 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / June 2006EPA: Ozone Generators Not Effective
http://tinyurl.com/rovaq Available scientific evidence shows that at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone has little potential to remove indoor air contaminants. Some manufacturers or vendors suggest that ozone will render almost every chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. Hi aroberts, Thanks for your post. As in all industries, new information, testing and technologies open the door for innovative products. While uses ozone free technology to clean the air (http://news.spacefoundation.org/printable.cfm?releaseid=78C53360-FB93-1F99-8B178 36D4A156041), I will post here for everyone to see the information you kindly left out about ozone. Your title screams "Ozone Generators". Air purifiers that use trace level ozone are NOT ozone generators. No one argues that when used improperly air purifiers that use ozone can let out levels of ozone that is unsafe. However, there is a clear distinction between ozone generators and air purifiers that use trace level of ozone. I am really glad you posted the link to the EPA's website. The EPA uses data that is extremely outdated to substantiate this claim. For instance, this article quotes the following reference material: 1. "Ozone generators are not effective in removing carbon monoxide" (Salls, 1927; Shaughnessy et al., 1994) You also forgot to mention, that the Gov't has an ACCEPTABLE level of ozone that is allowed in an environment. According to the link you provided the SAFE levels for each agency are: I. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA): requires ozone output of indoor medical devices to be no more than 0.05 ppm. II. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration: (OSHA) requires that workers not be exposed to an average concentration of more than 0.10 ppm for 8 hours. III. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health: (NIOSH) recommends an upper limit of 0.10 ppm, not to be exceeded at any time. EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone is a maximum 8 hour average outdoor concentration of 0.08 ppm (see - the Clean Air Act - www.epa.gov/air/caa/title1.html#ib) Ok, so now we know that there is a SAFE acceptable level allowed by Gov't. Now let's address whether NEW science validates whether or not low level (or trace level) ozone has any benefit. Unlike the studies found on the EPA's website (one might I add completed in 1927! - heart transplant surgery wasn't even thought to be a reality in 1927, someone should really tell the Gov't to perform some new studies, oh that's right; the EPA doesn't DO ANY STUDIES. All of the info they use is referenced material) Ok, getting back to 2006. Science and technology have changed. Some people just don't want to accept that. But the professionals have accepted it, and the data reflects otherwise. For instance, on May 26th, 2006 (five days ago, not almost a decade ago) appearing on foodproductiondaily-usa.com it states that "ozone along with ionization to reduce several pathogens, including E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes, in food processing plants". http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens - May 2006! Huh, didn't the EPA state there is NO benefit to the use of ozone? I know, they must have used levels of ozone that isn't safe right! NO! The article is also quoted as stating, "The levels of ozone are very low in terms of standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Administration" How can this be? Technology has been improved and real scientists have validated this information. You can read the article yourself, "Method combines ozone and ionization to kill pathogens" - http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens What does this mean? It means a lot! I feel for companies that get the wrong picture drawn from this inaccurate information. I am truly happy to see MD's step up and defend these products. Air Purifiers are NOT OZONE generators. There is a clear distinction between the two. Excerpts from WebMD Article dated 5/11/06 Written by Daniel DeNoon and reviewed by Louise Chang, MD (Again an article written in 2006! Not 1927! or even 1995 for that matter!) What does WebMD have to say about the safety of these products: Included in the study were several ionic air purifiers made by The Sharper Image, including the popular Ionic Breeze Quadra. These machines produce detectable levels of ozone. But they did not emit dangerous levels of ozone, except when a Quadra model intended for a large room was tested in a tiny bathroom. (NOTE: Who would put a LARGE unit in a SMALL bathroom. This makes no sense. There isn't enough room in a small tiny bathroom anyway. Shouldn't they have used a purifier that is designed for the space, don't you agree?) Whatever ozone comes from ionic air purifiers pales in comparison to the amount produced by ozone-generating air purifiers. These machines make ozone for one reason: That's what they are designed to do. By contrast, the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra model -- an ionic air purifier, not an ozone generator -- built ozone to a maximum level of 40 parts per billion (ppb) in a large office. The FDA considers medical devices safe if they emit less than 50 ppb of ozone. The World Health Organization considers eight-hour ozone levels of 60 ppb to be acceptable. Mark Connelly, senior director of appliances and home improvement for Consumer Reports, oversees the magazine's air-cleaner tests. "You don't want to say that anything that generates ozone is bad," Connelly tells WebMD. <--- What, the EPA say's that! In fact, you just did as well. (Shame on you ;) "A printer produces ozone, but just because printers sit on people's desks doesn't mean they should be taken off the market...." Whatever ozone comes from ionic air purifiers pales in comparison to the amount produced by ozone-generating air purifiers. These machines make ozone for one reason: That's what they are designed to do. "Sharper Image products were included in the study and, in fact, met all safety standards for ultra-low trace ozone emissions when the appropriate-sized models were used in the manufacturer-recommended room sizes," Stephens tells WebMD. "Why they chose to place the unit in a room size for which it is clearly not intended nor used is inexplicable." Nizkorodov says he thinks California will set a limit on how much ozone a device will be allowed to generate. He guesses the limit will be between 10 and 100 milligrams of ozone per hour -- and his bet is on the lower limit. His study found that the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra puts out 2.2 milligrams of ozone per hour -- far below the lowest limit California is likely to set. Complete WebMD article: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114532.htm Again, comparing ozone generators to air purifiers would be the same of comparing a pellet gun to a 9MM hand gun. Air purifiers when used correctly DO NOT harm anyone. Again, refer above to WebMD dated 2006! I have to make this point very clear. Not as stated reference material the EPA supplies from 1927, not 1950, not 1995! But, 2006! The media is being held accountable for the inaccurate info they post. Just recently MSNBC published a correction on an article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12707280/ MSNBC tries to through the blame at UC Irvine: ""Ionic air purifiers do emit ozone," said lead researcher Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine. But he added that "none of the ionic air purifiers produce enough ozone when they are used properly to exceed smog alerts." The confusion was generated in part by a UC Irvine press release that did not clearly distinguish between these two types of machines." - Aww, how convenient of the Robert Britt to blame UC Irvine. Maybe MSNBC should of read the paper! Britt did the same as you did, post outdated reference material found on almost all Gov't websites. UC Irvine (well respected research facility) was quoted as saying they are "just as disappointed as you are about the inaccuracies in Mr. Britt's article. Read it yourself: http://www.sharperimage.com/SharperImageIonicResponse.html#letter Not only that, Harriet A. Burge PhD, Senior Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health commented on Robert's article by stating: "Clearly, when used as directed, the SI cleaners did not produce inappropriate ozone concentrations in their studies. Their tables make clear that under conditions of use suggested by the manufacturer ozone concentrations remain low (less than 22ppb). The only elevated concentration they report was obtained by using a large room sized unit inappropriately in a very small bathroom with no ventilation. It is noteworthy that they did not use the SI units in Office B, possibly because they suspected that little ozone would be recovered." Also, unlike Robert Britte, Harvard Lecturer Burge personally evaluated the products. Burge went on to say: "I have personally evaluated the SI electrostatic precipitators and reviewed testing performed by the manufacturer. I have no hesitation about using them in my own home. Even in my smallest bedroom (7x10ft) ozone levels do not reach the odor threshold, which is well below any health related guideline." Read Harriet's full response: http://www.sharperimage.com/SharperImageIonicResponse.html#harriet So let's get the facts straight. Harriet A. Burge PhD, Senior Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health, Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine, and WebMD all state that ozone air purifiers are safe when used correctly. (This is KEY. Anything when used incorrectly can kill you. Hmm, if the side of a bottle of medicine said take 2, should you take 10!) Once more, for those who keep comparing the two. WebMD states that air purifiers that use ozone are NOT ozone generators: "By contrast, the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra model -- an ionic air purifier, not an ozone generator -- built ozone to a maximum level of 40 parts per billion (ppb) in a large office. The FDA considers medical devices safe if they emit less than 50 ppb of ozone. The World Health Organization considers eight-hour ozone levels of 60 ppb to be acceptable." http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114532.htm So I hope this updated 2006 info has shed some light on this topic. I know, the EPA is the FINAL authority on things, and I am sure they always get everything right. Come on, they are a perfect in everything that they do: Or maybe they aren't: This is NOT the first time the EPA has mislead us. Remember this? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/09/national/main567489.shtml Judge Blasts EPA! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/02/health/main1276366.shtml - "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts wrote, calling Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking." Funny, the EPA would still have you believe the air was safe. LOL Yes, we can trust everything the EPA says! I am sure you will stick to your guns on this. And you should. Believe all that you choose to. But, new information contradicts even your post of being ineffective. I have already proven this to be incorrect, http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens Take Care > http://tinyurl.com/rovaq > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only > by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. <reams of advertising, scamming hype snipped> Bottom line: I'll believe EPA, American Lung Association, FTC, and not a scammer spamming here. Bottom Bottom Line: Ozone is a lung irritant and a known trigger for asthma. As Dr. Jonathan Samet , chairman of the epidemiology department of the Johns Hopkins Bloomburg School of Public Health in the May 2005 issue of Consumers Reports: "We cannot guarantee safety at any ozone level, so it makes sense not to contaminate your living space." So called "air purifiers" that generate ozone should not be used by those individuals with asthma, COPD, emphysema or any other respiratory disease. They should also not be used for infants or the elderly. For detailed articles on all of these subjects including the Ionic Breeze, the effects of ozone on indoor air chemistry, how ultrafine particles and formaldehyde (a carcinogen) are created through chemical reactions with ozone (and hydroxyl radicals) and cleaning products and the medical studies linking the use of air purifiers to asthma benefits go to the Articles and Information section of www.allergyclean.com. P.S. - Other allergy and asthma lists I participate in do not allow Ecoquest or other multilevel marketing spamming. ><reams of advertising, scamming hype snipped> > >Bottom line: I'll believe EPA, American Lung Association, FTC, and not a >scammer spamming here. the thing is , its one question , to ask if ozone / ionizer air cleaners are harmful and another is they are effective. The more important question is if its effective and for me the radio shack brand with ionizer and which has that ultra- violet lights have been completely useless > Hi aroberts, > [quoted text clipped - 257 lines] >> chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. Hi mcs, You are correct. Whether or not they are safe means nothing if they do not work. I like your progressive thinking. Well, I cannot speak for other companies, but I can tell you that RCI is a proven system that reduces airborne bacteria. It was used by NASA, and now it is used by EcoQuest. To view go here: http://tinyurl.com/c5ojs In regards to ionization, that has always been shown to reduce or eliminate particles from the air. Don't take my word for it. The media is doing a great job. An entire school district installed our Fresh Air technology. You can read the article here: http://tinyurl.com/re2s7 <--see below* This is a great article, even the Mayor talks about his experience with our Fresh Air technology. *Requireds Adobe PDF to view - if you dont have it visit: http://www.adobe.com/reader Another great article written about us:: http://tinyurl.com/lazvu (PDF File) Last but not least, EcoQuest at forefront of clean air technology for last 20 years: http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=143927&Sn=BNEW&Issue... UNITED STATES: A team of researchers are investigating ionization's potential effectiveness in food processing plants. - http://tinyurl.com/lr73k - (aroberts, you see that. A team of PROFESSIONAL researchers! ;) mcs, so using the the ionization technology that has shown to rid the pathogens from the air combined with RCI; hence a great air purifier to own! But with any choice, go with a product that you feel comfortable with. > the thing is , its one question , to ask if ozone / ionizer air cleaners are > harmful and another is they are effective. The more important question is if [quoted text clipped - 261 lines] > >> chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only > >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. > Hi mcs, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Don't take my word for it. The media is doing a great job. Hi Allergy Iam not debating the suppossed effects of an ionzer. Trust me I wish it took the componet that causes my reactions. If the bottom line is, that it breaks up the dust and puts it to the floor , its still there right? Bottom line it has done nothing for me. . I am suggesting it does very little in reducing particle pollution which is a componet of pollution.. When particle pollution is low I do better.PERIOD I can tell you why but without getting too technical, from experience ionzers does nothing. If your machines technology is different, thats the most important issue to me but I kind of doubt it but I do keep an open mind. On the other hand, many of the newer stores especially supermarkets have these large vents with not only cool air but in my estimation cleaner air. > An entire school district installed our Fresh Air technology. You can > read the article here: http://tinyurl.com/re2s7 <--see below* > This is a great article, even the Mayor talks about his experience with > our Fresh Air technology. I am not making blanket generazations. If any claim states it reduces particle pollution signaficantly I will buy it and their is an implied warranty. I would be the first one to buy. > *Requireds Adobe PDF to view - if you dont have it visit: > http://www.adobe.com/reader [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > pathogens from the air combined with RCI; hence a great air purifier to > own! Whats RCI? if thats the lightwaves? Ok but like I will ask you now, does it reduce particle pollution. Researchers I know at U of p says particle pollution is one of the leading causess of symptoms of asthma > But with any choice, go with a product that you feel comfortable with. Thats not the point. That sentence doesn't make everything right or wrong, /we are trying to substantiate if your product is effective : It might be for some people and if so then good luck with it. >> the thing is , its one question , to ask if ozone / ionizer air cleaners >> are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > Thanks for your post. As in all industries, new information, testing >> > and technologies open the door for innovative products. Yes, our technology is effective. It uses four major cleaning technologies: 1. Radio Frequency ("RF") Ionization 2. Needle Point Ionization 3. Radiant Catalytic Ionization (RCI) 4. UVX Light Reference Material: http://ecoquestintl.com/Information-Library/docs/4260_photocatoxitech.pdf http://ecoquestintl.com/Information-Library/docs/4247sizesofparticlesremoved.pdf http://ecoquestintl.com/Information-Library/docs/4234ionizationoutput.pdf http://www.tryfreshair.com/How_It_Works/index_home.asp I would assume the only way for anyone to know if a product works or not, would be to try it themselves. I mean, it's useless what others say, right? Here is comments made by Dr. Laura (http://www.drlaura.com/about/ - a PhD grad from Columbia) regarding our technology: http://playaudio-123.com/play.asp?m=50950&f=JRMFPV&ps=13&p=1 Here is an impromptu comment made by Dr. Laura: http://www.ecoquestintl.com/audio/drlaura/drlaura_livingair.mp3 <--MP3 file On the radio interview, Red Cross uses EcoQuest: http://playaudiomessage.com/play.asp?m=32265&f=FNWMIR&ps=13&p=1 If you like, I can offer you a trial of our technology. Just email me allergyrelief@gmail.com. If it doesn't work, send it back! ;) Best Regards, www.tryfreshair.com > > Hi mcs, > > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > >> > Thanks for your post. As in all industries, new information, testing > >> > and technologies open the door for innovative products. > Yes, our technology is effective. It uses four major cleaning > technologies: > > 1. Radio Frequency ("RF") Ionization Never heard of that , but ok > 2. Needle Point Ionization Not sure what that is or how its different then just an ionizer which to me is COMPLetely useless in getting rid of my symptoms. Now clean air gets rid of my symptoms and so far not one machines I tried came close. > 3. Radiant Catalytic Ionization (RCI) OK allergyrelife. I have a deal for you. I would like to see any reference to removing particle pollution. Or direct me to order form and show me where I have a warranty of level of satisfaction or money refunded and I will be glad to try it and report back > 4. UVX Light Again Radio shack model has two UV bulbs and COMPLETELY USELESS and maybe worse since I had it but I don't blame the unit I blame our cities air. PS Allergy , I asked for links above because I don't real all the links that everyone posts, too many of them . What I am saying , is I am willing to take your word your product is effective and If so, I would be happier then you ever will be , lol .. but trust me, my expectations are not great. > Reference Material: > http://ecoquestintl.com/Information-Library/docs/4260_photocatoxitech.pdf [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not, would be to try it themselves. I mean, it's useless what others > say, right? NO, not useless, your somewhat convincing , because when someone offers hope to someone who can't breathe well, then your doing a service if the product helps but lol heck I give it a 5 percent chance but hey , I normally don't try products because someone says something over the net. PS I have serious doubt because of your responses. You constantly use sentences that completely tout the virtues or say its totally useless and I can choose to not believe , what that says to me your finely rehearsed or in touch with learning to say what people want to hear / I have my strong doubts but maybe I will buy anyway for something to do and so I can say to myself I am somewhat nutty again. > Here is comments made by Dr. Laura (http://www.drlaura.com/about/ - a > PhD grad from Columbia) regarding our technology: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you like, I can offer you a trial of our technology. Just email me > allergyrelief@gmail.com. If it doesn't work, send it back! ;) Now we are talking , I will or shall, best regards ( for now ) lol > Best Regards, > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >> >> > testing >> >> > and technologies open the door for innovative products. Yes, our technology is effective. It uses four major cleaning technologies: 1. Radio Frequency ("RF") Ionization 2. Needle Point Ionization 3. Radiant Catalytic Ionization (RCI) 4. UVX Light Reference Material: http://ecoquestintl.com/Information-Library/docs/4260_photocatoxitech.pdf http://ecoquestintl.com/Information-Library/docs/4247sizesofparticlesremoved.pdf http://ecoquestintl.com/Information-Library/docs/4234ionizationoutput.pdf http://www.tryfreshair.com/How_It_Works/index_home.asp Here are comments made by Dr. Laura (http://www.drlaura.com/about/ - a PhD grad from Columbia) regarding our technology: http://tinyurl.com/gl8cl <--MP3 file And also comments heard on a radio interview, Red Cross uses EcoQuest: http://playaudiomessage.com/play.asp?m=32265&f=FNWMIR&ps=13&p=1 I would assume the only way for somone to know if a product works or not, would be to try it themselves. All environments are different. The best way to see how well the technology works, is to try it in the environment it is going to be placed in. If you like, I can offer you a trial of our technology. Just email me allergyrelief@gmail.com. If it doesn't work, send it back! ;) Best Regards, www.tryfreshair.com > > Hi mcs, > > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > >> > Thanks for your post. As in all industries, new information, testing > >> > and technologies open the door for innovative products. Hi aroberts, Thanks for your post. As in all industries, new information, testing and technologies open the door for innovative products. While our space certified technology doesn't uses ozone to clean the air (http://news.spacefoundation.org/printable.cfm?releaseid=78C53360-FB93-1F99-8B178 36D4A156041), I will post here for everyone to see the information you kindly left out about ozone. Your title screams "Ozone Generators". Air purifiers that use trace level ozone are NOT ozone generators. No one argues that when used improperly air purifiers that use ozone can let out levels of ozone that is unsafe. However, there is a clear distinction between ozone generators and air purifiers that use trace level of ozone. I am really glad you posted the link to the EPA's website. The EPA uses data that is extremely outdated to substantiate this claim. For instance, this article quotes the following reference material: 1. "Ozone generators are not effective in removing carbon monoxide" (Salls, 1927; Shaughnessy et al., 1994) You also forgot to mention, that the Gov't has an ACCEPTABLE level of ozone that is allowed in an environment. According to the link you provided the SAFE levels for each agency are: I. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA): requires ozone output of indoor medical devices to be no more than 0.05 ppm. II. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration: (OSHA) requires that workers not be exposed to an average concentration of more than 0.10 ppm for 8 hours. III. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health: (NIOSH) recommends an upper limit of 0.10 ppm, not to be exceeded at any time. EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone is a maximum 8 hour average outdoor concentration of 0.08 ppm (see - the Clean Air Act - www.epa.gov/air/caa/title1.html#ib) Ok, so now we know that there is a SAFE acceptable level allowed by Gov't. Now let's address whether NEW science validates whether or not low level (or trace level) ozone has any benefit. Unlike the studies found on the EPA's website (one might I add completed in 1927! - heart transplant surgery wasn't even thought to be a reality in 1927, someone should really tell the Gov't to perform some new studies, oh that's right; the EPA doesn't DO ANY STUDIES. All of the info they use is referenced material) Ok, getting back to 2006. Science and technology have changed. Some people just don't want to accept that. But the professionals have accepted it, and the data reflects otherwise. For instance, on May 26th, 2006 (five days ago, not almost a decade ago) appearing on foodproductiondaily-usa.com it states that "ozone along with ionization to reduce several pathogens, including E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes, in food processing plants". http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens - May 2006! Huh, didn't the EPA state there is NO benefit to the use of ozone? I know, they must have used levels of ozone that isn't safe right! NO! The article is also quoted as stating, "The levels of ozone are very low in terms of standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Administration" How can this be? Technology has been improved and real scientists have validated this information. You can read the article yourself, "Method combines ozone and ionization to kill pathogens" - http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens What does this mean? It means a lot! I feel for companies that get the wrong picture drawn from this inaccurate information. I am truly happy to see MD's step up and defend these products. Air Purifiers are NOT OZONE generators. There is a clear distinction between the two. Excerpts from WebMD Article dated 5/11/06 Written by Daniel DeNoon and reviewed by Louise Chang, MD (Again an article written in 2006! Not 1927! or even 1995 for that matter!) What does WebMD have to say about the safety of these products: Included in the study were several ionic air purifiers made by The Sharper Image, including the popular Ionic Breeze Quadra. These machines produce detectable levels of ozone. But they did not emit dangerous levels of ozone, except when a Quadra model intended for a large room was tested in a tiny bathroom. (NOTE: Who would put a LARGE unit in a SMALL bathroom. This makes no sense. There isn't enough room in a small tiny bathroom anyway. Shouldn't they have used a purifier that is designed for the space, don't you agree?) Whatever ozone comes from ionic air purifiers pales in comparison to the amount produced by ozone-generating air purifiers. These machines make ozone for one reason: That's what they are designed to do. By contrast, the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra model -- an ionic air purifier, not an ozone generator -- built ozone to a maximum level of 40 parts per billion (ppb) in a large office. The FDA considers medical devices safe if they emit less than 50 ppb of ozone. The World Health Organization considers eight-hour ozone levels of 60 ppb to be acceptable. Mark Connelly, senior director of appliances and home improvement for Consumer Reports, oversees the magazine's air-cleaner tests. "You don't want to say that anything that generates ozone is bad," Connelly tells WebMD. <--- What, the EPA say's that! In fact, you just did as well. (Shame on you ;) "A printer produces ozone, but just because printers sit on people's desks doesn't mean they should be taken off the market...." Whatever ozone comes from ionic air purifiers pales in comparison to the amount produced by ozone-generating air purifiers. These machines make ozone for one reason: That's what they are designed to do. "Sharper Image products were included in the study and, in fact, met all safety standards for ultra-low trace ozone emissions when the appropriate-sized models were used in the manufacturer-recommended room sizes," Stephens tells WebMD. "Why they chose to place the unit in a room size for which it is clearly not intended nor used is inexplicable." Nizkorodov says he thinks California will set a limit on how much ozone a device will be allowed to generate. He guesses the limit will be between 10 and 100 milligrams of ozone per hour -- and his bet is on the lower limit. His study found that the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra puts out 2.2 milligrams of ozone per hour -- far below the lowest limit California is likely to set. Complete WebMD article: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114532.htm Again, comparing ozone generators to air purifiers would be the same of comparing a pellet gun to a 9MM hand gun. Air purifiers when used correctly DO NOT harm anyone. Again, refer above to WebMD dated 2006! I have to make this point very clear. Not as stated reference material the EPA supplies from 1927, not 1950, not 1995! But, 2006! The media is being held accountable for the inaccurate info they post. Just recently MSNBC published a correction on an article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12707280/ MSNBC tries to through the blame at UC Irvine: ""Ionic air purifiers do emit ozone," said lead researcher Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine. But he added that "none of the ionic air purifiers produce enough ozone when they are used properly to exceed smog alerts." The confusion was generated in part by a UC Irvine press release that did not clearly distinguish between these two types of machines." - Aww, how convenient of the Robert Britt to blame UC Irvine. Maybe MSNBC should of read the paper! Britt did the same as you did, post outdated reference material found on almost all Gov't websites. UC Irvine (well respected research facility) was quoted as saying they are "just as disappointed as you are about the inaccuracies in Mr. Britt's article. Read it yourself: http://www.sharperimage.com/SharperImageIonicResponse.html#letter Not only that, Harriet A. Burge PhD, Senior Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health commented on Robert's article by stating: "Clearly, when used as directed, the SI cleaners did not produce inappropriate ozone concentrations in their studies. Their tables make clear that under conditions of use suggested by the manufacturer ozone concentrations remain low (less than 22ppb). The only elevated concentration they report was obtained by using a large room sized unit inappropriately in a very small bathroom with no ventilation. It is noteworthy that they did not use the SI units in Office B, possibly because they suspected that little ozone would be recovered." Also, unlike Robert Britte, Harvard Lecturer Burge personally evaluated the products. Burge went on to say: "I have personally evaluated the SI electrostatic precipitators and reviewed testing performed by the manufacturer. I have no hesitation about using them in my own home. Even in my smallest bedroom (7x10ft) ozone levels do not reach the odor threshold, which is well below any health related guideline." Read Harriet's full response: http://www.sharperimage.com/SharperImageIonicResponse.html#harriet So let's get the facts straight. Harriet A. Burge PhD, Senior Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health, Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine, and WebMD all state that ozone air purifiers are safe when used correctly. (This is KEY. Anything when used incorrectly can kill you. Hmm, if the side of a bottle of medicine said take 2, should you take 10!) Once more, for those who keep comparing the two. WebMD states that air purifiers that use ozone are NOT ozone generators: "By contrast, the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra model -- an ionic air purifier, not an ozone generator -- built ozone to a maximum level of 40 parts per billion (ppb) in a large office. The FDA considers medical devices safe if they emit less than 50 ppb of ozone. The World Health Organization considers eight-hour ozone levels of 60 ppb to be acceptable." http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114532.htm So I hope this updated 2006 info has shed some light on this topic. I know, the EPA is the FINAL authority on things, and I am sure they always get everything right. Come on, they are a perfect in everything that they do: Or maybe they aren't: This is NOT the first time the EPA has mislead us. Remember this? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/09/national/main567489.shtml Judge Blasts EPA! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/02/health/main1276366.shtml - "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts wrote, calling Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking." Funny, the EPA would still have you believe the air was safe. LOL Yes, we can trust everything the EPA says! I am sure you will stick to your guns on this. And you should. Believe all that you choose to. But, new information contradicts even your post of being ineffective. I have already proven this to be incorrect, http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens Take Care www.tryfreshair.com > http://tinyurl.com/rovaq > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only > by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. allergy I would like to believe but first whats it suppose to treat, second, if the technoloy is what differentiate this unit from others then that should be the most important fact. Right now , as a consumer, personally its not as important that these things might or might not be harmful as much as if they are effective. So far not that many organizations agree many of the ionizers are effective. The best air systems I find are in big modern supermarkets, with giant vents on top of ceiling and which utilize pretty good technology . At times people told me what they used, but the cost I think outweighed the benefits and I forgot again so I will ask again here in seperate post. steve > Hi aroberts, > [quoted text clipped - 260 lines] >> chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. Hi mcs, You are correct. Whether or not they are safe means nothing if they do not work. I like your progressive thinking. Well, I cannot speak for other companies, but I can tell you that RCI is a proven system that reduces airborne bacteria. It was used by NASA, and now it is used by EcoQuest. In regards to ionization, that has always been shown to reduce or eliminate particles from the air. I invite you to view and or read some press releases sent out on behalf of EcoQuest. I will also include a recent update on the effectivness of EQ technology, as reported by Regents professor Dr. Marsden. Some on this board have this crazy belief that a Regents professfor would like to benefit EQ. Well, that in itself sounds stupid. But Kansas State isn't the only university studying our technology. Also, the entire school district installed our technology. You can read the article here: http://tinyurl.com/re2s7 <--see below* This is a great article, even the Mayor talks about his experience with our technology. *Requireds Adobe PDF to view - if you dont have it visit: http://www.adobe.com/reader Another great article written about us: http://tinyurl.com/lazvu (PDF File) Last but not least, EcoQuest at forefront of clean air technology for last 20 years: http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=143927&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=29060 --- > allergy > I would like to believe but first whats it suppose to treat, second, if the [quoted text clipped - 271 lines] > >> chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only > >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. Hi aroberts, Thanks for your post. As in all industries, new information, testing and technologies open the door for innovative products. While our space certified air purifiers DO NOT rely on ozone to clean the air (http://news.spacefoundation.org/printable.cfm?releaseid=78C53360-FB93-1F99-8B178 36D4A156041 - EcoQuest honored for technology: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LIm-mP9OF1E), I will post here for everyone to see the information you kindly left out about ozone. Your title screams "Ozone Generators". Air purifiers that use trace level ozone are NOT ozone generators. Blaming ozone for all problems has become a "kill the messenger phenomenon", as quoted by Dr. James Marsden, Kansas State University Regents Professor. See for yourself, http://youtube.com/watch?v=33dU4zPzpFo <--yes, a VIDEO! No one argues that when used improperly air purifiers that use ozone can let out levels of ozone that is unsafe. However, there is a clear distinction between ozone generators and air purifiers that use trace level of ozone. I am really glad you posted the link to the EPA's website. The EPA uses data that is extremely outdated to substantiate this claim. For instance, this article quotes the following reference material: 1. "Ozone generators are not effective in removing carbon monoxide" (Salls, 1927; Shaughnessy et al., 1994) You also forgot to mention, that the Gov't has an ACCEPTABLE level of ozone that is allowed in an environment. According to the link you provided the SAFE levels for each agency are: ============================================================= I. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA): requires ozone output of indoor medical devices to be no more than 0.05 ppm. II. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration: (OSHA) requires that workers not be exposed to an average concentration of more than 0.10 ppm for 8 hours. III. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health: (NIOSH) recommends an upper limit of 0.10 ppm, not to be exceeded at any time. ============================================================= EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone is a maximum 8 hour average outdoor concentration of 0.08 ppm (see - the Clean Air Act - www.epa.gov/air/caa/title1.html#ib) Ok, so now we know that there is a SAFE acceptable level allowed by Gov't. Now let's address whether NEW science validates whether or not low level (or trace level) ozone has any benefit. Unlike the studies found on the EPA's website (one might I add completed in 1927! - heart transplant surgery wasn't even thought to be a reality in 1927, someone should really tell the Gov't to perform some new studies, oh that's right; the EPA doesn't DO ANY STUDIES. All of the info they use is referenced material) Ok, getting back to 2006. Science and technology have changed. Some people just don't want to accept that. But the professionals have accepted it, and the data reflects otherwise. For instance, on May 26th, 2006 (five days ago, not almost a decade ago) appearing on foodproductiondaily-usa.com it states that "ozone along with ionization to reduce several pathogens, including E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes, in food processing plants". http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens - May 2006! Huh, didn't the EPA state there is NO benefit to the use of ozone? I know, they must have used levels of ozone that isn't safe right! NO! The article is also quoted as stating, "The levels of ozone are very low in terms of standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Administration" How can this be? Technology has been improved and real scientists have validated this information. You can read the article yourself, "Method combines ozone and ionization to kill pathogens" - http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens What does this mean? It means a lot! I feel for companies that get the wrong picture drawn from this inaccurate information. I am truly happy to see MD's step up and defend these products. Air Purifiers are NOT OZONE generators. There is a clear distinction between the two. Excerpts from WebMD Article dated 5/11/06 Written by Daniel DeNoon and reviewed by Louise Chang, MD (Again an article written in 2006! Not 1927! or even 1995 for that matter!) ============================================================= What does WebMD have to say about the safety of these products: Included in the study were several ionic air purifiers made by The Sharper Image, including the popular Ionic Breeze Quadra. These machines produce detectable levels of ozone. But they did not emit dangerous levels of ozone, except when a Quadra model intended for a large room was tested in a tiny bathroom. (NOTE: Who would put a LARGE unit in a SMALL bathroom. This makes no sense. There isn't enough room in a small tiny bathroom anyway. Shouldn't they have used a purifier that is designed for the space, don't you agree?) Whatever ozone comes from ionic air purifiers pales in comparison to the amount produced by ozone-generating air purifiers. These machines make ozone for one reason: That's what they are designed to do. By contrast, the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra model -- an ionic air purifier, not an ozone generator -- built ozone to a maximum level of 40 parts per billion (ppb) in a large office. The FDA considers medical devices safe if they emit less than 50 ppb of ozone. The World Health Organization considers eight-hour ozone levels of 60 ppb to be acceptable. Mark Connelly, senior director of appliances and home improvement for Consumer Reports, oversees the magazine's air-cleaner tests. "You don't want to say that anything that generates ozone is bad," Connelly tells WebMD. <--- What, the EPA say's that! In fact, you just did as well. (Shame on you ;) "A printer produces ozone, but just because printers sit on people's desks doesn't mean they should be taken off the market...." Whatever ozone comes from ionic air purifiers pales in comparison to the amount produced by ozone-generating air purifiers. These machines make ozone for one reason: That's what they are designed to do. "Sharper Image products were included in the study and, in fact, met all safety standards for ultra-low trace ozone emissions when the appropriate-sized models were used in the manufacturer-recommended room sizes," Stephens tells WebMD. "Why they chose to place the unit in a room size for which it is clearly not intended nor used is inexplicable." Nizkorodov says he thinks California will set a limit on how much ozone a device will be allowed to generate. He guesses the limit will be between 10 and 100 milligrams of ozone per hour -- and his bet is on the lower limit. His study found that the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra puts out 2.2 milligrams of ozone per hour -- far below the lowest limit California is likely to set. Complete WebMD article: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114532.htm ============================================================= Again, comparing ozone generators to air purifiers would be the same of comparing a pellet gun to a 9MM hand gun. Air purifiers when used correctly DO NOT harm anyone. Again, refer above to WebMD dated 2006! I have to make this point very clear. Not as stated reference material the EPA supplies from 1927, not 1950, not 1995! But, 2006! The media is being held accountable for the inaccurate info they post. Just recently MSNBC published a correction on an article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12707280/ MSNBC tries to through the blame at UC Irvine: ""Ionic air purifiers do emit ozone," said lead researcher Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine. But he added that "none of the ionic air purifiers produce enough ozone when they are used properly to exceed smog alerts." The confusion was generated in part by a UC Irvine press release that did not clearly distinguish between these two types of machines." - Aww, how convenient of the Robert Britt to blame UC Irvine. Maybe MSNBC should of read the paper! Britt did the same as you did, post outdated reference material found on almost all Gov't websites. UC Irvine (well respected research facility) was quoted as saying they are "just as disappointed as you are about the inaccuracies in Mr. Britt's article. Read it yourself: http://www.sharperimage.com/SharperImageIonicResponse.html#letter Not only that, Harriet A. Burge PhD, Senior Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health commented on Robert's article by stating: "Clearly, when used as directed, the SI cleaners did not produce inappropriate ozone concentrations in their studies. Their tables make clear that under conditions of use suggested by the manufacturer ozone concentrations remain low (less than 22ppb). The only elevated concentration they report was obtained by using a large room sized unit inappropriately in a very small bathroom with no ventilation. It is noteworthy that they did not use the SI units in Office B, possibly because they suspected that little ozone would be recovered." Also, unlike Robert Britte, Harvard Lecturer Burge personally evaluated the products. Burge went on to say: "I have personally evaluated the SI electrostatic precipitators and reviewed testing performed by the manufacturer. I have no hesitation about using them in my own home. Even in my smallest bedroom (7x10ft) ozone levels do not reach the odor threshold, which is well below any health related guideline." Read Harriet's full response: http://www.sharperimage.com/SharperImageIonicResponse.html#harriet So let's get the facts straight. Harriet A. Burge PhD, Senior Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health, Sergey Nizkorodov, a chemistry professor the University of California, Irvine, and WebMD all state that ozone air purifiers are safe when used correctly. (This is KEY. Anything when used incorrectly can kill you. Hmm, if the side of a bottle of medicine said take 2, should you take 10!) Once more, for those who keep comparing the two. WebMD states that air purifiers that use ozone are NOT ozone generators: "By contrast, the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra model -- an ionic air purifier, not an ozone generator -- built ozone to a maximum level of 40 parts per billion (ppb) in a large office. The FDA considers medical devices safe if they emit less than 50 ppb of ozone. The World Health Organization considers eight-hour ozone levels of 60 ppb to be acceptable." http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114532.htm So I hope this updated 2006 info has shed some light on this topic. I know, the EPA is the FINAL authority on things, and I am sure they always get everything right. Come on, they are a perfect in everything that they do: Or maybe they aren't: This is NOT the first time the EPA has mislead us. Remember this? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/09/national/main567489.shtml Judge Blasts EPA! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/02/health/main1276366.shtml - "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts wrote, calling Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking." Funny, the EPA would still have you believe the air was safe. LOL Yes, we can trust everything the EPA says! I am sure you will stick to your guns on this. And you should. Believe all that you choose to. But, new information contradicts even your post of being ineffective. I have already proven this to be incorrect, http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=68010-ozone-ionization-pathogens Take Care www.tryfreshair.com ============================================================= > http://tinyurl.com/rovaq > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only > by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. <usual jungle of advertising distortions clipped> > Not only that, Harriet A. Burge PhD, Senior Lecturer at the Harvard > School of Public Health commented on Robert's article by stating: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > incorrectly can kill you. Hmm, if the side of a bottle of medicine > said take 2, should you take 10!) Yes, let's get the facts straight, which means some from someone who isn't trying to scam money. This is a bottom-line statement from your own authority, Harriet A. Burge: "Using ozone to purify the air or to kill microorganisms (including fungi) on environmental surfaces presents a much more complicated risk tradeoff situation. On one hand, ozone will kill microorganisms, including fungi, if the concentrations applied to the organisms are sufficiently high. Ozone in levels that are not damaging to the human respiratory tract will not kill significant numbers of fungal spores, especially those on surfaces. Levels that are high enough to kill fungi are extremely hazardous to humans, animals and plants, and can only be used where exposure to these organisms will not occur. Ozone at levels high enough to kill fungi will also oxidize materials in the treated environment, changing them in ways that may not be desired. Thus, the risk tradeoff is the damage caused by the living organism (i.e. fungi) vs. the possible damage to the environment and the risk of human, animal or plant exposure. This comparison should be made in consideration of the fact that dead fungi may still be hazardous and must still be physically removed, and that there are other approaches to killing fungi (e.g., drying). So, the bottom line answer to the question of whether ozone will kill fungi is yes, ozone will kill fungi. Should it be used as part of a remediation protocol? My answer would be no. I think the risk tradeoff is too high. You run the risk of dangerous exposures and damage to materials, and you will still have to go in and remove all of the 'dead' fungal growth. " Full Text of her article (from her own company website, an environmental testing lab) is here: http://tinyurl.com/lhguq Now quit spamming here. Hi aroberts, How can you tell me to stop spaming. I bet you haven't even read one article that I posted. I bet your ignorance has gotten the best of you. To tell me to stop spamming b/c you don't agree, is childish. I am posting info in response to your posts. Remember, you started the thread on ozone generators! First off, Harriet said that she has NO reservations in using air purifiers in her home. Who on earth would want an ozone generator! Ok, so this article written in 2004 is a study using strictly HIGH levels of ozone to kill the bacteria. Sorry, but ozone alone will not cut it. it's not a miracle solution! However, as reported in a recent (May 2006) report entitled, "Method combines ozone and ionization to kill pathogens"..."Scientists at Kansas State University are working with EcoQuest International of Greenville, Tenn., to investigate a way of using ozone along with ionization to reduce several pathogens, including E. coli and Listeria monocytogenes, in food processing plants. The method was originally developed by the US National Aeronautics and Space Agency to decontaminate spacecrafts during long missions." Sometimes ozone isn't enough. Oh and for the record, in order to achieve this great killing power, you probably think they used HIGH levels of ozone. The article states, "The levels of ozone are very low in terms of standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Adminstration" Read it for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/l7pqv Here's more validation! KSU, EcoQuest Team to Advance Ionization for Food Safety http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/520173/ But you will not visit the sites...You will continue to outdated referenced or irrevelant information to justify your stance. Now I will ask you, please stop spamming. > <usual jungle of advertising distortions clipped> > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Now quit spamming here. ARoberts is telling you to stop spamming because it's in violation of posting rules, not because he disagrees with you. I did visit the sites. Now stop spamming. > Hi aroberts, > [quoted text clipped - 153 lines] >> >> Now quit spamming here. Ozone ionizers are only good for removing smoke and odors from the indoor environment! People with lung problems should stay away from them and purchase a quality HEPA air cleaner{s} Most people will place one unit in the bedroom and one in the family room to cover the main living spaces. JUst google air cleaners and search away. > http://tinyurl.com/rovaq > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only > by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. I use hepa cleaners and they make a small difference. The best technology I think is already being used in big retail drug stores and supermarkets and is expensive. > Ozone ionizers are only good for removing smoke and odors from the > indoor environment! People with lung problems should stay away from [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. HEPA filters have made a great deal of difference for my kid's asthma (they are getting better as they grow bigger too). I noticed the difference right away when we first put them in their rooms and we found that we didn't have to get up at night as often to measure their peak flow. It's been several years since we have had to do that.. > I use hepa cleaners and they make a small difference. The best technology I > think is already being used in big retail drug stores and supermarkets and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >> chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only > >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. The important thing is it works for you. I am sure I can find many sites that suggest hepa cleaners are not effective for asthma as most machines marketed do very little according to some. Do a search : Are air cleaners effective for people with asthma? you are going to expect paid tributes and advertisers but if you look for links to organizations that are more objective you might have a better mix of opinions. But yes, often when you first put one in a room with new filter and prefilter they seem to make the air cleaner but then loses its effectiveness way before the usually recommended year between changing of the filters.Thats just my opinion. > HEPA filters have made a great deal of difference for my kid's asthma > (they are getting better as they grow bigger too). I noticed the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> only >> >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. I've had my disagreements with Barry about a bit of advertising here in the past, but when it comes to air cleaners, he knows what he is talking about. Take his advice and stay away from ozone producing air cleaners. > Ozone ionizers are only good for removing smoke and odors from the > indoor environment! People with lung problems should stay away from [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. Hi everyone, I would recommend researching fully all products before making a judgment. New info in being published everyday that should be used when making a decision to buy a purifier As we can all see from this healthy debate. There are some who would like to live on old and outdated material. Barry and aroberts would have you believe (from old resources found on the EPA's website) that certain air purifiers are bad. However, webmd doctor Chang differs: "Whatever ozone comes from ionic air purifiers pales in comparison to the amount produced by ozone-generating air purifiers. These machines make ozone for one reason: That's what they are designed to do. "Sharper Image products were included in the study and, in fact, met all safety standards for ultra-low trace ozone emissions when the appropriate-sized models were used in the manufacturer-recommended room sizes," Stephens tells WebMD. "Why they chose to place the unit in a room size for which it is clearly not intended nor used is inexplicable." Complete WebMD article: http://www.webmd.com/content/article/122/114532.htm The media is being held accountable for the inaccurate info they post. Just recently MSNBC published a correction on an article: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12707280/ Finally, Harriet A. Burge PhD, Senior Lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health commented saying that after she personally tested the units, have no hesitation about using them in my own home. Even in my smallest bedroom (7x10ft) ozone levels do not reach the odor threshold, which is well below any health related guideline." http://tinyurl.com/nwpcz - Apparently, if a Harvard PhD says they are safe, should we believe? Why am I reposting. Obviously, some members didn't see this info the first time. There narrow minded focus may cloud those looking products that may help them. In the end, keep all options open. Don't limit your choices b/c someone on a message board told you to. Try the product in your home. If it works, buy it, if not, return it and try another! www.tryfreshair.com PS: NorthShoreCEO, I didn't start the thread. I just added professional resources to debunk these old and outdated claims. Sorry you didn't notice. > I've had my disagreements with Barry about a bit of advertising here in the > past, but when it comes to air cleaners, he knows what he is talking about. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >> chemical contaminant harmless by producing a chemical reaction whose only > >> by-products are carbon dioxide, oxygen and water. This is misleading. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.