Talk:Breathalyzer

"Please note: This expansion is based on material on my website (http://www. alcoholinformation. org), to which I hold copyright. David Justin 20:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)"

- Moved from main page - Nrbelex ^(talk) 23:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Countering of POV

This article may have some POV issues. I don't see it as a huge problem because the facts are probably all true but no counter-arguments are made in Breathalyzers' favor that I can find throughout the entire article. Nrbelex ^(talk) 00:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself. It says that a subject falsely read a BAC level of .12 from painting a house, then goes on to say that the tests can't be fooled. Since when is Mythbusters an authority, especially considering the high number of errors they make?

I added a couple of lines pointing out the deficiencies of the Mythbusters test, especially the fact that they only tested substances that had no effect upon or INCREASED the apparent BAC, and did not test any that in fact DECREASED it. Censorship by the Televison networks? Certainly such censorship has no place in Wikipedia! [eeman]

Mythbuster's is used as a reference in a number of other articles. Obviously several different people have contributed to this article, one of whom has serious reservations about this technology and another who appears to be a fan of Mythbusters. Pulling all of this together into a cohesive, logical article is what Wikipedia is all about. The sum of all human knowledge... with a neutral POV. Your contribution to this effort would be appreciated. Why don't you take a stab at revising this article to remedy these problems? Gregmg 13:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume the article is implying that it is impossible to lower your (inferred) BAC level, however, some methyl containting substances can cause erroneously high readings. Incidently, in the UK it not an offence to fail the breath-test, however you must go to the police station for second test. Failing the second test is an offence. The second test can be blood, urine, or breath based. From what I've seen on TV, the station's breath test is a large machine, persumably it can correctly tell ethanol from compounds containing methyl groups. CS Miller 12:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the breathalyzer test does not detect the methyl but the hydroxy group of the alcohol,which is oxidised by acidic dichromate that turns green because it is reduced by the alcohol

Errant edit

An anonymous user made the following errant edit, placing his IP address in the article and the comment in the Edit summary:

(→Common problems -Each one Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) degree of body temperature above normal will cause a substantial elevation (6.5% to 7%) in apparent BAC.) - 24.145.220.147 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I leave it as an exercise for others to verify this and work it into the article. Gregmg 02:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Flight of stairs

how could it make your count decrease 14%? did they dig up a dead guy with 200 times the legal amount?

Say 0.15% BAC, 0.15% - 14% = (0.15 * 0.86) = 0.129% BAC... Not complex math While it could also mean decreased 0.14%, but doubt that. --66.201.178.145 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

General criticisms

Give me a wank! First: No reputable scientfic research or study has ever PROVEN that an elevated body temperature will cause a breath alcohol reading to falsely exceed the blood alcohol. The Department of Public Safety in Texas has actually conducted a study refuting this assertion; showing body temperature NOT to be a factor. While it may be "theoretically" possible, no study has proven it to be and actual occurrence.

Second: I noticed the "experts" you cited at the end of your article were all OPPONENTS of breath alcohol testing. And, they were also "expert" witnesses who testify for the defense attorney community. I did not see any cites from Dr. A.W. Jones or Dr. Kurt Dubowski (two exceedingly qualified true experts in the field of breath alcohol testing). Lawrence Taylor is a trial attorney. What qualifications does he have in the SCIENTIIC FIELD OF SPECTROPHOTOMETRY? Answer: None at all.

Oi, smartarse - what qualifications do YOU have? A Ph.D in talking like a fucking turd? You must have passed that with fucking honours.

Third: Perhaps you should reference the booklet written by Dr. Kurt Dubowski; The Technology of Breath Alcohol Analysis. DHHS Publication Number (ADM) 92-1728 Printed in 1992.

Fourth: The chance of some "interfering substance" appearing in the breath of a conscious human being is so rare as to render it nearly zero. In order to be present in a human breath, these "interferents" must be (1) water soluble, (2) present in a gaseous form at human body temperature (98.6 F or 37 C), (3) absorb IR light at the exact specific wavelengths (Datamasters utilize two frequencies, Intoxilyzers use from 3-5 frequencies, (4) the "interferent" must hang around in the breath for a significant time after ingestion/absorption/inhalation and (5) the claimed "interferent" must also absorb IR light in an exact proportion in each of the filtered frequencies.

WRONG! SMARTARSE! People who work in any environment where esters are used (for example ethyl acetate, used commonly in the ink industry) will return a falsely positive result on a breathalyser. People who used to work for Sun Chemicals inks division were issued with a special certificate to state that they worked regularly with the substance, so that if breathalysed when they hadn't consumed alcohol. FACT. So deal with THAT, smart arse.

Finally: IF breath alcohol testing technology is a bad as your "article" points it out to be, why haven't trial attorneys brought a Federal Class Action against the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the Federal agency that tests and approves these instruments), National Patent Analytical Systems (who make the Datamaster), CMI, Inc (who makes the Intoxilyzer 5000) and each and every State Health Lab that approves these instruments? IF these instruments are so bad, where are the lawsuits to stop their use???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.91.80.188 (talk • contribs) .

Why would anyone want to stop their use? They raise money and allow the powers the be (i.e. every fascist's pal the Filth) to carry on victimising. You fucking sheep - open your eyes.

REPLY

The US Constitution clearly states that gold and silver are to be the legal tender of the country. Where are the lawsuits challenging paper money? Sometimes you can't fight city hall even if you're right. However, according to press reports that I found, use of data from both the Intoxilyzer 5000 and the DataMaster has run into legal difficulty.Curious Student 20:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC) [1] [2]

I'm a little puzzled. You seem to be addressing a particular editor, but your comments pertain to multiple edits by many editors. Also, who do you expect to take action on your concerns? If you are aware of errors in the article, then you should correct them. An impassioned plea on the talk page isn't going to accomplish anything. You obviously know quite a bit on this topic. Please be bold and make whatever changes are called for. Gregmg 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NEEDS MORE CITATIONS AND REFERENCES ARE ALL FROM THE DEFENSE COMMUNITY

Breath testing is accurate when performed with quality scientific equipment that has been calibrated properly, and operated in accordance with the required procedure. Breath testing ALMOST ALWAYS underestimates the true BAC, and it is quite rare to see an evidentiary quality (non-PBT) breath testing instrument read higher than the true BAC. This entry needs a LOT more citations to substantiate some of the claims, especially where percentage values are reported. With an obvious negative spin, it flies in the face of the research. You should attend the Robert F. Borkenstein school on Alcohol and Highway Safety, given twice a year at Indiana University, Bloomington. The faculty for the course is a who's who of the research community. All the discussion under mouth alcohol should fairly be accompanied by the statement that a 15 minute cessation from drinking, and absent any vomiting, regurgitation etc. eliminates mouth alcohol as a contributing factor...this includes dentures and chewing gum and tobacco as well, not to mention the slope detection on all evidentiary units that differentiate between mouth alcohol and that from the lungs. How about adding some research from the following: AW Jones, Barry Logan and Kurt Dubowski.

Rename

I submit that this article should be renamed. It's always bad form for an article to be named after a specific product when it doesn't have to be. This article pertains to the general function of devices that estimate blood alcohol content based on a sample of air exhaled from the subject's lungs. It doesn't need to be called 'Breathalyzer'.

Any suggestions for a more enclycopedic name? We can always have 'Breathalyzer' redirect here. How about 'Breath-based blood alcohol content measurement'?

Alvis 08:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That title is ridiculously verbose. How about "Breath Analysis," "Breath Chemical Analysis" or "Breath Analyzer" or something to that effect? Although, I don't necessarily think a change is necessary. Anyone who is looking for information about this topic is going to search for "Breathalyzer" for the exact reason cited in the article. 144.89.76.191 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All the same, I do think the OP has a point. "Breathalyzer" is a brand name, and as such is probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia title. "Breath Analysis" was a good suggestion, though I think it should be more specific such as "Breath Alcohol Analysis" or perhaps more simply "Breath Alcohol." As far as people searching for "Breathalyzer" specifically, we could always have such searches redirect to a page with a generic title. -- John C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Intro

I added some structure to the article. I then removed the Excessive Intro alert. I believe I did this appropriately according to the guidelines. Lingamer8 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is absolutely biased and plain wrong

As mentioned in a previous post, this article cites no credible scientific journals, and mentions no info from any major expert in the field. All of the stuff about mouthwash, mouth alcohol, and police studies are seriously skewed. I believe the whole thing sounds like a lame defense attorney's take on breath alcohol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.56.185.170 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Numbers don't lie; decimal points do

In the "Myths" section, describing false positives yielded by the fine product of Listerine, the article describes the average experimental false reading of 0.043% to be approaching lethal levels, contrary to the article's earlier citation that most US States' legal driving limit is 0.08%. Although this American knows for a fact that the stated legal BAC limit is 0.08%, the article suggests that the legal driving limit is almost twice the lethal dose!

This has, of course, been corrected and now gives the correct .43 number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Other factors for Errors in BAC Results

I was busted for DUI a few daze ago. The results listed my weight at 125 (which is on my driver's licence) the cop asked me what I weighed (I said 135) but my actual weight (went to a doctor's office to document it) was 148 48 hours after the arrest. Does the machine require the Cop to enter weight as a factor or is weight immaterial with breath tests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.119.177 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't think this question is appropriate for this particular forum, I'll answer anyway. The simple answer is that your actual weight makes no difference. The instrument simply measures the concentration of alcohol in the air you expel and takes nothing else into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Temperature does affect BAC levels

I don't know where this argument started, but as a Chemistry student I'll give my two cents.

Breathalysers work by knowing that the alcohol in your blood is in a ratio to the alcohol in your lungs. This is in a chemical equilibrium. I won't go into much detail, however the equilibrium constant (K_c) is what determines the specific ratio from the blood level to the breath content.

K_c, however, in chemistry is affected by temperature. As the temperature increases, so does the value of K_c.

The equation is [C₂H₅OH (g)]= K_c[C₂H₅OH (blood)]

So you can see that as the temperature increases although the alcohol in your blood stays constant, the value in your breath increases, giving an artificially high level.BalazsH (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

While this calculation is definitely true, in practical terms you have to consider the fact that for a person's body temperature to be high enough to make the breath reading be higher than the actual BAC (taking into account that most breath instruments err on the side of giving a low reading), then they're likely far too sick to be driving anyway. In fact, come to think of it, they're far too sick to be drinking... -- John C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.194.127.112 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear David Justin . . .

You may hold the copyright to www.alcoholinformation.org, but you don't own the copyright to Breath Tests for Blood Alcohol Determination: Partition Ratio [3], from which most of the information in this article was plagiarized.

Once again, Wikipedia lies, cheats, and steals like a cheap, strung-out, crack whore.

As a liar, chat and cheap strung-out whore, may I ask you what grounds you have for plagiarism? If it is WP:COV that needs to be said.

I speak as a convicted drink driver who has been through lots of courses, and argued with a lot of their "facts", so don't try telling me that a scientific fact is copyright.

Oh, sign your posts would you, old bean? SimonTrew (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Myths

I find it a little strange that the myths section proposes inhaling highly toxic gases like chlorine, ozone and nitric oxide in attempt to fool a breathalyzer. Yes you may get off your DUI but more through being dead than anything else. Hopefully no one has been stupid enough to actually try this yet.

I don't think it proposes it. I think it just states it as a myth.

When I was a lad I was told if I made that face it would stick that way. It was a myth. But the telling of it is not a myth. SimonTrew (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Trademark Status

The assertion that "breathalyzer" has become a genericized trademark is unsourced. I cannot find a source one way or another. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.88 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick google shows that fairly certainly it is a genericized trademark, though I can't see any definitive statement either-- and being a generizsed trademark does not rule out it being a trademark. The Brethaylzer Division web page at National Draeger's site (and indeed no other site I can find except FloridaLawyers.com or something) does not claim it as a trademark of that company, which would be unusual if they were trying to protect it becoming generic. Therefore I think it is safe to assume it is generic, even though a verifiable source would be nice. SimonTrew (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

False positives claim

I just reverted an edit stating energy drinks should be able to cause false positives with breathalyzers after scanning through several pages of Google results and a specific page [4] disproving the statement. Anybody disagree or find the edit too bold? --Thrane (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would find it surprising that they caused false positives. The high energy is mainly from various simple sugars (e.g. glucose) and substances like caffeine and taurine. I have no trouble with the revert. It might belong under "Myths", but should still, ideally, be verifiable-- I'm not sure if that source would count as verifiable in some people's eyes. SimonTrew (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Undue weight" tag to "Common sources of error"

I don't the "Common Sources of error" section has undue weight. I imagine people would look at this article for two main reasons:

1. How does it work?
2. Can I avoid it, or fool it?
3. I think it was wrong, how do I prove it/show it/argue it?

There are other more minor reasons such as:

1. Where did the name come from?
2. Are privately-used devices, or devices e.g. in bars, legal to use, or to provide as legal evidence?

The article I think does quite well on the first two, not too badly on the third and fourth, and perhaps quite badly on the fifth (which does vary widely between jurisdictions, and is covered in the article a bit, but not over a wide range of jurisdictions). SimonTrew (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Partion Ratios in the Population

"Studies suggest that about 1.8% of the population have a partition ratio below 2100. Thus, a machine using a 2100-to-1 ratio could actually under-report. As much as 14% of the population has a partition ratio above 2100, thus causing the machine to overestimate the BAC."

Shouldn't the numbers of people with partion ratios above and below 2100:1 add up to (nearly) 100%? 24.196.111.104 (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)