14 Nov
2012
14 Nov
'12
2:39 a.m.
On Nov 11, 2012, at 1:25 AM, mc68010 wrote:
> The testing on that device appear to have be
brutal unless I am
> reading wrong. They made the subject test it at 1.2% BAC. I wonder
> how many died. Wouldn't they all ?
>
> http://pro.sagepub.com/content/31/7/751
(...) isn't
greater than .50% generally at high risk for alcohol poisoning?
- Dave
Yes, .5% is considered "usually lethal" and probably even attainable only for
the most extremely alcohol-tolerant persons (anybody else is bound to either have to go
puke or pass out long before that) and/or by means of specialized consumption techniques
(co-consumption of mar-jah-wana is said to suppress puking).
Um, yeah. At first I thought it was a typo, but they
have similar
concentrations elsewhere and give the correct mg/L, so...
Nope, it *is* methinks a typo. They're mixing up percents (%) (which is the usual
parameter given for ABV in alcoholic beverages) and promille (o/oo) which is the usual
unit of measurement for BAC, at least in Germany. 1 Percent is "one part of a
hundred" whereas 1 Promille is "one part of a thousand", so 10 Promille
make 1 Percent.
The given mg/l concentration supports that (they're simplifying insofar that they
calculate with a density of 1 g/ml for the blood sample), as
1200 mg/l or 1.2g/l or(about) 1.2g / 1000g is 1.2 *thousandth* (=Promille) or 0.12 % BAC
(and not 1.2 % as given in the text), which makes a lot more sense for the average
intoxicated person.
Just my 2 o/oo...
Yours sincerely,
Arno Kletzander