Here we go again. I *have* seen the show in question and I am familiar with
the techniques in question. Dr. Art Aufderheide has performed similar tests
on desiccated humans from South America and gotten good results. HOWEVER,
despite the claims of the media, this is clearly a case of contamination.
Not counting the continuous exposure to smoke, there is the possibility that
the nicotine comes from pest control products. The "cocaine" could easily be
from a number of nineteenth or early twentieth century products ranging from
stimulants to stomachics. Moreover, the results cited have never undergone
peer review. Don't you love this sort of quality research?

John Dendy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lon Bulgrin [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 7:57 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Discovery Channel Claims
>
> OK, here's some weird stuff for the list.  On coming to work today (well
> OK, your tomorrow unless you're on the right side of the dateline such as
> my fellow "down under" co-conspirators) I was confronted by a number of
> folks in my office that wanted to know all about the Discovery Channel
> show
> that they had seen the night before that claimed that mummys around the
> world (i.e. Egypt, Africa, Asia, etc going back millenia before the
> Columbian Exchange) had been found to have detectable traces of tobacco
> and
> cocaine in preserved hair based on the work of a current forensic
> annalyst.
>  I have put forward my ideas on these compounds being the products of New
> World plants and faced the scorn for a non-media "expert" in competition
> with that fine source of all knowledge - the TV - that it was highly
> unlikely that tobacco or cocaine was being transported between the Old and
> the New World previous to at least the 16th century (and here I *thought*
> that I was being pretty conservative).  So, being the poor trusting
> b#$#%^d
> that I am, I am hoping for back up, or at least not too much scorn from
> other people on the list to try to back this up.  If not, I guess that we
> can postulate a "Columbian exchange" of a fairly modern meaning well
> before
> the 20th c. :)
>                 Lon