Calif bans in-home ozone air purifiers: citing health risks

[Guest guest]

Today's article about Calif banning air intoxinators follows three related

links.

- - - -

Potential hazards spur Walgreens to pull air fresheners.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1448469.html

Managers at 111 Walgreens stores in Minnesota and thousands more

nationwide pulled three types of air fresheners off their shelves over the

weekend, because of concerns about hazardous chemicals. Minneapolis Star

Tribune, Minnesota. 27 September 2007. [related stories]

How " fresh " is air freshener?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1664954,00.html

A study released last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council

evaluated 14 air fresheners and found that 12 contained phthalates, a

group of chemicals that are used to dissolve and carry fragrances, soften

plastics and also as sealants and adhesives. Time Magazine. 26 September

2007

Concern rises about effects of paraben.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20070925/NEWS/709250379/1326

A vigilant label reader, 36-year-old Altschul of Vernon Hills, Ill.,

has known her favorite lotions and sunscreens contained parabens, or

synthetic chemicals used as preservatives. Lakeland Ledger, Florida. 25

September 2007.

- - - -

State bans in-home ozone air purifiers, citing health risks

The California Air Resources Board says the regulation, which takes effect

in 2009, is the first of its kind in the nation.

By Janet

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 28, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-purifier28sep28,0,1007251.story

The California Air Resources Board on Thursday banned popular in-home

ozone air purifiers, saying studies have found that they can worsen

conditions such as asthma that marketers claim they help to prevent.

The regulation, which the board said is the first of its kind in the

nation, will require testing and certification of all types of air

purifiers. Any that emit more than a tiny amount of ozone will have to be

pulled from the California market.

An estimated 2% of the state's households have one of the so-called ozone

air purifiers, according to air board staff research, and the staff

estimated that more than 500,000 people had been exposed to levels of

ozone above federally recognized health standards as a result. More than 2

million California residents have some sort of air purifier, and other

types can be safe and effective, the air board staff said.

" This is a landmark decision, " said Nichols, chairwoman of the Air

Resources Board.

" State government needed to set up [its] own standards on air purifiers

because many [marketers] indeed are deceiving the public, " said former

Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, who sponsored a law requiring the board to rein

in so-called ozone generators. " There are reports of ozone being generated

in someone's living room . . . at levels equivalent to having a Stage 1

smog alert right in your own house. "

The new regulation, which takes effect in 2009, will exempt industrial and

commercial uses of ozone generators, as long as people are not present.

The machines deliberately inject ozone into a living room or bedroom, or

directly into nasal passages via a personal breathing device worn around

the neck. They have been marketed on the radio and over the Internet for

years under brand names such as Living Air Purifier, Mountain Air or Fresh

Air.

The companies also employ direct marketing, in which salespeople who say

they are satisfied consumers go door-to-door or advertise the products to

friends and colleagues, then earn a commission for each unit sold.

Many direct marketers spoke at the air board's public hearing Thursday in

Diamond Bar. Most, however, identified themselves not as salespeople but

as consumers who said their own health, that of asthmatic children, their

aging parents and even depressed pets had been dramatically improved after

use of ozone purifiers sold by EcoQuest, a Tennessee-based company.

" God gave humans these air purifiers, and you should not take away that

gift, " said Debra Perkins of Corona, weeping as she told how she felt the

product had improved her mother's breathing.

Perkins said later that she was speaking not because she sells the

devices, but because she believed so strongly as a registered nurse that

they had helped her and her family. She said she first became a

distributor after seeing them displayed at the Los Angeles County Fair.

She could not afford the $700 price, but was told she could get them at

reduced cost if she sold them.

ston of EcoQuest said his company was not allowed under Food and

Drug Administration laws to make claims that the product cured illnesses

or eliminated germs of any kind, and it doesn't.

But he said studies had shown that injecting some ozone into homes could

reduce levels of germs.

" Ozone is both safe and effective, and widely endorsed by safety

organizations, " he said.

Such claims are false, said UC Irvine inhalation toxicologist

Kleinman. " Ozone is a toxic contaminant, and does cause significant

adverse health impacts, " he said.

" There are thousands of peer-review studies showing ozone is dangerous, "

said Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Assn. of California, who for

years led the drive for regulation.

Those studies have linked ozone exposure to increased asthma and other

potentially deadly respiratory diseases, permanent lung damage and other

health problems. Outdoor ozone produces smog when it reacts with sunlight.

But ston, of EcoQuest, said the studies used by the air board staff

and conducted by scientists relied on outdoor ozone exposure, or testing

conducted in sterile, small chambers that would automatically produce much

higher levels of ozone than in a normal, larger home. After Thursday's

unanimous vote by the board to ban high-ozone generators, he said, " I feel

sad for the people of California. "

ston said that his company would " of course comply " with the new

regulation, and that it has other products that it will be able to sell

here instead. He said California is the company's largest market, both

because of its large population and its significant air pollution

problems.

He said manufacturers could have done a better job of placing warning

labels on devices advising the public not to set the level of the machine

too high when anyone is in the room, but added that such limitations are

spelled out in the owner's manual.

Sharper Image, another leading manufacturer and marketer of indoor air

purifiers, has been working with the air board staff for more than a year

to develop a new air purifier that will meet state standards, said Peggy

, head of the board's indoor air division.

said her office routinely receives calls from frightened consumers

who have experienced asthma attacks or other health problems that could

have been caused by ozone air purifiers. Sharper Image did not return

calls seeking comment.

There are safe and effective air purifiers, said. The cheapest,

and usually the most effective, are so-called HEPA devices also commonly

used in hospitals. They do require maintenance, such as changing filters.

Also sometimes effective are ionizers or electrostatic precipitators,

which can trap dangerous particulates, but which also can emit ozone as a

byproduct, usually at lower levels than those that will be banned under

the new law.

But some board members said that no safe level of ground-level ozone has

ever been identified, and that it made them uncomfortable to put

certification labels on machines that emit even low levels. The

atmospheric ozone layer, by contrast, is a necessary protective layer

around the Earth.

Board members voted to require their staff to return to them with results

of future research into indoor ozone exposure to determine if allowable

levels should be set even lower.

Anyone caught selling the devices after a two-year phase-in period could

be subject to fines starting at $1,000 a day. The board staff said that

" sturdy " enforcement would be needed to track down products largely sold

on the Internet or via word of mouth, but that it could be done.

" We'll go shopping, " said Bart Croes, chief of the board's research division.

janet.wilson@...

*

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes.For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this

email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner.