Talk:Contaminated currency

Worldwide
The article title is a generic term, so needs a global perspective. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  19:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or to be moved to a less generic title? – ukexpat (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or even better, find studies that show similar contamination of other currencies, and not just illicit drugs. For instance, I am almost positive that pound notes smell like fish ;). - Hexhand (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, either it be moved to a more specific title, or include data from other countries. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I welcome any addition of other instances of contamination of foreign currency. Clearly, the easiest step at this point would be to change the name to "Contaminated U.S. currency", but I think that if we do this, we miss out on the opportunity to elicit other instances. However, I am willing to concede the idea that if other instances occur, separate articles can be created and eventually merged if there is enough commonality. Thoughts? - Hexhand (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence rewording
I'm not sure that the sentence "AIDS cannot be spread via banknote, any more than SARS can" is proper. I am switching it to: "SARS cannot be spread via banknote, any more than AIDS can." I believe this is what is intended. At this point, I believe it is well known that AIDS would not be communicable through handling money, and so SARS (which people may not be too sure of) is then compared to AIDS. AndyHuston (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An excellent point, Andy. Thanks for bringing it up, and rearranging the text. :) - Hexhand (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevance?
I am unsure how the last sentence in this quote is relevant to the first: "...When 5,000 banknotes were tested in London in 2000, 99% of them had traces of cocaine on them. That tells us that there is potentially a massive problem in diagnosis and people's awareness of how easily hepatitis C can be contracted."[16] So, how exactly does the presence of cocaine on 99% of bank notes tell us anything about a problem with diagnosis of hepatitis C?  I understand what is trying to be said, however I think that it is poorly communicated. Since quotes can not be altered (else it would not be a quote), I would suggest deleting it, or at least the last part of it...Just a thought! 63.76.209.49 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Wolf
 * Would paraphrasing the quote be better? That way, we can deal with intent as well (or is that OR?) - Hexhand (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect picture
There is an electron microscopy picture of a grain of cocaine on a dollar bill. I doubt that its cocaine, because there is no labeling used to determine if its cocaine. The source of the picture is also a pretty weird website.Kroeliebuschie (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Eurozone
I am wondering if using the term Eurozone (substituted for Elsewhere in Europe here) might be inappropriate. It seems slightly derogatory. Thoughts? - Hexhand (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Category
As this is true, it shouldn't be listed as an Urban Legend, should it? Mr Larrington (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Cocaine bonds with the ink used
I've read that the cocaine molecule bonds to the specific type of ink used to print currency. Could someone with more knowledge of chemistry and the reagents involved in the creation of currency relate as to whether cocaine is so difficult to wash from paper money due to its adhesive chemical properties with the ink type used? This would be notable to the article at hand. (what group upon its molecule reacts to what part of the ink, etc) 216.227.116.61 (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The supporting evidence for "Five dollar bills have the most cocaine on them. This is because five dollar bills are the most printed bills in the U.S."
The conclusion in the second sentence is suspect, and if accurate really needs a supporting footnote because as it stands it seems to be counter-intuitive. Why would a greater prevalence of one type of bill have any effect upon the concentration of contaminants present on one such bill's surface? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.66.170 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Odd math
The article states:


 * The author reports the analysis of ten randomly collected one-dollar bills from five cities (...) Results demonstrated that "92% of the bills were positive for cocaine".

I looked up the referenced study, and it does say that in the abstract... so I'm wondering if anyone can explain this. Cheers --Sysys (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * maybe it was 9 out of 10 but one of them was just like, caked with cocaine and the author thought that should have a value of an extra 2%--Mapsfly (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Changes to be Considered
The wording of the second sentence seems grammatically incorrect, "In 1994, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that in Los Angeles, out of every four banknotes, on average more than three are tainted by cocaine or another illicit drug." Consider changing it to "In 1994, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that in Los Angeles, an average of three out of every four banknotes, are tainted by illicit drugs, such as cocaine." Also, the third photograph is not a reliable source. It claims to be a grain of cocaine inside a dollar bill, but with the source provided this is just an assumption, without any supporting evidence. Under the section Hepatitis-C Contamination, you have concluded " That tells us that there is potentially a massive problem in diagnosis and people's awareness of how easily hepatitis C can be contracted", try not to draw your own conclusions when writing an article, this claim is not scientifically proven. Lastly, under the section Elsewhere in the World, there is missing sources that are needed. — Summavibez (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Change naming
Would it be better to rename this entry as "Contaminated banknotes" rather than "contaminated currency"?

Source
CNN - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And another, from Scientific American. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)