*Are Ozone Generators harmful?

[Guest guest]

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 ionizer is 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 will greatly reduce the airborne particle 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 proof for a future claim. As I remember the court papers, Alpine is now allowed by the judge to claim in the future whatever they could prove to an independent team of scientists when such proof is appropriately peer reviewed. Thus today the many claims previously disallowed by the jury have been successfully proven to sufficient scientists to allow being claimed by the successor company. Isn't it nice not to have to be doing business with a jury which can be easily swayed by overbearing government witnesses? Let's discuss the successor company which is EcoQuest International. After Alpine paid the fine they sold out. The new company well staffed by lawyers familiar with government operations has guided the management to deal differently with the federal agencies. Result: Virtually all the previous claims for which the fine was paid are now being allowed except for any that might be construed as a medical claim. Thus nothing is being said about the new EcoQuest machines curing anything or preventing any specific medical condition. What can be said is if airborne dust or spores are causing an allergy then such a reduction or elimination of the airborne particles _MAY_ alleviate the condition and a device is available for a trial with a money 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 surface microbials within a room in 24 hours. This translates to a school room or day care center being virtually germ free on Monday Morning after 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 cleared their claims with the FTC have pretty much renewed all those previous claims. The reason I think we should bury the subject is it makes the gov't regulators look stupid for having fleeced and put out of business the small company known as Alpine only to have a much larger company emerge successfully who can now show that many of the previous expert government witnesses had 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 government regulators of the science behind 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 not with 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 and I expect will be 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 unbelievable sight. The room slowly clears of smoke from the height of the MI-1500 to 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 oxidizers could be installed. Regards, Ken Gibala RE: Re: Are Ozone Generators harmful?EnviroBob,Alpine tried to exploit that very issue. Not only did they tout the "tobacco smoke reduction" claims but extended it to all types of smoke. Then they took it the next step to claim that if smoke particles are reduced then "all" particles will be removed. If memory serves, the actual finding was that the ozone reduced VISIBLE smoke. The appellate decision refuted all Alpine claims an reaffirmed all original findings by the jury. I have the PDF of the appellate decision on one of the hard drives and will post it when found.Carl-----Carl,I found the following: The jury found that these air cleaning claims (with the exception of claims relating to cigarette smoke, tobacco smoke and smoke removal) were not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.It looks like at least the smoke claim was substantiated. Now again it may depend on the type of smoke being treated.EnviroBobFrom: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Carl E. GrimesSent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:27 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Are Ozone Generators harmful?Google "ozone FTC" and stand back. It will open the door to the whole ozone question including law suits and appeals. In the original FTC vs Alpine case the jury upheld only one of the 800+ claims of effectiveness and safety (would reduce visible smoke). The court's original decision used to be on the FTC site.Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC-----Check out both the State of California and Health Canada websites on ozone generators. Both are planning to, in effect, ban these devices in home use.Don>> I recently had someone tell me that they are finding the Ozone > Generators used to kill mold are actually more harmful than the mold > itself. Has anyone else heard of this?>.