Meth or P related - it goes here, please.

[Lighthouse]

Those of you who have methamphetamine clauses in your tenancy agreements may find this case of interest. You will probably want to amend your clauses:4073669 reasons 7-17.

Would an improved version of this clause be acceptable to an adjudicator?

[Perry]

Certainly an interesting read - that determination.

[Bobsyouruncle]

Varies according to size of home obviously but it seems that 25 to 35K is about the cost of fixing them :-(.

[BigRedDog]

Thanks. Much appreciated

[carolvw]

Hi has anyone installed a Methminder? I have heard they can be 'tricked' by putting a plastic bag over them. Also, to be effective you'd need one in every room. Does anyone know of another device? Many thanks for your thoughts

[Wayne]

Hi has anyone installed a Methminder? I have heard they can be 'tricked' by putting a plastic bag over them. Also, to be effective you'd need one in every room. Does anyone know of another device? Many thanks for your thoughts

Also can detect cooking but not smoking - different chemicals emited.

[Nick G]

I briefly looked at meth detection as a business idea. What I learned was you can't detect both manufacture and use with the same gizmo - massively different amounts of chemicals and different chemicals mean different technology to detect. I recall reading some patents that a scanner sensitive enough to pick up use would be obliterated by the chemical output from manufacture, however that might have been just for the one particular technology I was studying.

You can trick detection, yes.

[mrsaneperson]

I briefly looked at meth detection as a business idea. What I learned was you can't detect both manufacture and use with the same gizmo - massively different amounts of chemicals and different chemicals mean different technology to detect. I recall reading some patents that a scanner sensitive enough to pick up use would be obliterated by the chemical output from manufacture, however that might have been just for the one particular technology I was studying.

You can trick detection, yes.

Maybe that explains the anomaly of Meth being detected in the drug Ritalin used to treat ADHD. As has been featured in a recent NZ murder trial case .

[Nick G]

I'm working on some educational material on this stuff to try and give folks a simple sequence to follow.... I've read a lot of the published standard and while the new acceptable level is reasonably clear the testing companies are still presenting initial results as "pass or fail".

They obviously know the numbers involved because otherwise how could they pass or fail a test? The "next step" is then to pay for more tests to get the information the testing company already has...

It seems the best option would have been to go to one acceptable type of test (discrete or "room by room") and only results that show found trace amounts would be considered. That we still have two types of screening tests (discrete and "composite") and neither share actual numbers after all this is disappointing.

We still have composite tests that total across all rooms and give a pass or fail if the total is over the acceptable amount for a single room, where if it fails you have to assume the traces were all in one room (they won't tell you) and get more expensive tests done. The cost of testing has come down so why is this still even a thing?

[Bob Kane]

Sounds like a rort being pulled by those testing companies.

[Nick G]

I'm trying to work it out. Talking to a testing company now. It seems there are different kits that do different tests at different costs. Ugh.

[Rosco]

I'm working on some educational material on this stuff to try and give folks a simple sequence to follow.... I've read a lot of the published standard and while the new acceptable level is reasonably clear the testing companies are still presenting initial results as "pass or fail".

They obviously know the numbers involved because otherwise how could they pass or fail a test? The "next step" is then to pay for more tests to get the information the testing company already has...

It seems the best option would have been to go to one acceptable type of test (discrete or "room by room") and only results that show found trace amounts would be considered. That we still have two types of screening tests (discrete and "composite") and neither share actual numbers after all this is disappointing.

We still have composite tests that total across all rooms and give a pass or fail if the total is over the acceptable amount for a single room, where if it fails you have to assume the traces were all in one room (they won't tell you) and get more expensive tests done. The cost of testing has come down so why is this still even a thing?

Hi Nick,

Did you know that Meth usage is actually less than it used to be? 2.7% in 2003 vs 1.1% in 2015/16! http://www.health.govt.nz/publicatio...-health-survey

So Meth was actually more of an issue 15 years ago than it is now.

We have a small testing company in Hamilton. From screening tests we have 6% that picked up positive for meth, and 94% that were clear! Testing was done following best practice at the time and training through industry leader. But main thing was that true testing was done and not testing light switches and other things that are bound to give a positive result.


Clear steps
1) check insurance
2) get a screening test done. This only gives a yes or no. Physcially takes under 10 minutes for the tester to do in the rental and should cost around $200. Generally one testing material for whole house, so can't be used again later if full test needed (but only low % would require full testing)
- Under new standard, tester must have obtained NZQA unit standard for sampling (not available yet)
3) As above a small percentage will show up Meth. The % result is meaningless, and really you are just finding is there Meth or not. If there is Meth, then do full test. Cost $1,000 to $2,000 generally. Would be separate tests for each area. This is a full test
- Under new standard, sampler is required to have accreditation to International standards ISO17020 or ISO17025 with reference to NZS8510 (not available yet)

If any area over 1.5 in full test, then have an issue and you would talk to your insurance company.

Ross

[Learning]

But main thing was that true testing was done and not testing light switches and other things that are bound to give a positive.

Are you implying that light switchs, etc, would give a false positive? They're a surface that constantly comes into contact with hands, that in turn come into contact with faces and food. If those surfaces are contaminated above recommended "safe" levels then owners need to be aware.

[Bobsyouruncle]

There is evidence that some cleaning products and a surprising amount of foods can cause a false positive. I suspect this is what Ross was alluding to.

"In 2010 Australian Customs arrested a woman at Melbourne Airport after a presumptive test gave a positive result for methamphetamine when used on 2.4kg of powder in her luggage. Subsequent laboratory analysis by Australian Federal Police showed that the powder was actually lemon flavoured iced tea and the presumptive test had given a false positive result. The woman was released and Customs was ordered to pay A$5,000 damages."

[Wayne]

There is evidence that some cleaning products and a surprising amount of foods can cause a false positive. I suspect this is what Ross was alluding to.

Or that the plastic on the switches and power points absorb a disproportionate amount of P and will give a false impression of the overall state of play.

If you have to clean up P replacing all the fittings is number 1.
Same happens with the corners of window sills - they don't get cleaned right into the corner.

Testing these sort of areas is a favourite trick of some testers to get a positive so they can get paid for the clean.