Tale of three zero

A chemist, a flutor Sergey Belkov talks about vivid examples of meaningless absolute zeros in Russian legislation. He writes that the matter is not only that people who introduced these norms know neither mathematics, or biology, nor the foundations of other sciences, but also that the introduction of these zeros sometimes breaks human destinies.

Disclaimer: The author of the article does not receive any support from manufacturers of milk or antibiotics, drunken drivers and sellers of pastry poppy. He just wants to live in a country in which an honest person has nothing to fear.

Chapter 1. Zero number one. Pigging against

In the distant year, FZ-88 “Technical Regulations for milk and dairy products” came into effect. In that first of its editorial office, in the column “content of antibiotics”, the indicator “not allowed” was flaunted in the requirements for milk. This unique indicator was immediately imposed on the law all manufactured in Russia, and in the world, dairy products. So agriculture is arranged that there is no milk without antibiotics. No matter how you grow cows, they will hurt, including bacterial infections. No matter how they treat them, but you can’t do without antibiotics. No matter how you try, the meager residual amounts of antibiotics will still fall into the finished product. Modern analytical equipment will be able to find them. But if the ultimate goal is the safety of products, then this is not important. The main thing is that this amount is below a certain norm and could not have influences on human health. But the indicator is “not allowed” immediately placed priorities in places, setting the fact of the presence of antibiotics above safety.

Under the pressure of manufacturers, in a couple of years, specific numbers were introduced into the law with the “no more” postscript. Now, according to the law, there may be antibiotics in milk, but the established norms are on the verge of sensitivity of modern methods and are guaranteed to be safe for humans. It would seem that everything fell into place.

It only seemed. The appearance of the indicator “no more” in return “not allowed” was perceived by our people as the next mockery of the state over their health. Today, if you pass the milk for analysis to the laboratory, then in the analysis protocol they will write to you: “Tetracycline: less than 10 μg/l”. So he is there. So we are poisoned. We do not want to drink tetracycline milk!

Different interesting events take place on this basis. Recently, a group of young people of an interesting ideological orientation called “Khryusha against” dressed up in costumes of pink pigs and began to scare visitors to the store, and then the Internet. As an intimidation tool, a protocol of milk analysis was demonstrated in which it was written, a paradox that less than the limiting norms and milk was found safely. But found! The action was shown on TV, and the organizers themselves were completely delighted with their actions ( http://hrushi-protiv.livejournal.com/166770.html ). Support hysteria against antibiotics in milk and numerous self -proclaimed organizations for the protection of consumer rights.

I wonder why they didn’t try to hand over the same milk for cadmium or mercury? After all, there are also fewer permissible norms in it. Maybe because according to the cadmia and mercury, the state has never thought of indicating "not allowed."

Khryush is always against, and the consumer is on their side. Only who will protect honest manufacturers from such pigs? The abolition of stupid norms is not perceived by everyone as a correct action. And how many more such are “not allowed” in our laws?

Chapter 2. Zero number two. I drank - don't get behind the wheel

At an annual meeting with the people in the real live broadcast of almost all television channels, the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation asked the notorious “zero piss” in the blood of drivers. The answer, in my opinion, was evasive, incomprehensible and about nothing, like most answers at this meeting. One thing became clearly: the position of the head of state in this regard does not depend on anything except the principle: "I drank - do not get behind the wheel."

I have nothing against such a principle and with two hands “for”. You can’t drink behind the wheel. You can’t talk on the phone at the wheel, drive to the red light and you must definitely give way to pedestrians at the crossing. I am only against meaningless absolute zeros in the norms regulated by law.

The alcohol content, measured by the device, and the degree of intoxication is two big differences. The first is the figure, the indication of the device, the content of the substance, the natural metabolite and the component of many drugs, products prescribed without amendment to the instrument error, the measurement conditions and the possibility of “false works”

The second is the threat of people's life. Actually, you need to fight with the second.

When installing once again, “not allowed”, we do not solve the problem of drunkenness at the wheel and do not make movement on the road safe. Moreover, in full accordance with the Bayes theorem, we worsen the situation and make it difficult for life to be the most common, law -abiding and therefore the most not protected citizens before the law. That in conjunction with a traditionally developed corruption component can be a much greater problem.

Having discarded the emotions and psychological speculations about whether the “zero” norm made our roads safer, whether people began to drink or be more afraid of less, I’ll try to explain what I mean with the help of a dry model. I’ll just figure out, as theoretically, the abolition of the “absolute zero” on the statistics of the real detentions of the “drunk” at the wheel may be reflected. During the calculations, we will be interested in two parameters:

- the likelihood that a person recognized as “drunk” according to the results of the test is actually not such;

- The share of the real “drunk”, which the test will not notice and let go further to wheel.

The figures for calculations are taken from the head, and the situation is greatly simplified. No one prevents the reader from changing the initial data, probabilities and getting other results. Try, play with numbers, it's not difficult. The trend and conclusion will remain unchanged.

The first case.

Zero tolerance, i.e. Those very existing "zero ppm". Suppose 1% of all drivers drank before the trip, and we stop the cars at random in the form of an employee of the traffic police and force people to breathe in a tube. Suppose, it is very simplified that the accuracy of the device is 95%. It means that in 5% of cases the device will show a “drunk” where it is not, and in 5% of cases it will not show where it is. We get the following probability distribution.

Among the “positive”, which really used, it will be only 0.0095/(0.0495+0.0095) = 16%. 84% did not drink at all, but detained. 5% of these “drunk” are recognized as “sober”. To obtain this figure, the number of “drunk” with negative tests of the test (0.0005) must be divided into the total number of “drunk” (0.0005+0.0095).

The second case.

We take a good device that has only 1%error. This is a very accurate device, I even doubt that such exist. We leave the rest of the numbers unchanged.

We think, as before. The likelihood that we were mistaken and accused of liberation of a law -abiding citizen is 50%. This is a lot. The probability that we let go of the real “drunk” is 1%. The device has become more precise, and the results are generally better. But 50% of the innocent will go to the examination and will prove that they are not camels. Or they won’t go. They will pay "on the spot."

The third case.

We change the initial installation and start not from zero, but from some permitted maximum level. It is important that this level should be more or at least compare with the error of the device. At the same time, he should be small and guarantee that a person is able to drive a vehicle. In most countries, but not with us, the state was able to determine such a level.

What does this mean within our model? That the accuracy of our device has become much greater. Now it will not be mistaken in 5%, not 1%, but, say, in 0.1%of cases. We count according to the same scheme.

Now we have among the past tests with a “positive” assessment of as many as 91% of “drunk” against 16% in the source model. The probability of not identifying a real “drunk” decreased to 0.1 % against the source 5 %. Which of these cases is more profitable for society, and which for those involved in the collection of fines? Decide for yourself.

The notorious "zero ppm" create problems only for those who did not drink at all. And a little easier life to those who should have difficulty. Moreover, the capable of driving drunk will sit down. And do not give a damn about any “pry”, especially when there is a correct certificate. And today there are a lot of correct certificates that exempting from the need to comply with the law. They also have all those involved in the collection of fines.

Chapter 3. Zero number three. All to fight drug mafia

Let us leave them, imagining themselves with pink pigs. They express their protest as they can. They may sincerely want to make useful, struggling with non -existent enemies and feeding their ideology from strange sources. We will leave alone the regulator with its zero tolerance for ethyl alcohol in the blood of our person. Just think, the unlucky motorist for examination will go once again. Even the unjust deprivation of rights and a fine, albeit offensive phenomena, do not destroy life.

The most wrong thing is when an attempt to achieve absolute zero breaks fate. The most harmful when not even people, but the positions with certificates, who are guarding us from dangerous enemies, turn the impossibility of achieving “absolute zero” into the need to publicly demonstrate their courage and fundamental.

We are talking about the employees of the FSKN and some other important people of modern Russia, the goal and official duty of which was to get rid of us from numerous threats from narcotic substances. Success is amazing. Drugs are confiscated every year more and more, the number of drug addicts in the country is growing, as financing of the department and the fundamental nature of workers are growing after this.

For 10 years, according to the head of the FSKN, 3 million people were held accountable ( www.rg.ru/2013/04/26/fskn-anons.html ). 2% of the country's population. 5 times more than registered drug consumers, 6.5 times - than drug addicts with a diagnosis ( http://fskn.gov.ru/pages/main/prevent/3939/4052/ ). An amazing indicator. How many of these people are punished “just like that” is unknown even approximately. But it is known how statistics are created for the confiscation of narcotic substances and how many of these substances are really narcotic. But I will not be about this, I will only direct to the article “Tales of the Aunt FSKN” in “MK” ( www.mk.ru/social/article/2012/11/18/775658-skazki-tetushki-fskn.html ).

One of the "chips" of the fighters for the purity of souls and veins is the habit of finding a poppy straw in a poppy. According to the rule “not allowed”, no matter how much it is contained. It is important that it is and this may be interpreted as a crime. The Criminal Code is harsh against such offenses. So they catch valiant law enforcement officers either entrepreneurs or sellers of buns. They are not shy about starting criminal cases on experts who dare to express their opinion on the absurdity of such a situation.

The story of Olga Zelenina is very indicative in this regard ( http://trv-science.ru/2012/09/11/makovojj-solomki-podstelit/ ), against which several criminal cases have been instructed to express a professional opinion. For the fact that he still dares to express it.

Perhaps someone will suspect me of cunning or even in relations with the criminal world of poppy dealers. This someone will be not far from the truth. We are all connected in one way or another.

Having worked ten years in the food industry, I heard many amazing stories. I will tell about the very fresh. The owner of a large company simply stopped releasing one of his products. Not very profitable, but important for maintaining the assortment. Because the composition included confectionery poppy. And two dozen kilograms per month were purchased. And all the documents were in order. This did not prevent wrestlers with evil from entering the enterprise, call for interrogations of employees, hint at the consequences. Without any Bayes theorems and probabilities, it was clear how it would end.

Just as the Khryusha found antibiotics in milk, the FSKN will find a poppy straw in a confectionery poppy. She is there, during the processing she hit, and it is not necessary. In a very extreme case, they will help to find it. That's why the examinations conducted by the employees of the Federal Drug Control Service were invented. The courts always recognize these examinations without recognizing conclusions from scientific organizations.

And the evil selfish intention will also be discovered immediately. And the case will start.

The problem is that the methodology for determining alkaloids in a poppy in GOST is not recorded. So they measure as they want. I was given these "examinations". Bad, and in some places funny. Funny, perhaps, was Olga Zelenina, until she once came with the machine guns. The purpose of such examinations is not to even determine the quantity, but to somehow fix the fact in any way. Неважно, что выделить хотя бы одну дозу реального вещества при таких показателях невозможно и попросту экономически не выгодно ( http://trv-science.ru/2012/10/23/v-strane-nevyuchennykh-urokov-s-kadrami-iz-novojj-versii-multika ). The law is the law.

We move out from Europe with seven -mini steps, where in most countries they do not measure the content of alkaloids in food poppy and do not even have restrictions ( http://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/pub/2405.htm ). We are moving towards Saudi Arabia and the UAE, where any poppy, including confectionery, is equated with drugs. Where you can sit down for several seeds of poppy seeds ( www.fartritrials.net/press/press-releases/list-of-controlled-pharmaceutical-substances-in-uae ). The oil power probably wants to live according to oil laws, taking an example from other oil powers. It is not clear why you can’t take something good for a model of behavior. But it is clear that, removing from the beautiful statistics of the seizure of narcotic substances all those tons of confectionery poppy, this beauty can be very seriously ruined.

In the news, Viktor Ivanov, the head of the FSKN, was again shown. He complains of difficulty. He says that dealers are becoming more cunning. New narcotic substances appear faster than the state manages to bring them into prohibitive lists. In such a situation, it is very difficult to fight evil. It makes sense to transfer the powers to declare a drug of narcotic directly to the department. So that they themselves can decide.

Suddenly I felt really scared.

This is a nonsense that the problem of poppy straws in poppy concerns only suppliers and sellers of poppy and even monstrously launched the fate of Olga Zelenina (the problems of which are still continuing: without evidence of her involvement in smuggling, the FSKN initiated her removal. However, the Zyuzinsky court and later the Mosgorsud refused to satisfy the petitions elements of crime) and many others. The problem once can affect anyone. The confectionery poppy will end. He is already ending, they are simply afraid to work with him. Sellers and experts will end at large. And you need to confiscate something. And attract at least 300,000 people a year so as not to spoil the same statistics.

And then a narcotic substance can become a flower on your windowsill. Or grass in the country. Or mushrooms in the forest. Or gasoline in a gas tank. Or opioids, endocannabinoids and dopamine in your own blood. They will find it. And it will not work to get out. The examination will record the facts, and the judge will make a decision. Maybe it sounds not serious. But ask yourself how seriously the prospect of sitting on a bun with poppy seeds sounds? And for a letter in which a scientific opinion is expressed?

And the MAK solution lies on the surface. It is only necessary to set the maximum permissible content and prescribe the analysis methodology. Will it become easier for drug dealers to get away from responsibility? I think not. But the number of convicts “just like that”, at least because of the poppy, will decrease significantly (see calculations regarding the “zero ppm”). Is this not the purpose of the law enforcement system - to punish the perpetrators, while making a minimum of errors?

This can be done. We solved the problem with "antibiotics in milk." True, there was the pressure of a large dairy business, and who will listen to the words of the poppy "drug dealers"? One simple figure, very slightly above zero, in one single law, could once and for all deprive some “fighters with crime” of the possibilities of fraud and would direct their gaze to where they are really needed. Where they should be. To fight drug trafficking, not to combat convenient purposes. And the fact that the next disguised “pigs” will somehow survive to the fight against poppy seeds after that, we will somehow survive.

What to take from them? Piggy, they are always against.

PS News all arrive. It is reported that Grant Akopyan, the former head of the FSKN, was detained. For selling drugs. Real. I wonder if he will be innocent? And what will the examination say in this case?

Another employee, Colonel of FSKN Vladimir Levikov, was detained in Yakutia for drunk driving. During the detention, he tried to throw drugs to the traffic police. It’s not even interesting where he took these drugs, it is clear that at work. And how the notorious norm in the “zero piss” prevented him from driving! Well, and, of course, whether he will have time to return to the performance of his official duties to the release of this article in a seal.