Consumer Reports call Ionic Breeze "Unhealthy"

p.s. I just wanted to correct one of my previous posts.

I wrote. > I have evidence to the contrary. I do know that it can "irritate" peoples respiratory tracts if used in excess but if used properly I am pretty sure It can kill and remove dusts, pollens etc...

I should have typed.

I have evidence to the contrary. I do know that it can "irritate" peoples respiratory tracts if used in excess but if used properly I am pretty sure It can kill viruses and remove dusts, pollens etc

Not that i am a big fan of killing or anything! Indescriminate and sometimes the Killing of anything can lead to other "problems' in the end.

GDNPD
 
There is no doubt that natural ionization occurs outside due to lightning or ground radiation, the problem appears when you try to artificialy produce the ions. The ions produced by simple cheap devices like the Ionic Breeze have a very short half-life and are converted in like less than a second, there are other devices that operate through another principle I don't quite understand called water shearing that produce ions with longer half-life. I have been quite unsuccessful in finding studies that show any health benefits from breathing air with air ions though. There are a few interesting studies done with positive results but not enough IMO.
As for the cleaning properties of the air ions you can simply not put out enough ions to clean the air and at the same time expect people to survive the atmosphere. Pretty much as the report in the first post indicated.
 
Vitnir,

Do you have any of those study links handy? It seems many are finding that an increase in oxygen in the body, ideally by natural means is good. Yes, I suppose anything but reducing or eliminating the source of the pollution is just a bandaid anyways. Oc(k)cams razor and all. I think "somthing" is here its just hard to tell how to apply it and measure it. I suppose grass roots experience is the only way.

Have you heard about what specific ppm levels are "not good" and what some numbers are? It seems to be hard to find that stuff...0.001 ppm I guess? i would not lean one way or the other right now.

I know we can agree on one thing! Pollution is going to kill this place if we don't stop the output. bandaids seem to backfire after we find we have been polluting the whole system for quite a while. I can see how these small "ion" machines may not "do much".

I think I have other devices that would work better anyways!
But they are all really bandaids in the end if we don't stop pollution at the source. Our CO2 output is OUT OF CONTROL for sure. SO lets us not complain too much as Gasoline goes up in price!

GDNPD
 
Goddoesnotplaydice said:
OK here is one about ball lightning in dust, smog and snow storms! Mommie earth is busy "cleaning" and we are not even aware of it! HMMM! we always seem to copy her don't we!

I think she's pretty "smart" to say the LEAST!!! :)

http://hot-streamer.com/teslacoils/... Physico-Chemical Model of Ball lightning.htm

As it has been widely known, quite strong horizontal atmospheric currents are able, to our estimates, to maintain the ball lightning. Those currents are especially high when volumetric charges are generated at the lightning storms, fogs, smogs, snow storms, dust storms. Those charges can maintain burning of the ball lightning same as they can induce illumination of electric bulbs [26].

Decrease of voltage and current in the atmosphere causes the ball lightning death (disappearance). However, at the critical discharge values (in a lightning storm) an explosion may happen or a linear lightning discharge (sparkle, arch) with an enormous amount of energy release - the ball lightning dies in the explosion. It is evident, that though the ball lightning has a relatively small stock of interior energy, it can initiate high energy discharges in the atmosphere. In principle, there is yet another possibility of a ball lightning death - a local explosion of a "chemical nature" with no discharge of a significant power- the energy of such an explosion is relatively small. It should be noted, that analysis of I, VI, X type equations shows that a stable regime of burning in the lightning can be obtained by variation of some etc... see link above.

Like I said earlyer our head will start to "spin" on this one!

let me kno if you want more and more....

GDNPD
Click to expand...

http://www.skeptic.com/BallLightning.html

Let me get this straight. You invoke a theoretical physics/chemistry paper, that contains half-assed calculations and speculations, and which puports to provide a model for a phenomenon for which proper physicists are unsure any empirical evidence exists whatsoever, to justify a bunch of machines you have running in your house under completely different conditions to those the aforementioned half-assed paper considers!

You sir/madam, are a fool.
 
Tez, I will quote you to be honest and fair:

Let me get this straight. You invoke a theoretical physics/chemistry paper, that contains half-assed calculations and speculations, and which puports to provide a model for a phenomenon for which proper physicists are unsure any empirical evidence exists whatsoever, to justify a bunch of machines you have running in your house under completely different conditions to those the aforementioned half-assed paper considers!

You sir/madam, are a fool.

Why Thank you! I hope to learn from this mistake. You "seem" to make many assumptions. Do you study thermodynamics? Can you quote back what I actully wrote and explain it in detail? here I will do it right now For You:

I use the industrial strength models and I can see how a little low current 10 or so KV (kilo volt) model that puts out less than 0.0001 or so PPM of O3 or whatever would not do much.

where I made these specific assertions? I WROTE THAT I THINK THE DEVICE IS WEAK, I SAID THE EARTH DOES THIS PROCESS ITSELF, AND IT DOES! If i was interpreted as saying otherwise then I may need to correct this? BUT WHERE? please quote me!
Anything else is your perception which I cannot correct.

Tell us more Tez, I am open! Imperical? Is that a realtive word?
everything is realtive so what is this argument relating to?

I never said the ionic breeze works great in this post did I?
It does collect dirt out of the air doesn't it? I said I use a much stronger version of it.

I care for you and will and continue to pray for your mind to open!

I wrote:


Have you heard about what specific ppm levels are "not good" and what some numbers are? It seems to be hard to find that stuff...0.001 ppm I guess? i would not lean one way or the other right now.

I know we can agree on one thing! Pollution is going to kill this place if we don't stop the output. bandaids seem to backfire after we find we have been polluting the whole system for quite a while. I can see how these small "ion" machines may not "do much".

I think I have other devices that would work better anyways!
But they are all really bandaids in the end if we don't stop pollution at the source. Our CO2 output is OUT OF CONTROL for sure. SO lets us not complain too much as Gasoline goes up in price!

GDNPD
 
Tez,

If I have upset you this is wrong of me! I does not matter what it is about. Logic can not save me. Please Accept my apology.

GDNPD
 
Goddoesnotplaydice said:
Why Thank you! I hope to learn from this mistake. You "seem" to make many assumptions. Do you study thermodynamics? Can you quote back what I actully wrote and explain it in detail? here I will do it right now For You:

I use the industrial strength models and I can see how a little low current 10 or so KV (kilo volt) model that puts out less than 0.0001 or so PPM of O3 or whatever would not do much.

where I made these specific assertions? I WROTE THAT I THINK THE DEVICE IS WEAK, I SAID THE EARTH DOES THIS PROCESS ITSELF, AND IT DOES! If i was interpreted as saying otherwise then I may need to correct this? BUT WHERE? please quote me!
Anything else is your perception which I cannot correct.

Tell us more Tez, I am open! Imperical? Is that a realtive word?
everything is realtive so what is this argument relating to?

I never said the ionic breeze works great in this post did I?
It does collect dirt out of the air doesn't it? I said I use a much stronger version of it.

I care for you and will and continue to pray for your mind to open!

I wrote:


Have you heard about what specific ppm levels are "not good" and what some numbers are? It seems to be hard to find that stuff...0.001 ppm I guess? i would not lean one way or the other right now.

I know we can agree on one thing! Pollution is going to kill this place if we don't stop the output. bandaids seem to backfire after we find we have been polluting the whole system for quite a while. I can see how these small "ion" machines may not "do much".

I think I have other devices that would work better anyways!
But they are all really bandaids in the end if we don't stop pollution at the source. Our CO2 output is OUT OF CONTROL for sure. SO lets us not complain too much as Gasoline goes up in price!

GDNPD
Click to expand...

GDNPD, if you use the quote function when replying it will make it easier for others to understand your post. I'm pretty sure I didn't understand your above post because you somehow went from discussing the Ionic Breeze to discussion CO2. Unless you are introducing a strawman or something I can't see what one has to do with the other.

I have around six industrial strength electrostatic dust collectors in my home. I call some of them TV's and others I call Moniters. They don't seem to do much for the air quality either.
 
Goddoesnotplaydice said:
It seems many are finding that an increase in oxygen in the body, ideally by natural means is good.
Click to expand...
This is off topic too, but I'm not leaving it alone.

The concentration of oxygen in body tissues is extremely tightly controlled. If it goes outside the very tight limits necessary for proper metabolic functioning, you get very ill. Fortunately the body has very efficient metabolic pathways to ensure that it stays where it should be, even in the face of quite wide variations in the oxygen content of inspired air.

If you did manage to increase the oxygen in your body, it would not be a good thing at all, it would be very bad. Fortunately your body is clever enough to fight off any such half-assed attempt.

Rolfe.
 
Possible health benefits from negative air ions (NAI) was tested by exposing broilers for NAI during 8 weeks. Then the trachea was examined, the control group had damaged trachea while the exposed group had a healthy looking trachea. No abstract for that study but the reference is here
I could not find any study that had repeated this experiment since 1983.

Another study tested NAI on humans and apparently found something but the medical jargon throws me off Link

This study demonstrated that one brand of air ionizers were effective in removing fine and ultrafine particles from indoor air Link contrary what I said in my previous post.

Bottom line, would I ever buy an air ionizer or voluntary stay in a environment where they were operating? I don't think so. The evidence isn't compelling enough that they are safe or are needed anyway.
 
Vitnir said:

Bottom line, would I ever buy an air ionizer or voluntary stay in a environment where they were operating? I don't think so. The evidence isn't compelling enough that they are safe or are needed anyway.
Click to expand...

Ionic air purifiers are not "air ionizers." They are "particulate ionizers." They ionize the dirt particles and then use potential fields to catch them on a plate.

There will be very little ion emission from these things. The mean free path of ions at atmospheric pressure is exceedingly short, and ion/molecule reactions are fast. Neutralization will occur fairly quickly.

The health problems come from the emission of ozone, O3. However, even with that you have to be pretty close to the source to get any before it reacts away.
 
Originally posted by EdipisReks
i do believe that the reason that Rob is making fun of you is that having a HEPA filter in your home is about as effective as the Ionic Breeze and the Magic Asthma Crystal for reducing asthma symptoms HEPA filters; ok for filtering dust from your vacuum cleaners output, bad for filtering large volumes of air, despite the marketing.
Click to expand...
I have HEPA air cleaners in my office and bedroom. They seem to work fairly well in reducing my pollen allergies. Do you have reason to think that I am fooling myself? (I ask this seriously, I realize that I could indeed be fooling myself.)

CBL
 
EdipisReks said:
i do believe that the reason that Rob is making fun of you is that having a HEPA filter in your home is about as effective as the Ionic Breeze and the Magic Asthma Crystal for reducing asthma symptoms HEPA filters; ok for filtering dust from your vacuum cleaners output, bad for filtering large volumes of air, despite the marketing.
Click to expand...

Do you have support for this claim? My partner suffers from quite bad allergies and asthma, and the HEPA air filter we use appears to be the only thing that keeps them under control to the point where Claritin works. (As in, without the filter, even the Claritin doesn't keep the lungs working smoothy.)

I'd be surprised to learn that "filtering large volumes of air" through the HEPA filter had been doing nothing (or doing active harm). Although I learn surprising stuff all the time, I try to at least confirm the stuff that surprises me....
 
My only knowledge of HEPA filters is that they're used to filter the air in semiconductor wafer fabs. I think that would be considered large volumes, wouldn't it (a room something like 20,000 cubic meters)?
 
CBL4,

Thanks for telling me about Rob, I can get a little pridefull at times. I want to be accountable in this area. I know proper testing is needed to find the truth

testing is really relative to application I suppose. I do know things can also sometimes change (evolve) quickly depending on which level of the system you are testing at. There can be many interdependent variables one might not see at first.

I don't know much about the HEPA debate but it is obvious it filters and it is also obvious company's market disposable junk and lies for a buck. Not always intentionally. Especially if they can sell it to you over and over again and make repeat profit. This seems to be a terrible trend. I suppose it comes down partially to intent and partially to science. I wrestle with that one because I know it takes much thought and experience with good intent to do a design right physically and also keep your intent in design in check for any one or set of applications. If greed or "short cuts"sneak into the design (creep factor) then it will probably fail in the end. Proper Balance in design and how it relates with the overall system it is in is the determining factor of a design that survives most times. whew! Maybe I am off point. Does that make sence?

I think general filtering works, again, depending on the application. I know of many who claim this too. You also should factor in what the "Total costs" are including environmental impact in the long run. I ask myself again and again will it all balance out? Disposable stuff just never seems to win out...Maybe thats what we are really discussing here? I don't really know.

GDNPD
 
p.s. Yes I have worked in semi fabs and the "hepa" high efficiency particle air, filters are everywhere so again application comes into the picature as usual. these were, I think, first used in nuclear facilities. Maybe someone with more experience can say but I expect if you do the study that is right. Everything including moving the air is a cost so someone with experience in this area may have to tackle this one on efficiency. I don't know a lot about hepa systems but I do know they usually are moving large volumes of air. Again, application specific solution. total overall efficiency? I do not know. Getiing out of small particles? Yes, but if you keep adding dirt and contaminating the environment is suspect it does not help much. A combination of filtering technologies would be best. it all goes back to balance and the specific application. They are typically used in Rooms that are already very clean so...I hope we all get the point here.

GDNPD
 
All, Vitnir,

Thanks for the "ION" links far below> I will read them and see what I can "glean from them". You said 50 ppb max so that’s 0.005 ppm right? I was in front of one IONIZER and cranked it way up, and yes I "smelled it reacting with my “respiratory and olfactory systems" or what ever... and it felt like my immune/resp system went into OVERDRIVE! So Luckily I only left it up for a short period of time. Definitely need to be careful here everyone! Again, I see the balance issue popping up Is it bad or good? I don't know generally, but in specific cases and specific environments it might be ok. More to learn here for sure. But we need to be careful!

Wow i am typeitive today! Hope we all are doing well and having fun! I can surely feel the pollen count going up as we speak! oops its raining again! That will change in a minute. These complex systems! Always changing on US all! sniff sniff!! :) Good for some not so Good for others. Remember we have to take these issues 1 CASE AT A TIME! Without assumptions! And sometimes real time data is needed! Oh my!

I have had allergies and they can be nasty, As far as root cause? Foods, Body pH, humidity levels, Dust- pollens etc. Getting out of the fields and into the desert? Playing in lightning storms! (I’ve done that, almost been struck) who knows? That’s why they call medicine a "practice"~! (Lets leave Law out of this one)! Laws of Science are ok!


new Dr kit, CBL4,

I will say if HEPA works for You and/or yours then it Works for you and/or yours! That does not mean it will work for other's (applications).
No point in yanking things out and causing pain and suffering unless you have a good reason too. Just because someone says HEPA is junk for them does not mean it is for you.

ROLFE,

On The O2/body issue: yes generally, maybe not in my exact case. I am not "normal" for now! Can't you all tell yet! I will be again soon i hope! pls don't ask!

GDNPD
catching up on dice throws is hard work!
 
That some HEPA filters (in clean rooms) are used to process large volumes of air is irrelevant to whether they would work in a home environment.

Ideally, all the air in a clean room is circulated through a wall of HEPA filters, hence they must deal with a large volume of air.

A HEPA filter will reduce the number of very small particles (micron level) of the air that flows through it, as opposed to a standard filter which would not catch them at all.

So, a clean HEPA filter will reduce the number of pollens and ultrafine dust suspended in the air as long as the air handling system can pull the air through the filter. In a clean room, all the air is sucked out one end of the room and returns through the HEPAs. In a room in your house, the HEPA filter can only clean the amount of air that makes its way to the unit. Depending on the unit and the configuration of the room, this could be a lot, or a very little.

The key is that how much air gets filtered is dependent on the air handling unit's design, not what kind of filter you have.

- Timothy
 
i should have included the word "consumer" in my post, which would have made it much clearer. consumer level HEPA filter systems, which are the ones most likely to be used in a home, are basically useless because the units can't move enough air to do a whole hell of a lot. HEPA, anymore, in the consumer product setting, is basically a buzzword, and is attached to basically anything. that was the point i was trying to get across, i apologize for being obtuse.
 
EdipisReks said:
i should have included the word "consumer" in my post, which would have made it much clearer. consumer level HEPA filter systems, which are the ones most likely to be used in a home, are basically useless because the units can't move enough air to do a whole hell of a lot. HEPA, anymore, in the consumer product setting, is basically a buzzword, and is attached to basically anything. that was the point i was trying to get across, i apologize for being obtuse.
Click to expand...

I got it. Only the obtuse, intentionally or otherwise, would not, IMHO.

P.S. Attemps to "scrobble" your audio fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom