst, but it seems highly unlikely and would depend on how similar the different paint formulations are. If they're not identical, it seems to me that they're not likely to produce identical pyrolysis products in an identical pattern (just as no two different chemical compounds can produce the exact same mass spectra, because the fracture pattern depends on the specific chemical structure; and under the same conditions, ion fracture of the same compound will proceed exactly the same way every time; while the fracture of a different compound will proceed in way which is different from the first compound's pattern to exactly the same extent, every time). Pyrolysis GC/MS is a very powerful chemical discrimination technique, and in knowledgeable hands is unlikely to lead one astray.

Just as structure of individual compounds dictates their molecular fracture into the ion pattern of a mass spectrum, structure of individual components of a particular chemical mixture (formulation) of paint will dictate the pyrolysis products/patterns that burning that mixture will produce. The fact that the combustion process is known to and carefully controlled by the analyst makes the process fairly straight forward and predictable. By "predictable," I mean that pyrolysis analysis results are highly reproducible, and the combustion products of that analysis make sense from a chemical pathway standpoint. Pyrolysis produces a series of oxidation reactions which proceed in a certain way according to the natural laws of organic chemistry, and which cannot proceed otherwise. Identical pyrolysis of different individual compounds producing exactly the same products seems unlikely enough, but given that paints are complex mixtures of compounds the chances against different mixtures producing the same products in the same pattern must be astronomical. No, I haven't calculated those odds (I wouldn't know how to, since I know little about paint formulations), but my conclusion is based on understanding how chemical reactions work. Two different reactants cannot produce the exact same reaction products through the exact same process (much less two different mixtures of many different reactants producing identical products). To produce the same product, either the two reactants must be the same to begin with or the processes the two reactants are subjected to have to be different (i.e. follow different pathways to the same end result). That's the nature of chemical reactions.

That's how I see it, for what it's worth. Pyrolysis GC experts and paint analysts - I'm daring to discuss something outside my area of personal expertise again, so if I've gone astray somewhere please point it out to me and everyone else so we can all learn something.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

_________________________________________________________________________

Bob
What is a "known" paint standard. What does it mean to be "known." Must we
know all the components or simply know the origin? What is the likelihood
that two paint samples which give the same pyrogram will be the same? What
is the error rate of opining that they are the same? Where did we get that
error rate? I know that you have said that you do not have that information.
Does anyone on this list have that information? Do we settle for the
pyrogram being the same? Then why do we saddle the analyst with the "MS" in
the py-GC/MS? And if we use the mass spec should we compare the mass spectra
of the different pyrolyzates indicated by the pyrogram of total ion counts
from the different species eluting. And if we do compare the mass spectra,
how many of those spectra do we compare before the error rate is brought down
to an "acceptable" level if we neglect comparison of some of those spectra?

I agree that intuitively it would seem that a very "busy" pyrogram matching
another very busy pyrogram would indicate that the two materials were of the
same composition. Do we run off gut feelings or articulated reasoning beyond
"hunch."
Fred Whitehurst

__________________________________________________________________________

Wed, April 4, 2001

Fred: The need for gathering every brand of paint ever made and determining whether it might give the same pyrogram exists only if someone is really going to make some significant inferences from the analysis. Many forensic examinations result in an "exclusion" of the trace evidence from the known source as the origin of the trace evidence from the suspect. Certainly, you would not question the validity of such exclusions, even in the absence of an empirically determined "error rate." If the only conclusion that the forensic scientist reaches is "Using this method of analysis, I cannot eliminate the suspect's car as the source of the paint on the victim," it seems to me that it is not necessary to survey the known universe to determine the frequency of occurrance of paints that also cannot be excluded. In almost all cases, there is much other background evidence (that which lead the police to the subject), as well as other chemical evidence (SEM/EDX, solubility, color tests, etc.). The technique of pyrolysis/gc/ms is a powerful tool. To answer the original question, changing pyrolysis parameters will likely cause different pyrograms. If the questioned and known are indistinguishable under two different pyrolysis programs, that is another point of similarity, or another attempt to make a distinction that failed.

Bob Parsons

_____________________________________________________________________

Wed, April 4, 2001

Bob

Suppose that one stops short with py-GC/MS of comparing the mass spectra of
the materials found in the pyrogram. Of course you and I would wonder why
would one then use the mass spec. But if indeed the mass spec is being used
as simply a very expensive nonspecific detector, how much error would that
introduce into the process? We have pyrograms that appear to be the same.
And very complex, of course. So why do we need the mass spec?

Fred Whitehurst

___________________________________________________________________________

Wed, April 4, 2001

Bob
A problem you run into is that no two spectra taken of the same material will
be exactly alike. So how much difference is different when comparing two
different materials subjected to pyrolysis conditions?
Fred Whitehurst

_________________________________________________________________________

April 4, 2001

While pyrolysis gc or gc/ms are excellent tools in examining such things as binders and polymers that make up paint, data from such instruments should not be considered only as part of the paint analysis scheme. Very useful data will come from micro/FTIR instrumentation as well as heaven forbid, polarized light microscopic examination. I think that we are immersing ourselves in an instrumental analysis quagmire, and forgetting or worse, eliminating classical microscopic/chemical analyses that allow for excellent dicriminatory observations. I suppose that if you dont wave a chart around with rather ambiguous spectral data then you haven't "scientifically" demonstrated anything. Gee, sometimes I look into a microscopes ocular and can say, Hey! These samples don't look anything alike." As far as I am aware, one can only determine if the paints are consistent and could share a common source by the aforementioned analytical technique, not that they were actually from a specific source. Of course if you have a physical "match", an examiner with a hand lens his providing better information than the guy with the $90,000 instrument and the compressed spectral library he paid handsomely for.

Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division

___________________________________________________________________

Wed, April 4, 2001

WARNING - LONG DISCUSSION (at least it's been a while)......

Fred,

"Known" means you know the origin. You don't necessarily have to know (and may not be able to know) all the components. That's why you characterize it during the analysis. You then base conclusions on that chemical characterization in comparison to the characterization of the unknown. If the degree of characterization is sufficiently discriminatory in your professional judgment, soundly based on the laws of chemistry, then you can make discriminating conclusions.

We've had similar discussions before, and I'm afraid I have to repeat myself: not all things are quantifiable, and not all error rates are determinable. The last time this conversation came up, someone pointed out that paint formulations change so rapidly that it's impossible to build a database that would be complete enough to determine valid error rates, because there would always be plenty of samples encountered in cases with formulations not yet in the database. Even if you could build a database with every single paint ever produced in it, and demonstrated that your analytical method could successfully distinguish between every single pair of paints in that database, in every possible combination, with a zero error rate, you still could not rule out a misidentification involving a new paint never before analyzed. If you can't determine an error rate, does that mean information gleaned from the analysis of these paints is without value? Of course not. When you have insufficient data to allow you to calculate a specific error rate (or an objective likelihood/frequency of match figure), then you fall back on sound logical reasoning based on established scientific principles. I'll give you an example. Can forensic chemists absolutely prove through hard experimental data that there is no other chemical compound in existence that produces a mass spectrum identical to that of cocaine? No we can't, because not every chemical compound in existence has been analyzed by mass spectroscopy, not every chemical compound extant is even known to us, and new compounds are created every day. But we can still confidently and unequivocally state that no other compound will produce the exact same mass spectrum because our knowledge of the laws of chemistry tell us that is so. Two different chemical structures cannot produce identical mass fragments, because if the whole molecules are not identical, than neither can all the fragments of those molecules be identical.

Pyrolysis GC/MS can be applied in the same fashion. Py-GC-MS is even more discriminating than MS would be alone, because it adds retention times and a pyrogram to the data set; likewise, it is more discriminating than py-GC alone would be. But whether you do py-GC alone or py-GC-MS, as Greg pointed out it's still not the only exam you do - you add those results to the results of microscopic exams, solubility tests, fracture matches, IR spectroscopy, and whatever else you need to characterize the sample you're dealing with. You do multiple types of tests based on different principles because they not only give you more total data, they tend to compensate for each others' weaknesses, excluding each others' possible false positives or negatives, thereby giving you more reliable and conclusive results. That's why you may not just "settle for the pyrogram being the same" in some cases - the mass spectra of the component peaks in the pyrogram give you additional data above and beyond that contained in the pyrogram alone. When py-GC-MS is being done, I seriously doubt the MS is just being used as an overpriced detector - it's being specifically used for the extra data that mass spectra provide. It's akin to the movement towards GC/MS in fire debris analysis instead of relying on GC alone. In most cases, the GC alone will conclusively identify the class of your flammable liquid residue (because the capillary chromatogram will be sufficiently complex to do that), but in some cases, the additional discriminating power afforded by identifying some of the individual components (peaks) in the chromatogram will be needed. Likewise, py-GC-MS offers additional discriminating power over py-GC alone. Is py-GC alone sufficient in some, many, or even most cases? It may well be, but I don't know because it's not my field and my experience regarding it is limited. It may be a case where you are not trying to identify a specific substance but rather are trying to see if it is different from comparison standards in some demonstrable way; i.e., whether you can include or exclude it as a possible "match." If it isn't different in a demonstrable way (if you can't demonstrate an exclusion), that is an inclusion - and an inclusion can be useful information even if you can't identify exactly what the analyte is. In any event, a standard principle in analytical chemistry is that you never rely on just one type of exam for an identification (or a determination of inclusion). You're always going to do another type of exam for corroboration.

You ask "How many mass spectra in the pyrogram are compared?" That's a good question, and I suspect it's dictated by experience and expertise in the specialty. In fire debris analysis, a well-trained, experienced examiner knows where the potential "problem" areas are with regard to a possibly ambiguous chromatogram, and he or she will compare the mass spectra of those suspect peaks to make the distinction. Other peaks that research and experience have shown do not introduce ambiguity into a chromatographic pattern identification do not routinely have their mass spectra compared. I suspect it is the same with pyrograms - only those peaks in the pyrogram which have reason to be suspect or which are considered tell-tale "markers" are compared by their mass spectra. (Am I right, paint analysts?).

As far as "no two spectra taken of the same material will be exactly alike," that is both true and false. It's true that no two measurements of any kind will be EXACTLY (to an infinite decimal point) the same. But there is a point beyond which a miniscule difference has no significance and is effectively no difference at all. Recognizing significant from insignificant "differences" is where professional expertise comes in. Examples: If you're talking IR spectra, the concentration, crystalline matrix effects in a KBr pellet (how well you grind it), and water content of the sample, and instrument calibration differences, can cause shifts in amplitude of the peaks, sharpness/resolution of the peaks, and maybe even subtle, small shifts in wavelength readings, but for the same organic compound the proportional relationships between the peaks (on both axes) will be the same, as will the overall pattern of peaks, every single time. In MS, different tuning parameters, EM voltage settings, etc., can cause changes in relative amplitude of the signals for ion peaks in the mass spectrum; in rare cases where the two largest ion peaks are of very similar abundance and widely separated in mass, differential tuning (favoring one portion of the mass range over another in sensitivity) may even change which of the two is assigned as the base peak; but if the instrument is working properly (as determined by running calibration samples), then the mass assignments of all the ions and the overall pattern of the mass spectrum will be the same, every single time. Yes there may be very minor, spurious peaks attributable to background noise (column bleed, etc.) that will vary from run to run, and if you have too dilute a sample, you may not see some of the smallest peaks from the ions of lowest abundance that you would see in a more concentrated sample, but none of this is due to differences in the mass spectrum of the analyte - the mass spectrum (ion fragmentation pattern) of the analyte itself WILL be the same, every time, if the conditions are the same. An electron beam at a specific energy level striking a cloud of molecules of a specific compound will fragment those molecules into the same combination of ions, with the same relative abundances, every single time (the same bonds break, forming the same ions, at the same frequencies). You can't change that without changing the chemical structure of the original analyte itself. Oh sure, if you take the measured percentages of each ion species present out to enough decimal places, you'll eventually find a random difference, but those differences will be insignificantly small and are due to imperfections in the instrument's ability to measure and quantify the relative abundances to that level (again, no measurement can be 100% accurate). Such differences are understandable, explainable (accounted for), and are of no consequence. The point is, a well-trained and experienced analyst knows which differences are relevant (true differences) and which are not. That's why you have professional chemists, not machines and not lab techs, making the final call.

Yes we can quantify many things, and institute many statistical methodologies to assist us in professional decision making, but we'll never entirely eliminate subjective professional judgment from the mix. We live in a world that tries to reduce everything to a neat, easily understandable, and unmistakably objective number, and which demands an unequivocal "yes" or "no" to every question, but only those ignorant of science think that it's as simple as all that. Science isn't black and white - if it were, you could give any reasonably intelligent person an analytical "recipe card" to follow, and they'd get the right answers without any science education at all. It doesn't work that way - scientific processes and conclusions are conditional, and require the unquantifiable professional judgment of well-educated scientists. Like it or not, all analyses call for a degree of human interpretation and professional judgment, and those things just can't be neatly reduced to numbers. At some point, you still have to rely on the scientist's professional expertise for an answer, and sometimes the answer is no more definite than "maybe" or "it depends."

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From forens-owner Sun Apr 8 20:13:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05504 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f138.pav1.hotmail.com [64.4.31.138]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05499 for ; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 20:13:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:13:06 -0700 Received: from 35.12.7.34 by pv1fd.pav1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:13:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [35.12.7.34] From: "Kelly Esslinger" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: More paint Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 20:13:05 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2001 00:13:06.0088 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9A4C280:01C0C089] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk
Hello again list members,
I have another question to ask paint examiners...or anyone who would like to venture out of their field.  If one were asked to analyze a paint smear on clothing, what is the best method to remove the paint for analysis?  What about a piece of wood...like from a door or window?  If you're to compare the paint from these two items, do you need to use the same method of "removal" for both samples?
Thanks again for any help you can give!
Kelly
 

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From forens-owner Mon Apr 9 09:26:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12646 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:26:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12641 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:26:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [home ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:23:53 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [home ] >From forens-owner Sat Apr 7 08:23:52 2001 Received: from mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15634 for ; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:23:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.net ([12.89.11.210]) by mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with ESMTP id <20010407122321.VEJN1582.mtiwmhc28.worldnet.att.net@att.net>; Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:23:21 +0000 Message-ID: <3ACECE39.B16EE74F@att.net> Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 08:22:21 +0000 From: home X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Janko CC: forensic discussion group Subject: Re: Electric shock death References: <001001c0be08$2b3233a0$e12495d5@mega> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "In July 1996, a 29-year-old woman, Kimberly Lashon Watkins, died in Pomona, California, after being shot by police with a taser - a hand-held device which shoots two barbed hooks attached to wires into the victim through which a high voltage current is transmitted." Prof Jelic - I found the above story on the Amnesty International USA web site: http://www.amnesty-usa.org/rightsforall/stun/, using a search engine query for "stun-gun deaths". There seem to be numerous stories on the web site about abuses involving this and other less-than- lethal weapons. Good luck, Brad Brown Janko wrote: > Do anybody know a example or case that the death occurs caused by > the electric shock produced by the police forces or similar electric > shock baton ??? That's a relevant question in one case on the Court in > Zagreb. Prof Jelic, Zagreb, Croatia janko.jelic@cursor.hr From forens-owner Mon Apr 9 11:25:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15210 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15205 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:25:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jnh3 (user-2initvb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.119.235]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00432 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20010409082306.00a11a20@popd.calicopress.com> X-Sender: john@popd.calicopress.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:26:03 -0700 To: From: John Houde Subject: Lab Manual for CRIME LAB In-Reply-To: <013c01c0c06d$44f8d3e0$48862126@esmefluff> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Fellow List Members We are considering publishing a laboratory manual to accompany our book, "CRIME LAB: A Guide for Nonscientists" that would be targeted at the advanced high school/junior college age group. Any comments regarding scope, topics, or your favorite lab exercise would be appreciated! John Houde ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From forens-owner Mon Apr 9 12:18:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA16172 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.227]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA16167 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id f39GI1519636 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-1.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id f39GI0X19614 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Mon, 09 Apr 2001 09:17:58 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 09:17:56 -0700 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 09:17:31 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: jaybow@att.net, scitch@inland.net, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Forensic Grant MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 16CF3F3C892623-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id MAA16168 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE) annual training seminar is in Newport Beach this July. Check out the information you will need at: http://www.afte.org/ Jim James L. Roberts Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> "M. Horton" 04/06/01 08:52PM >>> I'm presently writing a grant to get resources to write a laboratory manual with high school level, authentic forensics labs. All of the books out there are either too elementary or too fake. I have two requests: 1) The grant is mostly for professional development. Are there conferences, college courses, etc. in the Southern California or at least South Western United States that may be helpful to me? If possible, please give approximate dates and admission prices. 2) I know that I can always turn to this list for answers, but are there a few people who would allow me to contact them frequently to overlook what I'm doing and provide professional feedback? Again, Southern California would be nice so that we may meet face-to-face occasionally and I might be able to come to the lab and see the procedures first hand. I've already begun to use some of these labs this year and would like to develop more and make them more professional. The ones that I've done so far are: Kastle-Meyer, Paper Chromatography, Thin-Layer Chromatography, HPLC Simulation, Polarizing Microscope examination, index of refraction, and several toxicology type unknown analyses. The kids love it and they are really labs that I've always done, just with a new and interesting slant. Thanks in advance, M. Horton Physics/Chem. Teacher, Dept. Chair Perris High School Perris, CA From forens-owner Wed Apr 11 08:35:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18799 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA18794 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:35:05 -0400 (EDT) From: FBI1028@cs.com Received: from FBI1028@cs.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 5.c8.131bcbb8 (4422); Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:34:25 EDT Subject: Re: Lab Manual for CRIME LAB To: john@calicopress.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 113 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hello, I have a new screen name. Please forward all new mail to that address. Thank you. Here is the address: MrGQ28@CS.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 11 10:02:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA20554 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (host191006.arnet.net.ar [200.45.191.6] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA20549 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 6063 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 04:24:57 -0000 Received: from host000020.arnet.net.ar (HELO smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.20) by host191006.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 04:24:57 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:21:31 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by mail2.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.677.67); Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:26:28 -0300 Received: (qmail 10914 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2001 15:26:27 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 9 Apr 2001 15:26:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA15252; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:25:41 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15210 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:25:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15205 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:25:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jnh3 (user-2initvb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.119.235]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA00432 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 11:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20010409082306.00a11a20@popd.calicopress.com> X-Sender: john@popd.calicopress.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:26:03 -0700 To: From: John Houde Subject: Lab Manual for CRIME LAB In-Reply-To: <013c01c0c06d$44f8d3e0$48862126@esmefluff> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Fellow List Members We are considering publishing a laboratory manual to accompany our book, "CRIME LAB: A Guide for Nonscientists" that would be targeted at the advanced high school/junior college age group. Any comments regarding scope, topics, or your favorite lab exercise would be appreciated! John Houde ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From forens-owner Mon Apr 16 06:49:29 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA29301 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 06:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f140.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.140]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA29296 for ; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 06:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 03:48:58 -0700 Received: from 205.165.118.151 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:48:58 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.165.118.151] From: "Lonnette Kendoll" To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: News Articles re Fingerprinting Reliability Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 05:48:58 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2001 10:48:58.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[D70222F0:01C0C662] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On April 27, 2001 mention was made in a New York Times article of a Richard Jackson being cleared of a murder conviction in Philadelphia in 1999 because three latent print examiners had erroneously matched his prints to those found at the scene and of a similar reversal that occurred in 1983 in Minnesota in which fingerprint experts for both the prosecution and defense had misidentified a print as belonging to the defendant. Is anybody familiar with either of these two cases that can shed some light on the surrounding circumstances? Lonnette Kendoll Police Dept., Richardson, TX _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Tue Apr 17 15:33:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22341 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from barney.sfrn.dnai.com (barney.sfrn.dnai.com [208.59.199.24]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22330 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 208-59-198-120.s120.tnt1.dsfr.ca.dialup.rcn.com (208-59-198-120.s120.tnt1.dsfr.ca.dialup.rcn.com [208.59.198.120]) by barney.sfrn.dnai.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3HJXDu40670; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010417124438.00a0fda0@pop.sfrn.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@pop.sfrn.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:45:04 -0700 To: "Lonnette Kendoll" , Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: News Articles re Fingerprinting Reliability In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 05:48 AM 04/16/2001 -0500, Lonnette Kendoll wrote: >On April 27, 2001 mention was made in a New York Times article of a Richard Jackson being cleared of a murder conviction in Philadelphia in 1999 because three latent print examiners had erroneously matched his prints to those found at the scene and of a similar reversal that occurred in 1983 in Minnesota in which fingerprint experts for both the prosecution and defense had misidentified a print as belonging to the defendant. > >Is anybody familiar with either of these two cases that can shed some light on the surrounding circumstances? Lots of info on Jackson. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Richard+Jackson%22+fingerprint Didn't check out the other case, but a search at www.google.com using search terms like "Minnesota", "fingerprint", and "1983" (if you're sure of the year) and/or something like "wrong" or "misidentified" (all w/o the ""), might get you where you want to be. Good luck. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Tue Apr 17 16:01:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24049 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA24044 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:01:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: bounced message Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:49:49 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 4 >From forens-owner Tue Apr 17 14:49:49 2001 Received: from hotmail.com (f120.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.120]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17710 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:49:18 -0700 Received: from 64.216.255.58 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:49:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.216.255.58] From: "John Lyons" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Defense Expert - DWI case Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:49:17 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2001 18:49:18.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B60F450:01C0C76F]




A prosecutor on another list that I subscribe to is trying to find out information about a "defense expert" by the name of Robert La Piere. He is from Idaho and supposedly used to work for the Idaho State Police. He is a supposed "expert" on Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN). If anyone has any info. concerning Mr. La Piere and specifically what he testifies to, that info. would be greatly appreciated..

John B. Lyons
Criminal Investigator
SFST/DRE Instructor
County Attorney's Office
Johnson County, TX
johnblyons@hotmail.com

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From forens-owner Wed Apr 18 05:35:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA12026 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp1.arnet.com.ar (host191006.arnet.net.ar [200.45.191.6] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA12021 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 24960 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 09:34:11 -0000 Received: from host000020.arnet.net.ar (HELO smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.20) by host191006.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 09:34:11 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:33:12 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.677.67); Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:34:54 -0300 Received: (qmail 21545 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2001 19:35:47 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 17 Apr 2001 19:35:47 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA22540; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:34:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:33:23 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA22341 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:33:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from barney.sfrn.dnai.com (barney.sfrn.dnai.com [208.59.199.24]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA22330 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 208-59-198-120.s120.tnt1.dsfr.ca.dialup.rcn.com (208-59-198-120.s120.tnt1.dsfr.ca.dialup.rcn.com [208.59.198.120]) by barney.sfrn.dnai.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3HJXDu40670; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010417124438.00a0fda0@pop.sfrn.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@pop.sfrn.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:45:04 -0700 To: "Lonnette Kendoll" , Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: News Articles re Fingerprinting Reliability In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 05:48 AM 04/16/2001 -0500, Lonnette Kendoll wrote: >On April 27, 2001 mention was made in a New York Times article of a Richard Jackson being cleared of a murder conviction in Philadelphia in 1999 because three latent print examiners had erroneously matched his prints to those found at the scene and of a similar reversal that occurred in 1983 in Minnesota in which fingerprint experts for both the prosecution and defense had misidentified a print as belonging to the defendant. > >Is anybody familiar with either of these two cases that can shed some light on the surrounding circumstances? Lots of info on Jackson. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Richard+Jackson%22+fingerprint Didn't check out the other case, but a search at www.google.com using search terms like "Minnesota", "fingerprint", and "1983" (if you're sure of the year) and/or something like "wrong" or "misidentified" (all w/o the ""), might get you where you want to be. Good luck. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 18 12:15:29 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25229 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA25213; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:15:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 16:15:27 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:06:52 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: "'Basten'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: bounced message Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:06:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0C821.903F7E10" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0C821.903F7E10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Contact the National District Attorney's Association (http://www.ndaa-apri.org/index.html). They keep files on expert witnesses which might help you determine his qualifications, and if he's questionable, perhaps provide impeachment information. The organization's National Traffic Law Center (Part of the American Prosecutor's Research Institute) concentrates on DWI cases, and the contact there is Patricia Gould, who is very helpful. You can contact her directly at patricia.gould@ndaa-apri.org. The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Attorneys (http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/FreeForm/PublicWelcome?OpenDocume nt) also maintains such files, but I think they only make them available to members. Good luck. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 16:02 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: bounced message ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:49:49 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Admin request of type /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 4 >From forens-owner Tue Apr 17 14:49:49 2001 Received: from hotmail.com (f120.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.120]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA17710 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:49:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:49:18 -0700 Received: from 64.216.255.58 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:49:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.216.255.58] From: "John Lyons" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Defense Expert - DWI case Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:49:17 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2001 18:49:18.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B60F450:01C0C76F]




A prosecutor on another list that I subscribe to is trying to find out information about a "defense expert" by the name of Robert La Piere. He is from Idaho and supposedly used to work for the Idaho State Police. He is a supposed "expert" on Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN). If anyone has any info. concerning Mr. La Piere and specifically what he testifies to, that info. would be greatly appreciated..

John B. Lyons
Criminal Investigator
SFST/DRE Instructor
County Attorney's Office
Johnson County, TX
johnblyons@hotmail.com

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0C821.903F7E10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: bounced message

Contact the National District Attorney's Association = (http://www.ndaa-apri.org/index.html).  They = keep files on expert witnesses which might help you determine his = qualifications, and if he's questionable, perhaps provide impeachment = information.  The organization's National Traffic Law Center (Part = of the American Prosecutor's Research Institute) concentrates on DWI = cases, and the contact there is Patricia Gould, who is very = helpful.  You can contact her directly at = patricia.gould@ndaa-apri.org.

The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Attorneys (http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/FreeForm/Pub= licWelcome?OpenDocument) also maintains such files, but I think = they only make them available to members.

Good luck.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu= ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 16:02
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: bounced message


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:49:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: BOUNCE = forens@statgen.ncsu.edu:     Admin request of = type
    /\bsubscribe\b/i at line 4  =

>From forens-owner  Tue Apr 17 14:49:49 = 2001
Received: from hotmail.com (f120.law3.hotmail.com = [209.185.241.120])
        by = sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id = OAA17710
        for = <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:49:48 -0400 = (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com = with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
         = Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:49:18 -0700
Received: from 64.216.255.58 by = lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;   Tue, 17 Apr 2001 = 18:49:17 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [64.216.255.58]
From: "John Lyons" = <johnblyons@hotmail.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Defense Expert - DWI case
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:49:17 -0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Message-ID: = <F120CrMfS6rGi6iiekL0000b255@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2001 18:49:18.0101 = (UTC) FILETIME=3D[1B60F450:01C0C76F]

<html><DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><BR>A prosecutor on another list that = I subscribe to is trying to find out information about a "defense = expert" by the name of Robert La Piere. He is from Idaho and = supposedly used to work for the Idaho State Police. He is a supposed = "expert" on Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN). If anyone has = any info. concerning Mr. La Piere and specifically what he testifies = to, that info. would be greatly appreciated.. = </P></DIV>

<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P></P>John B. Lyons <BR>Criminal = Investigator <BR>SFST/DRE Instructor <BR>County Attorney's = Office <BR>Johnson County, TX <BR>johnblyons@hotmail.com = <BR><br clear=3Dall><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN = Explorer at <a href=3D"http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p&= gt;</html>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0C821.903F7E10-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 18 12:38:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA28061 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.144]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA28056 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:38:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c777340a ([24.22.204.87]) by femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010418163759.EQTR18489.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@c777340a>; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:37:59 -0700 Message-ID: <006001c0c826$05639a60$57cc1618@grapid1.mi.home.com> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: , Subject: Private Labs Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:38:38 -0400 Organization: Crime and Clues MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I have a request from someone who is looking for a private lab for hair and body fluid analysis. If you are available for private work of that sort, could you provide me with contact information. Actually, since I will undoubtedly receive additional requests in the future, if anyone who is available for private lab work or consulting would send contact info and area of specialty, then I will keep it on file for future reference. Regards, Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime & Clues PMB 163 3923 28th St. SE Grand Rapids, MI, 49512 http://crimeandclues.com Primary e-mail: dclemens@crimeandclues.com Secondary e-mail/MSN Messenger: identtec@hotmail.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 19 08:21:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA15819 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA15814 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:21:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Scott" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Scott" To: Subject: Oral Board Questions Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:48:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C0C872.E3443960" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C0C872.E3443960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am looking for a list of potential questions which may be asked by an = oral board to a candidate for an entry level position as a crime scene = technician. Scott ********************************************************************* Crime Awareness & Personal Protection website http://www.geocities.com/capp357/capp.html For every crime there is a victim who deserves justice. ********************************************************************* ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C0C872.E3443960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am looking for a list of potential questions which = may be=20 asked by an oral board to a candidate for an entry level position as a = crime=20 scene technician.
 
Scott
 
****************************************************************= *****
Crime=20 Awareness & Personal Protection website
http://www.geocities.= com/capp357/capp.html
 
For every crime there is a victim who = deserves=20 justice.
***********************************************= **********************
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C0C872.E3443960-- From forens-owner Thu Apr 19 11:38:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18723 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18718 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by email.exchange.umkc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2LQTGYGK>; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:38:12 -0500 Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C0BD210F1@UMKC-MAIL02> From: "Moenssens, Andre" To: "'Kim Kruglick'" , Lonnette Kendoll , Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: News Articles re Fingerprinting Reliability Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:38:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Lonette: Could you send me an advance copy of the article that, you say, is due to appear in the New York Times on Friday of next week [on April 27, 2001]? My most recent New York Times is dated April 19. JUST KIDDING! The second case probably refers to State v. Caldwell, 322 NW2d 574 (Minn. 1982), which was discussed also in Starrs, "A Miscue in Fingerprint Identification: Causes and Concerns," 12 J.Pol. Sci. & Administration 287 (1984). There have been other cases of fingerprint examiners either making mistakes or knowingly engaging in fraudulent conduct. The Caldwell case is also discussed in my book Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases (4th edition), in Ch. 8 on Fingerprint Identification, pp. 548-551, especially in the text at footnotes 31 & 32. Andre Andre A. Moenssens Douglas Stripp Missouri Professor of Law University of Missouri - Kansas City 5100 Rockhill Road Kansas City, MO 64110-2499 Phone: 816-235-5312 FAX: 816-235-5276 Website: http://www.forensic-evidence.com -----Original Message----- From: Kim Kruglick [mailto:kim@kruglaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:45 PM To: Lonnette Kendoll; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: News Articles re Fingerprinting Reliability At 05:48 AM 04/16/2001 -0500, Lonnette Kendoll wrote: >On April 27, 2001 mention was made in a New York Times article of a Richard Jackson being cleared of a murder conviction in Philadelphia in 1999 because three latent print examiners had erroneously matched his prints to those found at the scene and of a similar reversal that occurred in 1983 in Minnesota in which fingerprint experts for both the prosecution and defense had misidentified a print as belonging to the defendant. > >Is anybody familiar with either of these two cases that can shed some light on the surrounding circumstances? Lots of info on Jackson. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Richard+Jackson%22+fingerprint Didn't check out the other case, but a search at www.google.com using search terms like "Minnesota", "fingerprint", and "1983" (if you're sure of the year) and/or something like "wrong" or "misidentified" (all w/o the ""), might get you where you want to be. Good luck. Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Fri Apr 20 08:46:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03969 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA03964 for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:46:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["James W. Burnes" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:09:57 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["James W. Burnes" ] >From forens-owner Thu Apr 19 14:09:55 2001 Received: from forensicpanel.com (forensicpanel.com [216.122.168.131]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA21558 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uranus-laptop ([206.159.125.69]) by forensicpanel.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA16575 for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:09:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "James W. Burnes" To: Subject: Depravity Can Be Defined Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:09:26 -0400 Message-ID: <003701c0c8fb$e0d55e00$9543fea9@uranus-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Importance: Normal Hello colleagues, The Forensic Panel wishes to thank those of you for participating in Phase A of the Depravity Scale research project. It is now time for Phase B of the study to begin. Please visit the link following this paragraph to rate whether -- based on your own professional experiences and training -- the proposed items are "very representative of depravity", "somewhat representative of depravity, or "not representative of depravity". There are approximately 25 items to evaluate, and examples are included for clarifications. The study will take 5-20 minutes to complete. http://www.forensicpanel.com/depravity/phase_b/ Thank you for your participation. Phase A & B are independent, so it is not necessary to have participated in Phase A. We encourage you to forward notice of this part of the study to other psychologists who may be able to assist in this matter. As well, if you participate in any listservs specific to the forensic, law, or mental health communities that you let them know about the study and direct them to the above link. Sincerely, Michael Welner, M.D. Chairman, The Forensic Panel mailto:drwelner@forensicpanel.com From forens-owner Sat Apr 21 14:48:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA22619 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:48:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA22608 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:47:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (unknown [203.197.230.5]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE7840BA8 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:22:05 +0000 (IST) Message-ID: <3AE1C25D.593C4DCF@hotmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:54:45 +0530 From: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: A quote on DNA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear List members I was reading a very nice book by I.Edward Alcamo (DNA Technology, 2nd Edition 2001, Harcourt Academic Press). On the back jacket it gives an interesting quote on DNA, which goes like this: DNA technology is the most awesome skill acquired since the splitting of the atom. For the source it says "Editorial in a major News magazine". Can somebody tell me which news magazine and when? Thankyou all Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From forens-owner Sun Apr 22 08:55:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA01580 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 08:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA01575 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 08:55:01 -0400 (EDT) From: PPDLabManager@aol.com Received: from PPDLabManager@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id i.12.bae3f5e (4006); Sun, 22 Apr 2001 08:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <12.bae3f5e.28142e7f@aol.com> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 08:54:23 EDT Subject: Re: A quote on DNA To: dr_anil@hotmail.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12.bae3f5e.28142e7f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_12.bae3f5e.28142e7f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/21/2001 2:57:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dr_anil@hotmail.com writes: > DNA technology is the most awesome skill acquired since the splitting of > the atom. > Professor Aggrawal: The quote is from "Time Magazine." Have not, as yet, found the issue. Catherine McBride Forensic Laboratory Manager Philadelphia Police Forensic Science Laboratory Room 305, 8th and Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106 --part1_12.bae3f5e.28142e7f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/21/2001 2:57:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dr_anil@hotmail.com writes:


DNA technology is the most awesome skill acquired since the splitting of
the atom.

Professor Aggrawal:
The quote is from "Time Magazine." Have not, as yet, found the issue.

Catherine McBride
Forensic Laboratory Manager
Philadelphia Police Forensic Science Laboratory
Room 305, 8th and Race Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106

--part1_12.bae3f5e.28142e7f_boundary-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 14:50:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA07779 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:50:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA07774 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:50:48 -0400 (EDT) From: DrDolphin@aol.com Received: from DrDolphin@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id y.bd.dc323ce (25715) for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:50:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:50:03 EDT Subject: I know people hate questions like this To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_bd.dc323ce.281724db_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10513 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_bd.dc323ce.281724db_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en but.. I am a marine biologist with experience working with marine mammal=20 "forensics" during stranding events (ie tissue/sample collection, "evidence=20= -=20 ropes, nets, bullet" collection, etc) and have always been very interested i= n=20 human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist (ie - I don't=20 want to be a doctor) - any recommendations on how to begin to pursue this=20 line of work? I hold a double major bio & marine bio (minor in chem) BS and a MA in=20 Environmental Policy. I have worked as a fishery biologist for more than 10= =20 years. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give me info. You can reply offline=20 directly to me if you prefer not to broadcast to the whole group. =E2=80=9CFar better it is to dare the mighty things, to win glorious triumph= s, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with the poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.=E2=80=9D - Theodore Roosevelt Terri Jordan=20 --part1_bd.dc323ce.281724db_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en but.. I am a marine biolo= gist with experience working with marine mammal=20
"forensics" during stranding events (ie tissue/sample collection, "evide= nce -=20
ropes, nets, bullet" collection, etc) and have always been very interest= ed in=20
human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist (ie - I do= n't=20
want to be a doctor) - any recommendations on how to begin to pursue thi= s=20
line of work?

I hold a double major bio & marine bio (minor in chem) BS and a MA i= n=20
Environmental Policy.  I have worked as a fishery biologist for mor= e than 10=20
years.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give me info.  You can reply= offline=20
directly to me if you prefer not to broadcast to the whole group.

=E2=80=9CFar better it is to dare the mighty things, to win glorious tri= umphs,
even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with the poor
spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the grey
twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.=E2=80=9D - Theodore Roosevel= t

Terri Jordan --part1_bd.dc323ce.281724db_boundary-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 15:05:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08721 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cgpd_ex.pd.citybeautiful.net ([209.215.74.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08716 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:05:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CGPD_EX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:58:25 -0400 Message-ID: <613F249A8796D211B11A0008C75C5A3259CB4A@CGPD_EX> From: "Shonberger, Frank" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Job Announcement Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:58:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk CITY Of CORAL GABLES CRIME SCENE TECHNICIAN ANNUAL $31,369 42,038 Performs specialized, technical work gathering evidence at crime scenes. Detects, collects, preserves, packages, and transports evidence. Processes for latent fingerprints. Performs forensic photography and produces crime scene drawings. Prepares comprehensive written reports. Testifies as expert witness in court. Operates vans, trucks, hand and power tools, laboratory and camera equipment. Duties involve strenuous physical activity under severe working conditions. Minimum qualifications include graduation from high school or GED, completion of specialized training programs related to forensic science and criminal investigations, and one year of experience in crime scene processing, forensic work, or related field. A comparable amount of training, education or experience may be substituted for the minimum qualifications. Must possess valid Florida Drivers License. Must pass written test for Crime Scene Technician and obtain certification by the International Association for Identification within 18 months of employment. The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco products within the last twelve months. Applications closing date is: 31 May, 2001 For Application Package Contact: Coral Gables Employee Relations 2801 Salzedo St Coral Gables FL 33134 Phone # 305-460-5523 For additional Information contact: Frank Shonberger, Supervisor Crime Scene Unit Phone # 305-582-3556 e-mail: fshonberger@pd.citybeautiful.net From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 15:07:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08791 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ARWSHKHN45 (ARWSHKHN45.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.45]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA08786 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:07:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil BY ARWSHKHN45 ; Tue Apr 24 14:08:58 2001 -0500 Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:04:06 -0500 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439764@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: I know people hate questions like this Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:06:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CCF1.A8292FB0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CCF1.A8292FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The NOAA (US National Oceanic & Amospheric Administration) Marine = Fisheries folks ( http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ ) have = this interest. Large lab in Charleston, SC, headquarters in MD. They had a pretty good turnout for a conference there a few years ago looking at = marine mammal deaths, not just their own in-house people. Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: DrDolphin@aol.com [mailto:DrDolphin@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:50 PM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: I know people hate questions like this but.. I am a marine biologist with experience working with marine = mammal=20 "forensics" during stranding events (ie tissue/sample collection, = "evidence -=20 ropes, nets, bullet" collection, etc) and have always been very = interested in=20 human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist (ie - I = don't=20 want to be a doctor) - any recommendations on how to begin to pursue = this=20 line of work?=20 I hold a double major bio & marine bio (minor in chem) BS and a MA in=20 Environmental Policy. I have worked as a fishery biologist for more = than 10 years.=20 Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give me info. You can reply = offline=20 directly to me if you prefer not to broadcast to the whole group.=20 =E2=80=9CFar better it is to dare the mighty things, to win glorious = triumphs,=20 even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with the poor=20 spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the = grey=20 twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.=E2=80=9D - Theodore = Roosevelt=20 Terri Jordan=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CCF1.A8292FB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The NOAA (US=20 National Oceanic & Amospheric Administration) Marine Fisheries = folks (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/) = have this=20 interest.  Large lab in Charleston, SC, headquarters in MD.  = They had=20 a pretty good turnout for a conference there a few years ago looking at = marine=20 mammal deaths, not just their own in-house people.
Dave=20 Hause
-----Original Message-----
From: DrDolphin@aol.com=20 [mailto:DrDolphin@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:50 = PM
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: I know = people hate=20 questions like this

but.. I am a marine biologist with experience working with = marine mammal=20
"forensics" during stranding events (ie tissue/sample collection, = "evidence=20 -
ropes, nets, bullet" collection, etc) and have always been very = interested=20 in
human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist = (ie - I=20 don't
want to be a doctor) - any recommendations on how to begin to = pursue=20 this
line of work?

I hold a double major bio & marine = bio (minor=20 in chem) BS and a MA in
Environmental Policy.  I have worked = as a=20 fishery biologist for more than 10
years.

Thanks in advance = to=20 anyone willing to give me info.  You can reply offline =
directly to me=20 if you prefer not to broadcast to the whole group.

=E2=80=9CFar = better it is to=20 dare the mighty things, to win glorious triumphs,
even though = checkered by=20 failure, than to take rank with the poor
spirits who neither enjoy = nor=20 suffer much, because they live in the grey
twilight that knows not = victory=20 nor defeat.=E2=80=9D - Theodore Roosevelt

Terri Jordan=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CCF1.A8292FB0-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 15:29:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09468 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:29:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osmtp1.electric.net (osmtp1.electric.net [209.17.184.28]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09463 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:29:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [63.194.69.58] (helo=heaven) by osmtp1.electric.net with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14s8Uu-000IMh-02; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:29:16 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Barbara Troyer-Turvey" To: "Forens-L" Cc: Subject: Training Op: Sex Crimes Seminar Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:30:06 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-3021649-1-986443018-barb=forensic-science.com@returns.onelist.com X-Sender: barb@corpus-delicti.com X-Apparently-To: KS-Students@yahoogroups.com List-Unsubscribe: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal List-Subscribe: X-EMC-Authenticated-Sender: X-Message-ID: X-List-Host: Knowledge Solutions Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ** Onsite Training ** Knowledge Solutions is offering a 2-day onsite training opportunity this summer in Oakland, California. Our Sex Crimes Seminar; Investigating and Reconstructing Sexual Assaults and Sexual Homicides, is open to anyone and is not limited to Law Enforcement. Attorneys and Investigators from both defense and prosecution are encouraged to attend. International attendees are also welcome - come visit the beautiful San Francisco Bay area. Registration & Payment deadline: May 23, 2001 Start date: Jun 2, End date: Jun 3 (2 days) Location: Oakland Marriott City Center, Oakland, California USA (San Francisco Bay area) Instructors: - Det. John Baeza, (ret.), Manhattan Special Victims Squad, NYPD - Eoghan Casey, MA, author of "Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet." - Brent E. Turvey, MS, author of "Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis." This four-part Sex Crimes seminar for Attorneys and Investigators will include the following: - The role of the investigator, investigative strategies and tools, and case analysis techniques - How forensic science, criminal profiling, and crime reconstruction can affect your case, including voir diring a proffered criminal profiling expert - How digital evidence can affect your case, including voir diring a proffered digital evidence expert - A panel discussion of related case examples For more information or to register, see our Course Catalog: http://www.forensic-science.com/courses.html and click on the Sex Crimes Seminar Training Description link. Or use this direct link: http://www.forensic-science.com/course_description/sem_sexcrimes_jun2001.htm l If the above web address wraps, simply copy and paste it into your web browser address window as all one line. Thank you, Knowledge Solutions Staff ================================================== Knowledge Solutions LLC http://www.corpus-delicti.com = Online Forensic Science Courses = http://www.forensic-science.com/ = Forensic Science Bookstore = http://www.corpus-delicti.com/bookstore.html ================================================== From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 15:30:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09534 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09529 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from forensicdna.com (user-vcaurr0.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.111.96]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA07298 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3AE5D452.D7580B77@forensicdna.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:30:25 -0700 From: Norah Rudin X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Shreck DNA decision overturned References: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C0BD210F1@UMKC-MAIL02> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk For those interested in such things, the CO supreme court just issued a ruling to vacate a trial court's decision excluding STR DNA evidence. The ruling may be found at: Norah Rudin -- Norah Rudin, Ph.D. Forensic DNA Consultant norah@forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com http://www.forensicdna.com/Bookstore/index.html From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 15:43:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA09859 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from osprey.chbr.noaa.gov (osprey.chbr.noaa.gov [205.156.31.28]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09854 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:43:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from noaa.gov ([205.156.31.110]) by osprey.chbr.noaa.gov (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GCBASG00.B0C; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:43:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3AE5D777.7EA16FC9@noaa.gov> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 15:43:51 -0400 From: "Ron Lundstrom" Organization: NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/CCEHBR at Charleston X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DrDolphin@aol.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: I know people hate questions like this References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Check out our web site at www.chbr.noaa.gov Note that we are now part of National Ocean Service, not National Marine Fisheries Service. Feel free to e-mail or telephone with any questions. Also note that we are currently under an agency-wide hiring freeze. Ron Lundstrom DrDolphin@aol.com wrote: > > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) > Encoding: quoted-printable -- ***************************************************************************** Ronald C. Lundstrom Branch Chief (Acting) National Ocean Service Marine Forensics Branch 219 Fort Johnson Road Charleston SC 29412-9110 Phone: (843)762-8512 FAX: (843)762-8700 Pager: (843)728-8056 E-Mail: Ron.Lundstrom@noaa.gov From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 16:56:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11314 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA11309 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:56:19 -0400 (EDT) From: DrDolphin@aol.com Received: from DrDolphin@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id y.3b.13bc35c8 (9559) for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:55:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3b.13bc35c8.2817423f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:55:27 EDT Subject: Clarification To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3b.13bc35c8.2817423f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10513 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_3b.13bc35c8.2817423f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Ok - I think I may have confused folks. I have done animal stuff - but want=20 to get into PEOPLE/CRIME stuff. Any suggestions about how to make the=20 switch?? =E2=80=9CFar better it is to dare the mighty things, to win glorious triumph= s, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with the poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.=E2=80=9D - Theodore Roosevelt Terri Marine Corps Finisher - Bib #18570 Disney Marathon Finisher. - Bib #11715 --part1_3b.13bc35c8.2817423f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en Ok - I think I may have c= onfused folks. I have done animal stuff - but want=20
to get into PEOPLE/CRIME stuff.  Any suggestions about how to make=20= the=20
switch??

=E2=80=9CFar better it is to dare the mighty things, to win glorious tri= umphs,
even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with the poor
spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the grey
twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.=E2=80=9D - Theodore Roosevel= t

Terri
Marine Corps Finisher - Bib #18570
Disney Marathon Finisher. - Bib #11715
--part1_3b.13bc35c8.2817423f_boundary-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 17:00:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11495 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.229]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11490 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id f3OL06S17738 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id f3OL06q17724 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:05 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:02 -0700 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:59:34 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: DrDolphin@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: I know people hate questions like this MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 16FB36DF51587-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id RAA11491 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk You indicate an interest in "human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist." I would take that to mean that you are interested in a Forensic Science Lab. Start by contacting your most local Law Enforcement department and ask where the nearest Forensic Science Lab is and how to contact them. It may be a city, county or State lab. Most labs can arrange some type of tour for those interested in the field, particularly other scientists. Do a little research and find out if you are really interested. It will pay off in the end. Many people think they would like to do it until they get into a lab and find out that what they thought the job was and what it is, are quite different. Quincy and CSI don't give an even slightly accurate view of a Forensic Science Lab. Many of the organizations I'll mention below and many other organizations have training seminars listed on their Web sights (their own and others). Generally the seminars can be attended by non-members (at a slightly higher fee, many have day fees). This would get you some more information about the work. With your education you are qualified to start in most forensic science labs in the country. Your background would also give you an advantage over many other candidates for jobs in Forensic Science labs at the training level. Most labs would have provisions to bring in people with experience at a slightly higher level, even if they are going into training. So if you are actually interested in changing professions you may want to just start applying for jobs at laboratories that will offer you good training. Many are out there and you can find some at web sights for the labs in your area (I don't know where that is or I could perhaps suggest a web sight or two to look at). You may want to start at national organizations. For example both the American Academy of Forensic science http://www.aafs.org/ and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors http://www.ascld.org/ have employment opportunities sections on their web sight. There are regional organizations that have sights such as California Association of Criminalists http://www.cacnews.org/ . Some of the more specialized areas of study have organizations of their own such as The Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners http://www.afte.org/ have web sights with such a section. All of these sights have employment listings and in the regional organizations you may find what cities, counties, states, etc. operate laboratories and go to sights for those organizations which may in turn list job opportunities in their laboratories. Check the government web sights for your local area, for example, Ventura County Human Resources department sight lists all job openings in Ventura County, CA., I believe. But be prepared to start at a training level and spend anywhere from 6 months to 3 years depending on what you are training in to be able to do case work on your own. Jim James L. Roberts Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> 04/24/01 11:50AM >>> but.. I am a marine biologist with experience working with marine mammal "forensics" during stranding events (ie tissue/sample collection, "evidence - ropes, nets, bullet" collection, etc) and have always been very interested in human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist (ie - I don't want to be a doctor) - any recommendations on how to begin to pursue this line of work? I hold a double major bio & marine bio (minor in chem) BS and a MA in Environmental Policy. I have worked as a fishery biologist for more than 10 years. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give me info. You can reply offline directly to me if you prefer not to broadcast to the whole group. "Far better it is to dare the mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with the poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt Terri Jordan From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 17:35:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12131 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA12126 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 21:35:50 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:26:56 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: I know people hate questions like this Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:26:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CD05.49947310" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CD05.49947310 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your academic background is easily adequate to get started in = forensics. Start looking for lab job advertisements / openings and send in = applications for trainee positions. You might consider asking for an unpaid = internship - the lab gets an extra pair of eyes and hands, you get valuable = experience - and maybe a job offer if you do well. If you want to stick with environmental or animal forensics as opposed to human forensics, then = state and federal wildlife and environmental organizations are your best bet. = In addition to the NOAA lab Dave Hause suggested (here's a link to the proceedings of the conference he mentioned: http://swfsc.ucsd.edu/ftproot/molid_v7.pdf), there's also the US Fish = and Wildlife Service Forensic Lab in Oregon: http://www.lab.fws.gov/. =20 Bob Parsons, F-ABC=20 Forensic Chemist=20 Regional Crime Laboratory=20 at Indian River Community College=20 Ft. Pierce, FL=20 -----Original Message----- From: DrDolphin@aol.com [mailto:DrDolphin@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 14:50 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: I know people hate questions like this but.. I am a marine biologist with experience working with marine = mammal=20 "forensics" during stranding events (ie tissue/sample collection, = "evidence -=20 ropes, nets, bullet" collection, etc) and have always been very = interested in=20 human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist (ie - I = don't=20 want to be a doctor) - any recommendations on how to begin to pursue = this=20 line of work?=20 I hold a double major bio & marine bio (minor in chem) BS and a MA in=20 Environmental Policy. I have worked as a fishery biologist for more = than 10 years.=20 Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give me info. You can reply = offline=20 directly to me if you prefer not to broadcast to the whole group.=20 =E2=80=9CFar better it is to dare the mighty things, to win glorious = triumphs,=20 even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with the poor=20 spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the = grey=20 twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.=E2=80=9D - Theodore = Roosevelt=20 Terri Jordan=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CD05.49947310 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Your = academic=20 background is easily adequate to get started in forensics.  Start = looking=20 for lab job advertisements / openings and send in applications for = trainee=20 positions.  You might consider asking for an unpaid internship - = the lab=20 gets an extra pair of eyes and hands, you get valuable experience - and = maybe a=20 job offer if you do well.  If you want to stick with environmental = or=20 animal forensics as opposed to human forensics, then state and federal = wildlife=20 and environmental organizations are your best bet.  In addition to = the NOAA=20 lab Dave Hause suggested (here's a link to the proceedings of the = conference he=20 mentioned:  http://swfsc.ucsd.edu/ftproot/molid_v7.pdf), = there's=20 also the US Fish and Wildlife Service Forensic Lab in Oregon:  http://www.lab.fws.gov/.
 

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime=20 Laboratory
at Indian River = Community=20 College
Ft. Pierce, FL =

-----Original Message-----
From: DrDolphin@aol.com = [mailto:DrDolphin@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001=20 14:50
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: I know = people=20 hate questions like this

but.. I am a marine biologist with experience working with = marine=20 mammal
"forensics" during stranding events (ie tissue/sample = collection,=20 "evidence -
ropes, nets, bullet" collection, etc) and have always = been=20 very interested in
human forensics - but have no interest in = being a=20 pathologist (ie - I don't
want to be a doctor) - any = recommendations on=20 how to begin to pursue this
line of work?

I hold a double = major=20 bio & marine bio (minor in chem) BS and a MA in
Environmental = Policy.=20  I have worked as a fishery biologist for more than 10 =
years.=20

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give me info. =  You can=20 reply offline
directly to me if you prefer not to broadcast to = the whole=20 group.

=E2=80=9CFar better it is to dare the mighty things, = to win glorious=20 triumphs,
even though checkered by failure, than to take rank = with the=20 poor
spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live = in the=20 grey
twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.=E2=80=9D - = Theodore Roosevelt=20

Terri Jordan
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CD05.49947310-- From forens-owner Tue Apr 24 20:18:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13812 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13807 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:18:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3P0HtT06996; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:17:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:17:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: "Shonberger, Frank" cc: Subject: Re: Job Announcement In-Reply-To: <613F249A8796D211B11A0008C75C5A3259CB4A@CGPD_EX> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > products within the last twelve months. Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 01:04:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16966 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA16961 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Prantoci@aol.com Received: from Prantoci@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id y.87.a146df3 (4368) for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <87.a146df3.2817b49a@aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_87.a146df3.2817b49a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_87.a146df3.2817b49a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > products within the last twelve months. Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs to the city?), and how do you know?=A0 (hair testing?) >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. Phil --part1_87.a146df3.2817b49a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shon= berger, Frank wrote:

> The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobac= co
> products within the last twelve months.

Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care cos= ts
to the city?), and how do you know?=A0 (hair testing?)

>> I think Frank meant Marijuana use.


Phil --part1_87.a146df3.2817b49a_boundary-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 06:28:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA20375 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp3.arnet.com.ar (host191014.arnet.net.ar [200.45.191.14] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA20370 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 19970 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 11:16:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.4) by host191014.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 11:16:35 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by mail1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:17:41 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by mail2.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.677.67); Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:08:04 -0300 Received: (qmail 21137 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 21:08:04 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 21:08:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA11536; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:00:08 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA11495 for forens-outgoing; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:00:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us (fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.214.229]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA11490 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us (root@localhost) by fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us with ESMTP id f3OL06S17738 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us (nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us [157.145.216.6]) by fw-2.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP id f3OL06q17724 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 157.145.4.101 by nts-wss.co.ventura.ca.us with SMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:05 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 429e4873-afee-11d2-bbc3-000083642dfe Received: from GWIADOM-Message_Server by gwia.co.ventura.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:00:02 -0700 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.3.1 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:59:34 -0700 From: "James Roberts" To: DrDolphin@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: I know people hate questions like this MIME-Version: 1.0 X-WSS-ID: 16FB36DF51587-01-02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id RAA11491 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk You indicate an interest in "human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist." I would take that to mean that you are interested in a Forensic Science Lab. Start by contacting your most local Law Enforcement department and ask where the nearest Forensic Science Lab is and how to contact them. It may be a city, county or State lab. Most labs can arrange some type of tour for those interested in the field, particularly other scientists. Do a little research and find out if you are really interested. It will pay off in the end. Many people think they would like to do it until they get into a lab and find out that what they thought the job was and what it is, are quite different. Quincy and CSI don't give an even slightly accurate view of a Forensic Science Lab. Many of the organizations I'll mention below and many other organizations have training seminars listed on their Web sights (their own and others). Generally the seminars can be attended by non-members (at a slightly higher fee, many have day fees). This would get you some more information about the work. With your education you are qualified to start in most forensic science labs in the country. Your background would also give you an advantage over many other candidates for jobs in Forensic Science labs at the training level. Most labs would have provisions to bring in people with experience at a slightly higher level, even if they are going into training. So if you are actually interested in changing professions you may want to just start applying for jobs at laboratories that will offer you good training. Many are out there and you can find some at web sights for the labs in your area (I don't know where that is or I could perhaps suggest a web sight or two to look at). You may want to start at national organizations. For example both the American Academy of Forensic science http://www.aafs.org/ and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors http://www.ascld.org/ have employment opportunities sections on their web sight. There are regional organizations that ha! ve sights such as California Association of Criminalists http://www.cacnews.org/ . Some of the more specialized areas of study have organizations of their own such as The Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners http://www.afte.org/ have web sights with such a section. All of these sights have employment listings and in the regional organizations you may find what cities, counties, states, etc. operate laboratories and go to sights for those organizations which may in turn list job opportunities in their laboratories. Check the government web sights for your local area, for example, Ventura County Human Resources department sight lists all job openings in Ventura County, CA., I believe. But be prepared to start at a training level and spend anywhere from 6 months to 3 years depending on what you are training in to be able to do case work on your own. Jim James L. Roberts Firearm and Toolmark Examiner Ventura Co. Sheriff's Lab (805) 654-2308 James.Roberts@mail.co.ventura.ca.us >>> 04/24/01 11:50AM >>> but.. I am a marine biologist with experience working with marine mammal "forensics" during stranding events (ie tissue/sample collection, "evidence - ropes, nets, bullet" collection, etc) and have always been very interested in human forensics - but have no interest in being a pathologist (ie - I don't want to be a doctor) - any recommendations on how to begin to pursue this line of work? I hold a double major bio & marine bio (minor in chem) BS and a MA in Environmental Policy. I have worked as a fishery biologist for more than 10 years. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to give me info. You can reply offline directly to me if you prefer not to broadcast to the whole group. "Far better it is to dare the mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with the poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt Terri Jordan From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 08:34:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22146 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f89.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.89]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22141 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 05:33:47 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:33:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:33:46 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2001 12:33:47.0202 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9389A20:01C0CD83] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see what that stirs up) Dave S. >From: Prantoci@aol.com >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > products within the last twelve months. > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs >to the city?), and how do you know?  (hair testing?) > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > >Phil _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 08:55:51 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22536 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:55:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22531 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3PCtlT16028; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:55:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: David Smith cc: , Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id IAA22532 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear from Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but I don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I wonder if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a > legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger > placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. > > Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see > what that stirs up) > > Dave S. > > > >From: Prantoci@aol.com > >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) > >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > > > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > > products within the last twelve months. > > > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs > >to the city?), and how do you know?  (hair testing?) > > > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > > > > >Phil > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:07:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23091 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from matrix.webzone.net (qmailr@matrix.webzone.net [205.219.23.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA23082 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 32421 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 08:07:55 -0500 Received: from price (tprice-ded.webzone.net [208.135.239.61]) by matrix.webzone.net with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 08:07:55 -0500 Message-ID: <001f01c0cd88$9c3f14c0$0100a8c0@price.webzone.net> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:06:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Unfortunately smokers are not a protected class. Sometimes the "no smoking" is for another economic reason I suspect. Outlawing smoking on commercial airlines allowed the airlines to save money by recirculating air and not having to heat, compress and exchange it. Having nothing to do while once spending hours on a taxiway I made rough calculations of the volume of the passenger cabin, the number of passengers, the average flatulance/person, the percent methane and figured out the real reason not to smoke is that if you struck your lighter the plane would probably explode ;) Is that good enough for an urban legon?? JTP -----Original Message----- From: David Smith To: Prantoci@aol.com ; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:37 AM Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see what that stirs up) Dave S. >From: Prantoci@aol.com >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > products within the last twelve months. > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > >Phil _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:14:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23287 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:14:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23282 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:14:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17517; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:14:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear from > Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but I > don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to > regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or > currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I wonder > if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > Of course they can do it. There's no protection against job "discrimination" based on habit -- even if it is a legal habit. Unless you can demonstrate that smoking is a matter of race, religion, ethnicity, age, or (in some places) sexual orientation, which are specifically protected, an employer is pretty much free to be as much of an ass as he or she wishes. I could hang out a sign today and say: "Billo's widget emporium seeking sales reps -- Marathon runners need not apply." There's no constitutional guarantee that says that "what you do on your own time is your own business," when it comes to *employment.* billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:20:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23459 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23454 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3PDGrb21679; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:16:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:16:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: "J. T. Price" cc: Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: <001f01c0cd88$9c3f14c0$0100a8c0@price.webzone.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Next time you fly, be sure to take along a good book. Smoking on the job or in a building is one thing, but trying to regulate behavior, which happens to be legal behavior, off the job is a blatant infringement on personal privacy. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, J. T. Price wrote: > Unfortunately smokers are not a protected class. Sometimes the "no smoking" > is for another economic reason I suspect. > > Outlawing smoking on commercial airlines allowed the airlines to save money > by recirculating air and not having to heat, compress and exchange it. > > Having nothing to do while once spending hours on a taxiway I made rough > calculations of the volume of the passenger cabin, the number of passengers, > the average flatulance/person, the percent methane and figured out the real > reason not to smoke is that if you struck your lighter the plane would > probably explode ;) > > Is that good enough for an urban legon?? > > JTP > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Smith > To: Prantoci@aol.com ; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:37 AM > Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking > > > I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a > legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger > placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. > > Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see > what that stirs up) > > Dave S. > > > >From: Prantoci@aol.com > >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) > >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > > > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > > products within the last twelve months. > > > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs > >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > > > > >Phil > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:22:40 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23592 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cgpd_ex.pd.citybeautiful.net ([209.215.74.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23587 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CGPD_EX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:15:56 -0400 Message-ID: <613F249A8796D211B11A0008C75C5A3259CB4F@CGPD_EX> From: "Shonberger, Frank" To: "'David Smith'" , Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:15:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id JAA23588 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it has withstood local challenges. -----Original Message----- From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:34 AM To: Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see what that stirs up) Dave S. >From: Prantoci@aol.com >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > products within the last twelve months. > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs >to the city?), and how do you know?  (hair testing?) > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > >Phil _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:24:13 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23718 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from matrix.webzone.net (qmailr@matrix.webzone.net [205.219.23.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA23713 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:24:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 1950 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 08:24:10 -0500 Received: from price (tprice-ded.webzone.net [208.135.239.61]) by matrix.webzone.net with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 08:24:10 -0500 Message-ID: <009e01c0cd8a$e1f8be10$0100a8c0@price.webzone.net> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:23:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk or even legend?? (no spelling skills) -----Original Message----- From: J. T. Price To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Unfortunately smokers are not a protected class. Sometimes the "no smoking" is for another economic reason I suspect. Outlawing smoking on commercial airlines allowed the airlines to save money by recirculating air and not having to heat, compress and exchange it. Having nothing to do while once spending hours on a taxiway I made rough calculations of the volume of the passenger cabin, the number of passengers, the average flatulance/person, the percent methane and figured out the real reason not to smoke is that if you struck your lighter the plane would probably explode ;) Is that good enough for an urban legon?? JTP -----Original Message----- From: David Smith To: Prantoci@aol.com ; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:37 AM Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see what that stirs up) Dave S. >From: Prantoci@aol.com >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > products within the last twelve months. > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > >Phil _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:31:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23994 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23989 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3PDV8L25675; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: "Shonberger, Frank" cc: "'David Smith'" , , Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: <613F249A8796D211B11A0008C75C5A3259CB4F@CGPD_EX> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it has > withstood local challenges. So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up to a year? and currently on the job? From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:35:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24181 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:35:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from services.state.mo.us (services.state.mo.us [168.166.2.67]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24176 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:35:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.state.mo.us ([168.166.193.194]) by services.state.mo.us (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3PDZaL02179; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:35:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3AE6D29F.543A248B@mail.state.mo.us> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:35:27 -0500 From: Jenny Smith X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carol Define MD CC: David Smith , Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I wonder if the no-smoking addendum for the Coral Gables job has something to do with a clause in their group heath insurance. If I were an insurance company I would certainly charge smokers more. Non smokers should not have to pay the same as smokers. Carol Define MD wrote: > The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear from > Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but I > don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to > regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or > currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I wonder > if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > > > I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a > > legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger > > placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. > > > > Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see > > what that stirs up) > > > > Dave S. > > > > > > >From: Prantoci@aol.com > > >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) > > >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > > > > > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > > > products within the last twelve months. > > > > > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs > > >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > > > > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > > > > > > > >Phil > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:38:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24337 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:38:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from matrix.webzone.net (qmailr@matrix.webzone.net [205.219.23.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA24332 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:38:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 3817 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 08:38:39 -0500 Received: from price (tprice-ded.webzone.net [208.135.239.61]) by matrix.webzone.net with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 08:38:39 -0500 Message-ID: <00b701c0cd8c$e7fd5a30$0100a8c0@price.webzone.net> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:37:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk >From a practical view, it would be easier to have an employment policy against non-smokers ;) JTP -----Original Message----- From: Carol Define MD To: Shonberger, Frank Cc: 'David Smith' ; Prantoci@aol.com ; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:33 AM Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it has > withstood local challenges. So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up to a year? and currently on the job? From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:55:53 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24843 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:55:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f86.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.86]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24838 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:55:22 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:55:22 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:55:22 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2001 13:55:22.0546 (UTC) FILETIME=[5F12D120:01C0CD8F] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk My thoughts exactly. If the city has this policy in place due to health care concerns - then what will they think of next? Are we going to see the eating/drinking/exercise(or lack thereof) police? Dave S. >From: Carol Define MD >To: David Smith >CC: , >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:55:47 -0400 (EDT) > > >The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear from >Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but I >don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to >regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or >currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I wonder >if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > > > I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a > > legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger > > placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same >paragraph. > > > > Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see > > what that stirs up) > > > > Dave S. > > > > > > >From: Prantoci@aol.com > > >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) > > >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > > > > > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used >tobacco > > > > products within the last twelve months. > > > > > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care >costs > > >to the city?), and how do you know?  (hair testing?) > > > > > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > > > > > > > >Phil > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 09:57:56 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA24984 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f97.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.97]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24979 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:57:25 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:57:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: tprice@prosector.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:57:25 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2001 13:57:25.0432 (UTC) FILETIME=[A851BB80:01C0CD8F] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Does this explain the lack of any real food on US airline trips under (what seems like) six hours? Dave S. >From: "J. T. Price" >Reply-To: "J. T. Price" >To: >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:06:53 -0500 > >Unfortunately smokers are not a protected class. Sometimes the "no >smoking" >is for another economic reason I suspect. > >Outlawing smoking on commercial airlines allowed the airlines to save money >by recirculating air and not having to heat, compress and exchange it. > >Having nothing to do while once spending hours on a taxiway I made rough >calculations of the volume of the passenger cabin, the number of >passengers, >the average flatulance/person, the percent methane and figured out the real >reason not to smoke is that if you struck your lighter the plane would >probably explode ;) > >Is that good enough for an urban legon?? > >JTP > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Smith >To: Prantoci@aol.com ; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:37 AM >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a >legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger >placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. > >Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see >what that stirs up) > >Dave S. > > > >From: Prantoci@aol.com > >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) > >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > > > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > > products within the last twelve months. > > > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care >costs > >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > > > > >Phil > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:03:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25202 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:03:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f19.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.19]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25197 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:03:06 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:03:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: billo@Radix.Net, cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:03:06 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2001 14:03:06.0467 (UTC) FILETIME=[73978B30:01C0CD90] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Surely you can argue that smoking could be a matter of race (popularity and acceptance of smoking in ones country of origin) or religion (various cults have many rituals) and thus be exempt from this type of restriction. Dave S. PS Where can I get one of Bill's famous widgets? >From: Bill Oliver >To: Carol Define MD >CC: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:14:13 -0400 (EDT) > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > > > From: Carol Define MD > > > > > > The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear >from > > Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but >I > > don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to > > regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or > > currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I >wonder > > if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > > > >Of course they can do it. There's no protection against job >"discrimination" based on habit -- even if it is a legal habit. >Unless you can demonstrate that smoking is a matter of race, >religion, ethnicity, age, or (in some places) sexual orientation, >which are specifically protected, an employer is pretty much free >to be as much of an ass as he or she wishes. I could hang out a >sign today and say: "Billo's widget emporium seeking sales >reps -- Marathon runners need not apply." There's no constitutional >guarantee that says that "what you do on your own time is your own >business," when it comes to *employment.* > > >billo > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:09:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25398 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:09:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25387 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:09:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3PE9Kb06668; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:09:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:09:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: David Smith cc: , Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk As a matter of fact, smoking is considered to be part of the American Indian culture...thus that employment rule would prevent them from obtaining positions with the city. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > Surely you can argue that smoking could be a matter of race (popularity and > acceptance of smoking in ones country of origin) or religion (various cults > have many rituals) and thus be exempt from this type of restriction. > > Dave S. > > PS Where can I get one of Bill's famous widgets? > > > >From: Bill Oliver > >To: Carol Define MD > >CC: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:14:13 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > > > > > From: Carol Define MD > > > > > > > > > The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear > >from > > > Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but > >I > > > don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to > > > regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or > > > currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I > >wonder > > > if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > > > > > > >Of course they can do it. There's no protection against job > >"discrimination" based on habit -- even if it is a legal habit. > >Unless you can demonstrate that smoking is a matter of race, > >religion, ethnicity, age, or (in some places) sexual orientation, > >which are specifically protected, an employer is pretty much free > >to be as much of an ass as he or she wishes. I could hang out a > >sign today and say: "Billo's widget emporium seeking sales > >reps -- Marathon runners need not apply." There's no constitutional > >guarantee that says that "what you do on your own time is your own > >business," when it comes to *employment.* > > > > > >billo > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:09:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25501 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f64.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.64]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25496 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:09:04 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:09:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:09:04 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2001 14:09:04.0792 (UTC) FILETIME=[492B9980:01C0CD91] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure groups attempts). Dave S. >From: Carol Define MD >To: "Shonberger, Frank" >CC: "'David Smith'" , , > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it >has > > withstood local challenges. > >So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up to >a year? and currently on the job? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:10:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25619 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:10:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from matrix.webzone.net (qmailr@matrix.webzone.net [205.219.23.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA25614 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8371 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 09:10:46 -0500 Received: from price (tprice-ded.webzone.net [208.135.239.61]) by matrix.webzone.net with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 09:10:46 -0500 Message-ID: <00d701c0cd91$6459c290$0100a8c0@price.webzone.net> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:09:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk It has already happened. Back in the '80s I assisted a friend start a medical school pathology department where the school had mandatory exercise programs for the faculty and students. Also mandatory non-smoking policy and a variety of restrictions that were unimaginable. Under agreement with my friend I wouldn't claim any affiliation with the institution and they wouldn't admit I was assisting. I was amazed however the number of scientists-faculty who would accept some of the restrictions. JTP -----Original Message----- From: David Smith To: cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Prantoci@aol.com ; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:58 AM Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking My thoughts exactly. If the city has this policy in place due to health care concerns - then what will they think of next? Are we going to see the eating/drinking/exercise(or lack thereof) police? Dave S. >From: Carol Define MD >To: David Smith >CC: , >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:55:47 -0400 (EDT) > > >The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear from >Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but I >don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to >regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or >currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I wonder >if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > > > I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a > > legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger > > placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same >paragraph. > > > > Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see > > what that stirs up) > > > > Dave S. > > > > > > >From: Prantoci@aol.com > > >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) > > >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > > > > > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used >tobacco > > > > products within the last twelve months. > > > > > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care >costs > > >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > > > > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > > > > > > > >Phil > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:16:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25833 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f27.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.27]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25828 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:15:54 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:15:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: tprice@prosector.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:15:54 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2001 14:15:54.0490 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D5E8DA0:01C0CD92] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk SCARY! Dave S. >From: "J. T. Price" >Reply-To: "J. T. Price" >To: >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:09:41 -0500 > >It has already happened. Back in the '80s I assisted a friend start a >medical school pathology department where the school had mandatory exercise >programs for the faculty and students. Also mandatory non-smoking policy >and a variety of restrictions that were unimaginable. > >Under agreement with my friend I wouldn't claim any affiliation with the >institution and they wouldn't admit I was assisting. I was amazed however >the number of scientists-faculty who would accept some of the restrictions. > >JTP > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Smith >To: cdefine@bcpl.net >Cc: Prantoci@aol.com ; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:58 AM >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >My thoughts exactly. If the city has this policy in place due to health >care >concerns - then what will they think of next? Are we going to see the >eating/drinking/exercise(or lack thereof) police? > >Dave S. > > > >From: Carol Define MD > >To: David Smith > >CC: , > >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:55:47 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > >The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear from > >Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but >I > >don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to > >regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or > >currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I >wonder > >if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > > > > > I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still >a > > > legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger > > > placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same > >paragraph. > > > > > > Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets >see > > > what that stirs up) > > > > > > Dave S. > > > > > > > > > >From: Prantoci@aol.com > > > >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) > > > >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking > > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > > > > > > > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > > > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used > >tobacco > > > > > products within the last twelve months. > > > > > > > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care > >costs > > > >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > > > > > > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > > > > > > > > > > >Phil > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:19:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26045 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r13.mx.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26040 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:19:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Sidg@aol.com Received: from Sidg@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.9.) id p.88.5a8a68e (6932); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <88.5a8a68e.2818368e@aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:17:50 EDT Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking To: cdefine@bcpl.net, tprice@prosector.com CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 28 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk There are many counties in the Washington, D.C. metro area (Virginia and Maryland alike) that won't hire a smoker for police or fire jobs due to the heart and lung bill. The older police/firefighters who came in before the new policy can smoke if they want to -- even at work. If anyone who came in under the new policy is caught -- on or off the job -- they can and are fired almost immediately with no real legal recourse as they are required to sign a no-smoking form before they are officially hired. Barbara Jean Injustice is the greatest sin that any court can visit upon the people of its land. http://www.banfound.u-net.com/camp5attach.htm http://sites.netscape.net/fatalflaw99/homepage www.ibf.brum.net/enter.htm www.justice.denied.org From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:23:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26196 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cgpd_ex.pd.citybeautiful.net ([209.215.74.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26191 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CGPD_EX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:17:00 -0400 Message-ID: <613F249A8796D211B11A0008C75C5A3259CB55@CGPD_EX> From: "Shonberger, Frank" To: "'Jenny Smith'" , Carol Define MD Cc: David Smith , Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:16:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I am not sure if the City Insurance has anything to do with this, however the City gives each employee paid insurance. As to how they know if you smoke you have to sign an affidavit swearing that you have not smoked in the past year. M. Frank Shonberger, Supervisor Crime Scene Investigation -----Original Message----- From: Jenny Smith [mailto:jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:35 AM To: Carol Define MD Cc: David Smith; Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking I wonder if the no-smoking addendum for the Coral Gables job has something to do with a clause in their group heath insurance. If I were an insurance company I would certainly charge smokers more. Non smokers should not have to pay the same as smokers. Carol Define MD wrote: > The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear from > Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but I > don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to > regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or > currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I wonder > if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > > > I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a > > legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger > > placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. > > > > Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see > > what that stirs up) > > > > Dave S. > > > > > > >From: Prantoci@aol.com > > >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) > > >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > > > > > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > > > products within the last twelve months. > > > > > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs > > >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > > > > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > > > > > > > >Phil > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:30:07 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26467 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cgpd_ex.pd.citybeautiful.net ([209.215.74.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26462 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:30:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CGPD_EX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:23:21 -0400 Message-ID: <613F249A8796D211B11A0008C75C5A3259CB56@CGPD_EX> From: "Shonberger, Frank" To: "'David Smith'" , cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:23:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Tabacco and Marijuana are not the same as far as I know the time period between use if the factor on employment with most police agencies and the number of times that a candidate has used Marijuana and how long since it was used in a factor on hiring. -----Original Message----- From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:09 AM To: cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure groups attempts). Dave S. >From: Carol Define MD >To: "Shonberger, Frank" >CC: "'David Smith'" , , > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it >has > > withstood local challenges. > >So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up to >a year? and currently on the job? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:37:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26697 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26692 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01425; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:37:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: David Smith , Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > As a matter of fact, smoking is considered to be part of the American > Indian culture...thus that employment rule would prevent them from > obtaining positions with the city. > Well, a rather uncommon ceremony of a subgroup of a branch of a cluster of the many pre-Columbian cultures of the Western Hemisphere, anyway. There is no such thing as "the American Indian culure." That's one thing I managed to learn as a kid in Oklahoma, or as the bricks on my house had imprinted, Sulphur, I.T. Aztec ain't Yahi ain't Blackfoot ain't Osage ain't Chickasaw. But, regardless, no doubt they would make accomodation for the occasional ritual. I think that trying to argue that tobacco ceremonies translate into a constitutional protection of a two-pack-a-day habit would be a hard row to hoe. The bottom line is that employers have the right to be assholes, just like everybody else, and this city in Florida is exercising that right. And those of us who think that it's stupid have the right to decline to go there. billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:53:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27816 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f73.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27806 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:53:12 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:53:11 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: mpalmer@mdpd.com, cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:53:11 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2001 14:53:12.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[732675B0:01C0CD97] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk OOPS I forgot to mention the Forens-l sensibility police in my previous post. On a more serious note - I'm not a US citizen but didn't this type of lifestyle control Draconian legislation lead to the European colonists coming to this country in the first place? Also if something is upheld by the legal system - does that make it right? There are plenty of people who post on this list who could talk about that for a long time. Dave S. >From: "Palmer, Miguel (MDPD)" >To: 'David Smith' , cdefine@bcpl.net >CC: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:35:48 -0400 > >Why are we spending time on this issue. Coral Gables has the smoking >policy, it has been upheld in the legal system, discussion is over. It may >be health, risk management related, or long term employee health and >insurance related. Regardless, if an applicant is in disagreement with it >, >they should not apply. Lets move on to something else. > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:09 AM >To: cdefine@bcpl.net >Cc: Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that >legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure >groups > >attempts). > >Dave S. > > > >From: Carol Define MD > >To: "Shonberger, Frank" > >CC: "'David Smith'" , , > > > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it > >has > > > withstood local challenges. > > > >So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up >to > >a year? and currently on the job? > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:02:35 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28283 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28278 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3PF2N522415; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:02:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: David Smith cc: , , Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Society being what it is today, I suspect that 'the rule' is broken all the time since it can't be enforced (away from the job)...and there is no pre-employment testing. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > OOPS I forgot to mention the Forens-l sensibility police in my previous > post. On a more serious note - I'm not a US citizen but didn't this type of > lifestyle control Draconian legislation lead to the European colonists > coming to this country in the first place? Also if something is upheld by > the legal system - does that make it right? There are plenty of people who > post on this list who could talk about that for a long time. > > Dave S. > > > >From: "Palmer, Miguel (MDPD)" > >To: 'David Smith' , cdefine@bcpl.net > >CC: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:35:48 -0400 > > > >Why are we spending time on this issue. Coral Gables has the smoking > >policy, it has been upheld in the legal system, discussion is over. It may > >be health, risk management related, or long term employee health and > >insurance related. Regardless, if an applicant is in disagreement with it > >, > >they should not apply. Lets move on to something else. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:09 AM > >To: cdefine@bcpl.net > >Cc: Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > > > > >Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that > >legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure > >groups > > > >attempts). > > > >Dave S. > > > > > > >From: Carol Define MD > > >To: "Shonberger, Frank" > > >CC: "'David Smith'" , , > > > > > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > > > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it > > >has > > > > withstood local challenges. > > > > > >So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up > >to > > >a year? and currently on the job? > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:12:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28670 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from UMKC-MAIL01.umkc.edu (email.exchange.umkc.edu [134.193.71.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28665 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:12:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by email.exchange.umkc.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2LQTH88X>; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:12:46 -0500 Message-ID: <95A711A70065D111B58C00609451555C0BD21121@UMKC-MAIL02> From: "Moenssens, Andre" To: "'David Smith'" , billo@Radix.Net, cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:12:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Bill: Can I have some widgets, too? Andre -----Original Message----- From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 9:03 AM To: billo@Radix.Net; cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Surely you can argue that smoking could be a matter of race (popularity and acceptance of smoking in ones country of origin) or religion (various cults have many rituals) and thus be exempt from this type of restriction. Dave S. PS Where can I get one of Bill's famous widgets? >From: Bill Oliver >To: Carol Define MD >CC: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:14:13 -0400 (EDT) > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > > > From: Carol Define MD > > > > > > The descrimination was exactly what struck me too. I'd like to hear >from > > Frank whether this is true or not. I'm not in favor of tobacco use, but >I > > don't see how the city can deny employment, in effect attempting to > > regulate/control what a person does off the job, either a year ago or > > currently...and as noted, using tobacco IS still legal. If true, I >wonder > > if they go around on Monday mornings doing random CO measurements. > > > >Of course they can do it. There's no protection against job >"discrimination" based on habit -- even if it is a legal habit. >Unless you can demonstrate that smoking is a matter of race, >religion, ethnicity, age, or (in some places) sexual orientation, >which are specifically protected, an employer is pretty much free >to be as much of an ass as he or she wishes. I could hang out a >sign today and say: "Billo's widget emporium seeking sales >reps -- Marathon runners need not apply." There's no constitutional >guarantee that says that "what you do on your own time is your own >business," when it comes to *employment.* > > >billo > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:14:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28791 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from agency6.state.ky.us (agency6.state.ky.us [162.114.120.27]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28786 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:14:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us Received: by agency6.state.ky.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:07:25 -0400 Message-ID: To: cdefine@bcpl.net, das_smith@hotmail.com Cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:09:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk It's a disgusting habit that non-smokers don't want to be around. Would you hire a person who picked his nose in an interview? -----Original Message----- From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:02 AM To: David Smith Cc: mpalmer@mdpd.com; Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Society being what it is today, I suspect that 'the rule' is broken all the time since it can't be enforced (away from the job)...and there is no pre-employment testing. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > OOPS I forgot to mention the Forens-l sensibility police in my previous > post. On a more serious note - I'm not a US citizen but didn't this type of > lifestyle control Draconian legislation lead to the European colonists > coming to this country in the first place? Also if something is upheld by > the legal system - does that make it right? There are plenty of people who > post on this list who could talk about that for a long time. > > Dave S. > > > >From: "Palmer, Miguel (MDPD)" > >To: 'David Smith' , cdefine@bcpl.net > >CC: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:35:48 -0400 > > > >Why are we spending time on this issue. Coral Gables has the smoking > >policy, it has been upheld in the legal system, discussion is over. It may > >be health, risk management related, or long term employee health and > >insurance related. Regardless, if an applicant is in disagreement with it > >, > >they should not apply. Lets move on to something else. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] > >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:09 AM > >To: cdefine@bcpl.net > >Cc: Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > > > > >Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that > >legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure > >groups > > > >attempts). > > > >Dave S. > > > > > > >From: Carol Define MD > > >To: "Shonberger, Frank" > > >CC: "'David Smith'" , , > > > > > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > > > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it > > >has > > > > withstood local challenges. > > > > > >So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up > >to > > >a year? and currently on the job? > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:23:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29131 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:23:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29126 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3PFNUf28321; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:23:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: cc: , Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Indeed, picking your nose on the job would be very unappealing, but I don't think anyone cares whether or not you pick your nose at home. 'Begging for widgets' is also a disgusting habit...goodness! there should be laws in place to prevent it...both on the list and in the privacy of your home. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us wrote: > It's a disgusting habit that non-smokers don't want to be around. Would you > hire a person who picked his nose in an interview? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carol Define MD [mailto:cdefine@bcpl.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:02 AM > To: David Smith > Cc: mpalmer@mdpd.com; Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > > > Society being what it is today, I suspect that 'the rule' is broken all > the time since it can't be enforced (away from the job)...and there is no > pre-employment testing. > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > > > OOPS I forgot to mention the Forens-l sensibility police in my previous > > post. On a more serious note - I'm not a US citizen but didn't this type > of > > lifestyle control Draconian legislation lead to the European colonists > > coming to this country in the first place? Also if something is upheld by > > the legal system - does that make it right? There are plenty of people who > > post on this list who could talk about that for a long time. > > > > Dave S. > > > > > > >From: "Palmer, Miguel (MDPD)" > > >To: 'David Smith' , cdefine@bcpl.net > > >CC: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:35:48 -0400 > > > > > >Why are we spending time on this issue. Coral Gables has the smoking > > >policy, it has been upheld in the legal system, discussion is over. It > may > > >be health, risk management related, or long term employee health and > > >insurance related. Regardless, if an applicant is in disagreement with > it > > >, > > >they should not apply. Lets move on to something else. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] > > >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:09 AM > > >To: cdefine@bcpl.net > > >Cc: Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > > > > > > > >Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed > that > > >legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure > > >groups > > > > > >attempts). > > > > > >Dave S. > > > > > > > > > >From: Carol Define MD > > > >To: "Shonberger, Frank" > > > >CC: "'David Smith'" , , > > > > > > > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > > >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > > > > > > > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and > it > > > >has > > > > > withstood local challenges. > > > > > > > >So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up > > >to > > > >a year? and currently on the job? > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:26:10 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29225 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29220 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09747; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:25:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: David Smith cc: mpalmer@mdpd.com, cdefine@bcpl.net, Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, David Smith wrote: > From: David Smith > > OOPS I forgot to mention the Forens-l sensibility police in my previous > post. On a more serious note - I'm not a US citizen but didn't this type of > lifestyle control Draconian legislation lead to the European colonists > coming to this country in the first place? Well, no. There's a difference between an employer making up random rules for employment and a government dictating what people can and cannot do in the free exercise of their rights. Even if the government is also the employer. In terms of US history, this kind of thing actually has an interesting history. Before the time of Franklin Roosevelt, employers had much *more* leeway in making stupid behavioral rules, as well as exploitative workplace rules. In the 1800s and early 1900s, there were a number of Supreme Court decisions which set aside maximum work day/maximum hour legislation as well as minimum wage legislation on the grounds that such legislation interfered with the freedom of two men to enter into contracts without government intrusion. If a company wanted to hire you at 10 cents an hour for 20-hour days, and you were willing to work for 10 cents an hour for 20-hour days, then it was one man's right to offer the contract and another man's right to freely accept or decline. None of this applied to women, since sensibilites were different in the 19th century and it was assumed women needed certain protections. Since Franklin's restructuring of the Supreme Court in his image, we have happily dispensed with much of our respect for the rights of contract and property and instead have concentrated elsewhere. An interesting discussion of this can be found in "The Supreme Court," a history by Chief Justice William Rehquist. Nonetheless, if one views the right to make a contract as an important right, then the intrusion of the government into what can and cannot be in that contract constitutes "Draconian legislation," not the decision of some random employer to make stupid demands. As to the appropriateness of this discussion to the list, I assume that most folk here *are* employees who have entered into contracts which affect their working conditions. Discussions of those contracts and working conditions is not inappropriate for a professional list -- in fact it is one of the basic things that makes it professional. The fact that I am paid and I care about how I get treated by my employer is what separates me from an amateur. billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:27:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29326 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:27:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29309 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:27:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10008; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:27:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us cc: cdefine@bcpl.net, das_smith@hotmail.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us wrote: > From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us > > It's a disgusting habit that non-smokers don't want to be around. Would you > hire a person who picked his nose in an interview? I wouldn't fire him if he picked his nose at home. Would you? billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:37:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29650 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from agency6.state.ky.us (agency6.state.ky.us [162.114.120.27]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29645 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:37:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us Received: by agency6.state.ky.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:30:38 -0400 Message-ID: To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:32:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk My entire family smokes, I know for a fact they cannot limit themselves to smoking only at home. Addictions are 24/7 -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:27 AM To: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us Cc: cdefine@bcpl.net; das_smith@hotmail.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us wrote: > From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us > > It's a disgusting habit that non-smokers don't want to be around. Would you > hire a person who picked his nose in an interview? I wouldn't fire him if he picked his nose at home. Would you? billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:51:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00074 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.uri.edu (PETE.URI.EDU [131.128.1.12]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00069 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.128.32.49] ([131.128.32.49]) by pete.uri.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA05961 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Dennis C. Hilliard" Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk You guys should take this private e-mail or go Instant messenger! Dennis >My entire family smokes, I know for a fact they cannot limit themselves to >smoking only at home. Addictions are 24/7 > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] >Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:27 AM >To: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us >Cc: cdefine@bcpl.net; das_smith@hotmail.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking > > > > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us wrote: > >> From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us >> >> It's a disgusting habit that non-smokers don't want to be around. Would >you >> hire a person who picked his nose in an interview? > > >I wouldn't fire him if he picked his nose at home. Would you? > > >billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 11:55:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00251 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00245 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:55:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14821; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:55:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:55:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us wrote: > >> > From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us >> > >> > It's a disgusting habit that non-smokers don't want to be around. Would >> > you >> > hire a person who picked his nose in an interview? >> >> >> I wouldn't fire him if he picked his nose at home. Would you? >> >> >> billo >> >> My entire family smokes, I know for a fact they cannot limit themselves to >> smoking only at home. Addictions are 24/7 > Um... I'll take that as a "yes." So. We have made smoking at home and picking one's nose at home conditions for termination. What else? How do you feel about passing gas? Personally, I dislike it just as much when someone farts in an elevator as I do when someone lights up a stogey. It's not such a great interview skill, either. Using your contention that there is no real separation between private and professional demeanor (as I ably demonstrate with these posts), and one is doomed to uncontrolable seizures of lighting up cigs or digging for boogers at random times of the day, I think we should add passing gas to the list of things nobody with a job should be allowed to do at work *or* at home. Certainly nobody in Coral Gables, Florida, anyway. And don't get me started on loud ties. I kinda like the vision of all these Floridian forensic scientists standing around in burmuda shorts puckering their sphincters, gritting their teeth and just up and exploding now and then. Keeps the job market open. But at least the city fathers will know their employees were politically correct at the time of their demise. And that's all that matters. billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 12:19:29 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00950 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00944 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:19:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-82.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.82]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.11.3/8.11.3/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id f3PGJV910391 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:19:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010425082444.00ad0e50@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:31:40 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Visine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Since feline necromancy and municipal employment discrimination seem to be popular topics on this list, I'd like to raise a new issue of equivalent significance: Why is it that visine eye drops are no longer available, at least in some California drug stores, off the shelf, but must be obtained from the pharmacy counter? I will compile the answers and prizes will be awarded to the best ones in the categories of humor, believable, and correct (if that can be determined). Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 12:19:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00969 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00959 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-82.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.82]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.11.3/8.11.3/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id f3PGJW910395; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010425083339.00aade10@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:38:44 -0700 To: Sidg@aol.com From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: <88.5a8a68e.2818368e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 10:17 AM 4/25/01 -0400, Sidg@aol.com wrote: >There are many counties in the Washington, D.C. metro area (Virginia and >Maryland alike) that won't hire a smoker for police or fire jobs due to the >heart and lung bill. Would it therefor be appropriate for those agencies to refuse to hire women due to the obstetrics and gynecology bill? How will such policies be applied when it will be possible to determine that everyone has a genetic predisposition to some condition. Perhaps many of these problems would be alleviated if people were required to pay for their own medical care - and not be paid a salary when they are unable to earn it. Pete Barnett From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 12:42:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01486 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:42:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saclink3.csus.edu (saclink3.csus.edu [130.86.82.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01481 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sac77351 (dialup1-006.csus.edu) by saclink3.csus.edu with SMTP (1.40.112.6/16.2) id AA226846837; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:40:37 -0700 Message-Id: <000b01c0cda6$d4f40140$06165682@sac77351> Reply-To: "Brian" From: "Brian" To: Subject: PFISER INTRODUCES NEW VISINE Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:43:15 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0CD6C.26BF30C0" X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 Disposition-Notification-To: "Brian" X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0CD6C.26BF30C0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0008_01C0CD6C.26BF30C0" ------=_NextPart_001_0008_01C0CD6C.26BF30C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Chattanooga Daily Bulletin | PFISER INTRODUCES NEW VISINE JAUNDICE = RELIEF FORMULA =20 =20 PFISER INTRODUCES NEW VISINE JAUNDICE RELIEF FORMULA=20 Sometimes you just want to drink yourself to death and right = when you're almost there what happens? Your liver starts to shut down = and the yellow bile that doctors call bilirubin starts backing up and = your eyes turn yellow.=20 Now you've got jaundice.=20 Only problem is that a coworker or loved one or some other = would be do gooder spots the symptoms, intervenes and there you are, in = treatment and still alive.=20 Introducing VISINE JR TM formulated with new Bile Zap! It = gets the yellow out. Die like a man.=20 =20 =20 =AB Back=20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_001_0008_01C0CD6C.26BF30C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The Chattanooga Daily Bulletin | PFISER INTRODUCES = NEW VISINE JAUNDICE RELIEF FORMULA
 
PFISER=20 INTRODUCES NEW VISINE JAUNDICE RELIEF = FORMULA
3D"Jaundice

Sometimes you just want to drink yourself to death = and right=20 when you're almost there what happens?  Your liver=20 starts to shut down and the yellow bile that doctors = call=20 bilirubin starts backing up and your eyes turn = yellow.=20

Now=20 you've got jaundice.=20

Only=20 problem is that a coworker or loved one or some other would = be do=20 gooder spots the symptoms, intervenes and there you are, in=20 treatment and still alive.=20

Introducing VISINE JR TM=20 formulated with new Bile Zap!  It gets the yellow out.=20  Die like a man.

=AB=20 Back=20

------=_NextPart_001_0008_01C0CD6C.26BF30C0-- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0CD6C.26BF30C0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="visine.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://members.aol.com/CDBulletin/visine.jpg /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEBLAEsAAD/2wBDAAUDBAQEAwUEBAQFBQUGBwwIBwcHBw8LCwkMEQ8SEhEP ERETFhwXExQaFRERGCEYGh0dHx8fExciJCIeJBweHx7/2wBDAQUFBQcGBw4ICA4eFBEUHh4eHh4e Hh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh4eHh7/wAARCACqAFsDASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQA AAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3 ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWm p6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEA AwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREAAgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSEx BhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYkNOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOEhYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3 uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD6n1Cf U5bjWGt9Se2SyUeWixIwJ8sPk7gT1NfLJ+P/AMSwSDqNkCOo+xJ/hX1PL/rPE3+6P/RC18KtYK8j O8h+ZiSB6dq+jyPC0q8Z+0ina36nzXEWMq4aVP2cmr32+R6F/wANAfEr/oJWX/gEn+FH/DQHxK/6 CVl/4BJ/hXn39nQf35PzH+FH9nQf35PzH+Fe9/ZmG/59o+a/tjFf8/Geg/8ADQHxK/6CVl/4BJ/h R/w0B8Sv+glZf+ASf4V59/Z0H9+T8x/hR/Z0H9+T8x/hR/ZmG/59oP7YxX/PxnoP/DQHxK/6CVl/ 4BJ/hXufwL1jx34w8Lya94i1b7PDNLts1htI1LKuQzHKnjPA+lfM/gTwbJ4p8VWOiWnmkzyAyt2j jHLMeOgH64HevuPS7G20zTbbTrKIRW1rEsMSAcKqgAD8hXhZ1DD4eKp04JSf4L/gn0WQVcTipOrU m3Faer/4BV+wal/0Hrr/AL8Q/wDxFH2DUv8AoPXX/fiH/wCIrSor50+qMm5s9UitpZF165yiFhmC LsP92tDSZpLnS7S4lIMksCO2BgZKgmi+/wCPKf8A65t/I1HoH/IC0/8A69Y//QRSYGXL/rPE3+6P /RC18leGvCkviHWTp1tKsMm1nYucKoH0Br62Kl7jxKg6sFA/78LXjXwgsUjutSugq/LiIHvyST/I VOZ55UyLIsXjaT9+KXLfu3Zfc3c8bHYCOPx2Hoz2d7+i1/Q5n/hTWqf9BOz/AO+m/wDiaP8AhTWq f9BOz/76b/4mvbKytS1y0sNd0rRpY53utTMvk7ACqiNdzFiSMDkDjPJr8Vp+LvFdV8sKkW7N/Atk rv7krnux4LyybtGD+99NTyj/AIU1qn/QTs/++m/+Jo/4U1qn/QTs/wDvpv8A4mvYLXVNMukme21G 0nWDPnGOZWEf+9g8dD1qU3doOt1CP3XncyD/AFf9/wD3ffpSfi7xWnZzj/4AgfBeWJ2cH97MX4Me FrTwLFe3F6wutQuiEEkQ4SIc7QTjqeTx2Fejf8JBaf8APGf8h/jXI29/Y3Lypb3ttM0IBlCSqxQE ZGcHjI55rIufF+jR6lBY20pvmmtp7nzLVkeNEiA3bm3cEkgD364rin4hcTYyq5OSct37i2tf8j18 JkNCjBUqMHZf8Oei/wDCQWn/ADxn/If40f8ACQWn/PGf8h/jXE2us2EsNkZ547Oe9jWSG2uJUWU5 GcbQTk/QmrB1CwF8LA3tsLsjcIDKvmEeu3Oa5nx/xBF2cl/4Cuhq8sprTlZ1F74gtDZTgQzcxt2H p9a0/D5zoOnn1tYv/QRXEXn/AB6Tf9c2/lXbeHf+Rf07/r1i/wDQBX33AfEeOzr2/wBbknyctrJL fmvt6HnY7Dwo8vJ1M+P/AI/fEX1T/wBELXn/AIFsVs9HZlH+ulLg98dP5g/nXoEf/H74i+qf+iFr yrU/EGuaRbWlro3hYasoQiRv7RSHYRj+8pznn6V7vGeV5nm2U/U8up87lOLlrFaJP+Zrrb7jzKeI w+GxcateVrJ20e7t28jrdQe5jsLiSyhSe6WJmhid9qu4B2qT2BOBmvNL6Dxd4hur3xBH4eayurXR GsrWzvthWW4kYGUqNxG3aNoLYznnvV//AITbxt/0Tkf+DuL/AOJo/wCE28bf9E5H/g7i/wDia/M8 DwDxRg7uOCi5Pq5w26r47Wa0flc9/D8U5fQu1JN92pfNfM5KTwh4nbTPEr22k3iSXGnWtjZxyi2h eSLzMzALDhAQBgAknB6npWrr+g+JNYHia5h0Kexa7s7PStOieWMslvv3TE7WIGATxk/jXR6Z4j+I epO6WXwyEpQZb/iewDH5qKv/AG34p/8ARKx/4UNt/hXoz4f4sU7ywcE00/jh05OntNnyK/rLuelH i6hU9+Nn6Rl05fL+7+LON8QeCtTz4qTQ9IW3tmtbGzsoYXWI3UKMHnGc9TyuW68+tVNX8K6zqNz4 lvtN8LNo/wBusLXTbSHdEpaNnUzOwRiowqgYz2Fd79t+Kf8A0Ssf+FDbf4Ufbfin/wBErH/hQ23+ FZ0sg4tppf7NFtW1dSHTk3/eWd+RXv3dt9HDiunHz2+zPpy+XXl/FnPad4cubbxJqdtqHhGPVo7z Uo5YtQlmjEdvaIqiNRnL70KkbQoBz1xWVpHgvXV8WRtqNvfyeXrbai96rWqwsoYsh3bTMSRhDHwB zziu2+2/FP8A6JWP/Chtv8KPtvxT/wCiVj/wobb/AArOPDfFcVJLDR1SX8SHRWuv3mjt2stFoQuK KSvbqrfDP0vtp8tDpLv/AI9ZfTYc/TFdt4d/5F/Tv+vWL/0AV5Dc3nxRNtKH+FgVdhyf+EgtzgY+ leu+Gyx8O6YXXa32SLK5zg7BxX0vAXDmY5L7f69TUefltaUZXtzX+Fu263PBxmLpYi3s29PJr80i lbLv1HX0zjcyDP8A2xWvO5rK4WWTZBIVVyAQp569Pau8u3eNfFUkbMrrHlWU4IP2ccivlr9lnWNb 1zxRrEGtazqd+kVoJFS6unkCsXAJwxOCa/X8si/Zznfax8xmsFUlCL8z2MQykkeWwI65GKd9nmPA T9RWrrtxpuj6RdapekRW1tE0sjljwACfXrxXg3wRn8a/En4j6r4gOs6nBpemI90LOO7eKFpMEQQg AhQMgEk9dpz1zXownzQlUeiR5X1Nc6hu2fV3hTSv7K0tUcfv5cPL7HH3fw/xrXrwz9m7w58UdM8R axqHxB1bUriBrZY7WCfWPtcYZnyxCiRgpAUAE9ifevcPPh37POj3ZxjcM59K+fxcOWq1zKXmtj6b C2VJJRt5MfRXlX7Sem/EHV/DOmWPw+uLq1uxeGW5mttSFm/lqjALuLrkEtnGf4RR4T0HxfZ+FvA2 n65qV9c3lrK1zq082rFnJLMwV2DZkAztGCwwMEdwLDxdNT51r06jdZqbhyvTr0PVaK4bT18dJNBE LuJ0TTJHnWYxO5vGJwmVPCqTxxjAAPJ4t6va+JFvYJYtQjVbf5gZJgguWW2dRlRgDdLIpPQYj9xU exs7cyL9rpezOovv+PKf/rm38jUegf8AIC0//r1j/wDQRWd4f/tf/hEEOu3MFxqLRSNM8KgLyWKr xxkLgHHGQa0dA/5AWn/9esf/AKCKxkrNo0TukzGv/wDVeK/+uX/tuK+WP2O4zL428Rooyxshj2/f LX1Pf/6rxX/1y/8AbcV8jfsxa/aeFtS8aeIb4jyLHSTKRnG9vNUKo9yxA/Gvay1N4aqlvp+Z5WYN KrTb8zpf2tfFcgNl4C06RnmnKXF8idecGKIj1J+bHsvrXT+L/D8fwk/ZQvdLZwmr6t5Udy44JmlI Lpn0WNXH4E964b9mnwze/Er4uX/jvxCWmt7Cf7XIWG4SXDH93H/uqOfYKoxzx1/7d+sbNK8NaAjn 97PLeSL/ALqhFP8A4+9d0v49LCR6O8vXc5YK1GpiH10X5HnOn6vqPhX9maN7S9lt7nxPrcivIj7X a2hTDLuJyMvgHHbIPU1zHiPRLfS9H8HfZFlTV9VszeTYLZG+dlgx2HyqDx617l45+DWtat8E/BkG gGN73RtO8yaxbhpnmAkk2N03By3Bxn1zwed/Zi+IXiXT/Gth8P8AUEa9064eSFIZl/e2jKjsdp/u ja2VPTJxjodoYlOnOrS1abbV7aa2/AznRfPGnU0TSSe/9alD9qSe81j4seGPCCXUhkt7C1tpXBIP myt8xI+m01T+IMI8b/tTw+GLe7uIrC2uYNO3QSFGjjgjBlKnsQVkOaXQ7tPF37XN7rcyeZaWN/cX Uh6AQ2kbLGfx8uP86zvgVdG58beNfiHeYLaXpV7frJ/duJiVX8w0lOMXSprvGH4y/wCCgk1Um+zl +C/4cs/s7Brf9oS8udOvbz+ydKTULiQPKWaS2VWVQ3945aM8jqM9cVy+hS3Hj7xd4p8SeJr26vIL DTLvUpMzMuSPlhReRgB5EwoxwMetdB8D2Oj/AAr+Jni6STEg0+PTomY9XmbB565yVrI+GXhS6v8A wRql7ceN9G8LaZq0gsJPt6kG5ETJKVVscYO3IB+vFbSaVSpO9rWjf8X+ZkruEI97v9F+R7b+xTDf j4b+Irq4md7WW7KwKzEhWWP5/p1WvoHQP+QFp/8A16x/+giuH+CXhODwb8IrPSoNQt9S82OW7N5b 58qcSksjLnts2flXcaB/yAtP/wCvWP8A9BFfKY+qquInNbXPocJB06MYsxr/AP1Xiv8A65f+24r8 54zdTXMun2nmu91OqCNCf3jbiFGO/Jr9JtORX1nW0dQytLGGUjII8leK5PxlZeG/CrWN1pvg/wAP LcNIWST7DEpBUrwpAG04JbcTgbMdSMdmV45Ybmjy3b/Q5sfhfb2leyRc+CfgmHwD8PNO0JTuuyvn 3shHLTvgsPoOFHsor5x/aZkPir9pDSfDCL5iWwtbR165MhEjf+OuP1r2vVfiN4usmXydB0m8idV/ ewXWRGxEbEMM/wC06AZBLITwOKz7/wASNHqkmqHwl4dm1EXQWPUjZpnKu65Zw7OpKIpU85JA9St4 V1aVaVaau2n16sjEezqU1Si7JW6HjXjnxfdN+05LHe67dadoOm6jFC8RuyiLFbqoYYB/iKE/Vqk/ Z1nE3jLxj8QLw7k0rS7q7E/XE8pJ6+pUP+dereJ7/TtUu7e+vvhn4a1W/umJ8+4s0eSVVCgH5hl+ uduTgd8iuo8PXVtHqH/CM6L4U0KDRLlY3uTZWiNBLuWMSKyRnAzucbm4/dkc10zxSVHkULaJbrZb /eYQoXq8zl1vs+ux8wfBsvp/gn4m+MrmMiWPSBYxMSQN9zKASO+QQn51D4XlXQf2bPFOobgs/iDV bfTIiMZ2Rgyv79ARz68cmvtuLwr4Xh0+bTovDmjx2U7K01utlGI5GHQsuMEjtmvKr+exn+OP/CEw aVosfhXSNP8Att7YtpkBiExXJk5TKttdPukfd+tOnmSrym1HtLfpG2n3k1sL7CMeaW/u/N31+48A 1iOTRf2VdFiSNlPiHXpbmRsHBjhDIB+LAH8K5vXGt9S8MeBPCWizi7u2SWW6SEbttxPOQq8c7hGs YI+le6+FLLxt8QvA9xqdxr/h3TfD1rcyG3sr7QrOS3gRckMN0eFAyRn26811H7PUWmat4BvtftvB fhqPxFp0s0VrdW+mxwmdggKHKqCuSdp246dK6p4r2EZSaTak72ezd7Xult5HJSSrzjFXSktLrdK1 7Wb/ABOr8L+M9Lk1aTwDp2n3G3SrBoDcDaIw0IMbLtzkAFCM+uOMMCe70D/kBaf/ANesf/oIrjvA dzrt/HrN74h8F2Xh+9ePmeEqXugQ3LEDPC7RgkkEH2rsdA/5AWn/APXrH/6CK+YxKSnZL8bn0VFt wu/ysVdL/wCQ5rX/AF2i/wDRS1y/xV0KfXbrS1g0f7c1qk8quz7UVyFAU/KRzz9MV1Gl/wDIc1r/ AK7Rf+ilr5p/aD+JWp6f8UdQ0rTbvVIoLGOKE/ZtVuLdGbYHY7Y2AyC2M4zxWUa3sWpnr5Zk9TN6 roU3ayv9zR2d74M1gW2n3cfhqa71J4R9qQyERqAAmORtyEVcDbk888nMlr4J1S8ez0y+0Nzpc95D JLKzyLMjIm1n24wABlQXPKkjHRa8OsPiP4u1C7SzsLjxNdXMmdkMOuXru2Bk4UPk8Amrlj418d3k 1nHEfFIW8uPs0Er63fLG0mcFdxfGR39MGipncKfxNK3n6/5P7j2ZeH1aL96ovw/zPqWP4a+H1XY0 1/IgV0VGkXCK8hkIX5eBuPbtx0rR8J+D9F8LzSz6XFL5k0aQuW2k7VPyjgDpmvkzUPGnjO0M5jvf Ed5HboJLiWDWdR2QoxOxmLEYVwAynoQw75Ac/jHxouoRaaNQ1pr54jNJb/8ACR3gaBAnmZclwo+T 5iMkjBBweK43nFOUdZ6b/Ja3fZbO77rujWPA9Re8pr7l/mfSvxG+JsXgXxXpdhrOjzjRL2FnfVUJ YRyAsPL2BeeinOf4unFeT6bcXs3hv4n/ABJktLmNNWV7XThJGRJ5Tt5atj6Ov/fBrzu78Z+NGthc ofE97p8k3kw3iatqBgnbcVGwsRkkg4BAPtmprfxF8SJEkit9H8bMsbGORU1DUCFbAypAbg8jj3rr pZ7gqFPons7yts7tWez6P8jixHh/i6s+aeIVleystHa383T7zuL/AODmmp8ELPxTZWUh1+2tkv7i NpGKXEfDOjKTwQufu4ztx3r3b4VPos/gHS7vQbBLC0ngD/Z1GPKf+JT7hs89+vevkZfHnjVMxqvi pdjSoVGs3w2tEN0g+/1QcsOw64qzqni/xpo4mEk3iExW/li5kh1u+McEjqG8t23ABxkAj14oxOe0 66VOctW21r02t99rfcVhvDuphqicKi1Vtlrbrv8AefaF9/x5T/8AXNv5Go9A/wCQFp//AF6x/wDo Ir4df4peInQq2pa/gjB/4qC8/wDi6+3vCrFvDGlMxyTZQk/98Cs41FPY585yKrlXJ7R35r/hbzfc 53UL+6tPEmrLBcGFd0TMdqn/AJZL6g+lfGXizTNb1rxRquryizZ728lnJ+3wY+ZyePn6c19iayA3 ijVQQCCYgQf+uYrz7xl4D+HGpaqb/wAQ2dsl08OeblohsUhchVYDALDn3r8np8WLL89xdDGOpOF/ dUfe5bdotrfvfS2x6uS5k8spOpTgm5Jbu342Z896Pp2r6ZZajHFaWbXN5CLdZzqUA8qMnMgA3clg AucjALDvx1kviHWJNQlkOi2S2ckSRrbJqVnGYwB5ZxIihmAiLxpuLFA5OSa7mP4ffBSSyub2OKze 3tSBPINQkKxknAz83rUtj8Nfg3fXbWlna2006xec0aX8pYJx8xG7gcj8678VxHkNZyqV8PWdt26a 00j/ANPNNEvv83f0KnFE60ryowbf99/5eX5+Z5/J4i8QTfYzPpOmsI5JWu0F9Z7bhZGLFQSDJGCN qMA+CqgALWLb3HiqObVL+V4p9W1DYj3zatEHSIHLoMPkbsIuQRhQVHB49aPw2+DQtI7v7PZ/Z5XZ EkGoyFWZVLMM7+wUk+gFMT4d/BZ7iS3SC0aWNlR0GoSZVicAH5upPGKilxBw/TTUMNWXf92v5r/8 /P5t/knokhR4mlDRUIK/99+vb+vQ8+fV9Th1W/1HTdFt4JbzDkzazbyGKRARFswFAjQlWCYJzGh3 YGDVhu7+OCO1Oh2bWqRwW5j/ALYg+aBG8yVM56yy4Zm9Btx3r0j/AIQH4IhnUrYKUhE7BtSkGEOM Ny/Q7lx65HrUs/w3+DMEVpLNb2iJepvtmOoSYlXjlfn5HI/Ol/buQRsvq9fW1vc7LT/l50W3ZeQl xNK2lGHT7b6bdPkcFH4g1UmK6udCtJ78KyzOdZgETgytK2I+qln2bvmOVXaNoPGXqtxqd34dm021 0ewtbq8dHv7w6lbO85HzMM8OA74chnYAqNoUcV6hb/Dn4MXEcssFvayJFEZnZb+UgIMZbO7pyOaj i+H/AME5Z0hjis2kkkMSAX8vzODgqPm6g9aKeeZBTlzRw1e6d/g2a129pbTcUeJnFpqjDv8AG/8A I8IPhnVwM7LP/wADoP8A4uv0C8J/8itpOcf8eMPQ5/gFeFXHwX+HCW8jroBBVCR/pUvXH+9XvHhp VTw5piKMKtpEAPbYK+r4f4jwGde0+p83uWvzJLe9rWlLt5HkcR5vXzH2aqwUeW+zb3t5Lscb4ovL TTtc1a+1C7t7S1Vog008qogPlr1JOB1Fcj4y8ISeJdShvYtVjgt2tRBIvkeYWXzkmBU7gBkxqDkH gVL8X9Iudc8caVYxpe/Zkv2uLh4WZY1EdujIHI4BL7QD1+9iuHtbjxpBYSXdvB4nl1JNNuf7SW5R /KNyw2wrbp935W5zGMbRycmvy7NsNUpZzWxWGrKNTme9rK90t7/yvXu4rrc6MLllPFYOClLfpt1d vy/FHY2Hw/0/T/Btx4fsrqSOW7SJbu7cF2l2kbvlLYUEbgFBwN3fvStfh08Go69fHWd8mpR3Udv/ AKPg24nKk5O47toRVGNvA96wvEOj+KoY9StrHU/E8rWmn2kUMiXEp+0XckgDyAj+FFUEgcDJz1NW yfE+n61Jh/Edzpp16NSxR5JGijt9zEAdI5JSBxhABjgVwQxOY8s5wxibneTuld6Qe7TeqtZbWTXd FvIsNKKcZLRaLVef6/0yTVPhxbT6Roehaj4mybUXC2/m7g80shzhR5mSqx712ZPHJzzmBvhXcQxr O3iaNJ4bozRTPZ8YZ5Xw37zli0qnP/TNeKpTN4sltrDVrjS9YmvbXT729UBGEkUtzMI0RcqfmjhL NtwTx05FUrPTPEOoSaVBrB8UtYHXiQSLgvFGkKlJG3ZZQ0uCGOAuG+70HpUsfm0KbTxiUU5N+7B6 80nLlVvtJ3S0Tu10sH+rOEfvSa00er6dteyVjYf4QOBfeT4hUG5hSBd9mTsjQx+WBiQbSBDGNy4y VyR2q54r+H6a7qlhCPE0cd7YWMcaxPHud0AcGRkDjIaTYckEAoe/TAsX+I32HV7x21pb0WrLPF5L lRI06gmAMdpZY9+PLBB4yc11nwz064XxD4g1WePWBbsYLSwbVQ/nmJELscv8xBeRuvpjjGK58Vm2 bYeMsRPFxlKne1ox3fJF9NnG1u8U9tjOrw7hKNObbT9G9XdefnddyhD8NdRhs5LKLXLdLeW0htGU QSMQscm/5WeViAw+Uj2GPSneB/AVjpOpWU02uwXjaU8sYS2lljIuJCrnePNYAkZzGAAd2SDWNpZ+ I93q1hY3P9qW9ncq+nyTtvDRJDIjNcFsYDyKZEUnrwQe9QLa662t2Wu3un+IhMsOo6lDDHFKVWfe whiYAfKTEMYONwIXnOK0qYvNKlOpRqYuNp3b5VG7fLKOrST1ScXrpv2NYcN4WEruSutrO/d9+6+R 6/8Aara80yS4s7iG4hZHCyROHUkZBwRxwQR+Fd54d/5F/Tv+vWL/ANAFeDfDrQdW0W/TT3n1Q2UW gxCZbhmMJu3Zi2wYwCoGDt5+bnJ5r3nw7/yL+nf9esX/AKAK+j8OcNTw2IxdOnPmj7jT8nzWPJz2 lGlUjGErrU81+JWs6hp/iq203SIrWS+1PUBEPtG7YkS2wd3+U5yMDj3rzuX4neIBptm8Onae9y1p JeSuVYRTILhokCZceXuCk5JbGV45r2DX7S1m8T3dzNbQyTQyARSMgLIGijDBT1GcDOOuKzG0PRWW 0VtH08rZf8eoNsmIP9zj5fwxXx/EGOwNHN68a1Dmak7vv8X4Wcfub7Hq5biMPDDwU6d/6f8AwDgN b+KFzpOsTWU2lCRbW7lgudgbcu6EvbKOcbnYFT249+NT4g6nrFt4f8PWYvLex1fUtQtopWR2SNcf PIMg7tvy7euTnHeuul0nSpZ2uJdMspJnlSZpGgUs0iDCOTjJZRwD1Hal1LS9M1NUXUtOtL1U3BRc QrIFyMHG4HGRwa8BZhgY1KM4Ubcvxa3u7aaPS13t1SS6HT9Zw6lCUadrb9bv/h/wseW6n461G60w XDyRpPZWmpXDzWbyJDP5bfZ4HUbjlWd84YnBXIrR8M+LtdTX7Hw69qs9vbTjTbiWcsbiWRIQzzby 3PIJ27SSPmzXfPoujOgjfSbBkESwhTboQI1bcqdPuhuQOgPNSJpmmpqT6mmn2i3zrsa5EKiVl9C+ Mke2a2qZtgJUpU1Q6St5N7fdd/gaSxmHcHFU+9vnt912ctr/AIn1W38b2+h6W2lTQIizai0ofdaR dSzMCBuI+6uCT1OBXND4nauseq3RtdNktobFLm0ZQ6AGWYRwq5ZskMCWJ2pgDpjmvR30HQ31T+1X 0XTm1DOftRtUMucYzvxnpx16Vn3/AIM8P3EdtHb6baWEcN1Fcutrbxxiby2LKj4HK7jnH+NLC47K 4qMatG9lG7807y2fXZbefW5RxGESSnC+i/4P/AOdfW9c1q5udE+1WyPb6zaQm705nRXi2iaRN24/ MFUqTnB3AYGcV6JVG10fSLRLdLXS7GBbZ2eAR26qImYEMVwPlJBIJHXNXq8vHYmlW5Y0Y8sV+eib +dr26apHHiKsKllBWS/P+kRXRItZSMcITyM9q7bw7/yL+nf9esX/AKAK4m8/49Jv+ubfyrtvDv8A yL+nf9esX/oAr9Q8Kd8V/wBuf+3Hg5n9n5nGa/eWtv4q1NLi6hiyYiFeQL/yzX1qt/aem/8AQQtP +/y/416XRXr5t4c08xxtTFPEOPO725b2/EypZhKnBR5djzT+09N/6CFp/wB/l/xo/tPTf+ghaf8A f5f8a9Lorz/+IVUv+gl/+Ar/AOSL/tOX8p5p/aem/wDQQtP+/wAv+NH9p6b/ANBC0/7/AC/416XR R/xCql/0Ev8A8BX/AMkH9py/lPNP7T03/oIWn/f5f8aP7T03/oIWn/f5f8a9Loo/4hVS/wCgl/8A gK/+SD+05fynmn9p6b/0ELT/AL/L/jR/aem/9BC0/wC/y/416XRR/wAQqpf9BL/8BX/yQf2nL+U8 vutS05rWVVv7UkoQAJl9PrXoPh3/AJF/Tv8Ar1i/9AFX6K+s4W4Uhw/7Xlq8/Pbpa1r+b7nLicS6 9rq1j//Z ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0CD6C.26BF30C0-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 12:47:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01647 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01642 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:47:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23729; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:46:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: "Peter D. Barnett" cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Visine In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010425082444.00ad0e50@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > From: Peter D. Barnett > > Since feline necromancy and municipal employment discrimination seem to be > popular topics on this list, I'd like to raise a new issue of equivalent > significance: > > Why is it that visine eye drops are no longer available, at least in some > California drug stores, off the shelf, but must be obtained from the > pharmacy counter? Oh, that's easy. It's the drug hysteria. Visine bottles (like bottled water) are now considered "drug paraphenalia." The DEA claims it is a popular way to carry LSD (see www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct070600_01.htm ) The FDA claims it is a popular way to carry GHB (see www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/200_ghb.html) The LA DA claims it is added to drinks alone to cause, get this, diarhhea. (see www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_cat6.shtml) NORML claims it can be used to fool drug testing for marijuana in urine (see www.norml.org/canorml/testing/ptips.txt ) Personally, since I happen to suffer from corneal basement membrane dystrophy, I have moved on to the "hard stuff" -- liquid tears and goopy Crisco-based goo in the evenings. Of course that now constitutes probable cause... Pretty soon, I'll have to go downtown to boarded up "tear houses" for my fix of AquaTears. I'll be paying $100 for a dime bag of Ringer's Solution. No doubt it will make me ineligible for employment in Florida and Georgia, but as long as there's a street corner with a willing dealer, I can keep from going blind. billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 13:16:45 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02141 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from agency6.state.ky.us (agency6.state.ky.us [162.114.120.27]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02135 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:16:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us Received: by agency6.state.ky.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:09:45 -0400 Message-ID: To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:11:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu id NAA02137 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Billo touché, I wish I could be offended but your response made me laugh out loud T -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:56 AM To: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us Cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us wrote: > >> > From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us >> > >> > It's a disgusting habit that non-smokers don't want to be around. Would >> > you >> > hire a person who picked his nose in an interview? >> >> >> I wouldn't fire him if he picked his nose at home. Would you? >> >> >> billo >> >> My entire family smokes, I know for a fact they cannot limit themselves to >> smoking only at home. Addictions are 24/7 > Um... I'll take that as a "yes." So. We have made smoking at home and picking one's nose at home conditions for termination. What else? How do you feel about passing gas? Personally, I dislike it just as much when someone farts in an elevator as I do when someone lights up a stogey. It's not such a great interview skill, either. Using your contention that there is no real separation between private and professional demeanor (as I ably demonstrate with these posts), and one is doomed to uncontrolable seizures of lighting up cigs or digging for boogers at random times of the day, I think we should add passing gas to the list of things nobody with a job should be allowed to do at work *or* at home. Certainly nobody in Coral Gables, Florida, anyway. And don't get me started on loud ties. I kinda like the vision of all these Floridian forensic scientists standing around in burmuda shorts puckering their sphincters, gritting their teeth and just up and exploding now and then. Keeps the job market open. But at least the city fathers will know their employees were politically correct at the time of their demise. And that's all that matters. billo From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 13:40:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02840 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02835 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:40:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Palmer, Miguel (MDPD)" ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:34:02 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from ["Palmer, Miguel (MDPD)" ] >From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 10:34:01 2001 Received: from s0320111.int.mdpd.com (mail.mdpd.com [208.60.2.66]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26609 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:34:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by s0320111 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58) id <238M3BWR>; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:38:27 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Palmer, Miguel (MDPD)" To: "'David Smith'" , cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:35:48 -0400 Importance: low X-Priority: 5 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2651.58) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CD95.050E0540" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CD95.050E0540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Why are we spending time on this issue. Coral Gables has the smoking policy, it has been upheld in the legal system, discussion is over. It may be health, risk management related, or long term employee health and insurance related. Regardless, if an applicant is in disagreement with it , they should not apply. Lets move on to something else. -----Original Message----- From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:09 AM To: cdefine@bcpl.net Cc: Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure groups attempts). Dave S. >From: Carol Define MD >To: "Shonberger, Frank" >CC: "'David Smith'" , , > >Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 (EDT) > >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a pre-employment requirement and it >has > > withstood local challenges. > >So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they do it?...especially up to >a year? and currently on the job? > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CD95.050E0540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Job Announcement re. smoking

Why are we spending time on this issue.  Coral = Gables has the smoking policy, it has been upheld in the legal system, = discussion is over.  It may be health, risk management related, or = long term employee health and insurance related.  Regardless, if = an applicant is in disagreement with it , they should not apply. Lets = move on to something else.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com]<= /FONT>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:09 AM
To: cdefine@bcpl.net
Cc: Prantoci@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking


Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the = same. I had assumed that
legally they were treated quite differently (despite = various pressure groups
attempts).

Dave S.


>From: Carol Define MD = <cdefine@bcpl.net>
>To: "Shonberger, Frank" = <fshonberger@pd.citybeautiful.net>
>CC: "'David Smith'" = <das_smith@hotmail.com>, <Prantoci@aol.com>,   =
><Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
>Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking
>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:31:08 -0400 = (EDT)
>
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank = wrote:
>
> > It is Tabacco and Marijuana it is a = pre-employment requirement and it
>has
> > withstood local challenges.
>
>So, do they test for tobacco use and how do they = do it?...especially up to
>a year?  and currently on the job?
>

_______________________________________________________________= __
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CD95.050E0540-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 13:46:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03207 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c001.zsm.cp.net (c001-h005.c001.zsm.cp.net [209.228.56.119]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA03197 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (cpmta 10982 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 10:46:06 -0700 Received: from c846529-b.saltlk1.ut.home.com (HELO host) (24.20.100.68) by smtp.surfree.com (209.228.56.119) with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 10:46:06 -0700 X-Sent: 25 Apr 2001 17:46:06 GMT Message-ID: <001301c0cdaf$84396a20$657ba8c0@host> From: "Peggy" To: "Troy Hamlin" Cc: References: Subject: Employment Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:45:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Good morning Troy, Could you or anyone on the list tell me whether or not it is unrealistic to pursue a forensics degree at the age of 48. I have approximately 1 1/2 years to go to obtain my forensics degree. I have a clean record, no drug use and want this very much. However, I need to know if anyone has any knowledge as to whether or not the age will be a real factor in obtaining a job in a crime lab. Any information would be helpful. Thanks. Peggy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Troy Hamlin" To: Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 7:59 AM Subject: Job Announcement > The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation has a Forensic Chemist > Vacancy in the Trace Evidence Section of the Crime Laboratory, (please > see attachment). This position will perform analysis in one or more of the > following disciplines; Hair, Fiber, Paint, Glass, Gunshot Residue, and > Arson debris analysis. This position will located in the Raleigh, North > Carolina area. This is a sworn position. Questions can be directed to: > Troy Hamlin > Special Agent in Charge > North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation > Raleigh North Carolina > (919) 662-4509 ext 3535 > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 13:50:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03374 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA03365 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 17:50:48 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:41:51 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Visine Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:41:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDAF.0256D5B0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDAF.0256D5B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I dunno - to discourage druggies from using the bottles as suppositories for administration of illicit substances via auto-rectal lavage (i.e., bear down and get a thrill)? ;) Seriously, the empty bottles are commonly used for carrying LSD and other illicit drugs in solution. Perhaps that has something to do with it? Otherwise, I have no idea. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@FSALab.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:32 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Visine Since feline necromancy and municipal employment discrimination seem to be popular topics on this list, I'd like to raise a new issue of equivalent significance: Why is it that visine eye drops are no longer available, at least in some California drug stores, off the shelf, but must be obtained from the pharmacy counter? I will compile the answers and prizes will be awarded to the best ones in the categories of humor, believable, and correct (if that can be determined). Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDAF.0256D5B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Visine

I dunno - to discourage druggies from using the = bottles as suppositories for administration of illicit substances via = auto-rectal lavage (i.e., bear down and get a thrill)?  = ;)

Seriously, the empty bottles are commonly used for = carrying LSD and other illicit drugs in solution.  Perhaps that = has something to do with it?  Otherwise, I have no = idea.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@FSALab.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 11:32
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Visine


Since feline necromancy and municipal employment = discrimination seem to be
popular topics on this list, I'd like to raise a new = issue of equivalent
significance:

Why is it that visine eye drops are no longer = available, at least in some
California drug stores, off the shelf, but must be = obtained from the
pharmacy counter?

I will compile the answers and prizes will be awarded = to the best ones in
the categories of humor, believable, and correct (if = that can be determined).

Pete Barnett
Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 = pbarnett@FSALab.com

http://www.fsalab.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDAF.0256D5B0-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 14:00:46 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03668 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:00:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ARWSHKHN45 (ARWSHKHN45.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL [204.208.124.45]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA03663 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:00:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: FROM dasmthkhn459.amedd.army.mil BY ARWSHKHN45 ; Wed Apr 25 13:02:21 2001 -0500 Received: by DASMTHKHN459.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:57:32 -0500 Message-ID: <109DBBFC212ED5119BED00A0C9EA3318439771@DASMTHGSH666.AMEDD.ARMY.MIL> From: "Hause, David W LTC GLWACH" To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:00:10 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk If you don't, in a year and a half you'll be 49 1/2 with no degree. Aside from tuition cost, how would you be worse off? Will the degree get you a job? Who knows, but you apparently don't have a forensic science job now, so why not? Dave Hause -----Original Message----- From: Peggy [mailto:hobbit@surfree.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 12:45 PM To: Troy Hamlin Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Employment Good morning Troy, Could you or anyone on the list tell me whether or not it is unrealistic to pursue a forensics degree at the age of 48. I have approximately 1 1/2 years to go to obtain my forensics degree. I have a clean record, no drug use and want this very much. However, I need to know if anyone has any knowledge as to whether or not the age will be a real factor in obtaining a job in a crime lab. Any information would be helpful. Thanks. Peggy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Troy Hamlin" To: Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 7:59 AM Subject: Job Announcement > The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation has a Forensic Chemist > Vacancy in the Trace Evidence Section of the Crime Laboratory, (please > see attachment). This position will perform analysis in one or more of the > following disciplines; Hair, Fiber, Paint, Glass, Gunshot Residue, and > Arson debris analysis. This position will located in the Raleigh, North > Carolina area. This is a sworn position. Questions can be directed to: > Troy Hamlin > Special Agent in Charge > North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation > Raleigh North Carolina > (919) 662-4509 ext 3535 > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 14:58:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04586 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:58:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04581 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:58:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-80.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.80]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.11.3/8.11.3/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id f3PIw6921542; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:58:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010425110822.00aa9100@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:17:54 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: Re: Visine In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010425082444.00ad0e50@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 12:46 PM 4/25/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote: >Oh, that's easy. It's the drug hysteria. Visine bottles (like >bottled water) are now considered "drug paraphenalia." Gosh. Truth is stranger than fiction. Also it appears that we have WAY too many drug agents with nothing to do. Maybe they should concentrate on locating missionary airplanes to be shot down in South America - at least we could still have visine then. Why should the idiots that use this stuff be restricted to dosages available from visine botles. What we really need is bigger bottles -- and probably be ones the empty quicker. And what about making marijuana brownies? Maybe flour should be a controlled substance. Certainly it should not be available to school-aged children to buy off the shelves of their local grocery store. And those pesky beans and cucumbers (not to mention cabbage which stinks BEFORE it is eaten) should be banned so that the more sensitive members of our communites will not be offended by flatulence - theirs or others. We've really got a long way to go to make this country a safe and inoffensive place to live. Pete Barnett From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 16:03:22 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA05498 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from matrix.webzone.net (qmailr@matrix.webzone.net [205.219.23.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA05493 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 20612 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 15:03:17 -0500 Received: from price (tprice-ded.webzone.net [208.135.239.61]) by matrix.webzone.net with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 15:03:17 -0500 Message-ID: <01bb01c0cdc2$a5734b80$0100a8c0@price.webzone.net> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: Visine Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:02:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Until something more politically correct than starting fluid is available I have an old Gravely tractor with a "wind the rope around" starter. If it doesn't start on the second pull you have no strength left. Perhaps the AFT agents need some good old engines to hand crank without starting fluid. Bathroom scales should go on the list next for the really big dealers. Obviously anyone who has scales for that large a weight is involved in heavy trafficking. When is this nonsense going to stop?? JTP -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Visine At 12:46 PM 4/25/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote: >Oh, that's easy. It's the drug hysteria. Visine bottles (like >bottled water) are now considered "drug paraphenalia." Gosh. Truth is stranger than fiction. Also it appears that we have WAY too many drug agents with nothing to do. Maybe they should concentrate on locating missionary airplanes to be shot down in South America - at least we could still have visine then. Why should the idiots that use this stuff be restricted to dosages available from visine botles. What we really need is bigger bottles -- and probably be ones the empty quicker. And what about making marijuana brownies? Maybe flour should be a controlled substance. Certainly it should not be available to school-aged children to buy off the shelves of their local grocery store. And those pesky beans and cucumbers (not to mention cabbage which stinks BEFORE it is eaten) should be banned so that the more sensitive members of our communites will not be offended by flatulence - theirs or others. We've really got a long way to go to make this country a safe and inoffensive place to live. Pete Barnett From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 17:03:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06435 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:03:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA06430 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 21:03:18 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:54:22 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Visine Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:54:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDC9.E6B424A0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDC9.E6B424A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Oh, that's easy. It's the drug hysteria. Visine bottles (like >bottled water) are now considered "drug paraphenalia." > >The DEA claims it is a popular way to carry LSD >(see www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct070600_01.htm ) > >The FDA claims it is a popular way to carry GHB >(see www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/200_ghb.html) Those aren't just claims, Bill, they're facts. We see the bottles regularly in case submissions in my lab - frequently containing LSD, only rarely containing GHB (GHB is usually found in much bigger bottles - the "bottled water" you mention). Labs all over the country have also reported similar encounters. They're quite common, if not frequent, encounters. >The LA DA claims it is added to drinks alone to cause, >get this, diarhhea. >(see www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_cat6.shtml) Don't know about that one - it's the first time I've heard it. >NORML claims it can be used to fool drug testing for >marijuana in urine >(see www.norml.org/canorml/testing/ptips.txt ) Also documented fact. First encountered in attempts to foil military urine drug screens, I believe, but reported in other places as well. It's not effective against the more modern detection methods, however. LOL! I always enjoy your posts, Bill, whether I agree with your opinion or not. I do agree it's truly ludicrous to limit the purchase of Visine just because the bottles can be used to carry drugs. If that's the case, then we need to ban all small containers for any kind of product (e.g., super glue vials are commonly used as carriers for crack cocaine rocks). How silly are we going to get? There's a point of absurdity that the originators of this kind of drug control strategy have long surpassed. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDC9.E6B424A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Visine

>Oh, that's easy.  It's the drug = hysteria.  Visine bottles (like
>bottled water) are now considered "drug = paraphenalia." 
>
>The DEA claims it is a popular way to carry LSD =
>(see  = www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct070600_01.htm )
>
>The FDA claims it is a popular way to carry = GHB
>(see = www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/200_ghb.html)

Those aren't just claims, Bill, they're facts.  = We see the bottles regularly in case submissions in my lab - frequently = containing LSD, only rarely containing GHB (GHB is usually found in = much bigger bottles - the "bottled water" you mention).  = Labs all over the country have also reported similar encounters.  = They're quite common, if not frequent, encounters.

>The LA DA claims it is added to drinks alone to = cause,
>get this, diarhhea.
>(see = www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_cat6.shtml)

Don't know about that one - it's the first time I've = heard it.

>NORML claims it can be used to fool drug testing = for
>marijuana in urine
>(see www.norml.org/canorml/testing/ptips.txt = )

Also documented fact.  First encountered in = attempts to foil military urine drug screens, I believe, but reported = in other places as well.  It's not effective against the more = modern detection methods, however.

<snip of typical Billo sarcastic humor>

LOL!  I always enjoy your posts, Bill, whether I = agree with your opinion or not.

I do agree it's truly ludicrous to limit the purchase = of Visine just because the bottles can be used to carry drugs.  If = that's the case, then we need to ban all small containers for any kind = of product (e.g., super glue vials are commonly used as carriers for = crack cocaine rocks).  How silly are we going to get?  = There's a point of absurdity that the originators of this kind of drug = control strategy have long surpassed.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDC9.E6B424A0-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 17:03:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06534 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA06527 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 21:03:53 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:54:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:54:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDC9.FB7FEF40" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDC9.FB7FEF40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Why would it be unrealistic? Age is irrelevant to laboratory work, so long as you have good vision (important for most types of analyses). The only places it might be a barrier are in laboratories belonging to police agencies which require lab analysts to become certified law enforcement officers by attending and completing standard LEO training at the local police academy. Most police academies have maximum age limits for recruits because of the physical fitness requirements for a LEO. However, most crime labs analysts are civilian (not sworn officer) positions these days, so you still have plenty of options. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Peggy [mailto:hobbit@surfree.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 13:45 To: Troy Hamlin Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Employment Good morning Troy, Could you or anyone on the list tell me whether or not it is unrealistic to pursue a forensics degree at the age of 48. I have approximately 1 1/2 years to go to obtain my forensics degree. I have a clean record, no drug use and want this very much. However, I need to know if anyone has any knowledge as to whether or not the age will be a real factor in obtaining a job in a crime lab. Any information would be helpful. Thanks. Peggy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Troy Hamlin" To: Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 7:59 AM Subject: Job Announcement > The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation has a Forensic Chemist > Vacancy in the Trace Evidence Section of the Crime Laboratory, (please > see attachment). This position will perform analysis in one or more of the > following disciplines; Hair, Fiber, Paint, Glass, Gunshot Residue, and > Arson debris analysis. This position will located in the Raleigh, North > Carolina area. This is a sworn position. Questions can be directed to: > Troy Hamlin > Special Agent in Charge > North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation > Raleigh North Carolina > (919) 662-4509 ext 3535 > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDC9.FB7FEF40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Employment

Why would it be unrealistic?  Age is irrelevant = to laboratory work, so long as you have good vision (important for most = types of analyses).  The only places it might be a barrier are in = laboratories belonging to police agencies which require lab analysts to = become certified law enforcement officers by attending and completing = standard LEO training at the local police academy.  Most police = academies have maximum age limits for recruits because of the physical = fitness requirements for a LEO.  However, most crime labs analysts = are civilian (not sworn officer) positions these days, so you still = have plenty of options.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Peggy [mailto:hobbit@surfree.com]=
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 13:45
To: Troy Hamlin
Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Employment


Good morning Troy,

Could you or anyone on the list tell me whether or = not it is unrealistic to
pursue a forensics degree at the age of 48.  I = have approximately 1 1/2
years to go to obtain my forensics degree.  I = have a clean record, no drug
use and want this very much.  However, I need = to know if anyone has any
knowledge as to whether or not the age will be a = real factor in obtaining a
job in a crime lab.

Any information would be helpful.

Thanks.

Peggy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Troy Hamlin" = <THAMLIN@MAIL.JUS.STATE.NC.US>
To: <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 7:59 AM
Subject: Job Announcement


> The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation = has a Forensic Chemist
> Vacancy in the Trace Evidence Section of the = Crime Laboratory, (please
> see attachment). This position will perform = analysis in one or more of the
> following disciplines; Hair, Fiber, Paint, = Glass, Gunshot Residue, and
> Arson debris analysis. This position will = located in the Raleigh, North
> Carolina area. This is a sworn position. = Questions can be directed to:
> Troy Hamlin
> Special Agent in Charge
> North Carolina State Bureau of = Investigation
> Raleigh North Carolina
> (919) 662-4509 ext 3535
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CDC9.FB7FEF40-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 17:18:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06849 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06844 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:18:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3PLI3H13128; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:18:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Robert Parsons cc: Subject: RE: Visine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In Baltimore, MD, you can go to isle 12 at the local Giant Food/Pharmacy to get Visine off the shelf. Urban legends abound. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Robert Parsons wrote: > >Oh, that's easy. It's the drug hysteria. Visine bottles (like > >bottled water) are now considered "drug paraphenalia." > > > >The DEA claims it is a popular way to carry LSD > >(see www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct070600_01.htm ) > > > >The FDA claims it is a popular way to carry GHB > >(see www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/200_ghb.html) > > Those aren't just claims, Bill, they're facts. We see the bottles regularly > in case submissions in my lab - frequently containing LSD, only rarely > containing GHB (GHB is usually found in much bigger bottles - the "bottled > water" you mention). Labs all over the country have also reported similar > encounters. They're quite common, if not frequent, encounters. > > >The LA DA claims it is added to drinks alone to cause, > >get this, diarhhea. > >(see www.erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_cat6.shtml) > > Don't know about that one - it's the first time I've heard it. > > >NORML claims it can be used to fool drug testing for > >marijuana in urine > >(see www.norml.org/canorml/testing/ptips.txt ) > > Also documented fact. First encountered in attempts to foil military urine > drug screens, I believe, but reported in other places as well. It's not > effective against the more modern detection methods, however. > > > > LOL! I always enjoy your posts, Bill, whether I agree with your opinion or > not. > > I do agree it's truly ludicrous to limit the purchase of Visine just because > the bottles can be used to carry drugs. If that's the case, then we need to > ban all small containers for any kind of product (e.g., super glue vials are > commonly used as carriers for crack cocaine rocks). How silly are we going > to get? There's a point of absurdity that the originators of this kind of > drug control strategy have long surpassed. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 17:29:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07106 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:29:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gold.truman.edu (gold.truman.edu [150.243.90.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07089 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:29:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from truman.edu (sh271001.truman.edu [150.243.68.148]) by gold.truman.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA4782274; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:28:41 -0500 Message-ID: <3AE7416C.B9618C09@truman.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:28:13 -0500 From: joy pugh X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peggy CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Employment References: <001301c0cdaf$84396a20$657ba8c0@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk But are you a tobacco smoker? Peggy wrote: > Good morning Troy, > > Could you or anyone on the list tell me whether or not it is unrealistic to > pursue a forensics degree at the age of 48. I have approximately 1 1/2 > years to go to obtain my forensics degree. I have a clean record, no drug > use and want this very much. However, I need to know if anyone has any > knowledge as to whether or not the age will be a real factor in obtaining a > job in a crime lab. > > Any information would be helpful. > > Thanks. > > Peggy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Troy Hamlin" > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 7:59 AM > Subject: Job Announcement > > > The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation has a Forensic Chemist > > Vacancy in the Trace Evidence Section of the Crime Laboratory, (please > > see attachment). This position will perform analysis in one or more of the > > following disciplines; Hair, Fiber, Paint, Glass, Gunshot Residue, and > > Arson debris analysis. This position will located in the Raleigh, North > > Carolina area. This is a sworn position. Questions can be directed to: > > Troy Hamlin > > Special Agent in Charge > > North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation > > Raleigh North Carolina > > (919) 662-4509 ext 3535 > > From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 17:31:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07248 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.50]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07243 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:31:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from att.net ([12.73.43.247]) by mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with ESMTP id <20010425213111.EVAB3742.mtiwmhc25.worldnet.att.net@att.net> for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:31:11 +0000 Message-ID: <3AE7423B.29E31E1@att.net> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:31:39 -0700 From: "John P. Bowden" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Visine References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010425082444.00ad0e50@pop.nothingbutnet.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20010425110822.00aa9100@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------30BC14006D315AE06104BA2F" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --------------30BC14006D315AE06104BA2F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Clearly we have not gone far enough in this endeavor. Vanilla bottles and baby food jars were (are?) commonly used to transport PCP solutions. Perhaps we should control them also. And since virtually all drug users originally started with milk, we should no doubt limit its sale. Perhaps we should regulate mothers. What pre-employment questions that brings to mind. I could not believe it when I signed on this AM and found I had 40 messages, most of them dealing with the employment/smoking issue. As I am one of those reformed smokers (4 - 5 packs/day), I shall resist any comments along that line due to my extreme prejudice. But if you think that this issue is tough, consider the problem in China (PRC). The tobacco industry is government run and brings in a great deal of revenue. But the government also expends hugh resources in treating lung cancer and other "smoking related diseases." In the long run of course the issue becomes one of economics. If I remember correctly, I first encountered Visine bottles holding controlled substances more than 30 years ago. One wonders why it took so long for the authorities to identify this insidious problem. Most likely because the cops never really listen to the forensic scientists. John P. Bowden "Dum Spiro Spero" "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: > At 12:46 PM 4/25/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote: > > >Oh, that's easy. It's the drug hysteria. Visine bottles (like > >bottled water) are now considered "drug paraphenalia." > > Gosh. Truth is stranger than fiction. Also it appears that we have WAY too > many drug agents with nothing to do. Maybe they should concentrate on > locating missionary airplanes to be shot down in South America - at least > we could still have visine then. > > Why should the idiots that use this stuff be restricted to dosages > available from visine botles. What we really need is bigger bottles -- and > probably be ones the empty quicker. > > And what about making marijuana brownies? Maybe flour should be a > controlled substance. Certainly it should not be available to school-aged > children to buy off the shelves of their local grocery store. > > And those pesky beans and cucumbers (not to mention cabbage which stinks > BEFORE it is eaten) should be banned so that the more sensitive members of > our communites will not be offended by flatulence - theirs or others. > > We've really got a long way to go to make this country a safe and > inoffensive place to live. > > Pete Barnett --------------30BC14006D315AE06104BA2F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Clearly we have not gone far enough in this endeavor.

Vanilla bottles and baby food jars were (are?) commonly used to transport PCP solutions. Perhaps we should control them also.

And since virtually all drug users originally started with milk, we should no doubt limit its sale. Perhaps we should regulate mothers. What pre-employment questions that brings to mind.

I could not believe it when I signed on this AM and found I had 40 messages, most of them dealing with the employment/smoking issue. As I am one of those reformed smokers (4 - 5 packs/day), I shall resist any comments along that line due to my extreme prejudice.

But if you think that this issue is tough, consider the problem in China (PRC). The tobacco industry is government run and brings in a great deal of revenue. But the government also expends hugh resources in treating lung cancer and other "smoking related diseases." In the long run of course the issue becomes one of economics.

If I remember correctly, I first encountered Visine bottles holding controlled substances more than 30 years ago. One wonders why it took so long for the authorities to identify this insidious problem. Most likely because the cops never really listen to the forensic scientists.

John P. Bowden
"Dum Spiro Spero"

"Peter D. Barnett" wrote:

At 12:46 PM 4/25/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote:

>Oh, that's easy.  It's the drug hysteria.  Visine bottles (like
>bottled water) are now considered "drug paraphenalia."

Gosh. Truth is stranger than fiction. Also it appears that we have WAY too
many drug agents with nothing to do. Maybe they should concentrate on
locating missionary airplanes to be shot down in South America - at least
we could still have visine then.

Why should the idiots that use this stuff be restricted to dosages
available from visine botles. What we really need is bigger bottles -- and
probably be ones the empty quicker.

And what about making marijuana brownies? Maybe flour should be a
controlled substance. Certainly it should not be available to school-aged
children to buy off the shelves of their local grocery store.

And those pesky beans and cucumbers (not to mention cabbage which stinks
BEFORE it is eaten) should be banned so that the more sensitive members of
our communites will not be offended by flatulence - theirs or others.

We've really got a long way to go to make this country a safe and
inoffensive place to live.

Pete Barnett

--------------30BC14006D315AE06104BA2F-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 17:52:21 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07535 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tabasco.davis.celera.com ([63.93.249.5]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA07530 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from celmdav.davis.celera.com by tabasco.davis.celera.com via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 21:52:20 UT Received: by celmdav.davis.celera.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2SBDCBJ8>; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:49:13 -0700 Message-ID: <6E4A03EC333AD411A5F100508BC76C6708EBD8@celmdav.davis.celera.com> From: "Halverson, Joy" To: "'forens@statgen.ncsu.edu'" Subject: Taggants? Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:49:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Is anyone on the list recommending the use of a DNA taggant to differentiate reference DNA samples from evidence samples? Joy Halverson From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 22:13:02 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10164 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r18.mx.aol.com (imo-r18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10159 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:13:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Unbonmot@aol.com Received: from Unbonmot@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id v.69.145355dc (25712); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <69.145355dc.2818ddf5@aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:12:05 EDT Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking To: jsmith5@mail.state.mo.us, cdefine@bcpl.net CC: das_smith@hotmail.com, Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 138 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk And how about charging more because people drink (a little, a moderate amount or a lot?) or eat too much, or don't exercise or on occasion have lust in their hearts? Maybe we should move ahead and advance robot technology... From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 22:23:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10370 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10365 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:23:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Prantoci@aol.com Received: from Prantoci@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id 7.e1.13bdea72 (3873); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:23:10 EDT Subject: Re: Visine To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e1.13bdea72.2818e08e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_e1.13bdea72.2818e08e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/01 5:05:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > I do agree it's truly ludicrous to limit the purchase of Visine just because > the bottles can be used to carry drugs. If that's the case, then we need > to ban all small containers for any kind of product. Let us think back a bit. McDonalds coffee stirrers. They used not be little spoons. Too much cocaine was found on and around them. The stirrer was changed and now we have the flat spatula stirrers. Maybe we need to conduct a study to determine if McDonalds decision to change from the little spoon to the paddle spatula has caused a reduction in cocaine abuse. Well, at least among those that eat at McDonalds. Could be something subliminal. Phil Antoci Criminalist IV NYCPD LAB My comments alone --part1_e1.13bdea72.2818e08e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/01 5:05:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:


I do agree it's truly ludicrous to limit the purchase of Visine just because
the bottles can be used to carry drugs.  If that's the case, then we need
to ban all small containers for any kind of product.
Let us think back a bit. McDonalds coffee stirrers.
They used not be little spoons.
Too much cocaine was found on and around them. The stirrer was changed and
now we have the flat spatula stirrers.
Maybe we need to conduct a study to determine if McDonalds decision to change
from the little spoon to the paddle spatula has caused a reduction in cocaine
abuse. Well, at least among those that eat at McDonalds.
Could be something subliminal.

Phil Antoci

Criminalist IV
NYCPD LAB
My comments alone
--part1_e1.13bdea72.2818e08e_boundary-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 22:35:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10586 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:35:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r11.mx.aol.com (imo-r11.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.65]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10581 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:35:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Prantoci@aol.com Received: from Prantoci@aol.com by imo-r11.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.4d.ab36150 (3873) for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4d.ab36150.2818e33f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:34:39 EDT Subject: peter's question To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_4d.ab36150.2818e33f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_4d.ab36150.2818e33f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pete, Try this one.........Narco is having a difficult time making busts. If they follow that Visine user who gets the red out they may find out how the Visine user gets the red in. They monitor the sale. (By the way does the purchaser have to furnish ID?). Then they just follow the Visine user until they find out who is supplying the stuff that makes the Visine users eyes red. Phil A. --part1_4d.ab36150.2818e33f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pete,
Try this one.........Narco is having a difficult time making busts. If they
follow that Visine user who gets the red out they may find out how the Visine
user gets the red in. They monitor the sale. (By the way does the purchaser
have to furnish ID?). Then they just follow the Visine user until they find
out who is supplying the stuff that makes the Visine users eyes red.

Phil A. --part1_4d.ab36150.2818e33f_boundary-- From forens-owner Wed Apr 25 22:50:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10795 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:50:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10790 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3Q2ofv10242 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:50:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Humor...tobacco Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The Little Rabbit That Couldn't.... A rabbit one day managed to break free from the laboratory where he had been born and brought up. As he scurried away from the fencing of the compound, he felt grass under his little feet and saw the dawn breaking for the first time in his life. "Wow, this is great," he thought. It wasn't long before he came to a hedge and, after squeezing under it he saw a wonderful sight lots of other bunny rabbits, all free and nibbling at the lush grass. "Hey," he called. "I'm a rabbit from the laboratory and I've just escaped. Are you wild rabbits?" "Yes. Come and join us," they cried. Our friend hopped over to them and started eating the grass. It tasted so good. "What else do you wild rabbits do?" he asked. "Well," one of them said. "You see that field there? It's got carrots growing in it. We dig them up and eat them." This, he couldn't resist and he spent the next hour eating the most succulent carrots. They were wonderful. Later, he asked them again, "What else do you do?" "You see that field there? It's got lettuce growing in it. We eat them as well." The lettuce tasted just as good and he returned a while later completely full. "Is there anything else you guys do?" he asked. One of the other rabbits came a bit closer to him and spoke softly. "There's one other thing you must try. You see those rabbits there?,"he said, pointing to the far corner of the field. "They're girls. We shag them. Go and try it." Well, our friend spent the rest of the morning screwing his little heart out until, completely knackered, he staggered back over to the guys. "That was fantastic," he panted. "So are you going to live with us then?" one of them asked. "I'm sorry, I had a great time but I can't." The wild rabbits all stared at him, a bit surprised. "Why? We thought you liked it here." "I do," our friend replied. "But I must get back to the laboratory. I'm dying for a cigarette." From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 00:30:23 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA12080 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.arnet.com.ar (host191005.arnet.net.ar [200.45.191.5] (may be forged)) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA12075 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:30:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 30044 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 04:27:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar) (200.45.0.20) by host191005.arnet.net.ar with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 04:27:41 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by smtpmcis1.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:26:46 -0300 Received: from recife.arnet.com.ar ([192.168.202.70]) by mail2.arnet.com.ar with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.677.67); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:35:01 -0300 Received: (qmail 11564 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2001 12:35:00 -0000 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (152.14.14.17) by recife.arnet.com.ar with SMTP; 25 Apr 2001 12:35:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA22187; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:34:18 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22146 for forens-outgoing; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f89.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.89]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA22141 for ; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:34:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 05:33:47 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:33:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: Prantoci@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:33:46 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2001 12:33:47.0202 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9389A20:01C0CD83] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see what that stirs up) Dave S. >From: Prantoci@aol.com >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > products within the last twelve months. > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs >to the city?), and how do you know?  (hair testing?) > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > >Phil _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 02:09:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13402 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 02:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f187.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.187]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA13397 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 02:09:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:09:13 -0700 Received: from 205.165.118.151 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:09:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.165.118.151] From: "Lonnette Kendoll" To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Radio Broadcast - Fingerprint Evidence Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:09:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2001 06:09:13.0585 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AAFCE10:01C0CE17] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk If any of you are interested, on Friday April 27th (and yes I have the right date this time) from 10am-11am Eastern Time, Robert Epstein, Federal Public Defender in US v Byron Mitchell and Stephen Meagher will debate the issues on "Radio Times with Marty Moss-Coane" in Philadelphia on WHYY 91FM. Program notes as follows: Friday 4/27/2001 Hour One In the age of DNA, is fingerprint evidence really that reliable? We'll hear from ROBERT EPSTEIN, a Federal Public Defender in Philadelphia whose legal challenge of fingerprint evidence is catching the attention of the legal community. And STEPHEN MEAGHER defends the science of fingerprinting. He is Chief of the Latent Print Unit at the FBI Laboratory. You will need Windows Media or Real Audio to listen in: http://www.whyy.org/91FM/RadioTimes.html After the 27th, the program can hopefully be heard by visiting Ed German's web site at www.onin.com Lonnette Kendoll Criminalist - PD Richardson,TX _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 02:36:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13718 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 02:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web9501.mail.yahoo.com (web9501.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.129.131]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA13713 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 02:36:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20010426063623.12015.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [147.134.38.68] by web9501.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:36:23 PDT Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:36:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Brenna Primrose Subject: RE: Employment To: Robert Parsons , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk If a person can't give up smoking for a job, do they really want the job to begin with? I mean, with all the negative things associated with a smoking addiction, it's just easier to give it up. Brenna --- Robert Parsons wrote: > Why would it be unrealistic? Age is irrelevant to > laboratory work, so long > as you have good vision (important for most types of > analyses). The only > places it might be a barrier are in laboratories > belonging to police > agencies which require lab analysts to become > certified law enforcement > officers by attending and completing standard LEO > training at the local > police academy. Most police academies have maximum > age limits for recruits > because of the physical fitness requirements for a > LEO. However, most crime > labs analysts are civilian (not sworn officer) > positions these days, so you > still have plenty of options. > > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peggy [mailto:hobbit@surfree.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 13:45 > To: Troy Hamlin > Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu > Subject: Employment > > > Good morning Troy, > > Could you or anyone on the list tell me whether or > not it is unrealistic to > pursue a forensics degree at the age of 48. I have > approximately 1 1/2 > years to go to obtain my forensics degree. I have a > clean record, no drug > use and want this very much. However, I need to > know if anyone has any > knowledge as to whether or not the age will be a > real factor in obtaining a > job in a crime lab. > > Any information would be helpful. > > Thanks. > > Peggy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Troy Hamlin" > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 7:59 AM > Subject: Job Announcement > > > > The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation > has a Forensic Chemist > > Vacancy in the Trace Evidence Section of the Crime > Laboratory, (please > > see attachment). This position will perform > analysis in one or more of the > > following disciplines; Hair, Fiber, Paint, Glass, > Gunshot Residue, and > > Arson debris analysis. This position will located > in the Raleigh, North > > Carolina area. This is a sworn position. Questions > can be directed to: > > Troy Hamlin > > Special Agent in Charge > > North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation > > Raleigh North Carolina > > (919) 662-4509 ext 3535 > > > ===== http://www.geocities.com/h_primrose/ - My homepage http://profiles.yahoo.com/absolut_contagion/ - My Yahoo! Profile http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/amazongirls - AmazonGIRLS Club http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/greenparty2004 - Green Party Club "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n." - John Milton, Paradise Lost (Book 1) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 06:28:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA16020 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:28:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.141]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA16015 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:28:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mp133ws ([65.1.194.131]) by femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010426102833.PTBH12893.femail14.sdc1.sfba.home.com@mp133ws> for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 03:28:33 -0700 Message-ID: <000d01c0ce3b$9e524d00$5400a8c0@mp133ws> From: "Sheila Berry" To: "forens" Subject: Tobacco and Visine Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:28:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk The other night I watched "Nuremberg", a made-for-tv movie about the Nuremberg trials starring Alec Baldwin (mainly because it starred Alec Baldwin). In reading the postings about tobacco and Visine, I am reminded of Goering's defense for rounding up Jews, Gypsies and other "potential criminals". He was, you see, placing them in "preventive detention" because they were "inclined to commit crime" and the rest of the populace had to be protected from them. And, of course, protected from themselves. Sheila Berry ____________________ Sheila Martin Berry E-mail: martinberry@home.com Web Sites: http://spiritlink.com/ http://truthinjustice.org/ "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 07:57:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17153 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:57:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17148 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25129; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:57:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:57:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Sheila Berry cc: forens Subject: Re: Tobacco and Visine In-Reply-To: <000d01c0ce3b$9e524d00$5400a8c0@mp133ws> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I hereby invoke Godwin's law. A pity. I had more to say. billo On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Sheila Berry wrote: > From: Sheila Berry > > The other night I watched "Nuremberg", a made-for-tv movie about the > Nuremberg trials starring Alec Baldwin (mainly because it starred Alec > Baldwin). In reading the postings about tobacco and Visine, I am reminded > of Goering's defense for rounding up Jews, Gypsies and other "potential > criminals". He was, you see, placing them in "preventive detention" because > they were "inclined to commit crime" and the rest of the populace had to be > protected from them. And, of course, protected from themselves. > > Sheila Berry > From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 08:12:14 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17439 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA17434 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26637; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:11:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Brenna Primrose cc: Robert Parsons , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment In-Reply-To: <20010426063623.12015.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Brenna Primrose wrote: > From: Brenna Primrose > > If a person can't give up smoking for a job, do they > really want the job to begin with? I mean, with all > the negative things associated with a smoking > addiction, it's just easier to give it up. > > Brenna But that's not really the point. The point is that while an employer may be free to be stupid and irresponsible in his or her hiring practices, we are under no obligation to decline to note that it is stupid and irresponsible -- particularly if it is a stupid and irresponsible *trend* in our profession. If we accept idiotic practices without at least passing criticism, we are not professionals. We are sheep. Worse,the acceptance of what are essentially non-professional criteria in hiring and firing *detracts* from our professionalism, rather than enhances it. Coral Gables is saying that it *doesn't care* how good a forensic scientist you are. Your *professional* qualifications are irrelevant to their social engineering desires. Still worse, as we accept these dumb policies like the good mindless little boys and girls we are trained to be, they *become* part of the concept of professional -- the integration of social and political demands into the concept of "science" is the classic redefinition of professional made popular in Maoist re-education. And it's not just a matter of smoking at home. Consider the practice of polygraphy. Even though it is has been shown over and over again that screening polygraphy has a very high false positive rate, we have employers who will either refuse to hire or will fire you on the basis of this particular piece of grossly inappropriate pseudo-science. So, we have perfectly innocent people being accused of crime, denied jobs and promotion, or fired because of magical thinking. They carry the onus of these false accusations with them to their next job application and are less likely to be hirable. Perfectly innocent people's careers are being ruined, and we "scientists" are just fine with it because it is "unprofessional" to question the grand judgement of policy makers. Feh. So, let me repeat my question without scatalogical detail. Where does it stop? What intimate detail of your private life will it be necessary for an employer to make public and pass nonsensical judgement upon before it becomes an appropriate issue for "professional" discussion? billo From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 09:28:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA18615 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:28:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18610 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:28:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07896; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:28:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:28:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: "Dennis C. Hilliard" cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Thank you for your useful crititicism. One quick question, however, since you have taken it upon yourself to be the judge and jury of what constitutes "appropriate" topicality here. You have determined that my posts criticizing the trend to adhere social engineering criteria to "professional" qualifications inappropriate for a "professional" group. Instead, it is appropriate only for email. In contrast, I gather that personal whining about what other people post *is* appropriate for posting and *not* appropriate for email-only. Just as a matter of education, since you have decided to assume the role of guardian of what people should read and write, why should *your* note be posted to the list at large as opposed to email-only? billo On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Dennis C. Hilliard wrote: > From: Dennis C. Hilliard > > You guys should take this private e-mail or go Instant messenger! > > Dennis From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 10:43:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19922 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.144]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19917 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:43:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c777340a ([24.22.204.87]) by femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010426144255.ZVH18489.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@c777340a>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:42:55 -0700 Message-ID: <002f01c0ce5f$437aa520$57cc1618@grapid1.mi.home.com> From: "Daryl W. Clemens" To: , , , Subject: Superglue fuming Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:43:30 -0400 Organization: Crime and Clues MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I have a question from someone who is using superglue fuming in medical research. He is curious if superglue fuming will kill biohazardous material. Personally I doubt it would have any effect, but I don't know of any research on that particular topic. Anyone know whether or not fuming would have any effect on the biohazard status of the fumed items? Regards, Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime & Clues PMB 163 3923 28th St. SE Grand Rapids, MI, 49512 http://crimeandclues.com Primary e-mail: dclemens@crimeandclues.com Secondary e-mail/MSN Messenger: identtec@hotmail.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 11:27:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA20860 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:27:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ns1.nothingbutnet.net (ns1.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.251]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA20855 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:27:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pete.FSALab.com (pm4-109.nothingbutnet.net [206.13.41.109]) (authenticated (0 bits)) by ns1.nothingbutnet.net (8.11.3/8.11.3/jjb-ns1) with ESMTP id f3QFQx027114 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:26:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Envelope-From: pbarnett@FSALab.com X-Envelope-To: Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010426073614.00aa4510@pop.nothingbutnet.net> X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 07:46:54 -0700 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: Employment In-Reply-To: References: <20010426063623.12015.qmail@web9501.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 08:11 AM 4/26/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote: >Worse,the acceptance of what are essentially non-professional criteria in >hiring and firing *detracts* from our professionalism, rather than >enhances it. Coral Gables is saying that it *doesn't care* how good a >forensic scientist you are. Your *professional* qualifications are >irrelevant to their social engineering desires. Is Coral Gables' anti-smoking policy based on a social engineering premise that smoking should not be permitted, or simply an economic one because they recognize the increase in long term health care costs associated with smoking? These costs will become a municipal liability once they "adopt" an employee. Is it inappropriate for an employer to consider the overall costs of an employee when making a decision to hire? If an employee has personal habits or conditions which are costly, why should the taxpayer, or coworkers, be forced to bear those costs? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 11:30:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA21047 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:30:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from agency6.state.ky.us (agency6.state.ky.us [162.114.120.27]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21033 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:30:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Tracy.Phillips@mail.state.ky.us Received: by agency6.state.ky.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:23:09 -0400 Message-ID: To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:24:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk But then do you also exclude anyone with the gene for ovarian cancer or diabetes, or do we base this "cost exclusion" only on personal choices? -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett [mailto:pbarnett@FSALab.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:47 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment At 08:11 AM 4/26/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote: >Worse,the acceptance of what are essentially non-professional criteria in >hiring and firing *detracts* from our professionalism, rather than >enhances it. Coral Gables is saying that it *doesn't care* how good a >forensic scientist you are. Your *professional* qualifications are >irrelevant to their social engineering desires. Is Coral Gables' anti-smoking policy based on a social engineering premise that smoking should not be permitted, or simply an economic one because they recognize the increase in long term health care costs associated with smoking? These costs will become a municipal liability once they "adopt" an employee. Is it inappropriate for an employer to consider the overall costs of an employee when making a decision to hire? If an employee has personal habits or conditions which are costly, why should the taxpayer, or coworkers, be forced to bear those costs? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 12:04:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21552 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:04:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA21547 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:04:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04718; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:04:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: "Peter D. Barnett" cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010426073614.00aa4510@pop.nothingbutnet.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Peter D. Barnett wrote: > From: Peter D. Barnett > > > Is Coral Gables' anti-smoking policy based on a social engineering premise > that smoking should not be permitted, or simply an economic one because > they recognize the increase in long term health care costs associated with > smoking? These costs will become a municipal liability once they "adopt" > an employee. Is it inappropriate for an employer to consider the overall > costs of an employee when making a decision to hire? If an employee has > personal habits or conditions which are costly, why should the taxpayer, or > coworkers, be forced to bear those costs? > Ah, yes. The "it costs money, so we should do away with it" approach to civil liberties. Tell me, Peter. Is there *any choice* you make in your entire life which cannot be construed to have some sort of health consequence? There is not. Do you then argue that it is a good idea that an employer dictate every choice you make in life? Since you invoke the "cost to the taxpayer" argument, thus mixing employer/governmental action, I'll continue in that vein. The so-called "tyranny of public health" is one of the most profound threats to the tradition of individual liberty in the US. The idea that Americans should be free to choose only things which minimize the cost to government programs is a call for the destruction of freedom itself. It is profoundly ironic that the government institutes various programs out of a sense of collective compassion, and then uses those very programs as a justification for progressively denying individual liberty. Should employers and municipal governments dictate what car you drive? What foods you eat? How much you exercise? Your sleeping habits? Who you sleep with? After all, these can have *just* as much an impact on your health as smoking. Is there *any* limit on what employers and/or governments should be able to dictate in the name of saving insurance/retirement costs? Or is this, in fact, the one thing that in the history of America should make the concepts of individual liberty and privacy obsolete? For one discussion of the "tyranny of public health" see "For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health" by Jacob Sullivan (www.reason.com/owngood.html) For a review of the book in the New England Journal of Medicine, see www.nejm.org/content/1999/0340/0007/0572.asp billo From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 12:11:36 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA21760 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:11:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from matrix.webzone.net (qmailr@matrix.webzone.net [205.219.23.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA21755 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15018 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2001 11:11:32 -0500 Received: from price (tprice-ded.webzone.net [208.135.239.61]) by matrix.webzone.net with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 11:11:32 -0500 Message-ID: <009c01c0ce6b$646de4c0$0100a8c0@price.webzone.net> Reply-To: "J. T. Price" From: "J. T. Price" To: Subject: Re: Employment Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:10:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Opens up an area I have professionally worried about and a trend I don't really care for. This is the "credential mania" science has become enamored with. It use to be that a graduate of a certain program was "credentialed" by his/her credentialling committee and "I trained under Dr. Soandso" was enough. Publications also gave a view of the person's ability and proficiency. Generally people within a specialty were known by their peers nation-wide. When in doubt, a short conversation with a "new" person could allow you to determine their proficiency. I always believed and really still feel that once I passed on a student through a graduate committee or general examinations the student was qualified to be recognized. Now this means nothing and some credentialling committee "decides". Certifications multiply faster than rabbits. Pretty soon even my trash collector is going to need two lines to sign his name. Hopefully the failure of academic institutions to properly train people is not part of this problem. (but I know they share some ofthe blame) JTP -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:32 AM Subject: RE: Employment At 08:11 AM 4/26/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote: >Worse,the acceptance of what are essentially non-professional criteria in >hiring and firing *detracts* from our professionalism, rather than >enhances it. Coral Gables is saying that it *doesn't care* how good a >forensic scientist you are. Your *professional* qualifications are >irrelevant to their social engineering desires. Is Coral Gables' anti-smoking policy based on a social engineering premise that smoking should not be permitted, or simply an economic one because they recognize the increase in long term health care costs associated with smoking? These costs will become a municipal liability once they "adopt" an employee. Is it inappropriate for an employer to consider the overall costs of an employee when making a decision to hire? If an employee has personal habits or conditions which are costly, why should the taxpayer, or coworkers, be forced to bear those costs? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 13:11:49 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA22691 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:11:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [64.240.232.234] ([64.240.232.234]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA22686 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:11:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hbpdmail01.surfcity-hb.org by [64.240.232.234] via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 17:09:25 UT Received: by HBPDMAIL01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:12:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3D8B72928052D211B17700A0C9DEEFE007009F@HBPDMAIL01> From: "Breyer, Chris" To: "'J. T. Price'" , forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:12:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk You laugh, but a friend of mine has an uncle who once met someone who almost got on one such flight (in Moldavia, I believe). Boy, did they thank their lucky stars they'd passed that email on to ten other people. Bill Gates' check is in the mail. Chris Breyer -----Original Message----- From: J. T. Price [mailto:tprice@prosector.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:23 AM To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking or even legend?? (no spelling skills) -----Original Message----- From: J. T. Price To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Unfortunately smokers are not a protected class. Sometimes the "no smoking" is for another economic reason I suspect. Outlawing smoking on commercial airlines allowed the airlines to save money by recirculating air and not having to heat, compress and exchange it. Having nothing to do while once spending hours on a taxiway I made rough calculations of the volume of the passenger cabin, the number of passengers, the average flatulance/person, the percent methane and figured out the real reason not to smoke is that if you struck your lighter the plane would probably explode ;) Is that good enough for an urban legon?? JTP -----Original Message----- From: David Smith To: Prantoci@aol.com ; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:37 AM Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking I think the city of Coral Gables has something against smokers (still a legal pastime as far as I know) because the last time Frank Shonberger placed a CG job announcement on the list it included the same paragraph. Shouldn't there be a law against such descrimination? (ha, ha - lets see what that stirs up) Dave S. >From: Prantoci@aol.com >To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu (Forens (E-mail)) >Subject: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:03:22 EDT > >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Shonberger, Frank wrote: > > > The City does not employ individuals who now use or have used tobacco > > products within the last twelve months. > >Excuse me...but why this tobacco use restriction (higher health care costs >to the city?), and how do you know? (hair testing?) > > >> I think Frank meant Marijuana use. > > >Phil _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 13:58:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23620 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23615 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:57:59 -0400 (EDT) From: lgriggs@msegroup.com Received: from pavilion (user-2ivfcfk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.177.244]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA14782; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:57:57 -0400 (EDT) To: "Forensic-Science@yahoogroups. Com" , "Forensics" Subject: Detection Dogs Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:57:55 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I have been reading the posts regarding dogs trained for detecting accelerants and they have been most interesting. There was a question regarding the effect on the dogs from smelling hydrocarbons and drugs. I just spent a week with the Customs and ATF trainers and three days with trainers for (1)weapons (2)money, the clean, fresh kind (3)termites and more. The dogs can be trained to detect almost anything and their abilities are awe inspiring. Watching dogs detect ammunition and weapons and others detecting termites in walls, etc., is amazing. I have called and spoken with professional trainers and can find nothing that indicates the dogs may suffer some effects from detecting drugs or hydrocarbons. There is some concern with the dogs working in extreme dust conditions just as with humans. I found one instance where a dog developed problems from working in a hazardous situation just as a human could be affected. There is no way known at this time to protect the detection dog but, in speaking with a veterinarian research organization, they are working on developing a dust mask for the dogs. That should be an interesting project. An interesting side point: dogs are 97% effective in locating termites where human inspectors are only effective in less than 15% of their searches. One supervisor said that the dogs do their job, where it is questionable as to whether or not you can get the human inspector to make a real effort, much less just getting out of the truck. Another interesting point: money detection dogs are even able to detect where someone has been carrying extra cash (new money and old) even after the person has disposed of the cash. Lee Griggs Protection Technology, Inc. PTI Investigations (Agency #1450) Providing professional investigative services in South Carolina. Professional process service in North and South Carolina. Seminars on marketing, business planning and forensics. Telephone: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Toll free Voice Mail: 877-219-9784 Cellular: 803-427-1349 mailto:msegroup@mindspring.com http://www.msegroup.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 14:42:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24353 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:42:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cgpd_ex.pd.citybeautiful.net ([209.215.74.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA24348 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:42:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by CGPD_EX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:35:31 -0400 Message-ID: <613F249A8796D211B11A0008C75C5A3259CB67@CGPD_EX> From: "Shonberger, Frank" To: "'Daryl W. Clemens'" , ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups.com, ICSIA-Members@yahoogroups.com, forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Superglue fuming Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:35:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Daryl A few years ago Bill Sampson had the Miami Dade Crime Lab run serology on articles that were super glue fumed. They were able to extract ABO and DNA after the fuming M. Frank Shonberger, Supervisor Crime Scene Investigation -----Original Message----- From: Daryl W. Clemens [mailto:dclemens7@home.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:44 AM To: ICSIA-PublicForum@yahoogroups.com; ICSIA-Members@yahoogroups.com; forensic-science@yahoogroups.com; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Superglue fuming I have a question from someone who is using superglue fuming in medical research. He is curious if superglue fuming will kill biohazardous material. Personally I doubt it would have any effect, but I don't know of any research on that particular topic. Anyone know whether or not fuming would have any effect on the biohazard status of the fumed items? Regards, Daryl W. Clemens Editor, Crime & Clues PMB 163 3923 28th St. SE Grand Rapids, MI, 49512 http://crimeandclues.com Primary e-mail: dclemens@crimeandclues.com Secondary e-mail/MSN Messenger: identtec@hotmail.com From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 16:52:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26616 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26611 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21129; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:49:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: "J. T. Price" cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Employment In-Reply-To: <009c01c0ce6b$646de4c0$0100a8c0@price.webzone.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, J. T. Price wrote: > From: J. T. Price > > Opens up an area I have professionally worried about and a trend I don't > really care for. This is the "credential mania" science has become enamored > with. It's because we aren't really doing science. We are craftsmen and craftswomen. A terminal degree in most scientific disciplines is not meant to enable you to perform some specific task, but instead provide a general framework to go out and do original work. Forensic science, as used in these discussions, involves little original work. For the most part, it involves technical operator expertise. A glaring example of this was my training in Computer Science. I have a Master's in Computer Science from one of the best programs in the nation. However, by the time I left the program I had received essentially *no* training in how to program a computer. Oh, sure, I studied the theory of languages and wrote toy programs in 20 different languages, I studied theories of software engineering, I studied how to analyze the efficiencies of competing algorithms, I studied theory of error propagation and code optimization. But I didn't *do* any of it in a production sense of the word. That's because my concentration was on applied mathematics -- a computer vision/image processing person is much more concerned with mathematics than writing super-efficient code. *My* advisor expected me to be able to approximate fourier transforms in my head; he was much more concerned that I knew variational calculus than Pascal. So, when I got out in the "real world," I had almost no experience in class design for object-oriented programming, I couldn't write a java applet, and I couldn't do COM programming if a had a knife at my neck. A bachelors frim RTI is more useful than a PhD from MIT for this kind of stuff, because RTi sees it's purpose as to act as a trade school. Instead, it was assumed I would just pick up these skills, since they are learned by experience, are transiently useful (how many RT11 programmers are out there nowadays? How much code is written in APL, Pascal, Cobol, Snobol, Algol, PL/1?), and are skills for specific applications. They are crafts. If you want to write a killer e-commerce web site, you want to hire a guy or gal with a bachelors in CS and knowledge in Java, Javascript, Cold Fusion, and SQL. If you are running Oracle, you need someone who can program solid Oracle, not a PhD with intimate knowledge of automated theorem solving or a profound understanding of real-time race conditions when writing microcode for multiprocessor embedded systems. That won't get your web site up. And that's what most of these certifications are for. They are for specific skill sets that tell employers that the applicant has sat down and spent at least a little time learning a specific knowledge set. It's even more important in today's world of contract employment. In the "old days," a company would hire somebody and train them as needed (and many still do, don't get me wrong). A degree meant that you were trainable. Now you hire contract workers for six-month projects. That means there can be minimal training for development of skill-sets. If you have three months to put up a web site, you can't spend the first six weeks learning perl. So, you have all these guys running around with certification in C++, MSCE, A+, perl, Oracle, Novell, Cisco router administration, UNIX system admin, computer security, etc. Certification is thus useful for folk who want to hire and fire in the "fast and dirty" mode. Among folk I know, certification is much *less* important than experience. Most employers I know don't care what one's certification is if you have a known history of bringing projects in on time and in budget. Folk who want to hire for the long term (should) look to other things such as potential for training, career development, etc. And I get the impression the same thing is pretty much true in most forensic "science" fields. The question is not if a forensic scientist working in a state DNA lab can do original experimentation in DNA structure or genomics. The question is whether or not a forensic DNA person knows and is technically capable of following SOPs and doing quality control. A PhD in biochemistry or molecular pathology won't tell you that. The problem is not that there's a lot of certification going on. The problem is that folk forget what it means. billo From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 17:40:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27200 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:40:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA27195 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:40:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 21:40:23 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:31:24 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:31:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CE98.39BB7030" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CE98.39BB7030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" This is one of the times that I agree with Billo completely. I'm very much an anti-smoking advocate due to the detrimental health effects, but a prohibition against hiring tobacco users is an absurd policy. So long as a smoker obeys state law and refrains from smoking inside public buildings and other protected places (to avoid exposing others to second hand smoke), then whether or not they choose to poison their bodies with legal, non-intoxicating cancer sticks should be their choice (I'm NOT being sarcastic). If the city wants to limit health care costs from tobacco, then it should put an exclusion for tobacco-related illnesses in the employee health insurance policy - but it shouldn't place a blanket ban on smokers as employees, that's simply stupid. They're denying the city the services of well qualified and well experienced scientists by doing so. Oh, and Bill, many of us (yours truly included) have been very vocal critics of the "voodoo" practice called polygraphy, but as you noted, cops often don't listen to forensic scientists. Polygraphy of course has no scientific merit whatsoever, and even the basic premise upon which it operates (i.e., that the act of lying produces reliably and reproducibly measurable physiological changes) is without any logical biological basis, let alone scientific proof of veracity. It's simply a humbug used as a scare tactic to coerce truthfulness during interrogation (and quite effectively, too, in the hands of a skilled interrogator). If offered or required to take one, I would refuse because I know it isn't and cannot be reliable, but as I'm already employed it's easy for me to take that stance. Unfortunately, anyone _not_ already employed who takes that stance eliminates themselves from consideration for many job prospects in the law enforcement field. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 08:12 To: Brenna Primrose Cc: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Brenna Primrose wrote: > From: Brenna Primrose > > If a person can't give up smoking for a job, do they > really want the job to begin with? I mean, with all > the negative things associated with a smoking > addiction, it's just easier to give it up. > > Brenna But that's not really the point. The point is that while an employer may be free to be stupid and irresponsible in his or her hiring practices, we are under no obligation to decline to note that it is stupid and irresponsible -- particularly if it is a stupid and irresponsible *trend* in our profession. If we accept idiotic practices without at least passing criticism, we are not professionals. We are sheep. Worse,the acceptance of what are essentially non-professional criteria in hiring and firing *detracts* from our professionalism, rather than enhances it. Coral Gables is saying that it *doesn't care* how good a forensic scientist you are. Your *professional* qualifications are irrelevant to their social engineering desires. Still worse, as we accept these dumb policies like the good mindless little boys and girls we are trained to be, they *become* part of the concept of professional -- the integration of social and political demands into the concept of "science" is the classic redefinition of professional made popular in Maoist re-education. And it's not just a matter of smoking at home. Consider the practice of polygraphy. Even though it is has been shown over and over again that screening polygraphy has a very high false positive rate, we have employers who will either refuse to hire or will fire you on the basis of this particular piece of grossly inappropriate pseudo-science. So, we have perfectly innocent people being accused of crime, denied jobs and promotion, or fired because of magical thinking. They carry the onus of these false accusations with them to their next job application and are less likely to be hirable. Perfectly innocent people's careers are being ruined, and we "scientists" are just fine with it because it is "unprofessional" to question the grand judgement of policy makers. Feh. So, let me repeat my question without scatalogical detail. Where does it stop? What intimate detail of your private life will it be necessary for an employer to make public and pass nonsensical judgement upon before it becomes an appropriate issue for "professional" discussion? billo ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CE98.39BB7030 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Employment

This is one of the times that I agree with Billo = completely.  I'm very much an anti-smoking advocate due to the = detrimental health effects, but a prohibition against hiring tobacco = users is an absurd policy.  So long as a smoker obeys state law = and refrains from smoking inside public buildings and other protected = places (to avoid exposing others to second hand smoke), then whether or = not they choose to poison their bodies with legal, non-intoxicating = cancer sticks should be their choice (I'm NOT being sarcastic).  = If the city wants to limit health care costs from tobacco, then it = should put an exclusion for tobacco-related illnesses in the employee = health insurance policy - but it shouldn't place a blanket ban on = smokers as employees, that's simply stupid.  They're denying the = city the services of well qualified and well experienced scientists by = doing so.

Oh, and Bill, many of us (yours truly included) have = been very vocal critics of the "voodoo" practice called = polygraphy, but as you noted, cops often don't listen to forensic = scientists.  Polygraphy of course has no scientific merit = whatsoever, and even the basic premise upon which it operates (i.e., = that the act of lying produces reliably and reproducibly measurable = physiological changes) is without any logical biological basis, let = alone scientific proof of veracity.  It's simply a humbug used as = a scare tactic to coerce truthfulness during interrogation (and quite = effectively, too, in the hands of a skilled interrogator).  If = offered or required to take one, I would refuse because I know it isn't = and cannot be reliable, but as I'm already employed it's easy for me to = take that stance.  Unfortunately, anyone _not_ already employed = who takes that stance eliminates themselves from consideration for many = job prospects in the law enforcement field.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 08:12
To: Brenna Primrose
Cc: Robert Parsons; forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Employment




On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Brenna Primrose wrote:

> From: Brenna Primrose = <absolut_contagion@yahoo.com>
>
> If a person can't give up smoking for a job, do = they
> really want the job to begin with?  I = mean, with all
> the negative things associated with a = smoking
> addiction, it's just easier to give it = up. 
>
> Brenna


But that's not really the point.  The point is = that while an employer
may be free to be stupid and irresponsible in his or = her hiring
practices, we are under no obligation to decline to = note that it is
stupid and irresponsible -- particularly if it is a = stupid and
irresponsible *trend* in our profession.

If we accept idiotic practices without at least = passing criticism, we
are not professionals.  We are sheep.

Worse,the acceptance of what are essentially = non-professional criteria in
hiring and firing *detracts* from our = professionalism, rather than
enhances it.  Coral Gables is saying that it = *doesn't care* how good a
forensic scientist you are.  Your = *professional* qualifications are
irrelevant to their social engineering = desires.

Still worse, as we accept these dumb policies like = the good mindless
little boys and girls we are trained to be, they = *become* part of the
concept of professional -- the integration of social = and political
demands into the concept of "science" is = the classic redefinition of
professional made popular in Maoist = re-education.  And it's not just a
matter of smoking at home.  Consider the = practice of polygraphy.  Even
though it is has been shown over and over again that = screening
polygraphy has a very high false positive rate, we = have employers who
will either refuse to hire or will fire you on the = basis of this
particular piece of grossly inappropriate = pseudo-science.  So, we have
perfectly innocent people being accused of crime, = denied jobs and
promotion, or fired because of magical = thinking.  They carry the onus
of these false accusations with them to their next = job application and
are less likely to be hirable.  Perfectly = innocent people's careers
are being ruined, and we "scientists" are = just fine with it because it
is "unprofessional" to question the grand = judgement of policy makers.

Feh.

So, let me repeat my question without scatalogical = detail.  Where does
it stop?  What intimate detail of your private = life will it be necessary
for an employer to make public and pass nonsensical = judgement upon
before it becomes an appropriate issue for = "professional" discussion?


billo

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CE98.39BB7030-- From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 17:48:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27375 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA27370 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 26 Apr 2001 21:48:53 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:39:54 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:39:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CE99.6BD6C7D0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CE99.6BD6C7D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Legitimate universities producing legitimate degrees for honest, qualified professionals is not the problem. The reason certification programs are needed is because of the existence today of a wealth of diploma mills, charlatans with phony credentials, and as much as anything else, legitimate professionals who act unprofessionally by practicing outside their field of professional expertise (and doing so incompetently). Anyone can claim to be qualified to do anything these days, and produce some official-looking document or impressive-looking vitae to support the claim. While bona-fide professionals/experts can usually see through such fraudulent charades, the general public usually cannot, and so they need a reliable yardstick against which to measure the claimed qualifications of self-appointed "professionals" and "experts." Government or professional peer-based certification of individuals, like accreditation for laboratories and universities, provides such a yardstick. Frankly, I've never understood the objection of some members of some professions to the creation of certification programs, when it has been long established (not to mention universally recognized and accepted as necessary) in so many others. No one would dream of trusting a doctor, dentist, lawyer, nurse, public accountant, police officer, engineer, EMT, Med Tech, general construction contractor, electrician, etc., etc., who was not licensed, certified, or in some way credentialed by a regulatory body beyond that of an academic degree-granting institution; yet some members of other equally or more demanding professions object to satisfying an external non-academic criterion (certification). A credential that is routinely expected in other professions is unacceptable and insulting for theirs. Sorry, I just don't understand that attitude. Certification is an external, independent, public demonstration of professional competency that a degree alone does not provide. Degrees demonstrate mastery of general subject matter in a general way, they don't demonstrate anything about how that mastery is applied to an actual job; the degree may be applicable to the job or it may not be. The person may be knowledgeable of the subject AND be able to properly apply that knowledge in a specific job environ, or he/she may not be. Certification demonstrates competence for a specific job description, and so is a more precise and useful credential. The degree is of course a prerequisite for the certification in most professions, but the certification is the proof that the person can actually do the job. For example, just because someone has a PhD in chemistry, that doesn't mean he's qualified to do forensic drug analysis or blood alcohol analysis (he's certainly qualified to learn it, but still has to be taught how to do it). As one of my own professors once told the class when I was in school, a college degree doesn't prepare you to actually DO a job in the real world, it gives you the foundation you need to be able to LEARN how to do a job in the real world. It means you are trainable, and is the starting point for the process of becoming an expert professional, not the culmination of it. Certification is a kind of "final exam" for the real-world on-the-job learning process in a specific profession. Obtaining a college degree is merely the entrance exam for the profession. In any job involving applied science (as opposed to theoretical, research, or academic science), certification is a very important and useful credential because it demonstrates something very meaningful to the consumer of scientific services and products - that you not only know something about the job, you can actually perform it competently. For analytical laboratory scientists (in forensics or any other field), individual certification, laboratory accreditation, and method standardization are known as the "quality triangle." They are routine in medical, environmental, and other fields. They should be routine in all scientific professions, and probably in most others. Fortunately, we are moving in that direction whether we all like it or not. Unfortunately, there are bogus certification and accreditation programs popping up to support the unprofessional "professionals" and the inexpert "experts," so the struggle for quality continues. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: J. T. Price [mailto:tprice@prosector.com] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:10 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Employment Opens up an area I have professionally worried about and a trend I don't really care for. This is the "credential mania" science has become enamored with. It use to be that a graduate of a certain program was "credentialed" by his/her credentialling committee and "I trained under Dr. Soandso" was enough. Publications also gave a view of the person's ability and proficiency. Generally people within a specialty were known by their peers nation-wide. When in doubt, a short conversation with a "new" person could allow you to determine their proficiency. I always believed and really still feel that once I passed on a student through a graduate committee or general examinations the student was qualified to be recognized. Now this means nothing and some credentialling committee "decides". Certifications multiply faster than rabbits. Pretty soon even my trash collector is going to need two lines to sign his name. Hopefully the failure of academic institutions to properly train people is not part of this problem. (but I know they share some ofthe blame) JTP -----Original Message----- From: Peter D. Barnett To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:32 AM Subject: RE: Employment At 08:11 AM 4/26/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote: >Worse,the acceptance of what are essentially non-professional criteria in >hiring and firing *detracts* from our professionalism, rather than >enhances it. Coral Gables is saying that it *doesn't care* how good a >forensic scientist you are. Your *professional* qualifications are >irrelevant to their social engineering desires. Is Coral Gables' anti-smoking policy based on a social engineering premise that smoking should not be permitted, or simply an economic one because they recognize the increase in long term health care costs associated with smoking? These costs will become a municipal liability once they "adopt" an employee. Is it inappropriate for an employer to consider the overall costs of an employee when making a decision to hire? If an employee has personal habits or conditions which are costly, why should the taxpayer, or coworkers, be forced to bear those costs? Pete Barnett Peter D. Barnett Forensic Science Associates Richmond CA 510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 pbarnett@FSALab.com http://www.fsalab.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CE99.6BD6C7D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Employment

Legitimate universities producing legitimate degrees = for honest, qualified professionals is not the problem.  The = reason certification programs are needed is because of the existence = today of a wealth of diploma mills, charlatans with phony credentials, = and as much as anything else, legitimate professionals who act = unprofessionally by practicing outside their field of professional = expertise (and doing so incompetently).  Anyone can claim to be = qualified to do anything these days, and produce some official-looking = document or impressive-looking vitae to support the claim.  While = bona-fide professionals/experts can usually see through such fraudulent = charades, the general public usually cannot, and so they need a = reliable yardstick against which to measure the claimed qualifications = of self-appointed "professionals" and = "experts."

Government or professional peer-based certification = of individuals, like accreditation for laboratories and universities, = provides such a yardstick.  Frankly, I've never understood the = objection of some members of some professions to the creation of = certification programs, when it has been long established (not to = mention universally recognized and accepted as necessary) in so many = others.  No one would dream of trusting a doctor, dentist, lawyer, = nurse, public accountant, police officer, engineer, EMT, Med Tech, = general construction contractor, electrician, etc., etc., who was not = licensed, certified, or in some way credentialed by a regulatory body = beyond that of an academic degree-granting institution; yet some = members of other equally or more demanding professions object to = satisfying an external non-academic criterion (certification).  A = credential that is routinely expected in other professions is = unacceptable and insulting for theirs.  Sorry, I just don't = understand that attitude. 

Certification is an external, independent, public = demonstration of professional competency that a degree alone does not = provide.  Degrees demonstrate mastery of general subject matter in = a general way, they don't demonstrate anything about how that mastery = is applied to an actual job; the degree may be applicable to the job or = it may not be.  The person may be knowledgeable of the subject AND = be able to properly apply that knowledge in a specific job environ, or = he/she may not be.  Certification demonstrates competence for a = specific job description, and so is a more precise and useful = credential.  The degree is of course a prerequisite for the = certification in most professions, but the certification is the proof = that the person can actually do the job. 

For example, just because someone has a PhD in = chemistry, that doesn't mean he's qualified to do forensic drug = analysis or blood alcohol analysis (he's certainly qualified to learn = it, but still has to be taught how to do it).  As one of my own = professors once told the class when I was in school, a college degree = doesn't prepare you to actually DO a job in the real world, it gives = you the foundation you need to be able to LEARN how to do a job in the = real world.  It means you are trainable, and is the starting point = for the process of becoming an expert professional, not the culmination = of it.  Certification is a kind of "final exam" for the = real-world on-the-job learning process in a specific profession.  = Obtaining a college degree is merely the entrance exam for the = profession.  In any job involving applied science (as opposed to = theoretical, research, or academic science), certification is a very = important and useful credential because it demonstrates something very = meaningful to the consumer of scientific services and products - that = you not only know something about the job, you can actually perform it = competently.

For analytical laboratory scientists (in forensics or = any other field), individual certification, laboratory accreditation, = and method standardization are known as the "quality = triangle."  They are routine in medical, environmental, and = other fields.  They should be routine in all scientific = professions, and probably in most others.  Fortunately, we are = moving in that direction whether we all like it or not.  = Unfortunately, there are bogus certification and accreditation programs = popping up to support the unprofessional "professionals" and = the inexpert "experts," so the struggle for quality = continues.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: J. T. Price [mailto:tprice@prosector.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:10
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Employment


Opens up an area I have professionally worried about = and a trend I don't
really care for.  This is the "credential = mania" science has become enamored
with.  It use to be that a graduate of a = certain program was "credentialed"
by his/her credentialling committee and "I = trained under Dr. Soandso" was
enough.  Publications also gave a view of the = person's ability and
proficiency.  Generally people within a = specialty were known by their peers
nation-wide.  When in doubt, a short = conversation with a "new" person could
allow you to determine their proficiency.

I always believed and really still feel that once I = passed on a student
through a graduate committee or general examinations = the student was
qualified to be recognized.   Now this = means nothing and some credentialling
committee "decides".  Certifications = multiply faster than rabbits.  Pretty
soon even my trash collector is going to need two = lines to sign his name.
Hopefully the failure of academic institutions to = properly train people is
not part of this problem.  (but I know they = share some ofthe blame)

JTP

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter D. Barnett = <pbarnett@FSALab.com>
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu = <forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Employment


At 08:11 AM 4/26/01 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote:

>Worse,the acceptance of what are essentially = non-professional criteria in
>hiring and firing *detracts* from our = professionalism, rather than
>enhances it.  Coral Gables is saying that = it *doesn't care* how good a
>forensic scientist you are.  Your = *professional* qualifications are
>irrelevant to their social engineering = desires.

Is Coral Gables' anti-smoking policy based on a = social engineering premise
that smoking should not be permitted, or simply an = economic one because
they recognize the increase in long term health care = costs associated with
smoking?  These costs will become a municipal = liability once they "adopt"
an employee.  Is it inappropriate for an = employer to consider the overall
costs of an employee when making a decision to = hire?  If an employee has
personal habits or conditions which are costly, why = should the taxpayer, or
coworkers, be forced to bear those costs?

Pete Barnett


Peter D. Barnett
Forensic Science Associates
Richmond CA
510-222-8883 FAX: 510-222-8887 = pbarnett@FSALab.com

http://www.fsalab.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CE99.6BD6C7D0-- From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 18:23:20 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27828 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:23:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27820 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA06326; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:23:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Robert Parsons cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Robert Parsons wrote: > From: Robert Parsons > > > Government or professional peer-based certification of individuals, like > accreditation for laboratories and universities, provides such a yardstick. No it doesn't. You mention board exams for physicians. No physician I know would suggest that there is a correlation between a score on a board exam and one's ability to be a good physician. There is a correlation with being able to *pass* the boards, but it is soft. > Frankly, I've never understood the objection of some members of some > professions to the creation of certification programs, when it has been long > established (not to mention universally recognized and accepted as > necessary) in so many others. No one would dream of trusting a doctor, > dentist, lawyer, nurse, public accountant, police officer, engineer, EMT, > Med Tech, general construction contractor, electrician, etc., etc., who was > not licensed, certified, or in some way credentialed by a regulatory body > beyond that of an academic degree-granting institution; yet some members of > other equally or more demanding professions object to satisfying an external > non-academic criterion (certification). Whew. That was a long sentence. In fact, there are many reasons to object to some certification programs. The most important is time. Let's use physicians, again. Most medical schools end up letting fourth year students spend about 60% of their time doing nothing but cram for the national boards. Most pathology residency programs make the last year of the residency particularly light to allow people to study for the pathology boards. Now, there is something to be said for the idea that for one split second during my career, I actually managed to memorize every biochemical metabolic indicator for every bacterium of medical importance in the world. And, yes, I did that. And I remembered it for, oh, almost five days. For the forensic exams, I memorized the LD50 for every chemical in Baselt's Disposition of Toxic Drugs in Man. I rememberd that for almost two days afterwards. OK, well, that may have something to say about whether or not I can practice forensic medicine. Maybe not. And if it does, it's a measure of my medium term memorization skills, not my ability to "do" forensic medicine. And you know what? Today, if I need to know how much morphine it takes to kill a 70 kilogram man, guess what I do. Yes, I pull down my copy of Baselt or Goodman and Gillman, do a MEDLINE search or whatever and look it up. But, of course, now we have the movement to make certification time-limited. So what is a person to do? Is he or she supposed to stop practicing medicine and take one year out of every five to memorize trivia? That is what you are calling a "yardstick." Hogwash. Even worse is the attitude that if one is *not* certified, then that means that one is *not* accomplished. As I wrote in my screed about computer science, demonstrated experience is a hell of a lot more important than any certification. It's amusing for me to see folk with "Linux certification" maundering on about things they have never done, while I have been busily administering a heterogeneous environment for 10 years. The increase in the number of certifications, when combined with this idea that it is the *only* way of demonstrating competency results in profound balkanization of expertise. In fact, most competencies overlap, but nowadays if you are not "certified" in some sub-sub-sub-sub-subtask, it is assumed you are incompetent. No doubt we can have certification for scene investigation for homicide, a different certificaiton for scene investigation of burlaries, a different certification for scene investiation of assaults, a different certification for rural scene investigation, a different certification for urban scene investigation, a different certification for suburban scenes, etc. And, of course, a person certified in urban/rural/homicide/burglary scene investigations *must* be incompetent to do a suburban homicide scene investigation. After all, that's a different certification. Where does it end? And, finally, there's the cost. Certification exams in medicine cost between $1000-$3000 dollars, and two or three times that if travel and lodging are included. And that doesn't include the $2000 - $4000 for the test-prep course or materials. So, now, in order to do one's job it becomes necessary to have five or six certifications -- and who gets to spend the $10,000 or $20,000 that adds up to? Even for relatively trivial certifications this adds up. I recently became a certified quality auditor (ASQ) by the American Society for Quality. This meant about $500 for a prep course, $300 for study materials, $500 for arranging to take the test and associated logistics, and then about $100/mo for "CE" consisting mostly of paying for meals at a Best Western for monthly Society meetings. All so I am "certified" to tic off a checkist. Yowza. There is a place for certifications. But making them more than they are is bad. Yardsticks don't always really measure a yard, and there are other ways to measure distance. billo From forens-owner Thu Apr 26 18:41:09 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28109 for forens-outgoing; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28104 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esmefluff (ip106.indianapolis14.in.pub-ip.psi.net [38.33.128.106]) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA08234 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000d01c0ceb9$28981120$6a802126@esmefluff> From: "Deborah M. Nolan" To: References: <000d01c0ce3b$9e524d00$5400a8c0@mp133ws> Subject: Re: Tobacco and Visine Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:26:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Good answer, Sheila! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sheila Berry" To: "forens" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 3:28 AM Subject: Tobacco and Visine > The other night I watched "Nuremberg", a made-for-tv movie about the > Nuremberg trials starring Alec Baldwin (mainly because it starred Alec > Baldwin). In reading the postings about tobacco and Visine, I am reminded > of Goering's defense for rounding up Jews, Gypsies and other "potential > criminals". He was, you see, placing them in "preventive detention" because > they were "inclined to commit crime" and the rest of the populace had to be > protected from them. And, of course, protected from themselves. > > Sheila Berry > ____________________ > > Sheila Martin Berry > E-mail: martinberry@home.com > Web Sites: > http://spiritlink.com/ > http://truthinjustice.org/ > > "The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are > evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." > - Albert Einstein > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 09:59:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07311 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07306 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:59:06 -0400 (EDT) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.95.9f7f29c (17084) for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:58:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <95.9f7f29c.281ad500@aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:58:24 EDT Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_95.9f7f29c.281ad500_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10523 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_95.9f7f29c.281ad500_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/01 7:10:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, das_smith@hotmail.com writes: > > Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that > legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure > groups > attempts). > > Really, how can one compare a drug that is today's greatest medical threat to today's greatest threat to a medical drug. There is no comparison. Marijuana should no be sullied by being placed in the same class as the vile weed tobacco. Okay, back to my lurking before I launch into a series of curses regarding one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC has vomited out in years. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408. --part1_95.9f7f29c.281ad500_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/01 7:10:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
das_smith@hotmail.com writes:



Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that
legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure
groups
attempts).



Really, how can one compare a drug that is today's greatest medical threat to
today's greatest threat to a medical drug.  There is no comparison.  
Marijuana should no be sullied by being placed in the same class as the vile
weed tobacco.

Okay, back to my lurking before I launch into a series of curses regarding
one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC has vomited out in years.   
Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

--part1_95.9f7f29c.281ad500_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 10:22:00 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07869 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:22:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07864 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:21:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25361; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:21:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Marilyn Harris cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20010427110501.0068e7e8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Marilyn Harris wrote: > From: Marilyn Harris > > >But that's not really the point. The point is that while an employer > >may be free to be stupid and irresponsible in his or her hiring > >practices, we are under no obligation to decline to note that it is > >stupid and irresponsible -- particularly if it is a stupid and > >irresponsible *trend* in our profession. > > Hi Billo; > > Is it stupid that an employer does not want his employees running outdoors > every five minutes to smoke? I am assuming that it's unlawful to smoke > indoors at the workplace. Very stupid. Very, very stupid. First, your hyperbole points out how stupid it is. Even the most avid smokers don't run out the door "every five minutes." Second, *I* hire people based on how good a job they do, not how they spend their time. Let's say my widget factory hires two widget wonkers. One widget wonker is a smoker, but truly enjoys wonking widgets and manages to get 500 of them wonked in a day -- even though she runs out for a cig every few hours. The other is a nonsmoker, but she would much prefer to be a best-selling novelist and is wonking widgets just until "something better comes along." In spite of the fact she doesn't run out to smoke (but instead spends her time at the water fountain, in the bathroom, in the break room, carrying on meaningless conversations with the hunk in the mailroom, and even doing some work) she only manages to wonk 300 widgets a day. I care about how many of my widgets get wonked, not whether or not my wonkers' lifestyle meets my approval in every detail, or whether or not they are punctilious in every second spent in my widget shop. If your measure of a "good employee" is "how well she fits under my thumb," then you may want to look over her shoulder and see how she spends her every second. If your measure of a "good employee" is "how big a pile of widgets I have at the end of the day" then that may not be the best strategy. > > Would you hire a smoker, all things else being equal? I have. Some of my most productive and enthusiastic employees have been smokers. And that's true in large part because I judged them on how they did their job, not on other stupid irrelevant things. Most recently I hired a fellow to digitize images for a book I'm trying to put together. I gave him a stack of 6000 images, a computer, and some quality criteria. At the end of a week, I wanted 1000 of them digitized, on CD, and in my database. I don't care if he comes in a 0800 or 2000 hours, I don't care if he goes out and smokes a cig every thirty seconds. I cared about how many images got processed. And he did a great job. I want my people to make widgets, not French kiss me. I don't care if they smoke. billo From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 10:22:42 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07911 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA07906 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:22:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3REMd123632; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:22:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: cc: Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: <95.9f7f29c.281ad500@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk For your information, smoking marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes. One marijuana cigarette is equivalent to 5 regular cigs. It has higher concentrations of benzpyrenes, plus the CO and heat which damages the lining of the respiratory tract. As for the medical consequences of marijuana, I could write a volume...but unfortunately, I have to get to work. I'll just mention one thing that I believe might concern you....it's known to cause testicular atrophy. Also, a recent study showed that it inhibits brain growth and maturation if smoking mj begins in the early teens. Marinol, the PO (ingestible) form of mj, is available for pain, and obviously there is no respiratory damage with this form of the drug. Have a nice day...and oh...you haven't noticed any change in your voice, have you? Carol Define MD On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 LEGALEYE1@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/25/01 7:10:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > das_smith@hotmail.com writes: > > > > > > Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed that > > legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure > > groups > > attempts). > > > > > > Really, how can one compare a drug that is today's greatest medical threat to > today's greatest threat to a medical drug. There is no comparison. > Marijuana should no be sullied by being placed in the same class as the vile > weed tobacco. > > Okay, back to my lurking before I launch into a series of curses regarding > one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC has vomited out in years. > Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408. > > > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 10:44:37 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08457 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08452 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29322; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:44:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: LEGALEYE1@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > For your information, smoking marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes. > One marijuana cigarette is equivalent to 5 regular cigs. It has higher > concentrations of benzpyrenes, plus the CO and heat which damages the > lining of the respiratory tract. As for the medical consequences of > marijuana, I could write a volume...but unfortunately, I have to get to > work. I'll just mention one thing that I believe might concern > you....it's known to cause testicular atrophy. Well, no. Not in humans. What is your citation? billo From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 10:54:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA08728 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08723 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pdb ([63.204.135.29]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with SMTP id <0GCG00A41HEDST@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for forens@statgen.ncsu.edu; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:55:01 -0700 From: "Peter D. Barnett" Subject: RE: Employment In-reply-to: X-Sender: pbarnett@pop.nothingbutnet.net To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Message-id: <0GCG00A42HEDST@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <1.5.4.32.20010427110501.0068e7e8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 10:21 AM 4/27/2001 -0400, Bill Oliver wrote: >I want my people to make widgets, not French kiss me. I don't >care if they smoke. But surely, Billo, as an employer you must accept the fact that as such you have agreed to be responsible for your employee until such time as your employee decides you no longer have that responsibility. If your employee wants to take some time off - no problem, the widgets can be wonked later. If the employee is feeling poorly you not only have to suspend widget making for the duration of that condition, but you have to continue to pay the employee and fund whatever therapy or intervention is necessary to get the employee back to feeling like wonking widgets is something the employee would like to do. This employer responsibility lasts for the employee's lifetime although the employee's responsibility to wonk more widgets will probably end 15 or more years before your responsibility as an employer ends. So, is it not your obligation to your shareholders, or taxpayers, to minimize the cost of this lifetime commitment. Since the employer has virtually no control over the rate at which the employee wonks the widgets (indeed, in most instances that is not even something that can be measured, at least for the individual employee), the only option left to the employer to improve the bottom line is to minimize employee costs. Not having employees with costly conditions or habits is, therefore, a desirable management objective. Pete Barnett From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 11:22:32 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA09363 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09358 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:22:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3RFMSP09166; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:22:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:22:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Bill Oliver cc: , Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Chronic use of MJ may result in inhibition of secretion of reproductive hormones and cause impotence in men and menstral irregularities in women. (Hollister, 1986, Health Aspects of cannabis, Pharmacol Rev, 38, pp 1-20.) There is evidence to suggest that MJ is the cause of reduced sperm counts in men. (Brophy, 1993) Furthermore, male chronic MJ users have been found to have 50% lower blood testosterone levels than men who do not smoke MJ (Bloodworth, 1987). On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > From: Carol Define MD > > > > > > For your information, smoking marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes. > > One marijuana cigarette is equivalent to 5 regular cigs. It has higher > > concentrations of benzpyrenes, plus the CO and heat which damages the > > lining of the respiratory tract. As for the medical consequences of > > marijuana, I could write a volume...but unfortunately, I have to get to > > work. I'll just mention one thing that I believe might concern > > you....it's known to cause testicular atrophy. > > > > Well, no. Not in humans. What is your citation? > > > > billo > > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 12:04:06 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10070 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10065 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:04:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13226; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:04:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: LEGALEYE1@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > Chronic use of MJ may result in inhibition of secretion of reproductive > hormones and cause impotence in men and menstral irregularities in women. > (Hollister, 1986, Health Aspects of cannabis, Pharmacol Rev, 38, pp 1-20.) > There is evidence to suggest that MJ is the cause of reduced sperm counts > in men. (Brophy, 1993) Furthermore, male chronic MJ users have been found > to have 50% lower blood testosterone levels than men who do not smoke MJ > (Bloodworth, 1987). Well, I'll be happy to discuss these results, which are either inconclusive (hence the "may" and "suggests", etc.) or have been contradicted by later studies(1). However, none of these addresses your claim -- that it causes testicular atrophy -- which is a specific diagnosis. What is your citation for your actual claim? billo 1) Wayne Hall and Nadia Solowij, Adverse effects of cannabis, The Lancet, 352:1611-1616,1998. From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 12:36:30 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA10758 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.52]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10753 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:36:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.79.128.67]) by mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with ESMTP id <20010427163558.NEMZ9072.mtiwmhc27.worldnet.att.net@worldnet.att.net>; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:35:58 +0000 Message-ID: <3AE9A010.96B68361@worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:36:50 -0400 From: "E. J. Wagner" Reply-To: EJWagner@worldnet.att.net Organization: Crime Historian / Storyteller X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Peter D. Barnett" CC: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Employment References: <1.5.4.32.20010427110501.0068e7e8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> <0GCG00A42HEDST@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I'm startled by the news that an employer's responsibility lasts for the employee's lifetime. This information has not reached Suffolk County, Long Island NY. Out here, within recent memory, large numbers of gifted engineers and computer specialists, many with decades of experience, were laid off, fired, given the sack, made redundant, or thrust screaming into the chilly embrace of "early retirement". Even if they didn't smoke. The employer's responsibility stopped at few weeks of severance pay, a few months of health insurance, and security guards to walk the unfortunates to the exit. Seems to me that judging an applicant by his off duty health habits is a silly slippery slope. Would one include not hiring those who indulge in downhill skiing, surf boarding, horseback riding, eating beef in Britain, or that always pesky having unprotected sex? As a citizen and taxpayer, I like to feel that folks in the forensic labs are doing the best possible job. Anything less, and one runs the risk of innocent people carted off to prison, or guilty ones getting off. I'm also nervous of the sort of person who allows his/her private life be dictated by his employer. I wonder what such a person would do if pressured to-say- slant testimony? Mislay evidence? Sorry- just a spasm of paranoia. Such things never happen. I'll go quietly back to the 18th century now. EJ "Peter D. Barnett" wrote: > > > > But surely, Billo, as an employer you must accept the fact that as such you > have agreed to be responsible for your employee until such time as your > employee decides you no longer have that responsibility. If your employee > wants to take some time off - no problem, the widgets can be wonked later. > If the employee is feeling poorly you not only have to suspend widget > making for the duration of that condition, but you have to continue to pay > the employee and fund whatever therapy or intervention is necessary to get > the employee back to feeling like wonking widgets is something the employee > would like to do. This employer responsibility lasts for the employee's > lifetime although the employee's responsibility to wonk more widgets will > > > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 13:02:34 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11849 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11844 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:02:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:02:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Raphael ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:20:21 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Raphael ] >From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 11:20:21 2001 Received: from amsnt1.amslab.ch ([164.128.70.3]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA09249 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 11:20:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from amslab.ch ([192.168.3.182] (may be forged)) by amsnt1.amslab.ch (2.5 Build 2640 (Berkeley 8.8.6)/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA00758 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:21:36 +0200 Message-ID: <3AE98DD0.874F3350@amslab.ch> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:18:40 +0200 From: Raphael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Room temperature storage Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Is anybody aware of a validated protocol for long term ROOM TEMPERATURE storage of buccal swabs and/or DNA samples for DNA databases ? -- Raphael Coquoz Laboratoire AMS, pl. de la Navigation 10, 1006 Lausanne, Switzerland 41 21 613 70 40, Fax 41 21 613 70 49, raphael.coquoz@amslab.ch Institut de Police Scientifique et de Criminologie UNIL-BCH, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 41 21 692 46 00, Fax 41 21 692 46 05, raphael.coquoz@ipsc.unil.ch From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 13:03:04 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11952 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11947 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:03:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Marilyn Harris ] (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:56:54 -0400 (EDT) From: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: BOUNCE forens@statgen.ncsu.edu: Non-member submission from [Marilyn Harris ] >From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 06:56:54 2001 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA05352 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from x7b0k6 (p32t4.std.dialup.ncf.carleton.ca [134.117.137.86]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with SMTP id GAA27795; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:56:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20010427110501.0068e7e8@pop.ncf.carleton.ca> X-Sender: ah247@pop.ncf.carleton.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 07:05:01 -0400 To: Bill Oliver From: Marilyn Harris Subject: RE: Employment Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu >But that's not really the point. The point is that while an employer >may be free to be stupid and irresponsible in his or her hiring >practices, we are under no obligation to decline to note that it is >stupid and irresponsible -- particularly if it is a stupid and >irresponsible *trend* in our profession. Hi Billo; Is it stupid that an employer does not want his employees running outdoors every five minutes to smoke? I am assuming that it's unlawful to smoke indoors at the workplace. Would you hire a smoker, all things else being equal? Regards, Marilyn From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 13:03:18 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12051 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12046 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:03:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:07:08 -0400 From: lgriggs@msegroup.com To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment RE: EmploymentThe problem here is that many courts, attorneys, and public figures cannot recognize the difference between a valid certification organization and a diploma or certification mill. Therefore when someone lists one of these organizations, they are recognized as "certified experts" or whatever. BTW: Robert, I dropped the one you questioned. Lee Protection Technology, Inc. PTI Investigations (Agency #1450) Providing professional investigative services in South Carolina. Seminars on marketing, business planning and forensics. Telephone: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Toll free Voice Mail: 877-219-9784 Cellular: 803-427-1349 mailto:msegroup@mindspring.com http://www.msegroup.com Unfortunately, there are bogus certification and accreditation programs popping up to support the unprofessional "professionals" and the inexpert "experts," so the struggle for quality continues. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 13:10:56 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12378 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:10:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r15.mx.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12373 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:10:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Amflaw@aol.com Received: from Amflaw@aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.65.136e363c (16782); Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <65.136e363c.281b01f4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:10:12 EDT Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking To: LEGALEYE1@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 124 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/27/01 10:03:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LEGALEYE1@aol.com writes: << Okay, back to my lurking before I launch into a series of curses regarding one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC has vomited out in years. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408. >> I'll come out of lurking to agree with that statement. From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 13:46:54 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12942 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f23.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.23]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12937 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:46:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:46:23 -0700 Received: from 216.29.188.94 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:46:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [216.29.188.94] From: "David Smith" To: cdefine@bcpl.net, LEGALEYE1@aol.com Cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:46:23 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2001 17:46:23.0433 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9A1D390:01C0CF41] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Carol Define wrote "Marinol, the PO (ingestible) form of mj, is available for pain, and obviously there is no respiratory damage with this form of the drug." Am I missing something - I thought the whole argument behind the medical use of marijuana (smoked) was that the patient was too nauseous to ingest anything orally and thus smoking the drug was an alternative route of administration. Dave S. >From: Carol Define MD >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:22:39 -0400 (EDT) > > >For your information, smoking marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes. >One marijuana cigarette is equivalent to 5 regular cigs. It has higher >concentrations of benzpyrenes, plus the CO and heat which damages the >lining of the respiratory tract. As for the medical consequences of >marijuana, I could write a volume...but unfortunately, I have to get to >work. I'll just mention one thing that I believe might concern >you....it's known to cause testicular atrophy. Also, a recent study >showed that it inhibits brain growth and maturation if smoking mj begins >in the early teens. Marinol, the PO (ingestible) form of mj, is available >for pain, and obviously there is no respiratory damage with this form of >the drug. > >Have a nice day...and oh...you haven't noticed any change in your voice, >have you? > >Carol Define MD > >On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 LEGALEYE1@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/25/01 7:10:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > das_smith@hotmail.com writes: > > > > > > > > > > Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed >that > > > legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure > > > groups > > > attempts). > > > > > > > > > > Really, how can one compare a drug that is today's greatest medical >threat to > > today's greatest threat to a medical drug. There is no comparison. > > Marijuana should no be sullied by being placed in the same class as the >vile > > weed tobacco. > > > > Okay, back to my lurking before I launch into a series of curses >regarding > > one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC has vomited out in years. > > Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408. > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 15:23:55 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA14325 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14320 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:23:54 -0400 (EDT) From: MrGQ28@cs.com Received: from MrGQ28@cs.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id i.f3.9b40e28 (4469); Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:23:00 EDT Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking To: das_smith@hotmail.com, cdefine@bcpl.net, LEGALEYE1@aol.com CC: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: CompuServe 2000 32-bit sub 113 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk I was wondering if there is anyone on the list that is familiar with L-Dopa and Dopamine and what happens when there is an increase and decreased dosage of this drug? TODD From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 16:24:44 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15298 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15293 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3RKOcf05772; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Bill Oliver cc: , Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk There are many reported effects of marijuana on gonadal and pituitary hormones. In volume 19, no. 1 of the Journal of Addictive Diseases, a study entitled 'Brain Morphological Changes and Early Marijuana Use: A Magnetic Resonance and Positron Emission Tomography Study' (Wilson et al, 2000), it was observed that there was a smaller percent of cortical gray matter and increased white (adjusted for whole brain volume) with early MJ use. The discussion in part states: 'Data show that during adolescence there is an active change in brain maturation. To this observation must be added findings concerning the effect of gonadal hormones on brain development and function. It has been shown that gonadal hormones play a role in prenatal brain development; (1, 2) it has also been shown that they may play a significant role, postnatally, in sex differences in function and possibly structure. Clark and Goldman-Rakic (3) demonstrated that postnatal treatment of normal rhesus monkeys with testosterone had a significant 'masculinizing' influence on the maturation of the orbital pre-frontal cortex of female monkeys. Clark and Goldman-Rakic concluded that gonadal hormones may play a significant role in modifying the brain at times when there is 'dynamic change' ongoing in the cortex. It is clear from the work of Jernigan st al (4, 5) and Reiss et al (6) that adolescence is a time of active brain development with one component of this activity being a significant change in gray matter. This is important because it suggests a possible process where a reduction of gonadal hormones may effect change in development and subsequently function. It has been reported that THC (marijuana) has an inhibitory effect on serum testosterone levels, and it has been shown to reduce testiclar weight (7), and it has also been shown that a single marijuana cigarette significantly reduces luteinizing hormone in human males (8) and females (9). In males luteinizing hormone stimulates the interstitial endocrinocytes in the testes for production and secretion of testosterone. It may be that both males and females who utilize marijuana during early adolescence alter the course of brain development due to alteration in gonadal and pituitary hormones, and that this is related to global CBF (cerebral blood flow) and to the reduction of cortical gray matter.' Obviously, teasing out the complexities of marijuana effects on the brain and endocrine system (and other organ systems) will be an on-going process for a long time. Evidence for it's safety is clearly lacking, and I am confident that it's safety (in its present form) will never be established. There are hundreds of chemical compounds in MJ that researchers are separating and identifying, and I have no doubt that new pharmaceuticals will eventually be developed and tested for safety. Right now, MJ, if used at all, should be reserved for those at the end of life. It is especially important for teens not to get the impression that MJ is a safe drug. It is an addictive drug that causes permanent neurological changes. Dr. Glover, researcher from the Un of WVA, reported that when teens use nicotine, there is a 300% increase in nicotine receptor sites in the brain which never go away. Adults also get an increase in receptor sites, but not to the same degree. That is why tobacco is so addictive particularly when people smoke from an early age...those many receptor sites will always be there and are constantly being triggered. The tobacco companies knew this...if they could get a kid hooked before age 18, they had a smoker for life. Carol Define MD On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > > > From: Carol Define MD > > > > > > Chronic use of MJ may result in inhibition of secretion of reproductive > > hormones and cause impotence in men and menstral irregularities in women. > > (Hollister, 1986, Health Aspects of cannabis, Pharmacol Rev, 38, pp 1-20.) > > There is evidence to suggest that MJ is the cause of reduced sperm counts > > in men. (Brophy, 1993) Furthermore, male chronic MJ users have been found > > to have 50% lower blood testosterone levels than men who do not smoke MJ > > (Bloodworth, 1987). > > > Well, I'll be happy to discuss these results, which are either inconclusive > (hence the "may" and "suggests", etc.) or have been contradicted by > later studies(1). However, none of these addresses your claim -- that it > causes testicular atrophy -- which is a specific diagnosis. What is your > citation for your actual claim? > > > billo > > > 1) Wayne Hall and Nadia Solowij, Adverse effects of cannabis, The Lancet, > 352:1611-1616,1998. > > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 16:45:27 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15783 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15778 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:45:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00038; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:45:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: LEGALEYE1@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > There are many reported effects of marijuana on gonadal and pituitary > hormones. Indeed, and I don't think anybody argues that we should encourage children to smoke marijuana. In a week or so, I will be happy to discuss your transference of effects in children to effects in adults. However, your claim is that marijuana smoking by adults causes testicular atrophy. None of your references claim to show this. If you cannot provide a study which links testicular atrophy with marijuana smoking in adults, perhaps you ca provide a case report which conclusively shows testicular atrophy due to smoking of marijuana. Can you provide such a citation? billo From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 17:15:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16246 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:15:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA16241 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:15:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 21:15:37 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:06:34 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:06:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF5D.EBA9DD20" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF5D.EBA9DD20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Really, how can one compare a drug that is today's greatest medical threat to >today's greatest threat to a medical drug. There is no comparison. >Marijuana should no be sullied by being placed in the same class as the vile >weed tobacco. Sigh, we don't REALLY want to get into the medical marijuana debate again, do we? Already been there, done that, but I can't resist a short response. First of all, I'd say today's greatest medical threat is obesity, not tobacco, at least in the USA. Secondly, Marijuana isn't a medical drug any more than willow bark (a natural source of aspirin) is; it's a plant containing a complex mixture of chemicals, just like any other plant, but marijuana has a surprisingly large number of them. Some of these chemicals may have useful medicinal properties (and so can be used as medicines), while the rest are useless and/or harmful from a medical standpoint. Marijuana smoke has more tar and more carcinogens than tobacco smoke, and medically is at least as damaging to respiratory passages as tobacco smoke, probably more so. Marijuana is intoxicating, impairing both mental and motor skills, while tobacco is not. Both are psychologically and physically addictive, tobacco arguably more so than marijuana. The only thing that really makes tobacco the greater health threat of the two is it's much greater rate of use. If marijuana was used as often and by as many people as tobacco, it would be a significantly greater threat than tobacco. >Okay, back to my lurking before I launch into a series of curses regarding >one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC has vomited out in years. >Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408. This 5-4 decision makes a very interesting read. Both Justices (writing the majority and dissenting opinions) make a good case for their divergent opinions. Personally, I think Atwater's arrest was a pretty extreme overreaction (I might feel differently if I had kids who were injured because someone else allowed them to ride unbelted), but from a strictly legal standpoint the majority opinion seems to have more weight behind it, both from a constructionist and a precedent-based view of the Fourth Amendment. There was plenty of room for dissent, though, obviously. In any event, what's reasonable and what's legal (constitutional) isn't always the same thing, unfortunately. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF5D.EBA9DD20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Job Announcement re. smoking

>Really, how can one compare a drug that is = today's greatest medical threat to
>today's greatest threat to a medical drug.  = There is no comparison.  
>Marijuana should no be sullied by being placed = in the same class as the vile
>weed tobacco.

Sigh, we don't REALLY want to get into the medical = marijuana debate again, do we?  Already been there, done that, but = I can't resist a short response.

First of all, I'd say today's greatest medical threat = is obesity, not tobacco, at least in the USA.  Secondly, Marijuana = isn't a medical drug any more than willow bark (a natural source of = aspirin) is; it's a plant containing a complex mixture of chemicals, = just like any other plant, but marijuana has a surprisingly large = number of them.  Some of these chemicals may have useful medicinal = properties (and so can be used as medicines), while the rest are = useless and/or harmful from a medical standpoint.  Marijuana smoke = has more tar and more carcinogens than tobacco smoke, and medically is = at least as damaging to respiratory passages as tobacco smoke, probably = more so.  Marijuana is intoxicating, impairing both mental and = motor skills, while tobacco is not.  Both are psychologically and = physically addictive, tobacco arguably more so than marijuana.  = The only thing that really makes tobacco the greater health threat of = the two is it's much greater rate of use.  If marijuana was used = as often and by as many people as tobacco, it would be a significantly = greater threat than tobacco.

>Okay, back to my lurking before I launch into a = series of curses regarding
>one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC has = vomited out in years.   
>Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

This 5-4 decision makes a very interesting = read.  Both Justices (writing the majority and dissenting = opinions) make a good case for their divergent opinions.  = Personally, I think Atwater's arrest was a pretty extreme overreaction = (I might feel differently if I had kids who were injured because = someone else allowed them to ride unbelted), but from a strictly legal = standpoint the majority opinion seems to have more weight behind it, = both from a constructionist and a precedent-based view of the Fourth = Amendment.  There was plenty of room for dissent, though, = obviously.  In any event, what's reasonable and what's legal = (constitutional) isn't always the same thing, unfortunately.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF5D.EBA9DD20-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 17:17:43 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16391 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dns.state.mi.us (somdns2.state.mi.us [167.240.253.6]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16385 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by dns.state.mi.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:05:27 -0400 Received: from sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu ([152.14.14.17]) by dns.state.mi.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:19:59 -0400 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15400; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:44 -0400 Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA15298 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA15293 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3RKOcf05772; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 16:24:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Bill Oliver cc: , Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk There are many reported effects of marijuana on gonadal and pituitary hormones. In volume 19, no. 1 of the Journal of Addictive Diseases, a study entitled 'Brain Morphological Changes and Early Marijuana Use: A Magnetic Resonance and Positron Emission Tomography Study' (Wilson et al, 2000), it was observed that there was a smaller percent of cortical gray matter and increased white (adjusted for whole brain volume) with early MJ use. The discussion in part states: 'Data show that during adolescence there is an active change in brain maturation. To this observation must be added findings concerning the effect of gonadal hormones on brain development and function. It has been shown that gonadal hormones play a role in prenatal brain development; (1, 2) it has also been shown that they may play a significant role, postnatally, in sex differences in function and possibly structure. Clark and Goldman-Rakic (3) demonstrated that postnatal treatment of normal rhesus monkeys with testosterone had a significant 'masculinizing' influence on the maturation of the orbital pre-frontal cortex of female monkeys. Clark and Goldman-Rakic concluded that gonadal hormones may play a significant role in modifying the brain at times when there is 'dynamic change' ongoing in the cortex. It is clear from the work of Jernigan st al (4, 5) and Reiss et al (6) that adolescence is a time of active brain development with one component of this activity being a significant change in gray matter. This is important because it suggests a possible process where a reduction of gonadal hormones may effect change in development and subsequently function. It has been reported that THC (marijuana) has an inhibitory effect on serum testosterone levels, and it has been shown to reduce testiclar weight (7), and it has also been shown that a single marijuana cigarette significantly reduces luteinizing hormone in human males (8) and females (9). In males luteinizing hormone stimulates the interstitial endocrinocytes in the testes for production and secretion of testosterone. It may be that both males and females who utilize marijuana during early adolescence alter the course of brain development due to alteration in gonadal and pituitary hormones, and that this is related to global CBF (cerebral blood flow) and to the reduction of cortical gray matter.' Obviously, teasing out the complexities of marijuana effects on the brain and endocrine system (and other organ systems) will be an on-going process for a long time. Evidence for it's safety is clearly lacking, and I am confident that it's safety (in its present form) will never be established. There are hundreds of chemical compounds in MJ that researchers are separating and identifying, and I have no doubt that new pharmaceuticals will eventually be developed and tested for safety. Right now, MJ, if used at all, should be reserved for those at the end of life. It is especially important for teens not to get the impression that MJ is a safe drug. It is an addictive drug that causes permanent neurological changes. Dr. Glover, researcher from the Un of WVA, reported that when teens use nicotine, there is a 300% increase in nicotine receptor sites in the brain which never go away. Adults also get an increase in receptor sites, but not to the same degree. That is why tobacco is so addictive particularly when people smoke from an early age...those many receptor sites will always be there and are constantly being triggered. The tobacco companies knew this...if they could get a kid hooked before age 18, they had a smoker for life. Carol Define MD On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > > > From: Carol Define MD > > > > > > Chronic use of MJ may result in inhibition of secretion of reproductive > > hormones and cause impotence in men and menstral irregularities in women. > > (Hollister, 1986, Health Aspects of cannabis, Pharmacol Rev, 38, pp 1-20.) > > There is evidence to suggest that MJ is the cause of reduced sperm counts > > in men. (Brophy, 1993) Furthermore, male chronic MJ users have been found > > to have 50% lower blood testosterone levels than men who do not smoke MJ > > (Bloodworth, 1987). > > > Well, I'll be happy to discuss these results, which are either inconclusive > (hence the "may" and "suggests", etc.) or have been contradicted by > later studies(1). However, none of these addresses your claim -- that it > causes testicular atrophy -- which is a specific diagnosis. What is your > citation for your actual claim? > > > billo > > > 1) Wayne Hall and Nadia Solowij, Adverse effects of cannabis, The Lancet, > 352:1611-1616,1998. > > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 17:25:47 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16559 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA16554 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 21:25:46 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:16:44 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:16:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF5F.58ED8DE0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF5F.58ED8DE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Well, yes, and in humans - at least as far as the respiratory and hormone level effects are concerned. I don't specifically recall mention of testicular atrophy, but I'm pretty sure the dozens of citations I posted the last time the medical marijuana debate raged here included a least a few that demonstrated a drop in circulating testosterone levels among heavy marijuana users, and the respiratory effects are well documented. I might have assumed that the drop in circulating testosterone was due to binding of the hormone, or blocking of receptor sites, or other interruption of testicular function, but physical atrophy of the glands themselves certainly seems possible as well. I'm looking forward to the exchanges between you and Carol on this topic, Bill. It should be educational. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:44 To: Carol Define MD Cc: LEGALEYE1@aol.com; Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > For your information, smoking marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes. > One marijuana cigarette is equivalent to 5 regular cigs. It has higher > concentrations of benzpyrenes, plus the CO and heat which damages the > lining of the respiratory tract. As for the medical consequences of > marijuana, I could write a volume...but unfortunately, I have to get to > work. I'll just mention one thing that I believe might concern > you....it's known to cause testicular atrophy. Well, no. Not in humans. What is your citation? billo ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF5F.58ED8DE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Job Announcement re. smoking

Well, yes, and in humans - at least as far as the = respiratory and hormone level effects are concerned.  I don't = specifically recall mention of testicular atrophy, but I'm pretty sure = the dozens of citations I posted the last time the medical marijuana = debate raged here included a least a few that demonstrated a drop in = circulating testosterone levels among heavy marijuana users, and the = respiratory effects are well documented.  I might have assumed = that the drop in circulating testosterone was due to binding of the = hormone, or blocking of receptor sites, or other interruption of = testicular function, but physical atrophy of the glands themselves = certainly seems possible as well.  I'm looking forward to the = exchanges between you and Carol on this topic, Bill.  It should be = educational.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Oliver [mailto:billo@Radix.Net]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:44
To: Carol Define MD
Cc: LEGALEYE1@aol.com; = Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking




On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote:

> From: Carol Define MD = <cdefine@bcpl.net>
>
>
> For your information, smoking marijuana is more = toxic than cigarettes.
> One marijuana cigarette is equivalent to 5 = regular cigs.  It has higher
> concentrations of benzpyrenes, plus the CO and = heat which damages the
> lining of the respiratory tract.  As for = the medical consequences of
> marijuana, I could write a volume...but = unfortunately, I have to get to
> work.  I'll just mention one thing that I = believe might concern
> you....it's known to cause testicular = atrophy. 



Well, no.  Not in humans.  What is your = citation?



billo

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF5F.58ED8DE0-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 17:32:05 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16767 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:32:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16762 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:32:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3RLVnL23710; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:31:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:31:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Bill Oliver cc: , Subject: marijuana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > Can you provide such a citation? Bill, what do you think THIS means? 'It has been reported that THC (marijuana) has an inhibitory effect on serum testosterone levels, and it has been shown to reduce testicular weight (7)', Wenger T, et al, 1992, Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on pregnancy, puberty, and the neuroendocrine system. Carol Define MD From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 17:43:45 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16967 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA16962 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09501; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:43:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: LEGALEYE1@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: marijuana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > > > Can you provide such a citation? > > Bill, what do you think THIS means? 'It has been reported that THC > (marijuana) has an inhibitory effect on serum testosterone levels, and it > has been shown to reduce testicular weight (7)', > > Wenger T, et al, 1992, Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on > pregnancy, puberty, and the neuroendocrine system. > > Carol Define MD > Well, it means, among other things, that you still have not provided a citation. If you send the journal reference (i.e. what journal that's in), I'll have a look at it on Monday. As to whether or not, as you asked in your previous post "do I have a problem?" the answer is yes. And I'll tell you exactly why next week. billo From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 17:50:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17115 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:50:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17110 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 21:50:17 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:41:15 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:41:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF62.C84873F0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF62.C84873F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Bill, you never cease to interest me. First you launch into a lengthy discussion (almost worthy of even my infamous verbosity) of why certification is a useful and often important credential and of why degrees alone don't demonstrate ability to do the job (i.e., your example of computer science grads who can't write code, as opposed to certified persons who had to demonstrate they could write code in order to be certified). Then you seem to take the opposite position in responding to my post, which supported and made similar arguments as your earlier post. Sometimes, I think you just like to debate for the sake of debate. Well.... so do I! ;) >> Government or professional peer-based certification of individuals, like >> accreditation for laboratories and universities, provides such a yardstick. >No it doesn't. You mention board exams for physicians. No physician >I know would suggest that there is a correlation between a score on >a board exam and one's ability to be a good physician. There is a >correlation with being able to *pass* the boards, but it is soft. Not in the specific score, no, but in achieving the minimum score acceptable to those boards, yes, that indicates a lot. It indicates you either meet a minimum standard or you don't. Where one ranks among others taking the same board is of little relevance to professional competency in the real world, but if one can't achieve the minimum standard, that's quite relevant. I mentioned physicians as one among a wealth of other professions where certification is a prerequisite to practice. I could accept that some medical boards which a physician must pass to begin practicing medicine, like Bar exams for lawyers, may be more like final exams that produce degrees for undergraduates (far more complex and demanding, of course) - in that they are the entrance exams for those professions, not certification exams in the sense we're discussing. "Board Certification in Forensic Pathology" or "forensic toxicology," etc., is the kind of certification I was talking about - i.e., demonstrating specific competency in a specific set of knowledge, skills, and abilities, to perform a specific job (like Medical Examiner). For lawyers, an appropriate example would be "board certification in criminal law," as opposed to the general Bar exams. I would place more trust in a board-certified cardiac specialist treating a heart condition than I would a general practitioner doing the same. You must admit that medical boards are a step beyond the simple sheepskin. They at least demonstrate knowledge of the entire spectrum of subjects a physician is supposed to have mastered in that field, in a comprehensive fashion; as opposed to the degree, which demonstrates only that each individual subject was mastered during the semester in which it was taken (and may already be forgotten by graduation day). It's certainly a better yardstick than the sheepskin alone. It's a question of "degree." (, sorry) >Whew. That was a long sentence. In fact, there are many reasons to >object to some certification programs. The most important is time. >Let's use physicians, again. Most medical schools end up letting >fourth year students spend about 60% of their time doing nothing >but cram for the national boards. Most pathology residency programs >make the last year of the residency particularly light to allow >people to study for the pathology boards. Actually, it was TWO long sentences. What can I say, my mouth runneth over. At least I have fun. ;) >Now, there is something to be said for the idea that for one split >second during my career, I actually managed to memorize every biochemical >metabolic indicator for every bacterium of medical importance in the >world. And, yes, I did that. And I remembered it for, oh, almost >five days. For the forensic exams, I memorized the LD50 for every >chemical in Baselt's Disposition of Toxic Drugs in Man. I rememberd >that for almost two days afterwards. I'm impressed, and would be flabbergasted if you claimed to retain much of it, but having not retained it, do you really think you obtained no benefit from even temporarily learning it? It didn't discipline your mind, teach you how to think, study, and do research (where and how to look in the literature to find answers to your questions)? You didn't retain any of it at all, not even for the drugs you commonly see in your work? It has been of absolutely no use to you whatsoever since then? Come now, I don't believe that for a second. I didn't long retain all the enzymatic catalysts, Gibbs Free Energy values, chemical structures, alternate pathways and intermediate products that I had to memorize in order to pass "Biochemistry I" either, but the exercise was certainly worth my while. I retained what I needed to understand the more advanced coursework to follow, and even today I still retain an overall basic understanding of human catabolism and anabolism that serves me in various ways (even if I can no longer spit out all the particulars from memory). I consider it to have been time well spent. >OK, well, that may have something to say about whether or not I can >practice forensic medicine. Maybe not. And if it does, it's a measure >of my medium term memorization skills, not my ability to "do" forensic >medicine. And you know what? Today, if I need to know how much >morphine it takes to kill a 70 kilogram man, guess what I do. Yes, I >pull down my copy of Baselt or Goodman and Gillman, do a MEDLINE >search or whatever and look it up. Agreed. That's exactly the argument I made when asked to memorize all those glycolysis, TCA cycle, fermentation, and gluconeogenesis tidbits, not to mention the phylogeny of invertebrates I couldn't care less about in zoology; but my instructors made me do it anyway and I'm glad they did. They were teaching me mental discipline, an essential attribute for applying knowledge whether we remember that knowledge or look it up. The point is that we retain what we need to do the job (a pathologist might have to look up the LD50 for a drug, but he doesn't have to look up how to conduct an autopsy, does he?). That includes knowing how to find the facts and figures we didn't retain, and knowing what questions to ask of ourselves to begin with. Good certification exams test all of that, not just rote memorization. Even the best certification exam only measures knowledge at one point in time, true, but a well designed certification exam doesn't just ask you to regurgitate facts and figures - it also asks you to apply and interpret that knowledge to solve practical problems, and that does demonstrate competency in applying the subject matter. You do have to test the knowledge base of the candidate of course, but a good certification exam doesn't stop there. It doesn't concentrate on memorized knowledge, it concentrates on applying that knowledge, on the thought processes needed to solve real-world problems. That's an important indicator of competence in the targeted job. Also, a good certification program doesn't use a written exam all by itself to judge competency. It also includes an assessment of your education, training, and experience (your credentials); where possible, it includes some sort of practical component (e.g., proficiency testing or other "hands-on" performance evaluation); and it includes a continuing education requirement to ensure that knowledge, skills, and abilities are kept current with modern advances in the field. Speaking of which... >But, of course, now we have the movement to make certification time-limited. >So what is a person to do? Is he or she supposed to stop practicing medicine >and take one year out of every five to memorize trivia? No, he/she's supposed to stay current with the advancement of important knowledge (as opposed to trivia) in his/her field, something she/he should be doing continually and perpetually, not once every five years. Without time-limited certification, there is no way to tell whether a professional has up-to-date knowledge, or has fallen dangerously behind the times. It's not good enough to demonstrate competency at one point in time, professionals need to demonstrate it regularly. You may think you're staying current (you may even be right), but there's no way for others to know you are doing that unless you continue to demonstrate it in a tangible way they can readily examine and understand. Your peers can judge you by their own knowledge of progress in the field, but non-professionals don't have that ability and need some external means to by which to take your measure. We had a retired doctor who served as campus physician when I was an undergraduate. My wife and I referred to him as "The Quack," and not in an affectionate way, because he by his own admission had not cracked a medical text or journal in over ten years. My own GP back home was horrified by the inappropriate advice "Dr. Quack" had given me or my friends in several instances (in one case I vividly recall, he mistook scabies for poison ivy because he operated on a cursory visual examination and snap judgment without any kind of testing, and I suffered for it). There were several other more serious incidents of students who suffered greatly from his lack of up-to-date expertise, which ultimately led to his resignation under fire and complete retirement from medical practice. Yet he remained licensed to practice medicine until he voluntarily relinquished that license - because there was no regulatory requirement for him to stay current in those days, and no "yardstick" to demonstrate whether or not he was doing so voluntarily. Maybe he was as bad as I think he was, maybe not, but there was no way for me or the other students to tell except to suffer through experience under his so-called "care." Unfortunately, not all professionals can be trusted to behave professionally by achieving and maintaining competence in their profession. Laypeople who rely on professionals need some way to distinguish between the ones who do and the ones who do not. Certification isn't a perfect method of doing that (I doubt there is one), but it helps. >That is what you are calling a "yardstick." Hogwash. Well, one man's hogwash is another man's porcine detailing. Would you be happier if I called it a "meter stick?" (GO metric, rah, rah, rah!) >Even worse is the attitude that if one is *not* certified, then that >means that one is *not* accomplished. As I wrote in my screed >about computer science, demonstrated experience is a hell of a lot >more important than any certification. Agreed. No legitimate certification program makes that claim, and in fact, they make a point of plainly stating that such an assumption has no merit. You don't have to be certified to be competent, but being certified is a way to _demonstrate_ to others, peers and non-peers alike, that you _are_ competent. Without it, you (and your level and quality of experience) are an unknown quantity to anyone who doesn't know you. With it, friends and strangers alike have at least some assurance that you meet the minimum standards for your field, as set by the peers of that profession. >The increase in the number of certifications, when combined with >this idea that it is the *only* way of demonstrating competency >results in profound balkanization of expertise. In fact, most >competencies overlap, but nowadays if you are not "certified" in >some sub-sub-sub-sub-subtask, it is assumed you are incompetent. Again, that's an unwarranted and unfair assumption, absolutely, but I'd rather know that someone HAS met (and continues to meet) an externally imposed standard than be clueless about their competency and have to leave it to chance. Most people, if given the choice between a certified and an uncertified "expert," will choose the certified one. It may not be the best choice in a given instance, but the odds are in their favor, assuming a legitimate, high-quality certification program is in place. >No doubt we can have certification for scene investigation for >homicide, a different certificaiton for scene investigation of >burlaries, a different certification for scene investiation >of assaults, a different certification for rural scene investigation, >a different certification for urban scene investigation, a different >certification for suburban scenes, etc. And, of course, >a person certified in urban/rural/homicide/burglary scene >investigations *must* be incompetent to do a suburban homicide >scene investigation. After all, that's a different certification. >Where does it end? Ah, Bill, now you're testing me - but I pass, I think. Any principle can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but we both know that's not a valid way to make a reducto ad absurdum argument. >And, finally, there's the cost. Certification exams in medicine cost >between $1000-$3000 dollars, and two or three times that if travel >and lodging are included. And that doesn't include the $2000 - $4000 >for the test-prep course or materials. So, now, in order to do one's job it >becomes necessary to have five or six certifications -- and who >gets to spend the $10,000 or $20,000 that adds up to? Such costs are unparalleled in any other profession I'm familiar with (although Bar exams are pretty pricey too). I'm sure it has to do with the huge number of candidates who must be processed by the system and the high overhead involved with large full-time staffs to run the programs, physical plant (office space) expenses, etc. In contrast, most forensic boards deal with much smaller numbers of candidates, are operated primarily by unpaid volunteers assisted by a small and/or part-time paid staff, and are run on shoe-string budgets to keep costs to participants low. The application for ABC certification, for example, costs only $30, and sitting for an exam costs only a few hundred dollars more, so total cost (even if you go all the way to the Fellow level) remains under $500 for almost all candidates (except possibly for those who may want certification in multiple specialties). The annual maintenance fee for reviewing your continuing education and proficiency-testing documents, and tallying recertification points, is only $35. Some other forensic boards are a little more expensive, but remain quite reasonable (certainly nothing approaching the costs you detailed above). >There is a place for certifications. But making them more than >they are is bad. Yardsticks don't always really measure a yard, >and there are other ways to measure distance. Again agreed. The point is you have to have _some_ way to measure it. The college degree I got 20 years ago only shows where the measurement begins, not how far it extends. Certification is one objective way to measure professional competence, and a good one if properly designed and administered. There's a difference between objecting to the misapplication/misinterpretation of certification programs, as you are doing (or to poorly designed/executed certification programs, or to bogus ones, like the ABFE/ACFE), as opposed to objecting to the concept of certification itself (as the post which started this thread seemed to do). It is the latter attitude, not the former, that I find incomprehensible. Good certification programs serve useful and important purposes. They don't solve all problems, but they do help; and so, even if they seem like a necessary evil to the professionals, they are a blessing to the layman who has no other reliable way to judge professional competence. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF62.C84873F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Employment

Bill, you never cease to interest me.  First you = launch into a lengthy discussion (almost worthy of even my infamous = verbosity) of why certification is a useful and often important = credential and of why degrees alone don't demonstrate ability to do the = job (i.e., your example of computer science grads who can't write code, = as opposed to certified persons who had to demonstrate they could write = code in order to be certified).  Then you seem to take the = opposite position in responding to my post, which supported and made = similar arguments as your earlier post.  Sometimes, I think you = just like to debate for the sake of debate. Well.... so do I!  = ;)

>> Government or professional peer-based = certification of individuals, like
>> accreditation for laboratories and = universities, provides such a yardstick.

>No it doesn't.  You mention board exams for = physicians.  No physician
>I know would suggest that there is a correlation = between a score on
>a board exam and one's ability to be a good = physician.  There is a
>correlation with being able to *pass* the = boards, but it is soft.

Not in the specific score, no, but in achieving the = minimum score acceptable to those boards, yes, that indicates a = lot.  It indicates you either meet a minimum standard or you = don't.  Where one ranks among others taking the same board is of = little relevance to professional competency in the real world, but if = one can't achieve the minimum standard, that's quite relevant.  I = mentioned physicians as one among a wealth of other professions where = certification is a prerequisite to practice.  I could accept that = some medical boards which a physician must pass to begin practicing = medicine, like Bar exams for lawyers, may be more like final exams that = produce degrees for undergraduates (far more complex and demanding, of = course) - in that they are the entrance exams for those professions, = not certification exams in the sense we're discussing.  = "Board Certification in Forensic Pathology" or "forensic = toxicology," etc., is the kind of certification I was talking = about - i.e., demonstrating specific competency in a specific set of = knowledge, skills, and abilities, to perform a specific job (like = Medical Examiner).  For lawyers, an appropriate example would be = "board certification in criminal law," as opposed to the = general Bar exams.  I would place more trust in a board-certified = cardiac specialist treating a heart condition than I would a general = practitioner doing the same.  You must admit that medical boards = are a step beyond the simple sheepskin.  They at least demonstrate = knowledge of the entire spectrum of subjects a physician is supposed to = have mastered in that field, in a comprehensive fashion; as opposed to = the degree, which demonstrates only that each individual subject was = mastered during the semester in which it was taken (and may already be = forgotten by graduation day).  It's certainly a better yardstick = than the sheepskin alone.  It's a question of "degree." = (<groan>, sorry)

>Whew.  That was a long sentence. In fact, = there are many reasons to
>object to some certification programs.  The = most important is time.
>Let's use physicians, again.  Most medical = schools end up letting
>fourth year students spend about 60% of their = time doing nothing
>but cram for the national boards.  Most = pathology residency programs
>make the last year of the residency particularly = light to allow
>people to study for the pathology boards.

Actually, it was TWO long sentences. What can I say, = my mouth runneth over.  At least I have fun.  ;)

>Now, there is something to be said for the idea = that for one split
>second during my career, I actually managed to = memorize every biochemical
>metabolic indicator for every bacterium of = medical importance in the
>world.  And, yes, I did that.  And I = remembered it for, oh, almost
>five days.  For the forensic exams, I = memorized the LD50 for every
>chemical in Baselt's Disposition of Toxic Drugs = in Man. I rememberd
>that for almost two days afterwards.

I'm impressed, and would be flabbergasted if you = claimed to retain much of it, but having not retained it, do you really = think you obtained no benefit from even temporarily learning it?  = It didn't discipline your mind, teach you how to think, study, and do = research (where and how to look in the literature to find answers to = your questions)?  You didn't retain any of it at all, not even for = the drugs you commonly see in your work?  It has been of = absolutely no use to you whatsoever since then?  Come now, I don't = believe that for a second.  I didn't long retain all the enzymatic = catalysts, Gibbs Free Energy values, chemical structures, alternate = pathways and intermediate products that I had to memorize in order to = pass "Biochemistry I" either, but the exercise was certainly = worth my while.  I retained what I needed to understand the more = advanced coursework to follow, and even today I still retain an overall = basic understanding of human catabolism and anabolism that serves me in = various ways (even if I can no longer spit out all the particulars from = memory).  I consider it to have been time well spent.

>OK, well, that may have something to say about = whether or not I can
>practice forensic medicine.  Maybe = not.  And if it does, it's a measure
>of my medium term memorization skills, not my = ability to "do" forensic
>medicine. And you know what?  Today, if I = need to know how much
>morphine it takes to kill a 70 kilogram man, = guess what I do.  Yes, I
>pull down my copy of Baselt or Goodman and = Gillman, do a MEDLINE
>search or whatever and look it up.

Agreed.  That's exactly the argument I made when = asked to memorize all those glycolysis, TCA cycle, fermentation, and = gluconeogenesis tidbits, not to mention the phylogeny of invertebrates = I couldn't care less about in zoology; but my instructors made me do it = anyway and I'm glad they did.  They were teaching me mental = discipline, an essential attribute for applying knowledge whether we = remember that knowledge or look it up.  The point is that we = retain what we need to do the job (a pathologist might have to look up = the LD50 for a drug, but he doesn't have to look up how to conduct an = autopsy, does he?).  That includes knowing how to find the facts = and figures we didn't retain, and knowing what questions to ask of = ourselves to begin with.  Good certification exams test all of = that, not just rote memorization. 

Even the best certification exam only measures = knowledge at one point in time, true, but a well designed certification = exam doesn't just ask you to regurgitate facts and figures - it also = asks you to apply and interpret that knowledge to solve practical = problems, and that does demonstrate competency in applying the subject = matter.  You do have to test the knowledge base of the candidate = of course, but a good certification exam doesn't stop there.  It = doesn't concentrate on memorized knowledge, it concentrates on applying = that knowledge, on the thought processes needed to solve real-world = problems.  That's an important indicator of competence in the = targeted job.  Also, a good certification program doesn't use a = written exam all by itself to judge competency.  It also includes = an assessment of your education, training, and experience (your = credentials); where possible, it includes some sort of practical = component (e.g., proficiency testing or other "hands-on" = performance evaluation); and it includes a continuing education = requirement to ensure that knowledge, skills, and abilities are kept = current with modern advances in the field.  Speaking of = which...

>But, of course, now we have the movement to make = certification time-limited.
>So what is a person to do?  Is he or she = supposed to stop practicing medicine
>and take one year out of every five to memorize = trivia?

No, he/she's supposed to stay current with the = advancement of important knowledge (as opposed to trivia) in his/her = field, something she/he should be doing continually and perpetually, = not once every five years. Without time-limited certification, there is = no way to tell whether a professional has up-to-date knowledge, or has = fallen dangerously behind the times.  It's not good enough to = demonstrate competency at one point in time, professionals need to = demonstrate it regularly.  You may think you're staying current = (you may even be right), but there's no way for others to know you are = doing that unless you continue to demonstrate it in a tangible way they = can readily examine and understand.  Your peers can judge you by = their own knowledge of progress in the field, but non-professionals = don't have that ability and need some external means to by which to = take your measure. 

We had a retired doctor who served as campus = physician when I was an undergraduate.  My wife and I referred to = him as "The Quack," and not in an affectionate way, because = he by his own admission had not cracked a medical text or journal in = over ten years.  My own GP back home was horrified by the = inappropriate advice "Dr. Quack" had given me or my friends = in several instances (in one case I vividly recall, he mistook scabies = for poison ivy because he operated on a cursory visual examination and = snap judgment without any kind of testing, and I suffered for = it).  There were several other more serious incidents of students = who suffered greatly from his lack of up-to-date expertise, which = ultimately led to his resignation under fire and complete retirement = from medical practice.  Yet he remained licensed to practice = medicine until he voluntarily relinquished that license - because there = was no regulatory requirement for him to stay current in those days, = and no "yardstick" to demonstrate whether or not he was doing = so voluntarily.  Maybe he was as bad as I think he was, maybe not, = but there was no way for me or the other students to tell except to = suffer through experience under his so-called "care."  = Unfortunately, not all professionals can be trusted to behave = professionally by achieving and maintaining competence in their = profession.  Laypeople who rely on professionals need some way to = distinguish between the ones who do and the ones who do not.  = Certification isn't a perfect method of doing that (I doubt there is = one), but it helps.

>That is what you are calling a = "yardstick."  Hogwash.

Well, one man's hogwash is another man's porcine = detailing.  Would you be happier if I called it a "meter = stick?"  (GO metric, rah, rah, rah!)

>Even worse is the attitude that if one is *not* = certified, then that
>means that one is *not* accomplished. As I wrote = in my screed
>about computer science, demonstrated experience = is a hell of a lot
>more important than any certification.

Agreed. No legitimate certification program makes = that claim, and in fact, they make a point of plainly stating that such = an assumption has no merit.  You don't have to be certified to be = competent, but being certified is a way to _demonstrate_ to others, = peers and non-peers alike, that you _are_ competent.  Without it, = you (and your level and quality of experience) are an unknown quantity = to anyone who doesn't know you.  With it, friends and strangers = alike have at least some assurance that you meet the minimum standards = for your field, as set by the peers of that profession.  =

>The increase in the number of certifications, = when combined with
>this idea that it is the *only* way of = demonstrating competency
>results in profound balkanization of = expertise.  In fact, most
>competencies overlap, but nowadays if you are = not "certified" in
>some sub-sub-sub-sub-subtask, it is assumed you = are incompetent.

Again, that's an unwarranted and unfair assumption, = absolutely, but I'd rather know that someone HAS met (and continues to = meet) an externally imposed standard than be clueless about their = competency and have to leave it to chance.  Most people, if given = the choice between a certified and an uncertified "expert," = will choose the certified one.  It may not be the best choice in a = given instance, but the odds are in their favor, assuming a legitimate, = high-quality certification program is in place.

>No doubt we can have certification for scene = investigation for
>homicide, a different certificaiton for scene = investigation of
>burlaries, a different certification for scene = investiation
>of assaults, a different certification for rural = scene investigation,
>a different certification for urban scene = investigation, a different
>certification for suburban scenes, etc.  = And, of course,
>a person certified in = urban/rural/homicide/burglary scene
>investigations *must* be incompetent to do a = suburban homicide
>scene investigation.  After all, that's a = different certification.
>Where does it end?

Ah, Bill, now you're testing me - but I pass, I = think.  Any principle can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but we = both know that's not a valid way to make a reducto ad absurdum = argument.

>And, finally, there's the cost.  = Certification exams in medicine cost
>between $1000-$3000 dollars, and two or three = times that if travel
>and lodging are included.  And that doesn't = include the $2000 - $4000
>for the test-prep course or materials.  So, = now, in order to do one's job it
>becomes necessary to have five or six certificati= ons -- and who
>gets to spend the $10,000 or $20,000 that adds = up to?

Such costs are unparalleled in any other profession = I'm familiar with (although Bar exams are pretty pricey too).  I'm = sure it has to do with the huge number of candidates who must be = processed by the system and the high overhead involved with large = full-time staffs to run the programs, physical plant (office space) = expenses, etc.  In contrast, most forensic boards deal with much = smaller numbers of candidates, are operated primarily by unpaid = volunteers assisted by a small and/or part-time paid staff, and are run = on shoe-string budgets to keep costs to participants low.  The = application for ABC certification, for example, costs only $30, and = sitting for an exam costs only a few hundred dollars more, so total = cost (even if you go all the way to the Fellow level) remains under = $500 for almost all candidates (except possibly for those who may want = certification in multiple specialties).  The annual maintenance = fee for reviewing your continuing education and proficiency-testing = documents, and tallying recertification points, is only $35.  Some = other forensic boards are a little more expensive, but remain quite = reasonable (certainly nothing approaching the costs you detailed = above).

<snip>

>There is a place for certifications.  But = making them more than
>they are is bad.  Yardsticks don't always = really measure a yard,
>and there are other ways to measure = distance.

Again agreed.  The point is you have to have = _some_ way to measure it.  The college degree I got 20 years ago = only shows where the measurement begins, not how far it extends.  = Certification is one objective way to measure professional competence, = and a good one if properly designed and administered.  There's a = difference between objecting to the misapplication/misinterpretation of = certification programs, as you are doing (or to poorly = designed/executed certification programs, or to bogus ones, like the = ABFE/ACFE), as opposed to objecting to the concept of certification = itself (as the post which started this thread seemed to do).  It = is the latter attitude, not the former, that I find incomprehensible. = Good certification programs serve useful and important purposes.  = They don't solve all problems, but they do help; and so, even if they = seem like a necessary evil to the professionals, they are a blessing to = the layman who has no other reliable way to judge professional = competence.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF62.C84873F0-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 17:56:38 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17254 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17249 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:56:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 21:56:37 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:47:35 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment (fwd) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:47:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF63.A9B817A0" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF63.A9B817A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Exactly, Lee. The solution is to accredit certification programs themselves. There are several large accreditation organizations for industrial certification boards, but they are too expensive for many forensic boards to use (the costs of applying and paying the first year's maintenance fees for two we considered were more than the ABC's entire net holdings, for example). For this reason the AAFS has sponsored the creation of the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board, which will accredit forensic certification boards that meet recognized standards for program design and operation. I can tell you right now that if they implement the standards used by the other industrial accreditation boards (and which they have adopted in draft documents), then the other "certification" board you "dropped" won't qualify (good move, BTW, bravo). I guess someone could ask "But then, who sets the standards for the accreditation body that accredits the certification boards? Who accredits the FSAB?" Believe it or not, there may actually be an applicable organization to do that, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Unlike a certification board which is made up of a group of individuals who share common partisan professional interests and goals, and a vision for the future of the profession (for good or ill), a body that accredits certification boards (like the FSAB) is an "umbrella" organization composed of representatives from many different certification boards with different specialty focuses. Each member certification board has but one voice in the accreditation body, so standards set for the certification boards to meet are consensus standards that apply to all and pander to no one organization. Having such diverse input from the different specialties helps weed out or at least dilute the partisan interests of each, and the resulting consensus produces a standard they all must meet, which is hopefully a high one. From what I've seen in the requirements of the existing industrial accreditation boards, and in the draft documents of the FSAB which echo them, that standard is in fact a high one. >From personal experience, I can tell you that the ABC found it already met almost all the requirements of such accrediting bodies (which seem to be pretty much universal among them); and despite being unable to afford formal participation with those bodies, it nevertheless committed itself to making the changes necessary to comply with all their requirements (e.g., adding a non-forensic science "public member" to its Board of Directors). Now that the FSAB is incorporated and writing draft standards, I suspect other legitimate forensic certification boards are also making any required changes to their programs. I'm confident that when the FSAB is ready to accept applications, most of our existing legitimate certification boards will easily qualify for accreditation - the bogus boards will not. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 13:03 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:07:08 -0400 From: lgriggs@msegroup.com To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment RE: EmploymentThe problem here is that many courts, attorneys, and public figures cannot recognize the difference between a valid certification organization and a diploma or certification mill. Therefore when someone lists one of these organizations, they are recognized as "certified experts" or whatever. BTW: Robert, I dropped the one you questioned. Lee Protection Technology, Inc. PTI Investigations (Agency #1450) Providing professional investigative services in South Carolina. Seminars on marketing, business planning and forensics. Telephone: 803-432-9008 Fax: 803-424-0450 Toll free Voice Mail: 877-219-9784 Cellular: 803-427-1349 mailto:msegroup@mindspring.com http://www.msegroup.com Unfortunately, there are bogus certification and accreditation programs popping up to support the unprofessional "professionals" and the inexpert "experts," so the struggle for quality continues. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF63.A9B817A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Employment (fwd)

Exactly, Lee.  The solution is to accredit = certification programs themselves.  There are several large = accreditation organizations for industrial certification boards, but = they are too expensive for many forensic boards to use (the costs of = applying and paying the first year's maintenance fees for two we = considered were more than the ABC's entire net holdings, for = example).  For this reason the AAFS has sponsored the creation of = the Forensic Specialties Accreditation Board, which will accredit = forensic certification boards that meet recognized standards for = program design and operation.  I can tell you right now that if = they implement the standards used by the other industrial accreditation = boards (and which they have adopted in draft documents), then the other = "certification" board you "dropped" won't qualify = (good move, BTW, bravo).

I guess someone could ask "But then, who sets = the standards for the accreditation body that accredits the = certification boards? Who accredits the FSAB?"  Believe it or = not, there may actually be an applicable organization to do that, but = I'm not sure it's necessary.  Unlike a certification board which = is made up of a group of individuals who share common partisan = professional interests and goals, and a vision for the future of the = profession (for good or ill), a body that accredits certification = boards (like the FSAB) is an "umbrella" organization composed = of representatives from many different certification boards with = different specialty focuses.  Each member certification board has = but one voice in the accreditation body, so standards set for the = certification boards to meet are consensus standards that apply to all = and pander to no one organization.  Having such diverse input from = the different specialties helps weed out or at least dilute the = partisan interests of each, and the resulting consensus produces a = standard they all must meet, which is hopefully a high one.  From = what I've seen in the requirements of the existing industrial = accreditation boards, and in the draft documents of the FSAB which echo = them, that standard is in fact a high one. 

From personal experience, I can tell you that the ABC = found it already met almost all the requirements of such accrediting = bodies (which seem to be pretty much universal among them); and despite = being unable to afford formal participation with those bodies, it = nevertheless committed itself to making the changes necessary to comply = with all their requirements (e.g., adding a non-forensic science = "public member" to its Board of Directors).  Now that = the FSAB is incorporated and writing draft standards, I suspect other = legitimate forensic certification boards are also making any required = changes to their programs.  I'm confident that when the FSAB is = ready to accept applications, most of our existing legitimate = certification boards will easily qualify for accreditation - the bogus = boards will not.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: Basten [mailto:cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu= ]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 13:03
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Employment (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:07:08 -0400
From: lgriggs@msegroup.com
To: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: RE: Employment

RE: EmploymentThe problem here is that many courts, = attorneys, and public
figures cannot recognize the
difference between a valid certification = organization and a diploma or
certification mill.  Therefore
when someone lists one of these organizations, they = are recognized as
"certified experts" or
whatever.  BTW: Robert, I dropped the one you = questioned.
Lee

Protection Technology, Inc.
PTI Investigations
(Agency #1450)
Providing professional investigative services in = South Carolina.
Seminars on marketing, business planning and = forensics.

Telephone: = 803-432-9008        Fax: = 803-424-0450
Toll free Voice Mail: 877-219-9784    = Cellular: 803-427-1349
mailto:msegroup@mindspring.com
http://www.msegroup.com





    Unfortunately, there are bogus = certification and accreditation programs
popping up to support the unprofessional = "professionals" and the inexpert
"experts," so the struggle for quality = continues.

  Bob Parsons, F-ABC
  Forensic Chemist
  Regional Crime Laboratory
  at Indian River Community College
  Ft. Pierce, FL

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF63.A9B817A0-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 17:58:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA17382 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:58:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA17377 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:58:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 21:58:57 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:49:55 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Job Announcement re. smoking Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:49:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF63.FBCBE710" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF63.FBCBE710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" No, you've got the legitimate argument for "medical marijuana" exactly right (there are numerous illegitimate ones as well). Marinol (synthetic THC) can effectively control the nausea associated with chemotherapy and AIDS to help the patient maintain appetite, good nutrition, and body weight. Chemically, it's exactly the same drug (THC) that causes this medicinal effect when marijuana is smoked by those kinds of patients. It works very well for some patients who find other anti-emetics ineffective. The problem is that marinol is a tablet, and it must be kept down long enough to be absorbed by the body in effective quantities, something that the violent and frequent vomiting of some patients prevents. Researchers are trying to devise another effective way of administering the drug for these patients, one that will avoid the harmful side effects of smoking the marijuana plant itself. Trans-dermal patches and inhalers are two promising avenues being investigated, but they are still in the investigational stage. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 13:46 To: cdefine@bcpl.net; LEGALEYE1@aol.com Cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking Carol Define wrote "Marinol, the PO (ingestible) form of mj, is available for pain, and obviously there is no respiratory damage with this form of the drug." Am I missing something - I thought the whole argument behind the medical use of marijuana (smoked) was that the patient was too nauseous to ingest anything orally and thus smoking the drug was an alternative route of administration. Dave S. >From: Carol Define MD >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking >Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:22:39 -0400 (EDT) > > >For your information, smoking marijuana is more toxic than cigarettes. >One marijuana cigarette is equivalent to 5 regular cigs. It has higher >concentrations of benzpyrenes, plus the CO and heat which damages the >lining of the respiratory tract. As for the medical consequences of >marijuana, I could write a volume...but unfortunately, I have to get to >work. I'll just mention one thing that I believe might concern >you....it's known to cause testicular atrophy. Also, a recent study >showed that it inhibits brain growth and maturation if smoking mj begins >in the early teens. Marinol, the PO (ingestible) form of mj, is available >for pain, and obviously there is no respiratory damage with this form of >the drug. > >Have a nice day...and oh...you haven't noticed any change in your voice, >have you? > >Carol Define MD > >On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 LEGALEYE1@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/25/01 7:10:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > das_smith@hotmail.com writes: > > > > > > > > > > Strange that marijuana and tobacco are treated the same. I had assumed >that > > > legally they were treated quite differently (despite various pressure > > > groups > > > attempts). > > > > > > > > > > Really, how can one compare a drug that is today's greatest medical >threat to > > today's greatest threat to a medical drug. There is no comparison. > > Marijuana should no be sullied by being placed in the same class as the >vile > > weed tobacco. > > > > Okay, back to my lurking before I launch into a series of curses >regarding > > one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC has vomited out in years. > > Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408. > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF63.FBCBE710 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Job Announcement re. smoking

No, you've got the legitimate argument for = "medical marijuana" exactly right (there are numerous = illegitimate ones as well).  Marinol (synthetic THC) can = effectively control the nausea associated with chemotherapy and AIDS to = help the patient maintain appetite, good nutrition, and body = weight.  Chemically, it's exactly the same drug (THC) that causes = this medicinal effect when marijuana is smoked by those kinds of = patients.  It works very well for some patients who find other = anti-emetics ineffective.  The problem is that marinol is a = tablet, and it must be kept down long enough to be absorbed by the body = in effective quantities, something that the violent and frequent = vomiting of some patients prevents.  Researchers are trying to = devise another effective way of administering the drug for these = patients, one that will avoid the harmful side effects of smoking the = marijuana plant itself.   Trans-dermal patches and inhalers = are two promising avenues being investigated, but they are still in the = investigational stage.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL


-----Original Message-----
From: David Smith [mailto:das_smith@hotmail.com]<= /FONT>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 13:46
To: cdefine@bcpl.net; LEGALEYE1@aol.com
Cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking


Carol Define wrote "Marinol, the PO (ingestible) = form of mj, is
available
for pain, and obviously there is no respiratory = damage with this form of
the drug."
Am I missing something - I thought the whole = argument behind the medical use
of marijuana (smoked) was that the patient was too = nauseous to ingest
anything orally and thus smoking the drug was an = alternative route of
administration.

Dave S.



>From: Carol Define MD = <cdefine@bcpl.net>
>To: <LEGALEYE1@aol.com>
>CC: <Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking
>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:22:39 -0400 = (EDT)
>
>
>For your information, smoking marijuana is more = toxic than cigarettes.
>One marijuana cigarette is equivalent to 5 = regular cigs.  It has higher
>concentrations of benzpyrenes, plus the CO and = heat which damages the
>lining of the respiratory tract.  As for = the medical consequences of
>marijuana, I could write a volume...but = unfortunately, I have to get to
>work.  I'll just mention one thing that I = believe might concern
>you....it's known to cause testicular = atrophy.  Also, a recent study
>showed that it inhibits brain growth and = maturation if smoking mj begins
>in the early teens.  Marinol, the PO = (ingestible) form of mj, is available
>for pain, and obviously there is no respiratory = damage with this form of
>the drug.
>
>Have a nice day...and oh...you haven't noticed = any change in your voice,
>have you?
>
>Carol Define MD
>
>On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 LEGALEYE1@aol.com = wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 4/25/01 7:10:49 AM = Pacific Daylight Time,
> > das_smith@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Strange that marijuana and tobacco = are treated the same. I had assumed
>that
> > > legally they were treated quite = differently (despite various pressure
> > > groups
> > > attempts).
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Really, how can one compare a drug that is = today's greatest medical
>threat to
> > today's greatest threat to a medical = drug.  There is no comparison.
> > Marijuana should no be sullied by being = placed in the same class as the
>vile
> > weed tobacco.
> >
> > Okay, back to my lurking before I launch = into a series of curses
>regarding
> > one of the most idiotic decisions the USSC = has vomited out in years.
> > Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________________________= __
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF63.FBCBE710-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 18:10:25 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17612 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from postal1.lbl.gov (postal1.lbl.gov [128.3.7.82]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17607 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:10:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from SpamWall.lbl.gov (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postal1.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3RMALU18638 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.3.183.89] ([128.3.183.89]) by SpamWall.lbl.gov (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3RMAHL18582 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:10:17 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:09:52 -0700 Subject: Re: marijuana From: "T. J. Wilkinson" To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk on 4/27/01 2:43 PM, Bill Oliver wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: >>> >>> Can you provide such a citation? >> >> Bill, what do you think THIS means? 'It has been reported that THC >> (marijuana) has an inhibitory effect on serum testosterone levels, and it >> has been shown to reduce testicular weight (7)', >> >> Wenger T, et al, 1992, Effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on >> pregnancy, puberty, and the neuroendocrine system. >> >> Carol Define MD Bill, How about these citations: Wenger T; Croix D; Tramu G; Leonardelli J. [Marijuana and reproduction. Effects on puberty and gestation in female rats. Experimental results]. Annales D Endocrinologie, 1992, 53(1):37-43. Wenger T; Croix D; Tramu G; Leonardelli J. Prenatally administered delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol temporarily inhibits the developing hypothalamo-pituitary system in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1991 Nov, 40(3):599-602. Wenger T; Toth BE; Juaneda C; Leonardelli J; Tramu G. The effects of cannabinoids on the regulation of reproduction. Life Sciences, 1999, 65(6-7):695-701. Lynskey M; Hall W. The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: a review. Addiction, 2000 Nov, 95(11):1621-30. A longitudinal study of cannabis use and mental health from adolescence to early adulthood. Addiction, 2000 Apr, 95(4):491-503. There are also numerous other peer reviewed journal articles show similar results, as well as studies showing MJ use increases growth of prostate tumors, etc etc etc. T. J. -- T. J. Wilkinson, Research Fellow Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory One Cyclotron Road, MS 70A-3317 Berkeley, CA 94720 USA tjwilkinson@lbl.gov (510) 486-6509 (510) 486-7152 FAX >> > > > Well, it means, among other things, that you still have not provided a > citation. If you send the journal reference (i.e. what journal that's > in), I'll have a look at it on Monday. As to whether or not, as > you asked in your previous post "do I have a problem?" the answer > is yes. And I'll tell you exactly why next week. > > > billo > > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 18:22:11 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA17843 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:22:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17838 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3RMM2505694; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:22:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:22:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Bill Oliver cc: , Subject: Re: marijuana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > As to whether or not, as > you asked in your previous post "do I have a problem?" the answer > is yes. And I'll tell you exactly why next week. OK, looking forward to it. Carol From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 18:33:58 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18079 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18074 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:33:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16833; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:33:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: "T. J. Wilkinson" cc: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: marijuana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk OK, pet peeve time. This jerks my chain more than a lot of other things, and it seems to be the standard mode of action in forensics. A *specific* claim gets made. I (or someone) ask for a citation in proof. What do I get -- a zillion references that nobody has bothered to read which do not address the specific claim. In this case, there's a specific claim that marijuana use causes testicular atrophy in adults. I ask for a reference, and get a bizillion references having to do with anything *but* that. You want to talk about testosterone levels, fine. We can do that. You want to talk about medical use, fine. We can do that. You want to talk about cognitive impairment, fine. You want to talk about wacky drug user tricks, fine. We can do that. But first, show me a study that demonstrates testicular atrophy in adult human males. That is the claim. That is what I said "Well, no" about. Don't make me seem that I am claiming something I am not by sending me references that address other issues and pretending that they address the one specific claim I am disputing. What do we have so far? We have one passing reference in a revew article to an 9-year-old article?/study?/case report? which, as far as I can tell, *none* of the claimants has actually bothered to read, and which, so far, has not even been provided in a complete enough form for me to read -- which, by the way, *I* will do before I comment on it. OK, *which* of the references you provided actually address the claim? billo > > Wenger T; Croix D; Tramu G; Leonardelli J. > [Marijuana and reproduction. Effects on puberty and gestation in female > rats. Experimental results]. > Annales D Endocrinologie, 1992, 53(1):37-43. > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 18:47:26 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18317 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web13402.mail.yahoo.com (web13402.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.175.60]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA18312 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:47:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20010427224724.33392.qmail@web13402.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [165.247.43.235] by web13402.mail.yahoo.com; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:47:24 PDT Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:47:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Aileen Orta Subject: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compounds under FTIR - ATR To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1365180540-988411644=:33149" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --0-1365180540-988411644=:33149 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii An interesting case where after the analyst conducted a GC analysis, found that the unknown contained MDMA. The analyst proceeded to conduct a FTIR analysis utilizing the OMNIC software and the initial general spectra run indicated the first highest hit (90.72) to be MDA and the second highest hit (90.20) to be MDMA. After visually comparing the spectrums it was obvious that the unknown matched very well to the second highest hit which was MDMA. The analyst proceeded to do a regional search based upon sutle differences in the two standard spectrums, e.g. region 3050cm-1 to 2650cm-1. The analyst conducted this type of search and the highest hit (97.20) was to MDMA and the MDA to 72.50 in quality match. My question is was the analyst in anyway comprising the results by doing the regional spectra run after doing the general spectra run. Comments are welcome. Sgt. Aileen Orta, Q.C. Supervisor NYC Police Department adosarge@yahoo.com This scenario is for informational purposes only. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices --0-1365180540-988411644=:33149 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

An interesting case where after the analyst conducted a GC analysis, found that the unknown contained MDMA. The analyst proceeded to conduct a FTIR analysis utilizing the OMNIC software and the initial general spectra run indicated the first highest hit (90.72) to be MDA and the second highest hit (90.20) to be MDMA. After visually comparing the spectrums it was obvious that the unknown matched very well to the second highest hit which was MDMA. The analyst proceeded to do a regional search based upon sutle differences in the two standard spectrums, e.g. region 3050cm-1 to 2650cm-1. The analyst conducted this type of search and the highest hit (97.20) was to MDMA and the MDA to 72.50 in quality match. My question is was the analyst in anyway comprising the results by doing the regional spectra run after doing the general spectra run. Comments are welcome.

Sgt. Aileen Orta, Q.C. Supervisor

NYC Police Department

adosarge@yahoo.com

This scenario is for informational purposes only.


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices --0-1365180540-988411644=:33149-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 18:50:24 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18473 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:50:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18468 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18866; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:50:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: LEGALEYE1@aol.com, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: marijuana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > > > As to whether or not, as > > you asked in your previous post "do I have a problem?" the answer > > is yes. And I'll tell you exactly why next week. > > OK, looking forward to it. > > Carol > Great. But you still have not provided a single reference which shows your claim. So far you have provided an author, but no journal. I can't look up an article without a reference. >From the abstracts, none of the articles that T. J. Wilkinson provided address the issue. I look forward to your substantiation. billo From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 18:57:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18644 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:57:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.bcpl.net (mail.bcpl.net [204.255.212.10]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18639 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cdefine@localhost) by mail.bcpl.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3RMvrL12905; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:57:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Define MD X-X-Sender: To: Bill Oliver cc: "T. J. Wilkinson" , Subject: Re: marijuana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Bill....If there is a decrease in testicular weight and a 50% decrease in testosterone, although the word 'atrophy' is not used, it amounts to the same thing...testicular shrivel. Journal....Neurobiology and Neurophysiology. CRC Press, 1992. Relax!!!! Carol On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Bill Oliver wrote: > OK, pet peeve time. This jerks my chain more than > a lot of other things, and it seems to be the standard > mode of action in forensics. > > A *specific* claim gets made. I (or someone) ask for a citation > in proof. > > What do I get -- a zillion references that nobody has bothered > to read which do not address the specific claim. In this case, > there's a specific claim that marijuana use causes testicular > atrophy in adults. > > I ask for a reference, and get a bizillion references having > to do with anything *but* that. > > You want to talk about testosterone levels, fine. We can do > that. You want to talk about medical use, fine. We can do that. > You want to talk about cognitive impairment, fine. You > want to talk about wacky drug user tricks, fine. We can do that. > > But first, show me a study that demonstrates testicular > atrophy in adult human males. > > That is the claim. That is what I said "Well, no" about. > > Don't make me seem that I am claiming something I am not > by sending me references that address other issues and > pretending that they address the one specific claim I > am disputing. > > What do we have so far? We have one passing reference in > a revew article to an 9-year-old article?/study?/case report? > which, as far as I can tell, *none* of the claimants > has actually bothered to read, and which, so far, has not > even been provided in a complete enough form for me to > read -- which, by the way, *I* will do before I comment on > it. > > OK, *which* of the references you provided actually address > the claim? > > billo > > > > > > > Wenger T; Croix D; Tramu G; Leonardelli J. > > [Marijuana and reproduction. Effects on puberty and gestation in female > > rats. Experimental results]. > > Annales D Endocrinologie, 1992, 53(1):37-43. > > > > From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 19:08:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA18921 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:08:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us (thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us [209.149.16.4]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA18916 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us by thor2.ircc.cc.fl.us via smtpd (for sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu [152.14.14.17]) with SMTP; 27 Apr 2001 23:08:28 UT Received: by exch1.ircc.cc.fl.us with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:59:25 -0400 Message-ID: From: Robert Parsons To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compound s under FTIR - ATR Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:59:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF6D.B2106E20" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF6D.B2106E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" My answer is "no." Clearly, the analyst had some doubts about the identification, so he/she did additional testing to resolve the ambiguity - exactly what she/he should have done. Doing a regional search in the part of the spectrum that provides distinguishing data is entirely appropriate, and is no different than doing selective ion monitoring in GC/MS. In addition, the GC retention time data supported the analyst's visual comparison and contradicted the general library search results. This example just goes to show what we all know - computers are stupid, and you can't trust the tentative identifications made by even the most sophisticated search algorithm yet devised. Spectral library search "hits" are suggestions only, not conclusive identifications; they must be verified by manual comparison of spectra by a human expert. BTW, why didn't the analyst just obtain a mass spectrum? The base peaks for MDA and MDMA are different (44 and 58, respectively), and so are the capillary retention times on a standard nonpolar column like HP-1. These easily distinguish between MDA and MDMA. Bob Parsons, F-ABC Forensic Chemist Regional Crime Laboratory at Indian River Community College Ft. Pierce, FL -----Original Message----- From: Aileen Orta [mailto:adosarge@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 18:47 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compounds under FTIR - ATR An interesting case where after the analyst conducted a GC analysis, found that the unknown contained MDMA. The analyst proceeded to conduct a FTIR analysis utilizing the OMNIC software and the initial general spectra run indicated the first highest hit (90.72) to be MDA and the second highest hit (90.20) to be MDMA. After visually comparing the spectrums it was obvious that the unknown matched very well to the second highest hit which was MDMA. The analyst proceeded to do a regional search based upon sutle differences in the two standard spectrums, e.g. region 3050cm-1 to 2650cm-1. The analyst conducted this type of search and the highest hit (97.20) was to MDMA and the MDA to 72.50 in quality match. My question is was the analyst in anyway comprising the results by doing the regional spectra run after doing the general spectra run. Comments are welcome. Sgt. Aileen Orta, Q.C. Supervisor NYC Police Department adosarge@yahoo.com This scenario is for informational purposes only. _____ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF6D.B2106E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
My answer is "no."  Clearly, the analyst had some doubts about the identification, so he/she did additional testing to resolve the ambiguity - exactly what she/he should have done.  Doing a regional search in the part of the spectrum that provides distinguishing data is entirely appropriate, and is no different than doing selective ion monitoring in GC/MS.  In addition, the GC retention time data supported the analyst's visual comparison and contradicted the general library search results.  This example just goes to show what we all know - computers are stupid, and you can't trust the tentative identifications made by even the most sophisticated search algorithm yet devised.  Spectral library search "hits" are suggestions only, not conclusive identifications;  they must be verified by manual comparison of spectra by a human expert.
 
BTW, why didn't the analyst just obtain a mass spectrum?  The base peaks for MDA and MDMA are different (44 and 58, respectively), and so are the capillary retention times on a standard nonpolar column like HP-1.  These easily distinguish between MDA and MDMA.

Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

-----Original Message-----
From: Aileen Orta [mailto:adosarge@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 18:47
To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu
Subject: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compounds under FTIR - ATR

An interesting case where after the analyst conducted a GC analysis, found that the unknown contained MDMA. The analyst proceeded to conduct a FTIR analysis utilizing the OMNIC software and the initial general spectra run indicated the first highest hit (90.72) to be MDA and the second highest hit (90.20) to be MDMA. After visually comparing the spectrums it was obvious that the unknown matched very well to the second highest hit which was MDMA. The analyst proceeded to do a regional search based upon sutle differences in the two standard spectrums, e.g. region 3050cm-1 to 2650cm-1. The analyst conducted this type of search and the highest hit (97.20) was to MDMA and the MDA to 72.50 in quality match. My question is was the analyst in anyway comprising the results by doing the regional spectra run after doing the general spectra run. Comments are welcome.

Sgt. Aileen Orta, Q.C. Supervisor

NYC Police Department

adosarge@yahoo.com

This scenario is for informational purposes only.


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
------_=_NextPart_001_01C0CF6D.B2106E20-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 19:38:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA19333 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA19328 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA24437; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:38:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 19:38:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Carol Define MD cc: "T. J. Wilkinson" , Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: marijuana In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Carol Define MD wrote: > From: Carol Define MD > > > Bill....If there is a decrease in testicular weight and a 50% decrease in > testosterone, although the word 'atrophy' is not used, it amounts to the > same thing...testicular shrivel. > > Journal....Neurobiology and Neurophysiology. CRC Press, 1992. > > Relax!!!! > > Carol > Hmmm.... That journal is not listed in MEDLINE. The closest thing is Neurology and Neurophysiology which seems to have gone out of print in 1990. Do you have a copy of the article you can fax me? billo From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 23:03:39 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21525 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21520 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c345114a ([24.10.133.54]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010428030302.GLFG28160.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@c345114a>; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:03:02 -0700 Message-ID: <002301c0cf8f$b2a7fac0$36850a18@pueblo1.co.home.com> From: "Jamie" To: "Aileen Orta" , "Forens-L" References: <20010427224724.33392.qmail@web13402.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compounds under FTIR - ATR Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 21:02:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C0CF5D.65FD9680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C0CF5D.65FD9680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would say not, especially if the analyst was using a purchased = library. I found that a purchased library rarely gives a "perfect" = match. The best matchs are going to come from a library that your lab = has generated, using your procedures. Jamie Crippin "An = explosion is not the place=20 Colorado Bureau of Investigation you really want = to be." ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Aileen Orta=20 To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu=20 Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:47 PM Subject: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar = compounds under FTIR - ATR An interesting case where after the analyst conducted a GC analysis, = found that the unknown contained MDMA. The analyst proceeded to conduct = a FTIR analysis utilizing the OMNIC software and the initial general = spectra run indicated the first highest hit (90.72) to be MDA and the = second highest hit (90.20) to be MDMA. After visually comparing the = spectrums it was obvious that the unknown matched very well to the = second highest hit which was MDMA. The analyst proceeded to do a = regional search based upon sutle differences in the two standard = spectrums, e.g. region 3050cm-1 to 2650cm-1. The analyst conducted this = type of search and the highest hit (97.20) was to MDMA and the MDA to = 72.50 in quality match. My question is was the analyst in anyway = comprising the results by doing the regional spectra run after doing the = general spectra run. Comments are welcome. Sgt. Aileen Orta, Q.C. Supervisor NYC Police Department adosarge@yahoo.com This scenario is for informational purposes only. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C0CF5D.65FD9680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would say not, especially if the = analyst was=20 using a purchased library.  I found that a purchased library rarely = gives a=20 "perfect" match.  The best matchs are going to come from a library = that=20 your lab has generated, using your procedures.
 
Jamie Crippin    =    =20             =    =20             =    =20         "An explosion is not the place=20
Colorado Bureau of = Investigation   =20             =    =20     you really want to be."
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Aileen Orta=20
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 = 4:47=20 PM
Subject: Suggestions needed to = help in=20 distinguishing similar compounds under FTIR - ATR

An interesting case where after the analyst conducted a GC = analysis, found=20 that the unknown contained MDMA. The analyst proceeded to conduct a = FTIR=20 analysis utilizing the OMNIC software and the initial general spectra = run=20 indicated the first highest hit (90.72) to be MDA and the second = highest hit=20 (90.20) to be MDMA. After visually comparing the spectrums it was = obvious that=20 the unknown matched very well to the second highest hit which was = MDMA. The=20 analyst proceeded to do a regional search based upon sutle differences = in the=20 two standard spectrums, e.g. region 3050cm-1 to 2650cm-1. The analyst=20 conducted this type of search and the highest hit (97.20) was to MDMA = and the=20 MDA to 72.50 in quality match. My question is was the analyst in = anyway=20 comprising the results by doing the regional spectra run after = doing the=20 general spectra run. Comments are welcome.

Sgt. Aileen Orta, Q.C. Supervisor

NYC Police Department

adosarge@yahoo.com

This scenario is for informational purposes only.


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! = Auctions - buy the things you want at great=20 prices ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C0CF5D.65FD9680-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 23:36:33 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21917 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r13.mx.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21912 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:36:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Prantoci@aol.com Received: from Prantoci@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id t.95.a039817 (4422); Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <95.a039817.281b9476@aol.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:35:18 EDT Subject: Re: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compounds under FTIR... To: jcrippin@home.com, adosarge@yahoo.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_95.a039817.281b9476_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_95.a039817.281b9476_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/01 11:10:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jcrippin@home.com writes: How are you Jamie? Talk with you soon, however......................... > The best match are will come from a library that your lab has generated, > using your procedures. > Well, James, what about the compounds you do not have in "your at home" data base that really maybe the material you have analyzed. Do we restrict our data base to only the compounds we want to see? Or do we need to shake new ground? Explosively Yours. awwww that ain't enough to feel the ground tremble. Sincerely, Phil --part1_95.a039817.281b9476_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/01 11:10:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jcrippin@home.com writes:

How are you Jamie? Talk with you soon, however.........................


The best match are will come from a library that your lab has generated,
using your procedures.

Well, James, what about the compounds you do not have in "your at home" data
base that really maybe the material you have analyzed. Do we restrict our
data base to only the compounds we want to see?
Or do we need to shake new ground?
Explosively Yours.

awwww that ain't enough to feel the ground tremble.

Sincerely,
Phil
--part1_95.a039817.281b9476_boundary-- From forens-owner Fri Apr 27 23:54:57 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA22171 for forens-outgoing; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.radix.net (mail1.radix.net [207.192.128.31]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22166 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:54:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from saltmine.radix.net (saltmine.radix.net [207.192.128.40]) by mail1.radix.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA22576; Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:54:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill Oliver To: Robert Parsons cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: RE: Employment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Robert Parsons wrote: > From: Robert Parsons > > Bill, you never cease to interest me. I live to serve. > First you launch into a lengthy > discussion (almost worthy of even my infamous verbosity) of why > certification is a useful and often important credential and of why degrees > alone don't demonstrate ability to do the job (i.e., your example of > computer science grads who can't write code, as opposed to certified persons > who had to demonstrate they could write code in order to be certified). > Then you seem to take the opposite position in responding to my post, which > supported and made similar arguments as your earlier post. Sometimes, I > think you just like to debate for the sake of debate. Well.... so do I! ;) No, you missed my point. Let me be more succinct (gasp). Leave aside the rather special cases of board exams, bar exams, etc., and concentrate on the kind that the original respondent complained was proliferating. That kind of certification denotes specific training in limited, practical skill sets. They represent "final exams" for limited course sets. That's the essence of my first response. However, they do *not* represent any yardstick of "mastery." There is nothing inherent in a MS in Computer Science that will guarantee that an applicant has had training in coding in C++. Certification in C++ programming demonstrates that someone has spent some time learning C++ syntax. It does *not* demonstrate they can write a decent piece of code -- any more than a multiple choice grammar exam can can demonstrate that someone can write a novel. Reliance on certification is like saying Stephen King can't write a bestseller because he doesn't have a degree in creative writing. And that's the essence of my response to you. So, who do you hire to write code? The guy with the MS or the guy with C++ certification? That depends on the complexity of the task and the time frame. A person trained in the formalisms of software quality control and software engineering will be more likely to produce "good" code even if he or she doesn't have a great command of C++; the process discipline will force him to learn in. A person who knows C++ but doesn't know software design will whip out some code in a weekend, but it may be trash in the long run -- it may not be maintainable, it may not be reusable, etc. So, if you are writing integrated code for an air traffic control system which will involve multiple teams of programmers writing encapuslated modules you go with the formalist. If you have $2000 and need someone to write a device driver next week, you don't care if it is spagetti code as long as something is ready for the demo. But C++ certification *doesn't* mean you can write good code. And that's the problem. People make certification mean something it's not. > > >> Government or professional peer-based certification of individuals, like > >> accreditation for laboratories and universities, provides such a > yardstick. > > >No it doesn't. You mention board exams for physicians. No physician > >I know would suggest that there is a correlation between a score on > >a board exam and one's ability to be a good physician. There is a > >correlation with being able to *pass* the boards, but it is soft. > > Not in the specific score, no, but in achieving the minimum score acceptable > to those boards, yes, that indicates a lot. It indicates you either meet a > minimum standard or you don't. Yes, but that's the point. The "minimum standard" indicated by the board has no proven translation into competence to practice medicine. It doesn't show that you are a minimally competent physician; it shows you are minimally competent at taking board exams. Most certification exams I know of cannot show a direct translation from certification exam performance to professional competency. > Where one ranks among others taking the same > board is of little relevance to professional competency in the real world, > but if one can't achieve the minimum standard, that's quite relevant. Why? You have not establishd that achieving the minimal standards in exam performance constitute minimal professional competency in any other than a tautological sense. Your statement is a statment of faith. > I > would place more trust in a board-certified cardiac specialist treating a > heart condition than I would a general practitioner doing the same. And you would be wrong. Multiple studies have shown that the primary determinant of treatment success is experience, not certification. You want to get your cardiac meds tuned? If your choice is between an internist at a big-city hospital with a huge cardiac care unit who deals with a zillion heart patients a year or a rural cardiologist who has a small practice and fills his time with primary care, choose the internist -- even if the cardiologist has subspecialty boards and the internist doesn't. >You > must admit that medical boards are a step beyond the simple sheepskin. They > at least demonstrate knowledge of the entire spectrum of subjects a > physician is supposed to have mastered in that field, in a comprehensive > fashion; as opposed to the degree, which demonstrates only that each > individual subject was mastered during the semester in which it was taken > (and may already be forgotten by graduation day). It's certainly a better > yardstick than the sheepskin alone. It's a question of "degree." (, > sorry) Quite the opposite. For a medical degree, course scores represent evaluation of how the student deals with patients over time, and has a large practical component. The national boards do not have that. > >Now, there is something to be said for the idea that for one split > >second during my career, I actually managed to memorize every biochemical > >metabolic indicator for every bacterium of medical importance in the > >world. And, yes, I did that. And I remembered it for, oh, almost > >five days. For the forensic exams, I memorized the LD50 for every > >chemical in Baselt's Disposition of Toxic Drugs in Man. I rememberd > >that for almost two days afterwards. > > I'm impressed, and would be flabbergasted if you claimed to retain much of > it, but having not retained it, do you really think you obtained no benefit > from even temporarily learning it? None. > It didn't discipline your mind, teach > you how to think, study, and do research (where and how to look in the > literature to find answers to your questions)? No. >You didn't retain any of it > at all, not even for the drugs you commonly see in your work? No. The experience and repetition of dealing with the drugs I commonsly see in my work makes me remember them, not a delerium of cramming 10 years ago. In fact, the very techniques necessary for such prodigious feats of memory make it useless. If you have studied memory skills, you may know that the techniques used -- whether formal associational methods like memory theaters or more informal associational mnemonic triggers -- isolate the data from any practical context. For a memory theater, the next time you use it, you clean it out. For a mnemonic stack, the stack itself degrades quickly. Let's say I want to remember the bioichemical reactions of C. botulinum: Acid in milk, + glucose, +maltose, -lactose, +salicin, +/- sucrose, and I have a board exam in a week. I build an assocational stack of "memorable" bizarre imagery. Botulinum -- "bottle" sitting on a table. Everything above the table is +, everything below the table is -, +/- is on the table. Sucrose is +/-, sounds like "suck" to imagine a tiny elf with a straw sucking cola from the bottle. Maltose -- mole. Salacin -- salad bowl. Glucose-- Elmer's glue. Lactose -- breast (lactate). So, imagine a table in a kitchen with an elf sitting on the table sucking a cola from a bottle through a straw. On top of the elf's head is a salad bowl glued on with Elmer's glue. Inside the salid bowl is a perplexed little mole. Sitting under the table is Pamela Lee Anderson topless. I can remember that scene for five days with minimal mental review for refresher. That scene provides the mnemonic triggers to tell me the biochemical tests for C. botulinum. That is how you ace the boards. It's not how you practice medicine. >It has been > of absolutely no use to you whatsoever since then? Come now, I don't > believe that for a second. I didn't long retain all the enzymatic > catalysts, Gibbs Free Energy values, chemical structures, alternate pathways > and intermediate products that I had to memorize in order to pass > "Biochemistry I" either, but the exercise was certainly worth my while. I > retained what I needed to understand the more advanced coursework to follow, > and even today I still retain an overall basic understanding of human > catabolism and anabolism that serves me in various ways (even if I can no > longer spit out all the particulars from memory). I consider it to have > been time well spent. I consider the time I spent learning to understand those things useful. Memorizing all that stuff for a three-day board exam was not. > > >OK, well, that may have something to say about whether or not I can > >practice forensic medicine. Maybe not. And if it does, it's a measure > >of my medium term memorization skills, not my ability to "do" forensic > >medicine. And you know what? Today, if I need to know how much > >morphine it takes to kill a 70 kilogram man, guess what I do. Yes, I > >pull down my copy of Baselt or Goodman and Gillman, do a MEDLINE > >search or whatever and look it up. > > Agreed. That's exactly the argument I made when asked to memorize all those > glycolysis, TCA cycle, fermentation, and gluconeogenesis tidbits, not to > mention the phylogeny of invertebrates I couldn't care less about in > zoology; but my instructors made me do it anyway and I'm glad they did. > They were teaching me mental discipline, an essential attribute for applying > knowledge whether we remember that knowledge or look it up. The point is > that we retain what we need to do the job (a pathologist might have to look > up the LD50 for a drug, but he doesn't have to look up how to conduct an > autopsy, does he?). Exactly my point. National board exams don't test whether or not you can do an autopsy. That's a matter of experience, not national board format exams. > Even the best certification exam only measures knowledge at one point in > time, true, but a well designed certification exam doesn't just ask you to > regurgitate facts and figures... Your description of the "perfect" certification exam is beautiful. It makes me weepy. Unfortately, it doesn't exist. > > >But, of course, now we have the movement to make certification > time-limited. > >So what is a person to do? Is he or she supposed to stop practicing > medicine > >and take one year out of every five to memorize trivia? > > No, he/she's supposed to stay current with the advancement of important > knowledge (as opposed to trivia) in his/her field, something she/he should > be doing continually and perpetually, not once every five years. Unfortunately, certification exams, in my experience, simply don't measure that. Instead, they measure the wrong things in the wrong way, and we pretend they have some meaning. > Your peers can judge you by > their own knowledge of progress in the field, but non-professionals don't > have that ability and need some external means to by which to take your > measure. So we make up bullshit "certification" exams and *pretend* they mean something they don't. What a solution. billo From forens-owner Sat Apr 28 08:04:08 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26593 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26588 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:04:07 -0400 (EDT) From: LEGALEYE1@aol.com Received: from LEGALEYE1@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id p.7e.1457098c (2172); Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:03:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7e.1457098c.281c0b8f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 08:03:27 EDT Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking To: cdefine@bcpl.net CC: Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7e.1457098c.281c0b8f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10523 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_7e.1457098c.281c0b8f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/01 7:23:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cdefine@bcpl.net writes: > Have a nice day...and oh...you haven't noticed any change in your voice, > have you? Only when I hit the bong and try to talk. Thank you for your concern but my testicles are just fine. Then again there is that residual pain from the vasectomy 15 years ago, any ideas on what is causing this? I only ask this because of the special interest directed towards my health in this area of my anatomy. Actually I don't smoke marijuana. The controlled substance used to treat my malady is methamphetamine hydrochloride. Surely no one will have a problem with this medicine. It is worth noting that since I oppose criminalizing marijuana it is assumed that I must smoke it regularly for recreational purposes. I guess that every male on this list who opposes the current government policy on marijuana, is of questionable masculinity and virility. I will admit that if I suffered from a medical condition that could be mitigated by smoking marijuana, a government prohibition would not prevent me from doing so. I'm a bit of an outlaw in that area. Bill --part1_7e.1457098c.281c0b8f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/01 7:23:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cdefine@bcpl.net
writes:


Have a nice day...and oh...you haven't noticed any change in your voice,
have you?
Only when I hit the bong and try to talk.  Thank you for your concern but my
testicles are just fine.  Then again there is that residual pain from the
vasectomy 15 years ago, any ideas on what is causing this?  I only ask this
because of the special interest directed towards my health in this area of my
anatomy.

Actually I don't smoke marijuana.  The controlled substance used to treat my
malady is methamphetamine hydrochloride.  Surely no one will have a problem
with this medicine.

It is worth noting that since I oppose criminalizing marijuana it is assumed
that I must smoke it regularly for recreational purposes.  I guess that every
male on this list who opposes the current government policy on marijuana, is
of questionable masculinity and virility.  I will admit that if I suffered
from a medical condition that could be mitigated by smoking marijuana, a
government prohibition would not prevent me from doing so.  I'm a bit of an
outlaw in that area.

Bill

--part1_7e.1457098c.281c0b8f_boundary-- From forens-owner Sat Apr 28 11:09:59 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28269 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28263 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:09:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Amflaw@aol.com Received: from Amflaw@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id 7.91.a018352 (3978); Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <91.a018352.281c371a@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 11:09:14 EDT Subject: Re: Job Announcement re. smoking To: rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us, Forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 124 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/27/01 5:17:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: << In any event, what's reasonable and what's legal (constitutional) isn't always the same thing, unfortunately. >> In many cases that is true. And, admittedly, it's been a while since I read that part of the Constitution, but isn't the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure? If so, then reasonableness IS the test. From forens-owner Sat Apr 28 16:39:12 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01516 for forens-outgoing; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imo-r19.mx.aol.com (imo-r19.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01511 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:39:11 -0400 (EDT) From: PPDLabManager@aol.com Received: from PPDLabManager@aol.com by imo-r19.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id y.6e.a101025 (7944) for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:38:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6e.a101025.281c8446@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:38:30 EDT Subject: Re: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compound s under FTI... To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6e.a101025.281c8446_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10520 Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk --part1_6e.a101025.281c8446_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:14:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes: > BTW, why didn't the analyst just obtain a mass spectrum? The base peaks for > MDA and MDMA are different (44 and 58, respectively), and so are the > capillary retention times on a standard nonpolar column like HP-1. These > easily distinguish between MDA and MDMA. > Bob Parsons, F-ABC > Forensic Chemist > Regional Crime Laboratory > at Indian River Community College > Ft. Pierce, FL > Aileen: Bob makes a good point. Additionally, a simple bench test with the Nitroprusside reagent will distinguish between MDA (primary amine-no reaction) and MDMA ( secondary amine - color change to Prussian blue). The more challenging differentiation is between MDMA and its regioisomers. The analyst must rely on a number of techniques and looking at subtle differences in spectra. An interesting article about MDMA and its regioisomers: http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/tcaw/10/i02/html/02inst.html Catherine McBride Forensic Laboratory Manager Philadelphia Police Forensic Science Laboratory --part1_6e.a101025.281c8446_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/27/2001 7:14:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rparsons@ircc.cc.fl.us writes:


BTW, why didn't the analyst just obtain a mass spectrum?  The base peaks for
MDA and MDMA are different (44 and 58, respectively), and so are the
capillary retention times on a standard nonpolar column like HP-1.  These
easily distinguish between MDA and MDMA.
Bob Parsons, F-ABC
Forensic Chemist
Regional Crime Laboratory
at Indian River Community College
Ft. Pierce, FL

Aileen:

Bob makes a good point.  Additionally, a simple bench test with the
Nitroprusside reagent will distinguish between MDA (primary amine-no
reaction) and MDMA ( secondary amine - color change to Prussian blue).
The more challenging differentiation is between MDMA and its regioisomers.
The analyst must rely on a number of techniques and looking at subtle
differences in spectra.
An interesting article about MDMA and its regioisomers:

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/tcaw/10/i02/html/02inst.html



Catherine McBride
Forensic Laboratory Manager
Philadelphia Police Forensic Science Laboratory --part1_6e.a101025.281c8446_boundary-- From forens-owner Sun Apr 29 09:42:48 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11316 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:42:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nda.vsnl.net.in (giasdl01.vsnl.net.in [202.54.15.1]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11311 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (d4294.pppdel.vsnl.net.in [203.197.207.154]) by nda.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B04409DC for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:11:40 +0000 (IST) Message-ID: <3AEBBF5F.851358C8@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:44:39 +0530 From: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" Subject: Email and mail address of Thomas Noguchi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Dear List Members, Can anyone give me the Email address and Normal snail mail address of Thomas Noguchi? I need to get in touch with him. Thanks Sincerely Professor Anil Aggrawal Professor of Forensic Medicine Maulana Azad Medical College S-299 Greater Kailash-1 New Delhi-110048 Phone: 6465460, 6413101 Email:dr_anil@hotmail.com Page me via ICQ #19727771 Websites: 1.Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology http://anil299.tripod.com/indexpapers.html 2. Book reviews of latest forensic books/journals/software/multimedia http://anil299.tripod.com/sundry/reviews/publishers/pub001.html 3. Anil Aggrawal's Forensic Toxicology Page http://members.tripod.com/~Prof_Anil_Aggrawal/index.html 4. Anil Aggrawal's Popular Forensic Medicine Page http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/williamson/235 *Many people ask me why I chose Forensic Medicine as a career, and I tell them that it is because a forensic man gets the honor of being called when the top doctors have failed!* `\|||/ (@@) ooO (_) Ooo________________________________ _____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____| ___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____ _____|_____Please pardon the intrusion_|____|_____ From forens-owner Sun Apr 29 14:46:19 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA14667 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from moe.sfrn.dnai.com ([208.59.199.25]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14662 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:46:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 208-59-198-188.s188.tnt1.dsfr.ca.dialup.rcn.com (208-59-198-188.s188.tnt1.dsfr.ca.dialup.rcn.com [208.59.198.188]) by moe.sfrn.dnai.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f3TIk6A42693; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010429115554.00a50d60@pop.sfrn.dnai.com> X-Sender: kmk@pop.sfrn.dnai.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:58:16 -0700 To: "Dr. Anil Aggrawal" , "Forensic Newsgroup (main)" From: Kim Kruglick Subject: Re: Email and mail address of Thomas Noguchi In-Reply-To: <3AEBBF5F.851358C8@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 04/29/2001 +0530, Dr. Anil Aggrawal wrote: >Dear List Members, >Can anyone give me the Email address and Normal snail mail address of >Thomas Noguchi? I need to get in touch with him. Thanks Dr. AA, This should work: noguchi@hsc.usc.edu Best regards, Kim Kruglick mailto:kim@kruglaw.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Forensic Resource and Criminal Law Search Site http://www.kruglaw.com From forens-owner Sun Apr 29 23:32:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19917 for forens-outgoing; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f286.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.161]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19912 for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 23:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:31:55 -0700 Received: from 63.49.16.27 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:31:55 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.49.16.27] From: "SHAUN WHEELER" To: KS-Students-owner@yahoogroups.com Cc: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Training Op: Sex Crimes Seminar Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 03:31:55 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2001 03:31:55.0451 (UTC) FILETIME=[1AC5D8B0:01C0D126] Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Barbara: What an unexpected pleasure to learn that your company (or Brent's or Eoghan's) is yet again providing a training opportunity. I note that you include John Baeza, a subscriber to this list. I would like to know if the case in which he substantiates your husbands work, the "Upper East Side Rapist" was ever solved? If it's not too much trouble I would also like to know where is it that Brent Turvey obtained his training in behavioral analysis of sexual assault, as I note that the University of New Haven does not offer this as part of their training. Precisely what does computer crime have to do with sex crimes, other than collection of paedophelia? Eoghan Casey seems to have real integrity issues, given his propensity for gross mis-characterization of his 'special' knowledge, skills and abilities, other than being able to foist his limited knowledge of networking, geography and a host of other things on publishers of dubious quality and questionable judgement. Finally, I note your deafening silence regarding my question at Brent's withdrawal as an applicant to the prestigious American Academy of Forensic Science. I am sure there is some reasonable explanation that you've yet to offer, but I'm sure that the next time he is under oath a committed prosecutor can obtain an answer to this troubling question. Looking forward to your reply. Shaun Wheeler >From: "Barbara Troyer-Turvey" >Reply-To: >To: "Forens-L" >CC: >Subject: Training Op: Sex Crimes Seminar >Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:30:06 -0700 > >** Onsite Training ** > >Knowledge Solutions is offering a 2-day onsite training opportunity this >summer in Oakland, California. Our Sex Crimes Seminar; Investigating and >Reconstructing Sexual Assaults and Sexual Homicides, is open to anyone and _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com From forens-owner Mon Apr 30 08:39:17 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25045 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (cbasten@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25040 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:39:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Basten To: forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Swabs at Room Temperature (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:57:18 EDT From: SkipnCar@aol.com To: cbasten@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Swabs at Room Temperature Raphael, I believe studies are now in progress, but no formal results of which I am aware. I'm sure the studies will attest to the fact that, at room temperature, DNA is very stable for many years. We did have a case where a pair of white jeans, stored at room temperature or a bit higher in our property room in Tulsa (where the summers are VERY hot and humid), were tested 18 years later. DNA from the semen of both suspects as well as the victim was identified. Both suspects were charged 20 years after the crime and are now serving time. Justice may move slowly, but it moves! Carla M. Noziglia, MS, FAAFS From forens-owner Mon Apr 30 11:13:03 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA28223 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp05.mail.onemain.com (SMTP-OUT003.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.73]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA28218 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:13:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 84 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2001 15:12:20 -0000 Received: from 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net ([209.165.23.1]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp05.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 30 Apr 2001 15:12:20 -0000 Received: from SCANMAIL by 209-165-23.1.lightspeed.net via smtpd (for SMTP.ONEMAIN.COM [63.208.208.70]) with SMTP; 30 Apr 2001 14:53:09 UT Received: FROM co.kern.ca.us BY scanmail.co.kern.ca.us ; Mon Apr 30 08:12:42 2001 -0700 Received: from KERNMAIL-Message_Server by co.kern.ca.us with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:12:26 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 08:11:58 -0700 From: "Greg Laskowski" To: PPDLabManager@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Suggestions needed to help in distinguishing similar compound s under FTI... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Hey, I'll bet the microcrystals of MDMA and MDA are also different. Gee, a simple straight forward test that discriminates between two compounds in a matter of seconds, and all you need is a few chemicals and a decent microscope! But of course, we must forgo classical chemistry and instead rely on expensive instrumentation with marginal spectral libraries, that might cause even a "certified" criminalist/chemist working in a fully "accredited" laboratory anxiety because because it always looks good to have those plaques on the wall it the lab' entry foyer. Forget about just doing good science and meeting your customers' needs instead of some lofty orginaztional body that proposes guidelines and regulations so extreme that once the analysit complets the paperwork and meets all the QA/QC requirements, his or her results don't mean a damn thing. Gregory E. Laskowski Supervising Criminalist Kern County District Attorney Forensic Science Division e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us office phone: (661) 868-5659 From forens-owner Mon Apr 30 12:54:31 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00152 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00147 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jnh3 (user-38ldmkb.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.218.139]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA24181; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:54:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20010430095448.00a2fe30@popd.calicopress.com> X-Sender: john@popd.calicopress.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:55:23 -0700 To: "Greg Laskowski" , PPDLabManager@aol.com, forens@statgen.ncsu.edu From: John Houde Subject: Re: Suggestions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk muy bien dicho ======= At 08:11 AM 4/30/01 -0700, Greg Laskowski wrote: >Hey, > >I'll bet the microcrystals of MDMA and MDA are also different. SNIP >Gregory E. Laskowski >Supervising Criminalist >Kern County District Attorney >Forensic Science Division >e-mail: glaskows@co.kern.ca.us >office phone: (661) 868-5659 ==================== http://www.calicopress.com books of exceptional quality From forens-owner Mon Apr 30 13:42:41 2001 Return-Path: Received: (from MajorDomo@localhost) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA00869 for forens-outgoing; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email.nist.gov (email.nist.gov [129.6.2.7]) by sun01pt2-1523.statgen.ncsu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00864 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from goodpaster (h179112.nist.gov [129.6.179.112]) by email.nist.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA00618 for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:42:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.1.20010430132203.00a2ddd0@mailserver.nist.gov> X-Sender: jgoodpas@mailserver.nist.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:42:24 -0400 To: Forensic Science Mailing List From: John Goodpaster Subject: Hair Sampling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-forens@statgen.ncsu.edu Precedence: bulk Greetings, First, my apologies as this message may be slightly repetitive of a previous discussion on this list some weeks ago regarding hair analysis. However, I have the following questions regarding the acquisition of known hairs from a suspect for eventual comparison to an unknown sample. This information will be ultimately used to guide sampling protocols for a research project in hair analysis here at NIST. Responses sent to me will be compiled and shared with the list if so desired. 1) Are there "official" sampling procedures for collecting hair (i.e. ASTM methods)? 2) Limiting the discussion to head hair, is there a consensus as to whether hairs should be pulled or cut? 3) How many hairs are needed in order to be considered a representative sample from a suspect? 4) Are specific areas of the head sampled? If multiple areas are sampled are they systematic or random in distribution? 5) What reference works do practitioners recommend on the sampling and comparison of human hair? Thanks very much for your time and insights! John Goodpaster ***************************************************************************** John V. Goodpaster, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Division National Institute of Standards and Technology 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8392 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8392 Phone: 301-975-3142 FAX: 301-977-0685 e-mail: john.goodpaster@nist.gov *******************************************************************************