Drunk Drivers: Victims Of Alcohol Research Misconduct

Drunk Drivers Should Fight Back: You Have Nothing to Loose But Your Shackles

The tragic news of drunk driving accidents, injuries and its fatal deaths widely published in the media. They mostly project the drunk driver as a marauding criminal who ‘intentionally’ go maiming, murdering people on their way!

However this conventional stereotype image of the drunk drivers projected DUI prevention advocates and the authorities remains far from the truth. Many times the DUI victims are the co-passengers, traveling in the same fateful vehicle if not the drunk drivers themselves. They are the close family members, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, close relatives dear friends, and colleges of the drunk drivers rather than someone out side their vehicle, the public!

People who are close to the drunk drivers most of the times would say that the person never would do or did such a thing INTENTIONALLY. They had never thought human life would be lost as the direct result of their drunk driving even in their remotest dreams. Many of them would have preferred themselves to be dead instead of others becoming victims in this accident.

Of course this after remorse may sound meaningless specially to the innocent victims and to their families. The drunk drivers being portrayed as not trustworthy in those circles. Whatever may be the case, nevertheless the entire responsibility and the blame of the drunk driving accidents its fatal injuries and deaths completely nailed upon them.

The great irony of conventional DUI prevention approach is that its advocates and the legal authorities seems not to care to know, what kind of alcohol drinks makes people “DRUNK” in the first place! They contend all kinds of alcohol drinks either low or high alcohol content cause drunk driving/accidents contrary to all those alcohol epidemiological research records which clearly shows only the alcohol drinks that contains around 4% and above alcohol content causes almost all drunk driving accidents!

However, the authorities defend the licensing all those high alcohol (around and above 4% and above v/v) content drinks arguing that these alcohol drinks only meant for those who are able to control or use them responsibly and safely! The alcohol vulnerable people prone to alcohol(ism) problems should not drink it at all.
By the way the authorities seem to conveniently forget that alcohol is a statutory drug. If its use causes any adverse harmful affect even in the minority of the people it’s licensing, marketing considered to be unlawful and banned until the authorities make it certain that it is safe to drink for the public consumption!

The crux of the matter is; all those alcohol(ism) drunk driving/accident problems primarily happens because of a ongoing ‘Alcohol Research Misconduct of the alcohol authorities contending - all alcohol drinks irrespective of the alcohol content in them low or high nevertheless cause the alcohol(ism) problems’. This contention basically allows the licensing of all those high-alcohol content drinks in the name of ‘Standard Alcohol Drinks’, which causes almost all those alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving and its accidents. — The drunk drivers basically are the alcohol vulnerable gullible people made into the DUI scapegoats. I have explained about it in details in so many of my previous blog post one can find some of its links given at the end of this post.

Drunk driving and its accidents causes terrible destruction fatal injuries, deaths, which devastate hundreds of thousands of peoples life. I feel extremely sorry for those “innocent” victims and their families. However for various reasons they may not agree that the alcohol authorities also equally responsible for the drunk driving/accident problems. Instead they follow DUI official, position that entirely puts the blame on the gullible drunk drivers.

Contrary to the DUI official position, the “Drunk Driving Root-Cause” perspective position basically contends that the drunk drivers are the most unfortunate misunderstood tragic victims of various alcohol(ism) problems the drunk driving/accidents epitomizes it. Along with others many times they loose their own life or the life of their most loved ones. Subjected to heavy DUI penalties and torments branded as marauding criminals, murderers, sentenced to long imprisonments, their family falls apart into devastations, stigmatized for life.

To prevent drunk driving/accidents the drunk drivers and people close to them in their plight has to break away and come out of the authorities influence of the falsified DUI indoctrinations, which puts the entire blame on them while remaining utterly silent on the alcohol drink governing bosses who license and market those drunk driving causing high alcohol standard drinks. Expose their misconduct and to strike back. It would be a great fight for justice on the DUI principles in which they have nothing to loose but their SHACKLES!

To know more on this subject matter read its most important principle documents posted in this blog site, its links in the following:

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/alcohol-research-misconduct-cause-drunk.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/low-alcohol-drinks-to-prevent-drunk.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/safe-alcohol-drinks-licensing-policy.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/four-main-question-answers-on-drunk.html http://bit.ly/jhLEDn

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/four-main-question-answers-on-drunk.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/alcohol-bosses-real-culprits.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/alcohol-drinking-is-it-matter-of-choice.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-driving-with-high-bac-is-wrong.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/standard-alcohol-drinks-stipulations.html

http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/01/alcohol-prohibition-rights-and-wrongs.html

Valerian Texeira.

Alcoholics Curewell

Drunk Driving Root Cause

Alcohol Research Misconduct

Cause Drunk Driving

By: Valerian Texeira.

(2011 Revised Edition)

Authors Note : 2010 Edition:

This is the Principle document of this “Drunk Driving DUI: Root-Cause” weblog. It contends that the ongoing alcohol research “Misconduct” that basically causes all of the alcoholism problems including the DUI or the Drunk Driving problems that we see today. I regularly republish this document in this blog site so not to confine it to the archives. This is its latest updated version to the date.

Introduction:

This is a major “Scientific Misconduct” Allegation Report (SMAR) made in good faith. It is the outcome of my long years of study into the alcohol research that finally uncovered that the worlds leading alcohol(ism) problems preventions treatment research ‘institutions’ continue to carry on a major and most treacherous scientific/research misconduct. --- It causes various alcohol(ism) problems, the notorious among is the DUI or the drunk driving, its fatal accidents are the deadliest among all!

Background:

My quest started during the year1999 when I first discovered that by opting to the low-alcohol drinks, successfully removed my fast 15 years of chronic alcohol dependence or the alcoholism. Of course this Low-Alcohol Drinking (LAD) ‘wisdom remedy’ known since ancient times I only ‘re-discovered’ it with some modification and named it as the “Zero Alcohol Drink”(ZAD) method. In the year 2000, I was able to publish its book titled: “A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol: THE ZERO ALCOHOL DRINK THEORY”. Its book-review got published in THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS – Science Express on Tuesday 20^th June 2000; and in the UK Journal “Addiction” (April 2001) 96, pp. 657-58. Thereafter its landmark website ‘Alcoholics Curewell’ http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell was launched in the year 2003.

However the ‘institutions’ dismissed this entire ZAD finding by basically saying that -- there are no such ‘academic’ research evidences to prove it. -- Even after two of my most important papers 1). “The WHO & USDHHS Promoted World Alcoholism Mess” 2). “Zero Alcohol Drink- Alcohol Detoxification Clinical Trial (ZAD-ADCT)” published in the year 2004 and 2005 subsequently, did not change their fundamental position on alcoholism prevention treatment.

Institutions fundamental Alcoholism Position:

The Alcoholism prevention treatment research institutions fundamental position, (promulgations) on this matter basically asserts that; ‘alcohol drinks irrespective of the alcohol content in them high or low nevertheless cause alcoholism problems particularly in those vulnerable, “predisposed” people. Therefore, opting for low-alcohol drinking, to prevent or eliminate alcoholism particularly the dependence cannot succeed or such attempts bound to fail (due to the loss or “impaired control” symptom of the “alcohol dependence” ; ICD-10, DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria), if the people try it’.

No Research evidence of Low-Alcohol Drinks Causing Alcoholism:

My real breakthrough in this matter (uncovering or this scientific/research misconduct) came in 2006 when I started seriously searching for the institutions academic (empirical, clinical, epidemiological) research reports, evidences that supports their above mentioned fundamental alcoholism position. My search took me to look into those leading Alcoholism, preventions treatment research institutions peer-reviewed Journals reports publications. Thanks for the Internet, the world wide “web”, which made it all possible. My search included the most important “Medline Plus” . “PubMed” <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/Pubmed.htm>. “ETHO” <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/About.htm>. However to my utter shock I found absolutely NO such research evidence that basically suggest that the alcohol dependent people who opt for the Low-Alcohol Drinks in order prevent alcoholism problems nevertheless fail in their attempt! On the contrary there are quite a few research that I found, which clearly suggest that opting for the low-alcohol drinks indeed prevent people from most of the alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving and so from its fatal accidents!

“Standard Alcohol Drinks” Cause Alcohol(ism) Problems:

The most important thing that I learned from my study in this regard is that all the institutions alcohol(ism) problems prevention treatment research conclusions seems to based on the outcome of consuming the “standard alcohol drinks”. The most popular among them is the “standard beer” drink, which contains around 5% and above alcohol (v/v) content. Meanwhile, all these “alcohol research” seems to have totally omitted, ignored or neglected to verify or to check it out whether any of the excessive alcohol consumption, drunkenness, drunk driving its accidents etc. alcohol(ism) problems occurs in the people who prefer, choose or opt to drink the low-alcohol drinks, say containing around 2% or less alcohol v/v, (which is almost around half of the alcohol content of the standard beer) to prevent alcoholism.

All these research strongly confirms to the fact that the excessive alcohol consumption, drunkenness, alcohol(ism) problems in people most probably occur from consuming the “standard alcohol drinks”, which generally contains around and above 5% alcohol (Ironically, these are the same drinks, sanctioned by the institutions, in their much publicized “How to cut down, control, limit or moderate alcohol drinking”) and on the other hand there are NO such research evidences to prove that the alcohol “dependence” (ICD-10, DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria) or the alcohol(ism) problems occur in the people who choose to drink the ‘low-alcohol drinks’.

A Major Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation Report:

It took me some time to realize that this principle “omission”, negligence or failure to conduct the alcohol research on this most critical Low-Alcohol drinks, brings in a basic default or “FALSIFICATION” into this entire alcoholism prevention, treatment research, which under the principles of “Ethics in Science” is defined as a Scientific or “Research Misconduct” on the part of the institutions. Thereby in a ‘good faith’ I wrote its extensive complaint titled “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report” (SMAR) containing two parts, (now made available in http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct website) explaining in details many of its different aspect, fundamental points, basic facts, of this matter and send it to the Universities/Institutions most importantly to the NIAAA asking them to immediately undertake an inquiry into this SMAR under the US. Policy of Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation PHS CFR Part 93. <>.

NIAAA, Institutions Total Irresponsiveness to My SMAR:

However to my total dismay, majority of those university/institutions members most importantly the NIAAA, completely ignore it to the extent they don’t bother to send me even an initial acknowledgement response to it! This amounts to a reckless disregard or “violation of due process” by these institutions in such matters under the PHS scientific/research misconduct policy, including the Whistleblowers Bill or Rights, as it commands the institutions to send a written notice or acknowledgment in response to a scientific/research misconduct allegation report in the part of its ‘allegation assessment’ regulations.

Health Action:

Meanwhile, a beckon of hope to my SMAR comes from a leading health institution in India <http://www.chai-india.org>, which has shown a healthy interest and tried to help me by publishing it under the title: “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report”(in two parts) in the November and December (year 2006) issue of their health magazine called the "Health Action" in its ‘Research & Ethics’ section.

Final Appeal:

I am a lay person committed to social justice most of my life, now ended up with this major SMAR, which further escalated by its Whistleblowers complaint. From my disadvantaged position from India, it is most difficult for me to pursue this major public health research misconduct carried out by the leading alcohol research institutions mainly in the US. Ironically it is the US, which faces the drunk driving/accident problems due to this alcohol research misconduct more than anyone in the world today. So there is a serious need of the concerned people media to take up this major public health issue and to see to it that the concerned authorities undertake “A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response” mandated under the US Policy [PHS CFR Part 93. 300 (b), 304 (b)] of “Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation” for the sake of the worlds public health. Further more details documents most important on this matter available in the website: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct.

Valerian Texeira

St. Joseph Nagar, Jeppu

Mangalore – 575002 India.

© Copyright 2006-2011 . All rights of this publication reserved by the author. This publication can be feely used for educational , social awareness and other such purposes by mentioning its authors name, except for the commercial use one must obtain permission from the author.

Quantum Double-Slit NEW Innovative Thought Experiments

By: Valerian Texeira.

Introduction

Quantum Mechanics (QM) investigates the behaviors of matter basically at its subatomic or the Quantum level (atoms, protons, electrons, photons) at which the matter said to behave in an unpredictable or erratic manner. In other words, what we take for granted that will CERTAINLY HAPPEN in the human relativity (meter) world scale, happens quite differently or “weirdly” in the subatomic particle level explained in the Eisenberg’s “Uncertainty Principle”. It can be practically demonstrated in a famously known Double-Split (DS) experiment. First of all it shows us that matter at its sub-atomic level remains as an omnipotent WAVE when not observed or “not measured” but instantly becomes a PARTICLE when measured or observed! It follows that the subatomic matter can be at two (or more) places at the same time described as quantum Entanglement, Superposition or Non-Location. The most bizarre thing of all (so far) is that our present choice of observation (measurement) profoundly influences or changes its past (Delayed Choice Eraser)! However, we will never know all its outcome or the unpredictable RESULTS until we conduct the specific quantum DS experiments.

However, what I found out in here is; if we further make some new simple changes, i.e. add or remove few centimeters in width, length, distance, in the DS apparatus we can get some more or new FLUCTUATING results that may not consistent with the conventional QM results! For example, we may get Two Band pattern instead the INTERFERENCE pattern even when NOT measuring or observing the photons entering the slit or some entirely new kind of pattern will emerge, which has never been recorded before, which at the end may somewhat contradict the conventional QM results. Nevertheless the most important purpose of all the following DS thought experiments are to try to understand the quantum phenomenon such as Delayed Choice Eraser, Entanglement, Superposition or Non-location and more with some simple forms of the DS experiment so it becomes easy for a lay person like me to conceptualize it.

Conventional QM Double-Split Experiment

Let us first enter into a conventional QM’s DS experiment original set-up. One side of the room a Photon Emitter (PE) after which, at a given distance the experiments main DS apparatus, is a thin metal sheet of one millimeter (m/m) thickness having two slits and the middle gap between the two slits 0.5 m/m. At its back at a given distance an electronic screen device to record the photon hitting. Now when the photon emitter start sending the photon one by one towards the DS then a well known INTERFEARENCE pattern will be formed at the back screen. However if you install a Proton Detector (PD) on the entrance of a slit to see or measure from which slit each of the photon enters, amazingly enough only Two Bands will appear on the back screen. Of course both the results fully in accordance with the conventional QM Uncertainty Principle.

Now what will happen if we make a little change in the middle DS apparatus of this experiment? Perhaps there could be many such new QM experiments that the scientists yet to perform. However here I would like to present some of my laypersons ideas or thought experiments of introducing some new simple changes in the QM’s DS apparatus that could probably bring entirely new kind of variable or fluctuating patterns that has (perhaps) never been imagined before, put forward in the following:

Increasing Gap Between The Double-Slit - The First New Thought Experiment

In our first new DS experiment let us keep everything in this set-up same except increase the gap between the two slits (in the middle metal sheet apparatus ) from 0.5 m/m to 10 centimeters, which in fact 200 folds more than the old one. Start the PE sending the photons one at a time towards the slits with the detector OFF. After some longer time if we look at the back screen instead of the Interference pattern we will most probably see only Two Bands (adjusting the back screen close enough to the middle DS apparatus it may become still clear) which may seem contrary to the QM prediction. NEVERTHELESS if the photon behaves like wave “when not Observed”, two bands should appear in this first DS experiment! However if you switch ON the photon detector then once again one will get the prominent Two Bands exactly same as the QM do. In other words in this first new quantum DS experiment IRRESPECTIVE of the presence or absence of an Observer (PD) measurement, mostly two bands will be formed at the back screen. This is just the beginning to show how some changes in the quantum DS apparatus can create some fluctuating or erratic results. However this first DS experiment still creates the same conventional QM’s Interference and Two Band patterns if one increase or decrease the vertical width of the slits. Similarly replacing the photon with electron or white, blue red, laser etc lights, beams would not bring in such varying results.

Interestingly however, if we increase the horizontal width of the two slits considerably enough (keep all the rest the same) the resulting Interference pattern (if any) will be quite different from the conventional DS. Finally by increasing the horizontal width of one slit enough while keeping other slit same as before, the resulting pattern may be mostly a single band, like the outcome of a single slit or will it still perform the interference pattern? One cannot be any sure! The only CERTAINTY is when a Observer (PD turned ON) placed on the double slit the result will be always the same old Two Bands on the back screen no matter what the, distance, gap, width (vertical, horizontal) thickness of the DS apparatus.

Increasing The Thickness Of The Double-Slit – The Second Thought Experiment

In this second experiment once again let us keep everything in the set-up same except increasing the thickness of the DS sheet (middle apparatus) from the one (1) m/m to one meter, which in fact 1000 times more than the original set-up. Start the photon emitter sending photon towards the DS and put ON the PD (observer) to see through which slit each of the photon enters. After some time there will be the prominent two bands on the back screen exactly same as QM’s DS photon particle prediction. Now put OFF the detector and start the emitter. After sometime surprise, surprise! Unlike the QM prediction of Interference patterns, I guess there will be barely any photon hits recorded on the back screen! Because in my opinion, if the photons behaves like waves when not observed (detected), then as the wave enters into the splits while going through its one meter long passage due to its natural process of expanding it will hit both side of the slit-wall and bounce back interfering with itself creating some sort of random ripple effect inside the slit so when the next photon enters into the slit this photons ripples will hinder or block its passage as a result the photons which entered the slit somewhat fail to come out from the other side of the slit as expected.

Now to make the picture more clear let us make the sides walls inside the slit mirror-polished so all the photon waves hitting inside of the slits get reflected back more effectively (high utilization) so the next photon entering that slit get totally stuck so instead of the Interference on the back screen In the other experiment make the side walls of one slit black other highly mirror polished. The result (without detector) may be, in almost all the recorded photon hits on the screen only the half part of the photon hit registered while its other part missing in all the recorded photon hits on the screen. In one word when the Observer not present it would be totally a chaotic or messy scene. Therefore, all these experiments show that the QM claim of getting Two Band pattern in the DS experiment when Observed or measured is absolutely right! However the same claim of getting Interference pattern in the DS experiment when NOT Observed is NOT always right! This may suggest that matter can be confirmed more like a particle than a wave!

Simple New Innovative DS Experiment To Show Quantum Delayed Choice Eraser

In this experiment let us put two tubes laid parallel and attached to each other in a straight line, like a Double-Slit. However the most important change in this DS experiment is that the one side length of the tube is one Kilometer long ( name it A) but the other side cut short to only one meters long (name it B). A photon emitter on its entrance side where both slit joint opening and two separate electronic screens on its exist side, one after one Kilometer (A) and another after one Meter (B) to record the photons hits. Also two Photon Detectors (PD) placed one at the Joint entrance side and the other at the exit ‘A’ side to see in which the slit (tube) the photon enters or from which side it exit. The PD can be switched ON or OFF as and when required. Now let us start the photon emitter with the PD switched OFF (unobserved). After some time, according to the QM I guess, we most probably see some kind of Interference (wave) like pattern on both the screens A and B. However, a new strange quantum finding perhaps never been thought before may emerge. If the photon as a “wave” enters both the side and needs to get merged at the exit side to become one as the QM prediction then there needs to be some kind of back side photon connection (Wormhole?) from A to B! However it can also logically mean, now we know that the photon(s) hit recorded on the back screen “A” has “certainly” came through the slit “A” and the photon(s) hit recorded on the “B” screen has “certainly” came through the slit “B”. This fundamentally violets the QM Uncertainty Principle therefore only one single band each on both the screens ( total Two Bands) should be recorded even when the PD put OFF! What are the possibilities? Have anyone ever tried this DS experiment before?

Now if we switch ON the PD (or observe) at the entrance side, there we will clearly see one single band on both (A and B) screens (total Two Bands), which confirms the particle position of the QM’s DS experiment when observed. Now put OFF the PD at the entrance side but put ON the PD on the exit (back) side A. Perhaps the result will be the same, one single band each on both (A and B) screens exactly like the PD switched ON while at the entrance side. However there is a basic difference, as we know one side of the tube is only one meter long but the other side one kilometer , so the photon needs to take 1000 times more time to reach this (longer) side of the screen. Now when the second half of the photon (wave) about to come out of this exit side yet to be detected by the PD (observer) at A, the first half of the electron had already hit the short (B) side of the tube screen nearly1000 times earlier in the wave form. However since detecting (observing) the photon wave instantly collapses it into particle, the B side also needs to become a particle. For this to happen 1). This photon wave should have the ability to travel reverse back in time nearly 1000 times and ERASE the photon wave and replace it with a particle when the PD (Observer) switched ON, or 2). The photon wave has the ability somewhat to DELAY hitting the (short side) B screen until its other (longer) part completes its journey to decide whether to remain as a wave or become a particle, OR 3). Each and every photons since its BEGINNING of time knows beforehand whether it will end up detected (measured) by some observers or not thereby able to react accordingly (wave or particle) in the Universe. I think this DS experiment and its explanation , logically or conceptually simple for a lay person like me to understand the QM Delayed Choice Eraser phenomenon.

DS Experiments in Fiber Optic Cable To Show Quantum Entanglement

One can conduct this DS delayed eraser experiment also in a fiber optic cable so one can conduct it with thousands of kilometers long distance. Place two fiber optic cable facing opposite direction. A photon (or electron) emitter at the middle also a photon splitter and reflectors to split a single photon and send the two half’s on the opposite directions through the cable. One cable can be only one meter long and the other thousands of kilometers (one can keep the cable coiled round to make it easy). At the end of both the cables a electronic or computer screens to record the half photon hits also the a PD to detect photon at the longer end. The Delayed Choice Eraser quantum effect may be more profound in this experiment. However another most important quantum phenomena called Entanglement or Superposition in which the information travelling faster than the velocity of light (Non-Locality) can be shown in the following. Keep both the opposite cables thousands of kilometers and equal length. Now split one photons and send it on the opposite side. As we know the photons to travel at the velocity of light in the opposite direction, then that information or communication between them needs to travel at least twice (or far more) the speed of light for both the split photons to become particle instantaneously when we observe one of them at one end which is known as Non-Locality phenomenon. Once again, in my opinion this DS experiment is logically or conceptually simple for a layperson like me to understand the QM Entanglement or the Non-Location. Also all these DS experiment may suggest that at the quantum level matter can be confirmed more like a particle than a wave!


Quantum OBSERVER What Sense Qualification - Schrödinger’s Cat

In Quantum DS experiment the observers observation (of the subatomic quantum materials) always shown as the visual sight. Now, the question is what about observing or measuring it by senses other than the visual sight? What about measuring it by sound, smell or touch? Suppose in a quantum DS experiment the photon detector attach to a sound devise so when the photon enters the slit A it makes one kind of sound and another kind of sound if it enters into the slit B. We know according to the QM when the detector switched OFF there will be a Interference pattern at the back of the Screen. However when the detector switched ON, even when the detectors visual recording of the photon entering the slit completely absent (or ERASED before the observer can see it) still the Observer knows whether the photon entered the A or the B slit by the detector sound difference. Does this collapse the photon into particle thus record two bands on the back screen? One can conduct similar experiment with the touch and smell whether they can also act as the measuring observer medium. If it works then one NEED NOT open the Schrödinger’s Box to know the cats condition inside. One will certainly knows the cat is ALIVE and not DEAD as it constantly calls (sound) from inside the box.

There arise many such important questions about what qualifies a person to be an observer. Can a blind person or blindfolded serve as an Observer? Can a mentally challenged, retard or a small baby qualify as an observer? Can the animals, pets, higher primates qualify as the Observers? Suppose a dog or a chimp trained to look at the photon detector attached with light or sound so if the photon enters the A slit one color of light or sound emitted or if it enters the B another color or sound emitted , so the animals sees or hears two different colors or sounds when the photon enters the two different slits. Does this makes or qualifies the animals as Observers thus collapsing the wave function or the photon turning into particles, two bands on the back screen? Let us go one step further suppose the animals are trained to show (by some sign) to the experimenter, which color of light it saw or the sound it heard, when and how many times , would it collapse the wave function of the photon? If it turns out to be true then does it prove that the animals possesses the self consciousness, which the quantum spiritualist not so keen to discuss about?

Finally, I have many QM questions, for ex: if you switch ON a bulb inside a closed room ( accidently, not knowing it) from outside, according to QM there will be NO light shining inside as long as NO Observer to see inside and collapse the electro magnetic light wave into the particle! What about doing it with the proton emitter in a closed room sending photon on the screen while no one observing? Will there be any record of the photon particle left on the screen? Is this a silly nonsense question? I am a lay person and I have many such QM questions for which I seek answers and I would be very grateful if anyone provides the answers. Thank you for reading.

Valerian Texeira
St. Joseph Nagar
Mangalore 575002

Last visited on 3-3-2011 to keep it on working condition

Read my other important articles at;

IT To Root-Out Corruption
http://i-opinion-about.blogspot.com

Alcohol Research Misconduct
http://alcohol-research-misconduct.blogspot.com

Alcohol Detoxification Therapy
http://alcoholicscurewell.blogspot.com/

Alcohol Research Misconduct: Cause Drunk Driving

Alcohol Research Misconduct: Cause Drunk Driving

By: Valerian Texeira.

Authors Note : 2010 Edition

This is the Principle document of this “Drunk Driving DUI: Root-Cause” weblog. It contends that the ongoing alcohol research “Misconduct” that basically causes all of the alcoholism problems including the DUI or the Drunk Driving problems that we see today. I regularly republish this document in this blog site so not to confine it to the archives. This is its latest updated version to the date.

Introduction

This is a major “Scientific Misconduct” Allegation Report (SMAR) made in good faith. It is the outcome of my long years of study into the alcohol research that finally uncovered that the worlds leading alcohol(ism) problems preventions treatment research ‘institutions’ continue to carry on a major and most treacherous scientific/research misconduct. --- It causes various alcohol(ism) problems, the notorious among is the DUI or the drunk driving, its fatal accidents are the deadliest among all!

Background

My quest started during the year1999 when I first discovered that by opting to the low-alcohol drinks, successfully removed my fast 15 years of chronic alcohol dependence or the alcoholism. Of course this Low-Alcohol Drinking (LAD) ‘wisdom remedy’ known since ancient times I only ‘re-discovered’ it with some modification and named it as the “Zero Alcohol Drink”(ZAD) method. In the year 2000, I was able to publish its book titled: “A Scientific Method to Minimize Alcohol: THE ZERO ALCOHOL DRINK THEORY”. Its book-review got published in THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS – Science Express on Tuesday 20^th June 2000; and in the UK Journal “Addiction” (April 2001) 96, pp. 657-58. Thereafter its landmark website ‘Alcoholics Curewell’ http://www.geocities.com/alcoholics_curewell was launched in the year 2003.

However the ‘institutions’ dismissed this entire ZAD finding by basically saying that -- there are no such ‘academic’ research evidences to prove it. -- Even after two of my most important papers 1). “The WHO & USDHHS Promoted World Alcoholism Mess” 2). “Zero Alcohol Drink- Alcohol Detoxification Clinical Trial (ZAD-ADCT)” published in the year 2004 and 2005 subsequently, did not change their fundamental position on alcoholism prevention treatment.

Institutions fundamental Alcoholism Position

The Alcoholism prevention treatment research institutions fundamental position, (promulgations) on this matter basically asserts that; ‘alcohol drinks irrespective of the alcohol content in them high or low nevertheless cause alcoholism problems particularly in those vulnerable, “predisposed” people. Therefore, opting for low-alcohol drinking, to prevent or eliminate alcoholism particularly the dependence cannot succeed or such attempts bound to fail (due to the loss or “impaired control” symptom of the alcohol dependence), if the people try it’.

No Research evidence of Low-Alcohol Drinks Causing Alcoholism

My real breakthrough in this matter (uncovering or this scientific/research misconduct) came in 2006 when I started seriously searching for the institutions academic (empirical, clinical, epidemiological) research reports, evidences that supports their above mentioned fundamental alcoholism position. My search took me to look into those leading Alcoholism, preventions treatment research institutions peer-reviewed Journals reports publications. Thanks for the Internet, the world wide “web”, which made it all possible. My search included the most important “Medline Plus” . “PubMed” <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/Pubmed.htm>. “ETHO” <http://etoh.niaaa.nih.gov/About.htm>. However to my utter shock I found absolutely NO such research evidence that basically suggest that the alcohol dependent people who opt for the Low-Alcohol Drinks in order prevent alcoholism problems nevertheless fail in their attempt! On the contrary there are quite a few research that I found, which clearly suggest that opting for the low-alcohol drinks indeed prevent people from most of the alcohol(ism) problems including the drunk driving and so from its fatal accidents!

“Standard Alcohol Drinks” Cause Alcohol(ism) Problems

The most important thing that I learned from my study in this regard is that all the institutions alcohol(ism) problems prevention treatment research conclusions seems to based on the outcome of consuming the “standard alcohol drinks”. The most popular among them is the “standard beer” drink, which contains around 5% and above alcohol (v/v) content. Meanwhile, all these “alcohol research” seems to have totally omitted, ignored or neglected to verify or to check it out whether any of the excessive alcohol consumption, drunkenness, drunk driving its accidents etc. alcohol(ism) problems occurs in the people who prefer, choose or opt to drink the low-alcohol drinks, say containing around 2% or less alcohol v/v, (which is almost around half of the alcohol content of the standard beer) to prevent alcoholism.

All these research strongly confirms to the fact that the excessive alcohol consumption, drunkenness, alcohol(ism) problems in people most probably occur from consuming the “standard alcohol drinks”, which generally contains around and above 5% alcohol (Ironically, these are the same drinks, sanctioned by the institutions, in their much publicized “How to cut down, control, limit or moderate alcohol drinking”) and on the other hand there are NO such research evidences to prove that the alcohol “dependence” (ICD-10, DSM-IV, diagnostic criteria) or the alcohol(ism) problems occur in the people who choose to drink the ‘low-alcohol drinks’.

A Major Scientific/Research Misconduct Allegation Report

It took me some time to realize that this principle “omission”, negligence or failure to conduct the alcohol research on this most critical Low-Alcohol drinks, brings in a basic default or “FALSIFICATION” into this entire alcoholism prevention, treatment research, which under the principles of “Ethics in Science” is defined as a Scientific or “Research Misconduct” on the part of the institutions. Thereby in a ‘good faith’ I wrote its extensive complaint titled “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report” (SMAR) containing two parts, (now made available in http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct website) explaining in details many of its different aspect, fundamental points, basic facts, of this matter and send it to the Universities/Institutions most importantly to the NIAAA asking them to immediately undertake an inquiry into this SMAR under the US. Policy of Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation PHS CFR Part 93. <>.

NIAAA, Institutions Total Irresponsiveness to My SMAR

However to my total dismay, majority of those university/institutions members most importantly the NIAAA, completely ignore it to the extent they don’t bother to send me even an initial acknowledgement response to it! This amounts to a reckless disregard or “violation of due process” by these institutions in such matters under the PHS scientific/research misconduct policy, including the Whistleblowers Bill or Rights, as it commands the institutions to send a written notice or acknowledgment in response to a scientific/research misconduct allegation report in the part of its ‘allegation assessment’ regulations.

Health Action

Meanwhile, a beckon of hope to my SMAR comes from a leading health institution in India <http://www.chai-india.org>, which has shown a healthy interest and tried to help me by publishing it under the title: “A Major Scientific Misconduct Allegation Report”(in two parts) in the November and December (year 2006) issue of their health magazine called the "Health Action" in its ‘Research & Ethics’ section.

Final Appeal

I am a lay person committed to social justice most of my life, now ended up with this major SMAR, which further escalated by its Whistleblowers complaint. From my disadvantaged position from India, it is most difficult for me to pursue this major public health research misconduct carried out by the leading alcohol research institutions mainly in the US. Ironically it is the US, which faces the drunk driving/accident problems due to this alcohol research misconduct more than anyone in the world today. So there is a serious need of the concerned people media to take up this major public health issue and to see to it that the concerned authorities undertake “A thorough, competent, objective, and fair response” mandated under the US Policy [PHS CFR Part 93. 300 (b), 304 (b)] of “Responding to Research Misconduct Allegation” for the sake of the worlds public health. Further more details documents most important on this matter available in the website: http://www.geocities.com/scientific_misconduct.

Valerian Texeira

St. Joseph Nagar

Mangalore 575002

© Copyright 2006-2010 . All rights of this publication reserved by the author. This publication can be feely used for educational , social awareness and other such purposes by mentioning its authors name, except for the commercial use one must obtain permission from the author.