Commenter:
Cynthia Hites, Virginia Ignition Interlock Forum
I request a pubic hearing regarding the proposed legislative amendments to 24VAC35-60
I would like to request a public hearing. VASAP has slipped a monumental change to the IID program into the middle of this proposed legislation. I've filed at least 4 petitions directly addressing the fact the interlock machines are not alcohol specific, as alcohol is defined by 24VAC35-60-20, the NHTSA BAIID Model Specifications, and the United States FDA.
The machines are registering prolific numbers of false positives, which are actually just 'true positives' for alcohols other than ethanol. When defined as ethanol, no IID can meet the standard of being alcohol specific, because electrochemical fuel cells are simply specific to the hydroxyl group, which so happens to be called the 'alcohols' group.
Finally recognizing the limited functionality of the electrochemical fuel cell, VASAP is now trying to remove the standard of the IIDs being "alcohol specific", as each device is currently installed against the law.
The NHTSA and IID companies have been deceptive by purporting these machines measure only alcohol (ethanol) and it's been a pseudoscientific scam decades in the making. I can cite 5 NHTSA documents that contain the falsehood of “ethanol specificity” as of late 2019.
Interlock devices are punishing innocent people for mouthwash, prescription medicines, windshield washer fluid, perfume, hand sanitizer, sunscreen, but worst of all, and completely ignored, is the fact they're analyzing internal gases and detecting non-ethanol alcohols produced by the bodies of sober people.
The 2013 NHTSA BAIID Model Specifications state "Acetone, an exhalable product of starvation, diabetic ketoacidocis, and a few other medical conditions, has a history of being cited as a source of false positive readings on breath test devices for alcohol".
"Wisconsin noted alcohol specific sensors, such as fuel cells, will have no difficulty passing this test, since substances other than alcohol will have no effect. However, Wisconsin urged that units that are not specific to alcohol..."should be rigorously tested for the impact of interferences such as acetone and other volatile organic compounds." (2)
"The NHTSA agrees with the comments that the Model Specifications should ensure that BAIIDs are as accurate as possible and that it is not desirable to accept devices that generate high levels of false positives. The Agency is also persuaded by the comments that current technology has progressed sufficiently to expect that BAIIDs should be able to distinguish between alcohol and other specific substances... which are commonly found on breath. BAIIDs that are unable to distinguish these substances from alcohol will not meet the Model Specifications." (2)
No interlock device in Virginia can meet the current Federal BAIID Model Specifications.
"Wisconsin also recommended 100% conformance at all levels. (p.2) Smart Start asserted that the difference between 100% and 95% "does not matter". Some changes in accuracy and precision "potentially [add] costs to the BAIID and have no real world added benefit". (2)
I’ll assure you, Smart Start, it matters greatly. When it comes to accuracy, there’s a vast "real world" difference between 95% and 100%.
Now what is of most grave concern lies buried deep within this amendment proposal and includes the following shocking admissions:
"Section 24VAC35-60-70(F)(3) removes the reference to ignition interlocks being “alcohol specific” to prevent the public from assuming the device only detects ethanol to the exclusion of other types of alcohol.", and
"The proposed regulations no longer include the words “alcohol specific” since ignition interlocks detect various forms of alcohol in addition to drinking alcohol (ethanol) and the current regulations and the Code of Virginia define “alcohol” as being ethanol. This has caused confusion to the public."
Yeah, I'll say it's caused confusion to the public...and to the judges, prosecutors, and the families of those falsely accused of drinking while using an interlock.
It's egregious governmental gaslighting.
Removing the requirement for "alcohol specificity" completely changes the intent of the Virginia interlock regulations. These devices are supposed to only measure drinking alcohol.
The truth is BAIIDs don't possess the capability to distinguish between alcoholic compounds. IIDs measure hydroxyl group compounds that can be produced easily within bodies of healthy sober people. Metabolic byproducts from common processes such as ketosis, ketoacidocis, and biomarkers for disease are being misconstrued as liquor.
The IID requires execution of the vital capacity maneuver, and my hypothesis is that over time in a seated position, with the stomach nestled between the lungs, the proximity of the permeable membranes of both organs allows for an exchange of VOCs (volatile organic compounds) that can exponentially raise the level of hydroxyl group compounds detectable on sober breath.
I have been studying VOCs on the expired breath of healthy individuals for over three years now, and plan to attend the virtual Breath Biopsy conference being held next month at Cambridge.
My father in law is, coincidentally, the "father of environmental mass spectrometry" and is a 40 year tenured professor of Chemistry at Indiana University. He has a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1968), and was on the staff and faculty of MIT’s Chemical Engineering Department until 1979, when he became a professor of chemistry at Indiana University. He is a Fellow of the American Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
He explained to me that only a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer can distinguish ethanol from other alcohols. I also know the cost of a GCMS is six figures because he told me he uses a coupon for them, and they're actually made by Hewlett Packard, which was surprising.
But an ignition interlock device is an extremely cheap instrument and utilizes an electrochemical fuel cell, which he also advised is very unsophisticated.
The fuel cell is actually great at what it does, and although it has a terrible reputation for generating 'false positives', that's not altogether true...they're just 'true positives' for alcohols other than ethanol.
Fuel cells are extremely accurate at detecting compounds in the hydroxyl group. If any one of dozens of alcoholic compounds is present in breath or in ambient air, the IID, at the right vapor pressure, is gonna detect it and the device then counts the combined electrons. This electron flow is then simply incorrectly labeled as a BrAC reading.
The interlock datalog readings are just electricity -- it's not quantifying any particular substance. It can't, that's just not within the realm of capability of the fuel cell. So you can't just declare all readings from an interlock as being ethanol, because that's not how an electrochemical fuel cell works.
The problem is NOT the fuel cell, it's just that all its results are being mistakenly labeled "ethanol".
"The purpose of the BAIID is not to accurately measure...the BAC of a driver, but to prevent the person with a high BAC from operating a motor vehicle." (1)
I've studied IID programs nationwide, and the way Virginia is going about it is totally unethical. Interlock is just meant to be a physical gate, and the readings were never intended to be criminalized, as they have been in Virginia.
I have been completely alcohol free since May 2016, and in July 2016 my IID began stranding me, sober, and rendering me helpless and vulnerable.
Once there was a man right outside of my car at Fort Monroe beach, and I couldn't leave. It was sooo scary, and traumatic for me personally I couldn't go back to that parking lot for a couple years.
The NHTSA states "The acceptability of an interlock program may be damaged if too many legitimate users with legal BACs are prevented from driving. Similarly, there are certain climatic or personal safety occasions when lockout of a zero BrAC driver would be unacceptable. Therefore, this may be of concern to the certifying authority." (1)
It happened to me personally on nine different days. Nine separate days of my sober life, while I was an only child caring for my mother who was dying of congestive heart failure, an infected hip replacement, two heart attacks and a stroke. My memories of her last months include speaking with Chris Morris multiple times from the hospital as he kept avoiding a meeting to review my data. These calls are published on Virginia Ignition Interlock Forum.
“Accordingly...the performance requirements have been increased in the revised model specifications at the 0.000 level by providing that the vehicle must not be prevented from starting even once during 20 trials." (2)
I called the Hampton Police to the scene immediately each time these false high BrAC readings occurred, and have 7 different police eyewitness reports, and videos, in addition to their PBT tests all reading zero, simultaneous to the IIDs locking me out.
What's so utterly bizarre is that 7 of my 9 lockout events occurred after I‘d already started the car at ZERO BrAC and only upon ROLLING RETEST was I prompted, via text, to pull over.
All of my datalog readings concretely disprove ethanol by their scientifically impossible absorption rates, and subsequent dissipation rates, which are completely inconsistent with that of human C2H60 metabolization.
No one deserves to go through this. There are so many things wrong with this program, we need to have a hearing to be able to have a dialog.
The issue most paramount now is that this legislative proposal removes the standard of the interlock devices being specific to alcohol.
"For example, Road Safety Technologies stated "it is critical that the interlock device be as accurate as the technology can allow" (p.1) Similarly, LifeSafer asserted "As jurisdictions have embraced and expanded their use of BAIID technology, they have demanded alcohol-specific sensor technology. [Interlocks that] that are not alcohol-specific...tarnish the reputation of the industry...,[which] undermines interlock efficacy and creates lasting misperceptions" (p.4,5). AAMVA expressed its belief that "non-specific alcohol devices are prone to false positives and unwarranted lockouts, leading to lower acceptance rates amongst drivers" (2)
The only reason the ignition interlock was EVER considered to be implemented was because it was touted falsely as alcohol specific.
The entire VASAP ignition interlock system is unethical, and it's disproportionately affecting the poorest among us, who cannot afford adequate council in these matters. For ASAP to restart someone based on IID readings, without benefit of a show cause hearing, is total denial of due process, as ASAP is precluded from considering ANY evidence other than the admittedly flawed IID readings.
I beseech you to hold a public hearing, I have a host of exhibits to submit, and 2 minutes every 3 months isn't enough time to begin to redress the program flaws, inept procedures, and thoroughly irresponsible and misleading pseudoscience being allowed by this Agency.
VASAP cannot change 24VAC35-60-70, F, 3 in this manner without dissolving the entire intent of the statute. I implore you to study the entire body of this proposal, not just the Agency's summary, as it glaringly excludes this critical amendment.
Please hold a public hearing during which I can finally present hard data and scientific evidence, so innocent and compliant Virginians may no longer be persecuted by this scientifically irresponsible and unconstitutionally abysmal witch hunt.
Most Sincerely and Humbly,
Cynthia Hites Virginia Ignition Interlock Forum
1) Federal BAIID Model Specifications, published February 2006
2) Federal BAIID Model Specifications, published May 2013
