The researcher (whose name I have forgotten) basicly said x% (a high percentage I have forgotten) had traces of cocaine on it. His point was simply that the chemical properties of cocaine left traces on paper currency for a long time. I remember that some Chicago prosecutor was thinking of using cocaine traces on bills as evidence in a trial. Well, the pharmacologist was just trying to point out that this sort of evidence would be meaningless. The media got a hold of the story and turned it into some story about the "real prevalence" of cocaine use (it's got to be everywhere because it is on your money!).
This germ thing with money is just typical irresponsible scientific reporting (original press release: http://www.eurekalert.com/releases/asm-ttr051701.html ). It is frightfully small study (68 bills!!!) from one Ohio town. The bills did not have terribly harmful bacteria on them. Worse is the fact there is no evidence that bacteria on the bills is transmitted through normal transactions (ok if you have an open wound you probably should not rub all your money around on it). It just one more factlet to muddle erraticians and send a phobics over the edge.
Peace,
Jim
At 03:28 PM 5/23/01, you wrote:
> Must read the book, "Life Against Death, " chapter on money as shit,
>specifically. Christopher Rhoades Dykema, summary plz?
> And was it here sometime someone cited what % of $100 bills have cocaine
>residue?
>Michael Pugliese
If you live? We will eat you... If you die? We will eat you... It really makes very little difference to us.
--Bacteria