|
|
|
October 02, 2010
"fast and loose with the facts"?
Like most people, I have opinions, and I naturally tend to be biased in favor of my own. I know I am partisan, but I do try to admit my biases as honestly as I can, and where it comes to facts, I try to be as accurate as possible. When I am clearly wrong about facts -- especially facts that are vital to an argument in a post -- and someone shows that I am, then I have a responsibility to admit the mistake and make corrections as necessary. When a commenter accuses me of dishonesty, I often feel forced to go the extra mile and check my facts as carefully as possible. Even though it takes time, and I find it very annoying, sometimes it's part of the price I have to pay for writing these posts and allowing comments. Such is the case with a commenter who took issue with my contention that a single glass of wine could result in a .04 blood alcohol content (BAC): Your argument would be more persuasive if you yourself didn't play fast and loose with the facts. You do not get to a .04 after a glass of wine -- not unless you're talking about a much bigger than normal glass or MUCH higher than normal alcohol content. Or, I suppose, unless you're a tiny person. A normal 4oz glass of wine consumed over an hour dinner by a a 120lb female would get her to about a .02. Make that a 180lb man and you're less than a .01.OK, while my post was not about the rest of the world, it just so happens that "much of the world" is run by governments which are totalitarian in nature and much if not most of the world has gun control. Is that an argument in favor of totalitarianism or gun control? As to the accuracy of my "single glass" claim, while I wanted to sound off when I saw the comment, it seemed premature until I had a chance to carefully verify the accuracy of my claim with calculations. The exact BAC which might result from a glass of wine would depend on two things: Obviously, there are a lot of people out there, and I cannot be expected to perform detailed calculations for everyone. But because this is my blog, and the argument involved my post, I thought I would personalize this by looking at what my own BAC might be if I had a glass of wine in my usual manner. I am a red wine drinker (I like Spanish wine the best), and I took a picture of a label from one of the bottles in my basement.
Its alcohol content is 13.9%. (I am sure some wines have more and some have less, and while I never gave the matter much thought, that just happens to be one of the wines I drink.) As to glasses, I have several wine glasses, and they vary in size. Here are three which were recently used and still sitting around unwashed:
I have accumulated them at random, and until now I never paid any particular attention to size, but in the interests of accuracy, I used a standard graduated kitchen mixing cup (marked in ounces) to fill each glass with water. The Cherry Creek Cellars glass on the left (from which I was drinking last night) contains exactly seven ounces, the unmarked glass in the middle contains six ounces, and the Robinette Cellars glass on the right contains five ounces. I was not trying to see how much they might possibly hold; I just started by filling the larger one and because I saw that it comfortably held seven ounces, I figured the middle one might hold six (which it does), and the smallest one would hold five. In fairness, the small one is probably considered a four ounce glass, but nevertheless, when filled, it will hold five. As to what constitutes a glass of wine, I don't know. It strikes me that any one of the above glasses, if filled with wine, could fairly be called a glass of wine. Or am I wrong? The commenter seems quite insistent that a glass of wine is only four ounces. Is that a universal rule? A technical term, perhaps? Am I allowed to drink from a larger-than-four-ounce glass? Or does that destroy the integrity of my argument? Now, I can't speak for my readers (I'm sure some are larger and some are smaller), but my weight ranges from 130-150 lbs, and I drink red wine most evenings. Because I stand accused of dishonesty by that commenter, my question is a simple one. Would be possible for me, drinking at home in my usual fashion, to achieve a BAC of .04 after consuming one glass of wine? Geez, this is starting to sound like one of those debunking-the-myth style reality shows. Perhaps I should get a breathalyzer and do a YouTube video! OK, I realize that none of this is scientific, but using the blood alcohol calculator cited by the commenter, I entered my weight, but because of the size of my glasses and because the commenter's argument is based on the assumption of a four ounce glass, I thought I should try to come up with six ounces, which would work out to 1.5 glasses if the calculator is based on a four ounce glass size. Guess what? I'm over .04 with either the glass on the left or the glass in the middle:
However, that approximation really doesn't satisfy me, because what I really want is to arrive at the most accurate possible calculation of what my actual BAC would be. It didn't take much looking to find a much more mathematically precise way to calculate my BAC based solely on my body weight and the actual weight of the alcohol in a glass of wine. From "How to Calculate Blood Alcohol Content": Convert the ounces of the drink consumed to grams for easier calculation of percentage. Multiply the number of ounces by 28.35 to find the number of grams. If you have consumed five ounces of alcohol, you have consumed 141.75 grams of alcohol.OK, that might not be precise enough to satisfy a scientist in a laboratory, but I think it's precise enough to settle my question beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. A six ounce glass of my red wine (6 .0642 Wow. That is not enough to be legally drunk now, but considerably over the .04 which is being advocated by M.A.D.D. activists as a national standard. Hmmm.... I hate math, but the above number inclined me to do more calculating. Damn, I wish these commenters didn't put me to so much work, but the more I contemplated having a BAC of .06 after a six ounce glass of wine, the more I wondered whether I might hit the .04 BAC after drinking merely a four ounce glass of wine. So.... 13.9% of 4 ounces is .556 ounces of alcohol, which multiplied by 28.5 yields an alcohol weight of 15.486 grams. Divide that by my blood weight of 36,825 grams, and my BAC becomes...... .... (drumroll please)
.04205 That's after drinking the wine out of the smallest glass I have, yet not as filled as it is in the picture. And remember. The M.A.D.D. activists want to make me a felon for getting behind the wheel after drinking a small glass of wine. I repeat. This is an outrage, and I think I just proved what I had thought was a fairly simple point. Anyone who still thinks I am playing fast and loose with the facts, feel free to sound off. MORE: I should probably add that the commenter's insistence that a glass of wine contains four ounces may be mistaken, as I have been told the standard glass of wine is five ounces. So, assuming my single glass of wine holds five ounces, then my BAC would be .0538 -- well above the proposed .04 standard. No matter how I figure it, if the law is changed as the activists demand, I'd be a felon behind the wheel after a glass of wine. AND MORE: I missed a decimal place in the BAC. It should have been .04205. Corrected. Thanks Charlie! * My Windows Accessory calculator gives me the same result whether I press the divide key or the multiply key, as long as I press the "%" key after 13.9. Yet this is wrong. Does anyone know why the answer would be the same? posted by Eric on 10.02.10 at 12:35 PM
Comments
OK, I realize that none of this is scientific Compared to a portable breathalyzer, it is. The kind of drunk driving that plausibly merits legal stricture would be properly punished, and as deterred as anything lawfully can be, by charges of criminal negligence, subject to the normal standards of proof, being laid on impaired drivers who contributorily cause accidents or damage*. Anyone advocating anything else is advocating something else. *Obviously, cops, prosecutors, politicians, Prominent Citizens, friends and relatives of all those people, recognizable celebrities, miscellaneous other insiders, and anyone with enough money to hire a lawyer you'd recognize from TV, would almost never be charged, and if they were, they'd be intentionally poorly prosecuted and found not guilty, or just judicially wrist-slapped and sent on their way. But that's true now. guy on internet · October 2, 2010 03:24 PM "and I think I just proved what I had thought was a fairly simple point" That you are a freaking lightweight. Or from glass half full perspective, a really cheap drunk. guy · October 2, 2010 03:43 PM How dumb am I? I took your statement to mean that with the 0.04 standard one glass could put you over the line, i.e., no error margin. I do like how everyone predicates their consumption as over dinner of some period with some time afterward. Yes, if I eat steak or a hunk of cheese, I can slow the alcohol absorption. But what if you stop by for a drink with a friend, order then sip for say 20 minutes then realize you have to get home to start dinner as your stomach is already grumbling so you down the last half of the glass. I'd gamble that many individuals would blow over the 0.04 limit say 5 or 10 minutes afterward. Just enough time to get out to your car and down the street a bit. I realize this as fast and loose with facts as what caused this post but will you accept that it'd be gamble on whether the average person would blow over the limit? JKB · October 2, 2010 04:16 PM A couple of glasses of wine at dinner, followed by dessert and coffee (one always hopes), and you are unlikely to run afoul of the law. Assuming the law stays at .08, you may be right. But if the MADD people get their way and lower it to .04, I could legally be nailed for having had a single glass. I took your statement to mean that with the 0.04 standard one glass could put you over the line, i.e., no error margin. Yes, I showed that it easily could -- and would in my case. Factor in one of the larger glasses, and there is no error margin. Bear in mind that the reason for the post is that I think the idea of making me a felon for driving after a glass of wine is outrageous. Eric Scheie · October 2, 2010 04:32 PM Eric: Good Ole Charlie · October 2, 2010 06:30 PM Yep, we gotta problem here. Experienced adults, (experienced in drinking and in driving) can drive home safely after a single glass of wine. Even when the glass is what my mother would have called a water glass rather than a wine glass. David Starr · October 2, 2010 06:51 PM A beautiful woman (at my age I have lax standards) and two glasses of wine. "I guess you'll have to stay over Dear." Of course I would have to make sure my mate had four. And the kids were out of the house. The only thing I'm missing is a hot tub. "Care to shower together?" is way too obvious. I can see some advantages to the law. M. Simon · October 2, 2010 07:03 PM Well there I go again. Playing fast and loose. M. Simon · October 2, 2010 07:08 PM Charlie, thanks for catching my error with the decimal place. And regarding my being a "cheap drunk," while that might be the case according to the legal BAC standard, I am one of those people who finds it difficult to achieve a state of intoxication. Regardless of how drunk I may be legally, I do not feel drunk in the slightest after a glass of wine. Eric Scheie · October 2, 2010 07:16 PM As long as we are correcting errors: A six ounce glass of my red wine (6 divided by 13.9%) should be: A six ounce glass of my red wine (6 multiplied by 13.9%) M. Simon · October 2, 2010 09:12 PM You are right. Except that using my Windows calculator, it does not matter whether I hit divide or multiply. Hitting the percent key after 13.9 yields the same result. Does anyone know why? Eric Scheie · October 3, 2010 12:45 AM We were taught long ago that a healthy good sized (not obese, just normal) male throws off (eliminates) the equivalent of about a shot an hour. That would seem to be more or less about 1/2 oz of pure grain alcohol. Additionally, it takes some time for the body to absorb the alcohol consumed. I'm not in favor of the .04 limit, but I don't think a 4 or 6 ounce glass of 13% wine consumed in a somewhat normal fashion (not chugging, just enjoying) is likely to put you over the limit. That said, I won't even drive after a single beer unless I've allowed some time to pass. another charlie · October 3, 2010 12:12 PM The problem with BAC calculators and formulas is accounting for variable. Weight, sex, amount of alcohol is easy. Time and other liquids and food are really hard to factor in. I suspect even the type of food (protein or carbs?) consumed has an effect and doubt that caffeine does. What has the most effect is how much time one spends consuming the food and other liquids along with a glass or two of wine. The numbers of hours since you last slept will have a huge effect on your ability to drive whether you've had a glass of wine or not. It would not surprise me if this amplifies the effects of alcohol without changing the BAC. The bottom line for me is that BAC (under something like .1 or .08) should be only one consideration of whether to charge someone with DUI, not the sole arbitrary factor. Donna B. · October 3, 2010 02:02 PM Hmmm. Didn't do the advanced math (it's late, and I'm about ready to crash for the night), but I did try out that online alcohol content calculator. I started with 4 beers (they didn't specify the volume of a beer), at 265 pounds (male), over 45 minutes, and according to them I would have a BAC of 0.049%. "Possibly impaired. Don't drive." Um, yeah. Maybe they count 1 beer as a big 12 oz. glass from a bar, or something. Just for fun I stretched the time out to 1 hour. Nope. At 265 pounds, 4 beers over 1 hour still results in a BAC of 0.044%. I don't think so. Let's try 3 beers over 30 minutes: 0.038. Whoopee. After 3 beers over a half-hour, big sucker like me is just under the proposed limit. 3 beers @ 45 minutes gets me 0.033, and 3 beers @ 60 minutes gives 0.029. To compare (still using 265#, male)3 beers over 30 minutes gives 0.038. 4 beers over 30 minutes gives 0.053. Yep. That's one extra beer over a half-hour. I'm mucked up. 3 beers @ 45 minutes gives 0.033. 4 beers @ 45 minutes gives 0.049. Wasted. 3 beers @ 60 minutes gives 0.029. 4 beers @ 60 minutes gives 0.044. NOT SAFE. Conclusion: 3 beers are always ok. 4 beers are the work of the Devil. Or Miller. Or something. ;) At the very least, their model for the effect of alcohol on large body masses is faulty. Not even gonna address the alcohol content of different beers. What have we learned today? Bigoted fanatics will take things to extremes in order to fulfill their goals. Dog bites man. Feh. Casey · October 4, 2010 05:24 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2010
September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Some People Were Missed.
• my preliminary estimation of mysterious satellite activities • Gratuitous advice to the Republican leadership that isn't there (from a political nobody who doesn't follow them anyway...) • "fast and loose with the facts"? • Forward To Liberty • A Song For This Season • Good Advice • You Want What?????????????? • There is not enough, because there is never enough • Bill Whittle Has Moved
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Yes, but. On a real-world note: you are unlikely to down a glass of wine as you climb behind the wheel. A couple of glasses of wine at dinner, followed by dessert and coffee (one always hopes), and you are unlikely to run afoul of the law. But I run a steady gantlet of well-meaning (if annoying) Americans who marvel (read, are appalled) that I will do exactly as above at a restaurant and then drive home.