Talk:Breathalyzer

For the sections that were not cited and were tagged as not having a citation, I believe that How Stuff Works Breathalyzer website actually supports what the author initially wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.208.133.61 (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Give me a break! 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.

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.

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) .

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]Reply

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)Reply

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.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

It should be renamed to breath alcohol analysis Seneca2020 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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).Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

In this revision, 58.8.60.96 added this text to the Origins section:

this is completely impossible - can somebody please review?

I've moved the comment out of the article and replaced it with a {{dubious}} tag, but I'm not in a position to address it. Perhaps someone else can. 58.8.60.96 may also care to elaborate here as to why it's impossible. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK RedKev here. I am a chemist. 1.5 ml of alcohol is about 1.2 g of the stuff (S.G. 0.79).

One mole of alcohol (46g) (like one mole of any gas or vapour at STP) occupies about 22.4 l.

1.2g therefore occupies ((22.4/46)*1.2)=0.58 l or 580 ml. Or over 25% of the 2 l bladder.
Given the blood to breath ratio of ca. 2100 to 1 the tested person would need to be pure
alcohol with no flesh or bone! It may be a typo for mg.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.16 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply 

I've now changed ml to mg, and removed the tag. I'm surprised it took someone reading this ten years to open the source to check. Should this talk page also possibly be removed just for the sake of decluttering?92.34.7.31 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The section referring to the Britney Spears song 'Womanizer' as though it was penned as 'Breathalyzer' does not contain a verifiable link; likely completely false in nature. Request removal.

Likely influenced by the following link: 'Womanizer' parody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dankotron (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reports of the death of Dr Tom Parry Jones of Bangor University refer to him as the inventor of the electronic breathalyser - such as this obituary, and also previous references to his work like this and here. He is not mentioned in this article. Can any editors on this page shed any further light on his role, and if necessary add it in to the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it should be incorporated, but there is no date for his invention nor is there a name for it. Breathalyzer is a US registered trademark for one brand using the process developed in 1953. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

"People who have drunk alcohol will release special gases. It will approach silica gel of strong oxidizing agent K2Cr2O7. If the released gas contains ethanol (CH3CH2OH) steam, ethanol will be oxidized by chromium trioxide to form acetaldehyde. Meanwhile, CrO3 is restored as acetic acid [CH3COOH]."

This was tacked on to the chemistry section and looks like a poor English translation from another language. I have moved it here until someone can vet it. The chemistry section left behind appears to be self contained and this is a second method for detecting ethanol. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This section is unreferenced and should not be in the article until a reference is provided. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also very important.^{[citation needed]}

Breathing pattern can also significantly affect breath test results. One study found that the BAC readings of subjects decreased 11–14% after running up one flight of stairs and 22–25% after doing so twice^{[citation needed]}. Another study found a 15% decrease in BAC readings after vigorous exercise or hyperventilation^{[citation needed]}. Hyperventilation for 20 seconds has been shown to lower the reading by approximately 11%. On the other hand, holding one's breath for 30 seconds can increase the breath test result by about 16%.^[1]

Some breath analysis machines assume a hematocrit (cell volume of blood) of 47%^{[citation needed]}. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 52% in men and from 37 to 47% in women. It has been theorized that a person with a lower hematocrit will have a falsely high BAC reading^{[citation needed]}.

Research indicates that breath tests can vary at least 15% from actual blood alcohol concentration^{[citation needed]}. An estimated 23% of individuals tested will have a BAC reading higher than their true BAC^{[citation needed]}.

Draeger doesn't use the name "Breathalyzer" for their models and the Trademark office website does not list it being assigned to anyone other than the inventor. The makers do not own the name and may have licensed it, but we need a reference. "Stephenson Corporation, then made by Smith and Wesson. The brand was later sold to National Draeger."

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breathalyzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065831/http://maryland-criminallawyer.com/dui/breath-testing-instruments-and-procedures.html to http://maryland-criminallawyer.com/dui/breath-testing-instruments-and-procedures.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219152620/http://www.renal.org/CKDguide/full/Conciseguid141205.pdf to http://www.renal.org/CKDguide/full/Conciseguid141205.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breathalyzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.borkensteincourse.org/borkenstein_appreciation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002100/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=23001-24000&file=23152-23229.1 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=23001-24000&file=23152-23229.1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breathalyzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.borkensteincourse.org/borkenstein_appreciation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065831/http://maryland-criminallawyer.com/dui/breath-testing-instruments-and-procedures.html to http://maryland-criminallawyer.com/dui/breath-testing-instruments-and-procedures.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breathalyzer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160225133634/http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf to http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first reference given in the "mouth alcohol" section is a lawyer's page which was clearly copied, with the exact wording, from Wikipedia. The section was added in September 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breathalyzer&oldid=75927533 with a reference to duiblog.com - written by DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor, but apparently his own work, and rephrased by the Wikipedia editor. In December 2006, another editor removed the link, and several other links to duiblog,com, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breathalyzer&oldid=97559071 , with the comment "Does this article have any sources at all other than blogs and ambulance chasers?".

In September 2007, DUI attorney George Creal copied the Wikipedia wording exactly for his page https://web.archive.org/web/20070915191150/http://www.georgecreal.com/the-breath-test.html , but did not credit Wikipedia (are we allowed to comment on the reliability of a lawyer who copies from Wikipedia without admitting it???)

Later, an editor added "citation needed" after " alcohol may have come from the mouth, throat or stomach for a number of reasons", and later still, another editor linked to the George Creal copy from Wikipedia to be a citation there.

I'm going to remove the Creal citation, and, for the moment, put in 'citation needed'. We could use the duiblog.com one, but the criticism of that being "a blog or ambulance chaser" still stands, so it'd be better if anyone can find a reliable source for this assertion, and indeed, section. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This should have its own article Seneca2020 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Reply