Comments on: Breathalyzer Results Affected by How You Breathe Into It

By: Johnny Hanna

Johnny Hanna — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:02:02 +0000

I bid you good morning,

OMG! This is just what I was looking for. No, straight up. You’re the real deal. Roll in more graphics.

May the sun shine upon you all your days.

By: aquaponics 4 you review

aquaponics 4 you review — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:11:44 +0000

What a stuff of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious familiarity regarding unexpected feelings.

By: Denisha Heaney

Denisha Heaney — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:30:40 +0000

Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive learn something like this before. So nice to search out anyone with some authentic thoughts on this subject. realy thanks for beginning this up. this web site is one thing that is needed on the internet, someone with a bit originality. useful job for bringing something new to the internet!

By: www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:39:07 +0000

Less memory is required to view images than with full-fledged image editing
applications. That is invaluable when you find yourself in high pressure sessions.
1) was with a clear sterile lab-like visual layout, with extremely powerful and precise editing capabilities.

By: DUI-The Constitution Need Not Apply

DUI-The Constitution Need Not Apply — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:30:44 +0000

Dr. Hlastala has generated some interesting work regarding evidential breath testing. Kansas Department of Health and Environment Breath Alcohol Program Manager Christine Houston maintains an extensive file on him in order to attempt to counter his expert testimony when he comes to Kansas.
However, she is unable to address the science. Instead she relies on the fact that the Kansas legislature has removed the words “reliable and accurate” from relevant statutes regarding the machines. Kansas does not even require the machines to be reliable and accurate! The machines and operators merely need to be ‘certified’ by KDHE.
Ms. Houston further claims that single sample testing is scientifically valid because that’s what the law says, and that there is no margin of error in a single sample test. She needs to tell that to CMI, manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer 8000:

Intoxilyzer 8000 Instrument Specification Final –
10/23/00 Version 1.1, which states:Performance
Range: 0.003 to 0.600 gram/210 liters (0.015 to 3.00mg/L)

Accuracy: ±3% or ± .003 grams/210 liters, whichever is greater.

Precision: Standard deviation of .003 or better.

CMI acknowledges a 3% or .003 margin of error in every SINGLE test. Combined with Dr. Hlastala’s research means evidential breath testing is “garbage in….garbage out”.
It is astounding that someone like Christine Houston can sway a jury with this type of misinformation over the expert testimony of someone like Hlastala. Yet, it happens all the time. Ms. Houston is comparable to a ‘flat-earth’ scientist of pre-Columbus days. She is settled cozily in the protective, willful ignorance of untested conformity and consensus. I imagine she would have carried the flame used to burn at the stake any dissident with the gall to propose that the earth was round.
Christine Houston routinely gives juries misinformation. She helps convict citizens with these tactics….and she is the state of Kansas’ premier “expert” witness for the prosecution in DUI cases.
Breath machines are junk science for dozens of reasons and states have been forced to compromise their integrity in order to cover up those facts.