Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 3 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
if an individual has been involved in the making of meth,and exposed to the chemical ingredients, but did not use or ingest any meth, will they test positive on any of the three ways to drug test?(urine,blood,hair)
Highly unlikely, but depending on the method and the setup such 'exposure' could be a very bad thing indeed with regards to health.
More on your question though, very few drugs absorb through the skin, so blood and urine showing positive is not going to happen.
Now some studies have been done that suggest hair tests can detect second-hand marijuana smoke. So it may be possible that a hair test could show a positive, but I still think it's highly unlikely. The methamphetamine would have to get into the air and onto the hair in high enough concentrations to be detectable. Most of it would be washed away with the first shower one took anyway.
That's a possibility Kailey. I was thinking that the studies were done in such a way to account for that, maybe in a controlled setting, but I'm not certain. Perhaps I can find the studies, I'll look around.