Quote from Dr Nick Kim, August 20th, 2018:
“I am quite limited in terms of how much time I can devote to enquiries about meth, because of teaching and lab running commitments – and don’t actually carry out research on it. I was drawn into the discussion from 2016 around the likelihood of there being health risks from low-level third hand traces of meth on surfaces.”
Make important decisions based upon EXPERT ADVICE, not GUESSWORK
and inexperienced scientists
From Collen Brisnehan
Environmental Protection Specialist
Regarding the COLORADO REPORT
In Colorado, we have regulations that require decontamination of methamphetamine impacted properties regardless of the source. Therefore, we treat meth from smoking in the same manner as meth from manufacturing.
In my opinion, there is no basis for treating meth contamination differently based on source. The exposure model we used to set our meth standard (0.5 ug/100 cm2) was based on exposure to meth only. Other chemicals that might be used in the manufacturing process were not taken into account; they are addressed separately, if present (we have standards for lead, mercury and iodine). Our standard for meth is based on a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) using the exposure model developed by our toxicologist in consultation with a toxicologist from the US EPA. The State of California used a similar exposure model to establish their standard of 1.5 ug/100 cm2. Again, their standard is based on exposure to meth only. Unless there have been advances in the understanding of the effects of meth or routes of
there have been advances in the understanding of the effects of meth or routes of exposure, I don't see how a higher standard could be justified.
Links to our statute and regulation can be found at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/methlabregs