Comments on: Judge Throws Out 49 Breath Tests

By: Valentine Wrenne

Valentine Wrenne — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 02:50:11 +0000

AmericanHealthJournal is seeking partner blogs in the health field. AmericanHealthJournal is a medical web site which contains over 3000 of high quality health videos. We are seeking webmasters who are interested in submitting guest articles to our brand. Come contact us at our contact page on our web site.

By: jim

jim — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:17:19 +0000

in other words, do you not have to be as smart as justice scelia to know that when the nj statute says a person is guilty of dui if he has a blood alcohol content of 0,08%, with no other defining criteris, that the result must be correct.
the only way to have a correct result, even if you wanted to use the alcotest to provide the result, we be to prove is through validation of each instrument on at least an annual basis.

we can stop right here, because this is an impossible task, unless they rewrite the software to provide the raw data signal count.

or– the legislature can rewrite the statute to say a bac result from the alcotest as it is today, without validation.

the problem with this whole area is that the legislature dumped the problem on the courts, for the courts to be the bad guys, and do their dirty work, under the guise of legal language, hidden political deals, and hidden strupidity.

in nj, the landmark case, state v chun, recently decided, concerning the scientific aceptability of the alcotest, although long proceedings, 3 years, was a mockery and a sham put upon the citizens of new jersey.

i still think, that if some one wanted to argue the result from the alcotest can not comply with the statute as written, they would win in the us supreme court.

i have a strong feeling justice scelia would agree that the number must be proven as fact, in order to comply with the statute as written.

By: jim

jim — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:02:23 +0000

i do not think we are disagreeing. no one said the result needed to be exact down to 0,0000000… ect..

the result from the alcotest however, should be defined as such a result that can be verified, from a validated instrument, with complete understanding what the result entails and is about. and if this is what we as a people want, to decided whethere or not a person is guilty of the perse 0,08 bac dui offense, then so be it. we have the right to run for office and try to change the statute.

that being said, there is little hope in futher defining the statute, but more hope, although also very little, in even having the alcotrest, each instrument validated.

vaildation is much more than running standards and xseeing a final result, as you alluded to.

i have written almost 2000 pages on this subject concerning the alcotest, and have including things such as saftey validation in the factory, ISO, and audits of the factory.

my basic poiint is, even if they had everything in place, did everything to comply with every other validation requirment, the instrument can still not be validated, because it does not provide raw data signal count.

By: koivisto

koivisto — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:56:35 +0000

Jim, you do have good arguments. I like the fact that we can agree to disagree. I’ve been in manufacturing for 28 years and have seen the impossible happen time and time again. Nothing is exact as much as we’d like it to be. Keep up the good fight my friend!

By: jim

jim — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:20:55 +0000

the point about raw data was and is, without the raw data, there is no way to begin to validate the instrument, to see if it works. it is literaly impossible.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:18:53 +0000

now, you do not. when i use the word validation, i know what i am talking about. all i’m saying is, if you are going to use the alcotest breath tester, and the legislature agrees on the 2100-1 ration, and the instrument can be VALIDATED, then the number, in of itself, would be the number the legislature wants. if it is not v alidated, which it isnt, then the number shouldnt be used.

kov- i am an expert analytical chemist with 20 years experience in validation of analytical instruments and methods. i have seen and done so much in so many companies. i know what i am talking about.

By: koivisto

koivisto — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:16:55 +0000

Raw data? Garbage in garbage out. How many gage repeatability studies have you seen for breathalyzers? How about Bias and Linearity? What master sample is used for calibration?Validated by whom? What about stability studies? No the number is not even close to validated with these machines, and peoples futures sometimes ride on it. I eat chemists like you for lunch.

By: jim

jim — Sat, 24 May 2008 12:37:05 +0000

as an analytical chemist, the number can be taken into account, if the raw data was with it, and the thing was validated as eveery analytical instrument is validated, not just the technology, EACH INSTRUMENT

By: koivisto

koivisto — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:03:39 +0000

As an engineer I know how flawed machinery is and can be. That goes for software too. Software “crashes” all the time. This is another exceptional piece of work by Mr. Taylor. What needs to be taken into account is not a arbitrary number, but the actual condition of the driver.

By: jim

jim — Wed, 21 May 2008 15:26:31 +0000

listen, it is very simple solution as far as i am concerned, simply write the software to report the integrated signal count, like all the other analytical instruments do, like hplc, gc, gcms, ir, uv, aa, icp, …ect..

results of significance must have the raw data, … BAC shouldnt be treated like the ph of you pool water.

it is impossible for drager to have made the alcotest without mweasuring the electronic signal response.

see my point?