- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 38,261
- Reaction score
- 44,203
- Location
- Atlanta
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
"0.778"... um, he should be dead.
Has to be an error with the test, .40 is considered a lethal amount. To even drink enough to get that drunk would be improbable
Tolerance and BAC aren’t the same. Take two people at similar sizes and they drink 20 beers one is fine to drive and the other is passed out. They both still have the same BAC and .40 is still considered a lethal dose. So yes an alcoholic might still be lucid by the time they get to .4 but if they keep drinking serious permanent damage will occur
Some people function well and some people do not at the same alcohol intake,In America, our belief that functional tolerance changes the points at which alcohol has effect is born of apology for drunk driving.
I believe medical science. Everyone has the same effects at the same BACs. Testing proves that. Alcoholics can't hide the effects from testing.
Some people function well and some people do not at the same alcohol intake,
My “belief” is by paying attention during real world events.
If you think this is true cite your source.But they have the same effects at the same BAC. They hide those effects.
If you think this is true cite your source.
What explains withdrawal symptoms if not the body becoming “tolerant” of a constant flood of alcohol then revolting when that’s stopped? Withdrawal is potentially deadly for alcoholics.I know it's true and I'm not googling. Beside, someone already provided a citation: "Functional tolerance... hiding the effects."
I did, and you didn't read it. And you misquoted the section on functional tolerance. Here's part of that, quoted in full below: "Because the drinker does not experience significant behavioral impairment as a result of drinking, tolerance may facilitate the consumption of increasing amounts of alcohol." Says nothing about 'hiding the effects' but what we chronic drinkers EXPERIENCE. Those are different.Okay, if you don't feel like googling (I don't either, so no judgement), consider this:
It's been 2 hours since I started this discussion. Two attempts have been made to provide counter-citation (both by the same brave person). Both attempts were utter failures. The first proved my claim, "Functional tolerance... hiding the effects". The second was about withdrawal symptoms and not apparently relevant.
So what's up? How come no one can provide a counter-citation?
More here, including the effects on brain chemistry:Alcohol and Tolerance
Alcohol consumption interferes with many bodily functions and affects behavior. However, after chronic alcohol consumption, the drinker often develops tolerance to at least some of alcohol's effects. Tolerance means that after continued drinking, consumption of a constant amount of alcohol produces a lesser effect or increasing amounts of alcohol are necessary to produce the same effect (1). Despite this uncomplicated definition, scientists distinguish between several types of tolerance that are produced by different mechanisms.
.....
Functional Tolerance
Humans and animals develop tolerance when their brain functions adapt to compensate for the disruption caused by alcohol in both their behavior and their bodily functions. This adaptation is called functional tolerance (2). Chronic heavy drinkers display functional tolerance when they show few obvious signs of intoxication even at high blood alcohol concentrations (BAC's), which in others would be incapacitating or even fatal (3). Because the drinker does not experience significant behavioral impairment as a result of drinking, tolerance may facilitate the consumption of increasing amounts of alcohol. This can result in physical dependence and alcohol-related organ damage.
...
Metabolic Tolerance
Tolerance that results from a more rapid elimination of alcohol from the body is called metabolic tolerance (2). It is associated with a specific group of liver enzymes that metabolize alcohol and that are activated after chronic drinking (21,22). Enzyme activation increases alcohol degradation and reduces the time during which alcohol is active in the body (2), thereby reducing the duration of alcohol's intoxicating effects.
We've been through this again and again. Not always.Nine times the legal limit is .72. He'd be dead as yesterday's fish sandwich.
We've been through this again and again. Not always.
I found a cite (linked above) where people had over 0.9% and lived. The record for highest BAC with full recovery is over 1.4%Nine times the legal limit is .72. He'd be dead as yesterday's fish sandwich.
I found a cite (linked above) where people had over 0.9% and lived. The record for highest BAC with full recovery is over 1.4%
Not that I recommend trying this at home.
Mud Hens to the rescue…Just to be clear, this isn't Truthing. If someone provides a citation saying planes flew into the towers, I fold.
Mud Hens to the rescue…
Alcohol Tolerance
Read and watch our video about alcohol tolerance and why it might not be such a good thing.www.utoledo.edu
Reaction time and peripheral vision do not improve with tolerance.
BAC and the rate at which you metabolize alcohol do not change with tolerance.
Ability to stand, walk, speak without slurring, etc may change with tolerance.
Physical damage and impairment are occurring without your knowledge. With tolerance, you feel less drunk, so you’re less able to accurately judge your ability to function. For example, you may think you’re okay to drive, even though your reaction time and vision are impaired.
Cherry-picking doesn’t become you.What does change?
May change. That depends on the observation. People don't fool tests.
It continues...
"You feel less drunk." Not "you are less drunk."
Cherry-picking doesn’t become you.
First sentence:
A person with tolerance requires a higher BAC than a nontolerant person to experience some of the same effects. Basically, tolerance means that your body is suppressing its normal responses to toxins. So you’re less likely to vomit, pass out, etc.
Rookies vomit and pass out……
How the hell is he still alive?An Oregon man whose blood-alcohol level tested at 0.778 when he was brought to the hospital after crashing his SUV in February will spend 13 months in prison. The Smoking Gun reports that Nathan Danzuka, who was driving on a suspended license when his attempt to outrun police was thwarted by a concrete barrier, also had his driving privileges revoked permanently.
Nine times the legal limit?
Does this guy even have a liver?
like i just posted, 0.30 is when things start getting close to death.I wanna see the numbers on what happens at what BAC. I don't think .77 is survivable. I think one is long dead at that point. I think to get there it must be injected post death.