SCRAM: AMS Researches Again?
It appears that AMS has recently engaged in further research of their SCRAM system. I recently found a publishing with researchers that I have not seen before, it appeared to be published JAN. 2006 but all I can find is the abstract, which is not stamped. If this is a recent study, shouldn't this have been completed before they launched the device on the public? Again the research is more on TAC/BrAC correlations, and the conclusion:
"Within the limits of the laboratory study, the device consistently detected consumption of approximately 2 standard drinks. On average, the device shows discriminative validity as a semiquantitative measure of alcohol consumption but individual readings often are not equivalent to simultaneous BrACs."
Thus adding to knowledge already aquired, and since the conditions of most alcohol related probations is abstinence, any alcohol detected should warrant probable cause, regardless actual BrAC. Probable cause meaning a police dispatch, or immediate notification so any false positive can proven without costing the public money, and the guilty proven so. There is no question the device can detect consumption, working with the exterior influences is where the focus needs to be. RFI has yet to be a focus but seems to be a possible cause for at least two published stories of erroneous readings, and my theory for using the device would remedy false-negatives as well, which was reported by PIRE in an earlier post. It appears there are studies being done on the Giner TAC sensor as well, which sounds to me to be at an even greater risk for false-positives. The menu of substances that contain any type of alcohol and we use in our everyday lives is vast, including gasoline, windex, laundry soaps just to name a few and since our hands are what we use the products with, it seems the risk factor is amplified accordingly. I have found research on this device which is similar to that of SCRAM but have found no reports of false positives to date.
AMS's earlier research states,"Further analysis of the TAC graph uncovers that the client’s TAC reading level is still above .02% the morning after the event. Call the client in for a Breathalyzer test as secondary proof of a drinking event once AMS has delivered a final analysis." which is what I have been saying all along but the preceding paragraph states,"Before the client is contacted, AMS must perform a final analysis so the results can be defended in court, if necessary." What about the clients right to defend in court, or should I say offend since they carry the burden? Sounds like a delay to obfuscate facts and protect thier multi-million dollar investment because we already know how fast a .02 will metabolize. This is why for-profit companies should not be able to sell products (especially in thier infancy) to the legal or medical community that may jeopordize a clients well being. These factors met in Daubert vs. Merill Dow and had a serious impact on Rule 702 (admitting scientific evidence) but the questions of reliability for what is now called Daubert Science or Junk Science is still scrutinized by a human, the Judge.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00004.x
EXCERT FROM THE WHITE PAPER
During this period, at 12:17 PM, the bracelet recorded a 0.006% TAC reading.
This low-level reading occurred because the test subject worked in an area where alcohol
was used to clean circuitry components. Except for this anomaly, the TAC reading during the
"Normal" time frame was at or near 0.000% since there was no alcohol in the subject’s
system.
HOME
"Within the limits of the laboratory study, the device consistently detected consumption of approximately 2 standard drinks. On average, the device shows discriminative validity as a semiquantitative measure of alcohol consumption but individual readings often are not equivalent to simultaneous BrACs."
Thus adding to knowledge already aquired, and since the conditions of most alcohol related probations is abstinence, any alcohol detected should warrant probable cause, regardless actual BrAC. Probable cause meaning a police dispatch, or immediate notification so any false positive can proven without costing the public money, and the guilty proven so. There is no question the device can detect consumption, working with the exterior influences is where the focus needs to be. RFI has yet to be a focus but seems to be a possible cause for at least two published stories of erroneous readings, and my theory for using the device would remedy false-negatives as well, which was reported by PIRE in an earlier post. It appears there are studies being done on the Giner TAC sensor as well, which sounds to me to be at an even greater risk for false-positives. The menu of substances that contain any type of alcohol and we use in our everyday lives is vast, including gasoline, windex, laundry soaps just to name a few and since our hands are what we use the products with, it seems the risk factor is amplified accordingly. I have found research on this device which is similar to that of SCRAM but have found no reports of false positives to date.
AMS's earlier research states,"Further analysis of the TAC graph uncovers that the client’s TAC reading level is still above .02% the morning after the event. Call the client in for a Breathalyzer test as secondary proof of a drinking event once AMS has delivered a final analysis." which is what I have been saying all along but the preceding paragraph states,"Before the client is contacted, AMS must perform a final analysis so the results can be defended in court, if necessary." What about the clients right to defend in court, or should I say offend since they carry the burden? Sounds like a delay to obfuscate facts and protect thier multi-million dollar investment because we already know how fast a .02 will metabolize. This is why for-profit companies should not be able to sell products (especially in thier infancy) to the legal or medical community that may jeopordize a clients well being. These factors met in Daubert vs. Merill Dow and had a serious impact on Rule 702 (admitting scientific evidence) but the questions of reliability for what is now called Daubert Science or Junk Science is still scrutinized by a human, the Judge.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00004.x
EXCERT FROM THE WHITE PAPER
During this period, at 12:17 PM, the bracelet recorded a 0.006% TAC reading.
This low-level reading occurred because the test subject worked in an area where alcohol
was used to clean circuitry components. Except for this anomaly, the TAC reading during the
"Normal" time frame was at or near 0.000% since there was no alcohol in the subject’s
system.
HOME
posted by marcellus91872 at 12:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home