Did wastewater drug monitoring for a while, and the annoying bit was fentanyl metabolites sitting near the detection limit, so absence isn't proof.

▲

vintermann 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From what I understand this uses overdose numbers. They should also not be assumed to be comparable across countries (recording practices vary widely), but if they tell the same story as wastewater monitoring there may be something to it.

▲

tantalor 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If it's below the noise floor, then you didn't really detect it, did you.

	▲	bluGill 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Statistics can detect a lot of things below the noise floor given enough samples. However there are a lot of questions when it attempts this.

▲

dmos62 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Was that because there wasn't much fentanyl use or because fentanyl metabolites are somehow harder to detect?

	▲	vintermann 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I assume drugs that are potent in tiny quantities leave less metabolites.

▲

artisinal 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does wastewater drug monitoring account / offset for constipation caused by drug use?

There isn't anything to measure if the poop is unable to leave the end-user.

▲

rithdmc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I believe it's urine based.

Either way, the constipation would affect different users at different times, so I don't think it would matter to the data. In other words, your idea stinks ;)

	▲	artisinal 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well if the user dies of constipation the poop never enters the sewer :)

▲

astura 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Drugs are detected in urine, not feces.