| Author |
Message |
|
Philip Dyer
|
 Posted: Tue 24 Sep, 2013 11:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="D. S. Smith"]I can see a moderate amount of alcohol as being both beneficial and detrimental to a medieval soldier. It can make you less susceptible to blunt trauma since your body is more languid, as in the classic example of why DUI drivers are often less injured in a crash than the sober motorists they run into.
On the other hand, it is a proven fact that even a very small amount of alcohol (1 beer) significantly increases your perception and reaction time, which I could see as being very detrimental on the battlefield.[/quote
That is a load of bullshit. The first you are ignoring the fact that one of the reasons that alcohol for the most part is a depressant and the amount needed to be considered driving under the influence is more than drinking one beer and that drinking one beer as different effects on the body drinking several and also ab drinker that DUI under the influence are more reckless, more likely to speed, etc weight x speed equals more energy thus something going faster hit something going slower, assuming the car are similar, the faster the car the more energy it is putting into the lower car, the more force the slower car is receiving and thus the less force the faster is receiving less damage than the slower car and driver. Also you used the phrase moderate drinking for the first one very light for the second, giving the idea the alcohol is stimulant, which has been proven not to be the case.
|
|
  |
 |
|
D. S. Smith
Location: Central CA Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Sep, 2013 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: |
That is a load of bullshit. The first you are ignoring the fact that one of the reasons that alcohol for the most part is a depressant and the amount needed to be considered driving under the influence is more than drinking one beer and that drinking one beer as different effects on the body drinking several and also ab drinker that DUI under the influence are more reckless, more likely to speed, etc weight x speed equals more energy thus something going faster hit something going slower, assuming the car are similar, the faster the car the more energy it is putting into the lower car, the more force the slower car is receiving and thus the less force the faster is receiving less damage than the slower car and driver. Also you used the phrase moderate drinking for the first one very light for the second, giving the idea the alcohol is stimulant, which has been proven not to be the case. |
Whoah, easy on the coffee Philip.  I'm afraid you've drawn the wrong conclusions from what I've written. In the first, I never said that alcohol is the only contributing factor to a drunk driver often being less injured than a sober one in a crash. I'll agree with you that it is one of a number of factors. But it is also a true generalization. I can only tell you that based on my personal experience of having responded to and treated patients from hundreds of collisions over two decades; intoxicated occupants of a vehicle are frequently less severely injured than their sober counterparts, even when both are in the same vehicle (debunking your statement that vehicle velocity is the primary factor).
In the second statement I made I have no idea how you're inferring that I said alcohol is a stimulant. It is not. I said it increases perception and reaction times, which is what a depressant does...in simpler terms, it slows you down...the opposite of making you react faster. I've got to tell you that if you believe one beer is not enough to make your driving more dangerous, you're misinformed. I'm a bit familiar with the CNS and effects of stimulants and depressants. I've administered both and observed their reaction on patients, and I've testified in court as an expert witness on the effects of drugs. I've also arrested people (resulting in convictions) for DUI of both alcohol and DUI drugs. I'm not trying to toot my own horn, I'm simply sharing some of my experience so that you'll understand it's not a topic that is alien to me.
Last edited by D. S. Smith on Tue 24 Sep, 2013 11:38 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Schontzler
Location: WA, USA Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Sep, 2013 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think there was a misunderstanding there regarding "increasing ... reaction time." It is easy to confuse that to mean "increase = improve" but it actually means the reaction time is longer (i.e. slower), as in short reaction time is better and long reaction time is worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Smith
Location: Central CA Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Tue 24 Sep, 2013 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Schontzler wrote: | | I think there was a misunderstanding there regarding "increasing ... reaction time." It is easy to confuse that to mean "increase = improve" but it actually means the reaction time is longer (i.e. slower), as in short reaction time is better and long reaction time is worse. |
Ah, good point, now I see what Philip was saying. My apologies for not being clear on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic