Re: OzoneLite Revisited or Who is Prof. Goswami

[Guest guest]

It seems Dr. Goswami is an advocate of Solar Photocatalytic Detoxification and Disinfection of Water and Air. Although the potential of solar radiation for disinfection and environmental mitigation has been known for years, only recently has this technology been scientifically recognized and researched. Solar photocatalytic oxidation has been demonstrated to effectively treat groundwater, drinking water, and industrial wastewater In some applications such as decoloration and reduction of COD it may be the only effective method of treatment. And the good professor suggests: "Treatment of indoor air by the photocatalytic method has been demonstrated as the most effective technology for that application."

So now Steve, Stuart, who has the better credentials? You folks or a professor from India who is a most respected engineer and a leader in the ASME?????

You guys really remind me of the Pope who had Galileo jailed for teaching the earth rotated around the sun and not the other way around.

Ken,

The last person I should ever remind anyone of is the Pope. Perhaps you are the one of faith with regard to the efficacy of the OzoneLite. My suspicion is that Dr. Goswami has a strong financial interest in marketing his patented technology which should call into question his scientific objectivity. Anyone who claims that a 23 Watt light bulb can convert (vaporize?) airborne microbial particulates to CO2 and water and is perfectly safe for humans has some scientific explaining to do. If the reaction rate is on the order of decades or centuries, shouldn't that be stated somewhere? How many air changes per hour? How much cubic footage does it "treat"? How can it reduce organics in the air to CO2 and H2O and not damage content items?

I still say that whatever it is this light bulb is supposed to do to improve IAQ, I can recommend a better way to achieve better results without it.

As a salesman, you have to believe in a product to sell it. Sometimes people convince themselves of a product's superiority or effectiveness (a cognitive dissonance thing) so that they feel good about selling it or having purchased it. My constructive suggestion is that you market air purification technology where it is actually proven to be effective to reduce airborne bacteria. Sell the technology to food handling/storage and medical/veterinary type establishments where it can have a benefit. Don't try to put one in every home. Here's why... Room filtration (not referring to HVAC system component protection and OA filtration) and air purification is a Band-Aid engineering control at best. Occupant exposure to the very contaminants you are purporting to remove from the air will necessarily occur because they will be in the breathing zone before they get to the air purification device. Source elimination is always a better option and where emphasis should be placed. Typically, the contaminants your air purifiers are supposed to remove or reduce shouldn't be in the indoor air in the first place. If there is no way to prevent them from being in the indoor air, THEN you can consider air purification. I suggest that you market to facilities where the source of contaminants is not controllable, but concentrations can be reduced by air purification. I will support your efforts to do this.

In my opinion, no one should need an air purifier in their house to improve IAQ. They might, however, need to learn how to eliminate the source(s) of contaminants that shouldn't be there.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Steve and others,

If you go to the OZONELite website, www.ozonelite.com, and look

at the press release from the University of Florida where Dr.

Goswami's work is cited, you will find that there is no connection

between Dr. Goswami and OZONELite. It is most likely that the Ti02

technology used in this light comes from Japan or, possibly, South

Korea or even China. If Dr. Goswami benefits financially from any

photocatalytic oxidation technology, it is probably not from

OZONELite.

I was skeptical of the OZONELite claims so I purchased some of

the bulbs and field tested them in the basements of some properties

I own. The before and after mold spore counts convinced me that the

lights did decrease the mold spores in the air. The results which I

have seen from other field tests show that others have had similar

results.

I agree that if everything related to construction, air

infiltration, moisture control, outside air, ventilation,

filtration, etc., was done perfectly, there would be little or no

need for air purification. However, we have a lot of existing

structures (and, unfortunately many still being built) where this is

not the case, my basements and crawlspaces being examples. If I can

reduce the airborne mold spores with an energy efficient light bulb,

I see no reason not to. Is it a panacea? No. It does not solve all

indoor air quality problems but I am convinced that it can make a

contrbution to improving indoor air quality in many situations and

at very little cost.

Ron

>

> In a message dated 4/15/2006 10:16:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> jkg4902@... writes:

> > It seems Dr. Goswami is an advocate of Solar Photocatalytic

Detoxification

> > and Disinfection of Water and Air. Although the potential of

solar radiation

> > for disinfection and environmental mitigation has been known for

years, only

> > recently has this technology been scientifically recognized and

researched.

> > Solar photocatalytic oxidation has been demonstrated to

effectively treat

> > groundwater, drinking water, and industrial wastewater In some

applications such

> > as decoloration and reduction of COD it may be the only

effective method of

> > treatment. And the good professor suggests: " Treatment of indoor

air by the

> > photocatalytic method has been demonstrated as the most

effective technology

> > for that application. "

> >

> > So now Steve, Stuart, who has the better credentials? You

folks or a

> > professor from India who is a most respected engineer and a

leader in the

> > ASME?????

> >

> > You guys really remind me of the Pope who had Galileo jailed

for teaching

> > the earth rotated around the sun and not the other way around.

> >

> Ken,

>

> The last person I should ever remind anyone of is the Pope.

Perhaps you are

> the one of faith with regard to the efficacy of the OzoneLite. My

suspicion

> is that Dr. Goswami has a strong financial interest in marketing

his patented

> technology which should call into question his scientific

objectivity. Anyone

> who claims that a 23 Watt light bulb can convert (vaporize?)

airborne

> microbial particulates to CO2 and water and is perfectly safe for

humans has some

> scientific explaining to do. If the reaction rate is on the order

of decades or

> centuries, shouldn't that be stated somewhere? How many air

changes per hour?

> How much cubic footage does it " treat " ? How can it reduce

organics in the air

> to CO2 and H2O and not damage content items?

>

> I still say that whatever it is this light bulb is supposed to do

to improve

> IAQ, I can recommend a better way to achieve better results

without it.

>

> As a salesman, you have to believe in a product to sell it.

Sometimes people

> convince themselves of a product's superiority or effectiveness (a

cognitive

> dissonance thing) so that they feel good about selling it or

having purchased

> it. My constructive suggestion is that you market air

purification technology

> where it is actually proven to be effective to reduce airborne

bacteria.

> Sell the technology to food handling/storage and

medical/veterinary type

> establishments where it can have a benefit. Don't try to put one

in every home.

> Here's why... Room filtration (not referring to HVAC system

component protection

> and OA filtration) and air purification is a Band-Aid engineering

control at

> best. Occupant exposure to the very contaminants you are

purporting to remove

> from the air will necessarily occur because they will be in the

breathing zone

> before they get to the air purification device. Source

elimination is always

> a better option and where emphasis should be placed. Typically,

the

> contaminants your air purifiers are supposed to remove or reduce

shouldn't be in the

> indoor air in the first place. If there is no way to prevent them

from being

> in the indoor air, THEN you can consider air purification. I

suggest that you

> market to facilities where the source of contaminants is not

controllable, but

> concentrations can be reduced by air purification. I will support

your

> efforts to do this.

>

> In my opinion, no one should need an air purifier in their house

to improve

> IAQ. They might, however, need to learn how to eliminate the

source(s) of

> contaminants that shouldn't be there.

>

> Steve Temes

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Schultz, Let's not leave out being a renowned engineer and world leader in a field of energy conservation... consultant to governments... and an executive in the country's top professional engineering association. I suspect he is a professional to the nth power. As far as his relationship with the marketing of this one product I'm suspecting it is the university which owns the patents.... and the development company is an entrepreneurial offspring of the university. It is not uncommon for great universities to sponsor worthy enterprises to enhance their coffers. Prof. Goswami may be the inventor but I doubt he owns the patent. I don't think too many great scientists have the inclination to be that entrepreneurial. They usually love the thrill of teaching and working in their laboratories. Oh.... it says someplace Professor Goswami's real interest is purifying water with solar energy. Like concepts to take the chemicals out of the aquifers.. developing systems for third world countries where the death rate from unsanitary water is staggering. His interest in air purification is because he has a child who is asthmatic. Sincerely, Ken Gibala======================= Re: OzoneLite Revisited or Who is Prof. GoswamiIt sounds like Professor Goswami is a faculty researcher, a technical journaleditor, and the patent holder of the technology he is reviewing? Not uncommonthese days but one wonders if one can be truly independent in the review whenin multiple roles.The position of researcher has changed now that primary funding for universityresearch comes from the private sector rather than government as it formerlydid. NIH and others used to award funding for pure research. There is notmuch money available for that anymore and so the universities must turn tofor-profit organizations for funding. The result has clearly been a trend isdemonstration of technology-type research - far more limited than what producedscientific knowledge in the past.Sherryl Schultz, PhD, CIH, CSPConsultantOPTIMAL@...