Miscellaneous desk
< December 2	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 3

drug screening and prescription pain medication abuse

Will a standard drug screening detect abuse of prescription pain medication? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You betcha. hydnjo (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - that is to at least some extent what they are for, though the tendency is to promote them as screening against 'recreational drugs'. Well, that and assisting those who wish to claim that recreational drugs are about to bring about the downfall of civilisation, because if they aren't tested for it generates bad publicity. Employers on the whole tend to be more concerned with how well you perform while working than with which substances you entertain yourself with on your days off, and the evidence seems to be that whether the opiate you use to cure your blues (not that it will) is 'prescription', or something you bought from a shady-looking character on the streetcorner makes little odds - either way, you're more of a liability to them than the guy who smokes a spliff on the way home from work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I am aware of a case in the UK where an employee was suspended because the test picked up the remnants of the morphine he'd had as pain relief for a minor operation the month before. So it won't just detectFprec the abuse you mention, but normal usage. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking (professional athletes being one exception), in America current employees aren't drug-tested unless there is reasonable cause. Prospective employees often are, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately in Nazi Britain it is becoming increasingly common for employees to be routinely drug tested, say once a month. Bus companies do it as do utility companies. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are situations where public safety is paramount. Presumably they know when they sign up for such a job that routine testing comes with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}, both for the drug test claim and for the statement that Britain is a Nazi state. --Viennese Waltz 12:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gov.uk/monitoring-work-workers-rights/drug-testing for the official Govt stance on drug testing. Here is a company who provides such tests (see the para beginning "Based on...) Here is a legal site giving the UK law on workplace drug testing. And as an example of the Government's "final solution" for disabled people, see this blog. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the "once a month" claim, which is not supported by any of those links. As for the "final solution" claim, that link you provide is to an emotive and partial blog which is not exactly neutral or dispassionate. Not even the government's fiercest critics would claim that they are trying to exterminate disabled people. I urge you to think before using such inflammatory language. --Viennese Waltz 15:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny to see Tammy of all people being accused of not thinking before she posts. It seemed obvious she was using "Nazi" in the restrictive, not the non-restrictive sense. I.e, "that Britain which happens to be Nazi", not that "Britain is Nazi". μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was precisely that there is no part of British government policy which "happens to be Nazi". --Viennese Waltz 18:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you needn't have worried about the part of it Tammy was referring to, no? μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the UK, but I found this pagefrom the US which says; "If your school district employs bus drivers, Federal law mandates that you implement and maintain a drug and alcohol testing program that is compliant with Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations.". Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: In the US, is there any mechanism to check if a person is receiving pain medication from two different doctors, without them knowing about it - that is, without the doctors knowing that the person is getting pain medication somewhere else too? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba73, your questions raise a red flag with me. What are you trying to do? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to do anything myself. I know someone who is seeing two doctors that are 140 miles apart, and I don't want them to be abusing prescription medications. If there is some mechanism to catch that, then I won't have to worry. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have actual evidence of self-harm, Bubba, you should seek professional help, which might include legal advice or advice from your own doctor. Don't get yourself in a position where you can get harmed due to your good intentions by this person or third parties. But also consider that, given the war on drugs, you may do great harm to an innocent person by making unfounded or unnecessary claims which may lead him to be denied valid or necessary treatment out of a fear of legal repercussions, etc., based solely on suspicions. I asked that this be hatted because, basically, we cannot give you any advice here beyond do no harm to yourself or others, for which, see these results among others. μηδείς (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll drop it here.

Resolved

Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yearbooks for sale

There is a web site offering digital access to old yearbooks. I thought it was illegal, but then realized that all of the content in a yearbook is generated by a school's yearbook staff. So who owns the copyright to the yearbook? Can a third party, not affiliated with the school or publisher, digitize yearbooks and then sell access? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without permission or it becoming public domain (perhaps due to no copyright notice, or renewal) it would be an infringement. The photographer may own IP as well as the staff. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In an ideal world it depends on the work for hire contracts or other agreements signed that consolidate and assign copyright. In an unideal world (the actual world, much of the time), whomever works on it owns a stake in their work that they produced, and so actually assigning the copyright correctly later would require a lot of individual copyright agreements. (Sound far-fetched? It's actually not — this comes up sometimes with big movie productions from the past, where each individual actor's performance received an individual copyright assignment.) So unless for some reason it entered into the public domain, one should consider such works not only copyrighted, but potentially complicatedly copyrighted. The odds are that the website in question is banking on the fact that high school yearbook staffs, much less ones who have assigned their copyright to so many individual people, do not have the organizational, legal, or financial wherewithal to file a complaint, much less the interest. They are probably correct in that assumption. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com (a pay site) has access to no small number of old yearbooks that have been scanned, including some that are as recent as the 1970s. Presumably they've gotten permission, but I can't say for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking hamburger meat

CAN YOU SLOW COOK RAW HAMBURGER MEAT IN YOUR MOUTH OVERNIGHT, WHILE SLEEPING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.48.241.69 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless your mouth gets up around 160°F (71°C): [1]. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the need to stuff your mouth with raw meat and then try to sleep, first seek the advice of a doctor. Astronaut (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol,The shit people say.74.163.16.121 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that I can. I guess I've never tried, but the USDA [2] sure makes it sound like a bad idea. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat is right (although I disagree with his temp. Heston Blumenthal et.al says 122 ° F is best for Denaturation (biochemistry) of beef and develops the most mouthwatering flavour). But please: can we have less questions about food. It awakens my addiction to head for the kitchen. Morbid obesity can kill you know – So, please, please have a thought for us poor (and morbidly over-weight) ref-desk respondents. Corr... I could just murder a venison sausage just now! Oh. There are three left.. can't let them go to waist... Oh and some sauerkraut... will finish this post when I have cleared out all the stuff that no one else has eaten - Bon Appétit --Aspro (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. If you don't let food go to waste, it will go to waist. And hip and thigh and bum. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: Heston Blumenthal's Perfect Steak Just found an unwrapped wedge of Stilton cheese at the back of the cooler's veg compartment. You won't be hearing from me again to day – providing I can find some nice Branston Pickle to go with it... and a glass of good Portuguese Port ( OK, Don't ask – where else would Port come from if its not from if it were not from Portugal) .--Aspro (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bums around the Port Authority always seem to have a bottle of port. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

According to that article: "E. Coli, one of the biggest health issues when it comes to beef, can be killed by exposure to temperature in the 160° F range. But Heston cooks this steak at 120° F for a perfect rare cut. By blowtorching the exterior of the beef, exposing it to temperatures in excess of 1000-2000° F, he is effectively sterilizing the meat before bringing it up to the desired cooking temperature in his low temperature holding oven." So, to cook it this way in your mouth, you'd need a blowtorch in there. (Also see Steve's note below.) StuRat (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blowtourch...The poster however, does not say what gender they are. So perhaps s/he is a Dragon with the Girl Tattoo in which case, searing the meat in their sleep must be a piece of cake. Oh there I go again.. their must be a bit of Dundee left in one of the cupboards – I'm still hungry.--Aspro (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can we stop thinking about about food - now that the subject has been brought up?--Aspro (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys lets stop already,he probably just posted this to be random and now he's gone.74.163.16.121 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the actual Q is absurd, it has led to a rational discussion of the minimum temperature at which hamburger can be safely slow-cooked. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about beef is that any E.Coli tends to live on the surface of the meat. When you have a steak, provided the outside gets up to the range where E.Coli will die off, you can leave the inside merely warm and bloody. When you have minced meat, all of that surface material is minced into the inside of the meat - so unless you cook it all the way through to that magic temperature, you're risking a nasty case of food poisoning. Hence, rare steak is OK but even medium-rare burgers are not...even if they are made from the exact same cut of meat. SteveBaker (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words. To eat supermarket-bought-minced-meat safely requires effective cooking. The basic Q asked just about the effectiveness of mouth-cooking – which I think we have answered. Buy really fresh meat from a reliable source, wash and and chop it oneself - no problem! --Aspro (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steak tartare, Carpaccio, sashimi, etc. While eating uncooked meat carries higher risk of food poisoning, it isn't the instant death sentence people make it out to be. People also get sick from food poisoning eating cooked meat, and spinach, and any of a number of other things. There's a non-zero risk of food poisoning eating any foodstuff, the consumer needs to decide for themselves how much risk is too much, when countered by the benefit they get from the enjoyment of their food. As Aspro has indicated, most food poisoning occurs because of mishandling of food prior to reaching the consumer. Properly handled meats shouldn't cause food poisoning significantly more than cooked meats should. It's a problem with quality control within the food distribution system, not with the consumption method itself. If you do have reason to doubt the source of your food, you should cook it to over 160 degrees to reduce the chance of food poisoning, but the way these things are often phrased seems to imply that instant death is the necessary result of consuming uncooked meats. --Jayron32 21:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could not have put it better myself. --Aspro (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, unless you slaughter your meat yourself, you do have reason to suspect that it's mishandled, as the many food poisoning cases each year from mishandling meat prove. So, that's a bit like saying "if you don't have any reason to suspect there's a bullet in the gun's chamber, you might as well hold it to your temple and pull the trigger". And, at least in my case, I don't want a bloody burger in any case, regardless of how safe it is (I'm use "bloody" to mean "dripping blood", not how it's sometimes used in UK English). StuRat (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meat should be hung long enough – to drain the blood- and let rigger mortice subside. Slaughterer houses have to abide by strict laws these days. Get fresh meat and wash it. This is not the place to give medical/hygiene advice, so I just give this in passing. One of my grandmothers had an enamelled bowl of water, with a little quick-lime and lye dissolved in it for washing meat in. Both very alkaline and sterilants. She now has loads and loads of great grandchildren – so maybe she knew what she was doing. She taught me not to place raw meat over cooked meat in the larder etc., (larders were what we used before fridges). These little old biddies knew all about cross- contamination without going on food-hygiene courses.--Aspro (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going to sleep with any kind of food in your mouth is dangerous - you could choke to death in your sleep, rendering any concerns about bacteria basically moot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I DON'T SEE THE POINT!~Tailsman67~ 74.178.177.48 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite certain you meant to say "rigger mortise", Aspro. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speak simple I'm "stupid".Who are you talking to?*<*

290°F if you want it crisp 74.178.177.48 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is μηδείς's off-beat way of saying the proper term is rigor mortis. That is unless you're a beaver keeping a nice joint for a late night snack. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is exactly why I see no point in closing troll threads on the miscellaneous reference desk.--WaltCip (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was my response indented under the person to whom it was a response, I addressed Aspro by name. Unless you are confused, IP 74, because your name is also Aspro? μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot clearer to reply directly under the person you're replying to; the confusion is hardly surprising! Warofdreams talk 11:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My addressing him by name is probably what threw him off. μηδείς (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]