PBT'S: Reliability? (part 1)

During my research on SCRAM I stumbled on some things like,RULE 702 Admitting Scientific Evidence,Bill of Rights and laws surrounding DUI.My first find was on the devices used to record Breath Alcohol Content (BrAC).Now aware that TAC is not directly related to Blood Alcohol Content (BAC),I have found that BrAC is not 100% either.(click image on the left and read the warranty)
A major problem with some machines is that they not only identify the ethyl alcohol (or ethanol) found in alcohol beverages, but also other substances similar in molecular structure. Those machines identify any compound containing the methyl group structure. Over one hundred compounds can be found in the human breath at any one time and 70 to 80 percent of them contain methyl group structure and will be incorrectly detected as ethyl alcohol. Important is the fact that the more different ethyl group substances the machine detects, the higher will be the false BAC estimate. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has found that dieters and diabetics can have acetone levels hundreds and even thousand of times higher than that in others. Acetone is one of the many substances that can be falsely identified as ethyl alcohol by some breath machines.Another investigation found that alcohol-free subjects produced BrAC readings of .05 after consuming some bread products.Substances in the environment can produce false positives as well.An alcohol-free subject was asked to apply a pint of contact cement to a piece of plywood then apply a gallon of oil based paint to a wall.The process took approximately one hour,twenty minutes later the subject was tested with an Intoxilyzer which registered a BrAC of .12,well over the .08 limit in most states. There are a number of other products found in the environment can cause erroneous BrAC results.Including but not limited to: lacquers, paint removers, celluloid, gasoline, and cleaning fluids.Other common things that can cause false BrAC levels are blood or vomit in the subject's mouth, electrical interference from cell phones and police radios, tobacco smoke, dirt, and moisture. Temperature plays a roll as well,breath testers will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures,and the tempature of the subject is another issue,for each one degree of body temperature above normal will cause a substantial elevation (about 8%) in apparent BrAC.Some devices assume one to have a cell volume of blood (hematocrit) of 47%.This varies 42 to 52% in men and 37 to 47% in women.A person with a lower hematocrit will register a falsely high BrAC. Research indicates that breath tests vary at least 15% from actual blood alcohol concentration. At least 23% (that's about one out of every four) of all individuals tested will have a BAC reading higher than their actual BAC.
Result:Breathalyzers may be inaccurate and often lead to unjust fines, imprisonment, loss of employment, and other serious problems.
You can learn more at:
www.duiblog.com

reference:
Breath Analyzer Accuracy
by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html

HOME

PBT'S: Reliability? (part 2)

As discussed in part 1 breath analysis machines are non-specific.Intoxilyzers,Ignition Interlocks,and SCRAM are all subject to outside influences.The actual machines multiply the amount of alcohol in a subjects breath 2100 times to calculate a BAC.This is under the assumption that a person has 2100 units of alcohol in his/her blood for every unit of alcohol in his/her breath.This is referred to as the partition ratio.This ratio of 2100:1 is not always exact in fact,a ratio can vary from as low as 900:1 to 3500:1.Patition ratio's can vary through out the day as well,your ratio at this moment will probably not be the same in 12 hours.MADD and prosecutor's became uneasy that the scientific reliability of such devices was scrutinized and juries returned with "not guilty" verdicts.The laws then became "Percent,by weight of alcohol in a persons breath based on grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath".Basically,the law was not concerned with facts or actual amount of alcohol in the blood,it then became legally (not scientifically) assumed to be 2100 times what was in your breath.Defense attorneys are now prohibited from mentioning anything about partition ratios in court,obfuscating facts from juries that only blood can tell.
Electromagnetic interference (EMI) can also pose a problem,also known as radio-frequency interference (RFI).Police stations,cars and the officers themselves have radio-transmitters,walkie-talkies,cell phones,and computer cathode ray tubes that can cause EMI.Breathylizers are composed of sensitive circuitry that has to compute tiny amounts of alcohol in breath to an accuracy of one tenth a percent.This may sound as if I am going over the edge so I located this report to varify my concerns(*NOTE-EBT stands for Evidential Breath Tests):
"The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department reported to NHTSA that EBTs were found to display erroneous BAC [blood-alcohol content] readings in the presence of electromagnetic fields from radio transmission....Representatives of NHTSA and NBS were given a demonstration by police officers who routinely conduct breath testing using an EBT in a mobile van. One police officer operated his handheld radio within 1 foot of the EBT and demonstrated that the electromagnetic field could severely affect the analysis of alcohol samples." The National Bureau of Standards subsequently conducted the testing and subsequently reported that "These results show that EMI is a potential problem with many of the EBT units currently in use....The states may have to take interim measures to determine the extent of their individual problems with EMI affecting EBTs."The government attempted to bury the report but was later ressurected by a Minneapolis DUI firm's"Freedom of Information Act"lawsuit. These machines also discriminate:Researchers at the University School of Medicine in Trieste, Italy, found that the stomach lining contains an enzyme called gastric alcohol dehydrogenase that breaks down alcohol, and that women have less than men. To determine the relative effects of the enzyme, they gave alcohol both orally and intravenously to groups of alcoholic and non-alcoholic men and women. They found that women reached the same levels of blood alcohol as men after drinking only half as much; with weight differences taken into account, they found that women reached BAC levels illegal in a DUI case after drinking 20 to 30 percent less alcohol than men. Breathing patterns can also alter the results.Holding your breath for 30 seconds before exhaling can produce readings 15.7% higher,and hyperventilating for 20 seconds before the test can decrease it by over 10%.One study found a 14% decrease after running up and down stairs and 25% decrease after doing it twice,and any physical activity can decrease readings up to 15%.Aware of this,many police officers tell the arrestee to blow into the machine’s mouthpiece, they’ll yell at him, "Keep breathing! Breathe harder! Harder!" As Professor Hlastala has found, this ensures that the breath captured by the machine will be from the bottom of the lungs, near the alveolar sacs, which will be richest in alcohol. With the higher alcohol concentration, the machine will give a higher, but inaccurate reading. Now you can see the reason I put this study in parts,the many ways these devices prove to be less than reliable.I will end this part with one more concern........EQUILIBRIUM.It takes the human body approximately one hour to absorb alcohol,this is refered to by toxicologists as "absorptive stage analysis".Food in the stomach can retard this for as many as four hours,during this period alcohol is passed from the stomach and intestines into the blood but has not reached the stage of equilibrium.Alcohol at this time is being passed into the arteries,so the arterial BAC will be much higher than the venuous BAC.What does this have to do with breath?Arterial blood bathes the alveolar sacs of the lungs,where the alcohol diffuses into the lung air.A PBT will produce increased readings up to twice as high the actual BAC less than an hour after the last drink.Results,a person has a BAC of .05 and driving home,can be arrested an charged with an EBT of .10. MADD's intent to relieve our roads of drunk driving has become more of a neo-prohibition movement prosecuting people without reliable evidence,obfuscating the facts of,re-writing the Bill of Rights,and producing over zealous law enforcement officers.


HOME

INTERLOCK: The Risks

Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) are another example of a non-specific alcohol detector used in the fight against drunk driving.Interlocks are used in most states and stop a vehicle from starting if the user's breath registers a certain amount of alcohol or disable if already started,but again are subject to consequential fallibilities.Although a much more fitting punishment,the crime being that of driving,there are groups that want them to be standard issue on all vehicles.
Just like the breath test machines,IID's are vulnerable to certain bread products,usually containing yeast,and have been known to disable vehicles of users trying to leave gas stations.Don't clean your windows,or spill a cleaner in the vehicle.Smoking has been known to register as well.Unlike AMS the proprietor of SCRAM,proprietors of IID address these issues and a phone call could eliminate senseless,costly litigations, but they can still cause an inconvienence.While driving the user is warned and may have to blow in the machine again,if alcohol is detected the vehicle's horn will blow repeatedly and the lights flash on and off,to draw attention.
Skeptics are saying that there are two possible safety issues here.First,the horn blowing and lights flashing (which does not mean the user consumed while driving) may startle drivers surrounding the user.Second, the user had to find the device,get a deep breath,blow hard enough to register and repeat which may cause a driver to become dizzy after all the distractions he/she have already endured.The reason behind the second or repeated tests is in it's infancy,people were using air compressors and driving around,some devices require a user to hum as well.
SANTA FE, N.M., March 21 /PRNewswire/ -- Despite an attempt to back away from its own findings, the California Department of Motor Vehicles' (CA DMV) new report specifically states that ignition interlock devices (IID) are an ineffective tool for first-time DUI offenders, reporting "there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders" and concluding that "the use of the devices should not be emphasized".The report also found that IIDs increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%. Controversy has surrounded the California DMV report, starting with a March 15th press release by the American Beverage Institute (ABI), which highlighted the report's findings about the ineffectiveness of IIDs for first- time DUI offenders to both the New Mexico legislature and its governor. Well known anti-alcohol lobbyists and the California DMV responded in subsequent days, highlighting other findings on IIDs in the report, which were irrelevant to New Mexico's proposed law. They did, however, readily admit to the ineffectiveness of IIDs among first-time offenders -- the very subjects of recently passed legislation in New Mexico. In fact, the California DMV report's lead author David DeYoung stated the following in a March 21st press release: "It's true that we found court orders to install an ignition interlock device have no significant effect in preventing repeat DUIs among first-time DUI offenders." "Clearly the California DMV doesn't like to have their own scientific conclusions repeated back to them when it doesn't suit their agenda," said ABI executive director John Doyle. "Through creative cherry-picking, they are attempting to bury the findings that highlight the unintended consequences of mandating ignition interlocks for first offenders. "But the facts remain -- New Mexico is poised to enact this legislation even though the California DMV found 'there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders,' and that these devices will likely increase threats to highway safety. We invite the Governor and the public to review the DMV report themselves as these facts couldn't be any clearer."
DeYoung attempted to cover the report with,"In quoting our finding that DUI second offenders using the device have a 130% higher risk of a subsequent crash, ABI seems to imply that the device itself somehow increases the likelihood of a crash. That is not what we said.....Notice he never denies the fact that there is in fact an 130% higher risk of an accident.Another attempt to cover he says,"it is not that installation and use of interlocks causes crashes or that the devices themselves are unsafe,".Obviously if someone who has previously been forbidden to drive is allowed to return legally to the roadways with an ignition interlock and a restricted driver license, their exposure to accidents increases, no matter how sober they are."......how is that statement any different than saying no matter how sober the driver, an interlock device will increase the driver's chance of being involved in an accident?DeYoung added: "It's true that our study showed that court orders to first offenders to install an ignition interlock device are not effective in reducing recidivism among that group -- perhaps because many first offenders tend to be in denial, resent the devices and refuse to install them."
The next IID post is an example of a sober driver that may just resent the device!

SANTA FE, N.M., March 15 /PRNewswire/ -- New Mexico legislators interested in safer roads should think twice before requiring ignition interlock devices for those convicted of drunk driving, according to the American Beverage Institute (ABI). Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%.
http://www.ridl.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=967

HOME

INTERLOCK: Some Call Them Dangerous

Excerpts from:Oliver Prichard's-Sobriety devices drawing criticism

Jason Reall was heading down a rural Montgomery County road when he passed out and his car veered across the median, slamming into a tree. The 29-year-old Telford mechanic hadn't had a drop of alcohol. Instead, he crashed while blowing strenuously into an ignition interlock, a dashboard breath test that has become a widely used tool in America's DUI crackdown. With an interlock, a series of sober breath samples is needed not only to start a car but to continue operating it. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia require the sensors for those convicted of drunken driving, primarily repeat offenders. At least 50,000 drivers are supposed to be using them.The proliferation of interlocks, however, also has given rise to complaints, and litigation, over their safety. Reall is suing the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and LifeSafer Interlock Inc., of Cincinnati, one of seven interlock manufacturers. He contends that the device creates a hazardous driving distraction, and some experts agree.
"I wouldn't want to be driving down the road and have someone coming the other way trying to blow into a tube," said Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety in Washington, a consumer group founded by Ralph Nader. "There are some real safety issues with regard to distraction that need to be looked at, to see if the benefits outweigh the potential risks." Interlocks are also being criticized for the forceful blowing - sometimes accompanied by humming - that they require. After a drunken-driving arrest last year, 79-year-old Georgia Alexander of Melbourne, Fla., was ordered to get an interlock. She drove 70 miles to have one installed, only to find herself stranded at the service center when she could not muster enough breath volume to start the car. Her lawyer wants the interlock order waived on the grounds that it violates her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. "They ask too much with this," Alexander said. "It's very impossible." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which helped develop the technical specifications for interlocks in the early 1990s, is aware that some drivers lack the necessary lung capacity, according to agency researcher Jim Frank.The driver must give a four- to six-second breath sample through a mouthpiece attached by wires to the unit.
Criticism of the device, however, usually centers on the "rolling retest." Within 10 minutes of the engine's turning over, a tone alerts the driver that he has four to six minutes to deliver another passing sample - otherwise, the car's horn will start honking and the lights will flash. The device demands subsequent retests at random. After police discovered that drunken drivers were using air compressors to fool the interlocks, some manufacturers retooled them to require simultaneous blowing and humming, or set sequences of long and short blows. Complicating the process, users are advised to sip water right before giving a breath sample.
Reall, a heavy smoker since age 12, says in his lawsuit in Montgomery County Court that he passed out after repeatedly huffing and humming into a sensor that rarely worked. "You had to hum while you're blowing into this thing as hard as you can, and of course you had to do it again and again and again," he said in a recent interview. "It was a piece of junk, like something you would buy off the toy rack at Wal-Mart."Reall's left hand was nearly severed in the crash, and he needs hip-replacement surgery. He has not been able to work, according to his lawyer, Matthew Wilkov, of Lansdale. "The ironic thing is that cell phones are considered a hazard while driving," Wilkov said, "but nobody's got a problem with this thing."Neither LifeSafer Interlock nor the company's lawyer responded to requests for comment. However, most interlock manufacturers point out that drivers have a window of several minutes to pull to the side of the road if they feel unsafe using the devices in traffic.

HOME

SCRAM: Health Concerns

An article reads , " Several defense attorneys for SCRAM wearers in Milwaukee said they didn't know enough about the device to comment on it. Tanz, whose client was taken off SCRAM because of system difficulties - among other things."I am wondering if this is another victim of the abrasions and infections caused by the bracelet,they seem reluctant to specify.Already subject to outside influences,this is another fallibility,for if the tether is loose obstructions can occur while the wearer is unaware and even during dormancy. This means that the bracelet needs to be fitted as tight as possible,to protect a person from false allegations.SCRAM units are usually used in cases involving alcohol,most commonly drunk driving charges,which means that most wearers do not have liscenses.Walking an average of 40 miles a week(to meetings,work,etc...),I began to develop abrasions that eventually became one infected wound,the wound took five weeks to heal leaving me with a permanent scar and damage to the underlying nerves.They switched legs and loosened the apparatus and I received a "confirmed obstruction" charge within 2 months.At my last two "standard equipment check" I had to insist the bracelet be tight.Again I developed the abrasions,and at my last equipment check the person fitting the bracelet didn't wear protective gloves,I didn't think about it until later but doesn't that jeopordize both of us,or the next offender with open wounds?I began research to help me avoid these again by identifying and treating if possible without violating probation and have found that there are trancommunicable infections as well as diseases that could transfer in this manner.In another post a wearer says," The devices are not monitored for cleanliness. While my "sentence was being imposed" on me the agency personnel laughed and joked about using a device they had just taken off another defendant."Truth is they do not monitor nor do they recommend the cleaning of the devices.I thought I was the only one at risk when I was approached by another wearer who is experiencing the same complications,and as severe.While conversing we began to wonder who wore the bracelet before us,how was it cleaned,what is the time between removal and reuse?This was the first time I was ever subject to an infection,my third bracelet didn't cause one,so was this the result of a tainted bracelet?I would think that trapping dorment bacteria between skin and the bracelet would provide an excellent breeding ground,body heat,air,moisture from bodily secretion and toxins etc...The bracelet is similar to a cast,itching and rashes I imagine are the most common complaints but any tear in the skin,even from scratching,could be vulnerable.A wearer is limited to prevenative or immediate treatment due to the nature of the device.I am also aware of one wearer that had an emergency room visit due to infections.To date,I have found 6 people that have or are wearing SCRAM bracelets and of them 4 have the abrasions and 2 didn't.It seems (so far 100%)that smaller people are more vulnerable than a larger person.On my final visit to H.A.S.,it was the topic of discussion among the offenders and the staff,which leads me to believe they are common and are not considered an issue,until someone gets really sick or a wearer successfully fights for their right to bodily integrity.

The system isn't universally well-regarded. University of Washington physiologist Michael Hlastala, who has testified as an expert in two SCRAM-related cases, said he doesn't believe enough is known about the way alcohol diffuses into perspiration to make such devices immune from false positive readings and other errors."It's not well enough understood, those mechanisms, to really consider this to be an accurate device," Hlastala said.

"With the benefit of 21st century technology this is the best design they could come up with,an 8 ounce pair of head phones strapped to my leg." Mr.Vega

"One thing was certain, some really smart guy's making a lot of money out of it,"Milwaukee attorney Tanz said.

HOME