San Diego DUI attorney news

Nonsense conflicts with Science sometimes.

IACT "research" and articles seem to rather consistently show that the rest of the world is wrong:

1) Glover says storage at extreme temperature has no additive effect to the blood;
2) The Texas group of maintenance technicians say that breath temp has no effect on breath alcohol readings;
3) Tyndall does not affect IR;
4) Errors in programming don't affect the reliability of tests.

So if their own testing doesn't confirm what they set out to prove, they simply discard the tests that are in conflict with their theories (ala Pat Harding) and publish the results that do support their ideas.

In NV, a police toxicologist and an officer both testify that the failure to refrigerate blood sample will result in a lower BAC not higher. The LEO actually dropped off the study to my office. "The Effect of Heat on Blood Samples Containing
Alcohol" P.L. Glover North Carolina Health and Human Services.

But Glover;s IACT newsletter is NOT a peer-reviewed publication.

In fact, the National Committee for Clinical and laboratory Standards now known as the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute apparently disagrees with IACT's alleged study. This excerpt is from the standard T/DM6A Blood Testing in the Clinical Laboratory- Approved standard:

Specimens that are to be transported or mailed in
an unrefrigerated condition, or stored for more
than 48 hours should be preserved with higher
concentrations of sodium fluoride (10 mg/mL of
blood; 0.24mmol/mL) .8 However, it has been
documented that changes produced by contaminating
microorganisms can affect alcohol
concentrations in blood specimens even in the
presence of preservatives. Blume and Lakatua15
reported that various organisms isolated from
contaminated blood specimens were capable of
producing ethanol when inoculated into bank
blood. Candida albicans was particularly active in
this regard, producing significant quantities of
alcohol even in the presence of sodium fluoride.
These investigators recommended that fluoride
(10 mg/mL; 0.24mmol/ml) be used as a
preservative and that care should be taken to
assure that microbial organisms are not
introduced into the specimens.

Of course, there is a huge difference between "heating" the samples, and failing
to refrigerate them. Read the study carefully.

You would expect that heating the samples would kill anything that
was alive, stop any fermentation, (sterilizing milk will do that by
heating to a high temperature, which kills all bacteria) and
evaporate off alcohol. Common sense. You would not expect that to
happen if you fail to refrigerate.

Look also at the research into impairment at 0.08: The National Safety Council Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs spent 6 years revising and rewording and finding supportive evidence to say that "All people, reguardless of prior drinking experience, are impaired with respect to operating a motor vehicle by the time they reach a 0.08." Yet out of all the supportive documents they list, not a single one of them shows that everybody was impaired based upon the testing conducted for the said article. And none of those studies used drinking drivers as a part of their research.

Look at the Grand Rapids Study and the 0.04 dip: fewer accidents occurred amoung people in this group. State people explain that one away as an anomoly due to insufficient representation of persons in that alcohol group, or other such nonsense.

San Diego DUI lawyers look to real experts, the real world and scientists who stay on top of the dissemination of bad information from those who care about their own interests. www.SanDiegoDUI.com