Re: *Are Ozone Generators harmful?

December 16, 2007

*ken *gibala

*Please send me, or post to the group, the documentation of the

independent verification along with the official government

acceptance of those verifications.

*Carl Grimes

*Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Carl,

>

> I believe you are a bit mixed up.

>

> The Alpine machines did not produce ozone to remove smoke and I doubt

> you can find any claim to that effect.

>

> Here's the story as I understand it. The Alpine machine under

> question, the XL-15, produced measured amounts of ozone to remove

> odors and contained ionizers to eliminate particles from the air

> through coagulation. Alpine claimed the machine could remove

> particulates such as smoke from air. The Plaintiffs said that was a

> false claim. Alpine then brought a Lucite box to the court

> containing a smoke generator and an ion generator like the ones

> installed in the XL-15.After the box filled with smoke the ion

> generator was engaged and the smoke disappeared before everyone's

> eyes and the judge allowed the claim without objection by the

> plaintiffs. I don't believe the jury had anything to do with that

> decision. The defendant

>

> The ionizeris the devise which does not produce ozone but charges

> the air to cause airborne particles to clump together and fall to the

> floor. Since then the University of Cincinnati has shown such

> ionizers greatly increase the MERV efficiency of air filters by

> causing micron sized particles to clump to such sizes as to become

> easily trapped. Based on the U/Cincinnati peer reviewed reports the

> successor to Alpine is now able to make claims with immunity

> regarding particle removal. Today such machines willgreatly reduce

> the airborneparticle count in any room. If you have a particle

> counter you should borrow one of my machines and test for yourself.

>

> And yes if one would do a Google search as you suggest a great amount

> of history will appear and for history buffs that may be important.

> But the truth is in what is not being revealed in that history.

> Allow me to fill in a few choice pieces.

>

> Alpine, as Enviro Bob has said,did appeal the case and did pay a

> fine of over a million dollars but what you have not recognized is

> they did obtain a concession redefining what would be acceptable

> prooffor a future claim. As I remember the court papers, Alpineis

> nowallowed by the judge to claim in the future whatever they could

> prove to an independent team of scientists when such proofis

> appropriately peer reviewed. Thus today the many claims previously

> disallowed by the juryhave been successfullyproven to sufficient

> scientists to allowbeingclaimed by the successor company. Isn't it

> nice not to have to be doing business with a jury whichcan beeasily

> swayed by overbearing government witnesses?

>

> Let's discuss the successor company which is EcoQuest International.

> AfterAlpine paid the fine they sold out. The new company well

> staffed by lawyers familiar with government operations has guided the

> management to deal differentlywith the federal agencies. Result:

> Virtually all the previous claims forwhich the fine was paid are

> nowbeing allowedexcept for anythat might be construed as a medical

> claim. Thus nothingis being said about the new EcoQuest

> machinescuring anything or preventing any specific medical

> condition. What can be said is if airborne dust orspores are

> causing an allergythen such a reduction or elimination of the

> airborneparticles _MAY_ alleviate the condition anda device is

> available for a trial with amoney back guarantee of satisfaction

>

> An interesting new claim is that machines using the PCO technology

> may be said to eliminate or kill over 99.8 of surfacemicrobials

> within a room in 24 hours. This translates to a school roomor day

> care center being virtually germ free on MondayMorningafter being

> unoccupied over the weekend.

>

> So Carl, let's bury the subject... Alpine did make claims that a

> jury could not understand and awarded the government regulators their

> wish.... That stopped any further claim making _UNTIL_ acceptable

> proof could be published supporting remaking the claims. The new

> company [successor EcoQuest] having voluntarily clearedtheir

> claimswith the FTC have pretty much renewedallthose previous

> claims. The reason I think we should bury the subject is it

> makesthe gov't regulators look stupidfor having fleeced and put out

> of businessthe small company known as Alpine only to have a much

> larger company emerge successfully who can nowshow that many of the

> previous expert governmentwitnesseshad given false testimony.

>

> Think Carl where we would be if ole Alpine had been strong enough to

> survive and today would petition the court for a reversal and return

> of the million dollar fine. I believe such a claim would be allowed

> and would be heard.

>

> The only reason not to return the money would be the technicality of

> issuing claims at the time without being able to convince

> governmentregulators of the sciencebehind the claims.Now such

> convincing is not necessary. It has been simplified by order of the

> appeals court.Of course Alpine no longer exists and I'm

> understanding the successor is notwith a standing to claim the

> Alpine fine.

>

> By the way many of the new machines by EcoQuest are not classified as

> ozone generators by California andI expect willbe exempt from

> California registration.

>

> And about smoke.... you should have the opportunity to be in a

> heavily smoke filled tavern with 80 cigarette and cigar smoking guys

> when the MI-1500 mounted 10 feet off the floor is turned on. It's an

> unbelievablesight. The room slowly clears of smoke from the height

> of the MI-1500to the floor. The smoke appears like a thick cloud

> slowly settling to the floor and disappears while the smokers

> continue. The MI-1500 produces no ozone thus does little to reduce

> volatile odors.It only eliminates particulate matter from the indoor

> atmosphere. For odor reduction at such a tavern one of the safe

> photocatalytic oxidizerscould be installed.

>