Anomalous numbers regarding clandestine drug labs in the US
Bryan Bishop
According to the following, there were 6,783 lab seizures in 2008.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/map_lab_seizures.html
But according to the National Clandestine Lab Registry, there were
only ~2300 seizures in 2008. Here's the National Clandestine Lab
Registry:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/seizures/
I looked over that map and the listings by `wc -l` and only found 2300
listed for 2008.
So, where's the missing 4483 labs? Any ideas on what's going on here?
Do I just suck at doing addition?
Daniel C.
There could be any number of problems, starting with wc -l - did you
check that there's definitely only one lab per line, or only one line
per lab?
Also, this is the government we're talking about - expecting one
department to be consistent from day to day is asking a lot.
Consistency between departments isn't going to happen this side of
Ragnarok.
-Dan C.
Bryan Bishop
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> Hm. Something isn't adding up.
>>
>> According to the following, there were 6,783 lab seizures in 2008.
>>
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/map_lab_seizures.html
>>
>> But according to the National Clandestine Lab Registry, there were
>> only ~2300 seizures in 2008. Here's the National Clandestine Lab
>> Registry:
>>
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/seizures/
>>
>> I looked over that map and the listings by `wc -l` and only found 2300
>> listed for 2008.
>>
>> So, where's the missing 4483 labs? Any ideas on what's going on here?
>> Do I just suck at doing addition?
>
> There could be any number of problems, starting with wc -l - did you
> check that there's definitely only one lab per line, or only one line
> per lab?
I ran wc after looking at the grep output. The first time I did it, I
got all sorts of addresses in the otuput. So, I corrected my grep
string and visually confirmed that I was getting the right data out.
It's not really "one lab per line" since the way that the HTML files
are formatted, there's a table of data, but each table column data
entry is on its own set of lines, so I don't get the address with my
grep. Of course, if I cared to, there's a way to do it, but I was just
doing a quick count to check on things.
> Also, this is the government we're talking about - expecting one
> department to be consistent from day to day is asking a lot.
> Consistency between departments isn't going to happen this side of
> Ragnarok.
But it's within the same department. How could this be?
Daniel C.
> But it's within the same department. How could this be?
How could the US government ever get anything wrong?!? HOW?
Bob Keyes
--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
My guess is that the CLR is at fault. I looked at the numbers for Massachusetts, and one very well publicized lab is not listed (The November 13 2005 discovery of the PIHKAL lab of Kevin McCormack in South Boston). The CLR lists no labs found in the city of Boston, which is so far beyond reasonable as to make me laugh. Given this, I doubt the 6783 number as well.
Daniel C.
> But it's within the same department. How could this be?
Now that I have time to make a more serious response - what's most
likely is that the way they're counting "labs" is different from one
report to the next. One may include locations where lab equipment was
found without actual drug production (maybe someone was transporting
it and just stopped at their friends house and got unlucky) and the
other may include only full-scale production with large amounts of
meth found on location. Things like that can make a huge difference
in the numbers they report.
-Dan C.
Jeff
conditions of use disclaimer:
"The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this web
site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations
where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other
items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug
laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is
not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and
does not guarantee its accuracy."
I imagine that the states provide the numbers and may optionally
provide addresses for the registry.
On Jul 15, 10:39 pm, "Daniel C." <dcrooks...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gene Hacker
Nathan McCorkle
And why are we looking at meth-factory statistics again?
Well I guess they are statistics pertaining to some type of DIY, more DIYchem though... :P
I actually have been having these visions "Meth to Miracles"... post craigslist ads looking to buy meth labs, then donate the equipment to elementary schools (after any needed decontam)... the meth supply diminishes, and kids get to start on science early, with equipment that you know they could actually do something with (guided of course towards the light side of the force)
Can you see the billboards now? Toothless Joe next to timid Timmy, both holding a 2 liter graduated cylinder in the center of the display!
--
Nathan McCorkle
Rochester Institute of Technology
College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics