Ozone - for thinking people

[greendoor]

My recording studio can get a bit musty at times, so i've been researching the possible use of ozone shock treatment. There are some very smart people who hang out here, and some are interested in health issues too - so I would be interested in feedback.

 

From what I can tell - ozone is created by lightening (the ozone layer) and it falls to earth with rain, as it mixes very well with water. This is the fresh, clean smell after a storm. Ozone is lethal - it kills microbiological stuff like mould, bacteria, viruses, yeast. So it is nature's perfect steriliser for cleaning up this planet. It breaks down to harmless oxygen, so it is far superior to chemicals.

 

Importantly - germs cannot develop immunity to ozone. This is great news, because the incompetant medical profession is breeding antibiotic-resistant super bugs in their hospitals. If anyone should be using ozone, it should be the medical profession - but they are totally hooked on drugs, so expect a severe backlash from the drug lords.

 

People are already using ozone to treat water for pools and drinking. Ozone generators are used for de-stinking motels. The food industry is using ozonated water for sterilisation and extending the life of perishables.

 

Apparantly it is possible to cure AID/HIV and many diseases by treatments using ozone. Seems logical enough - but for some reason these techniques have been banned. The powerful drug lords would lose money if the peasants discovered they could cure themselves.

 

If I had a life-threatening disease I would certainly be checking out ozone therapy right now.

 

Ozone certainly is lethal if handled wrong. But so are chemicals and drugs. For example, chemotherapy is only about 10% effective because it shuts down your immune system. And yet the drug lords make billions of dollars playing with their cancer victims who accept the huge death rate. Ozone treatments kills pathogens and cleans up the blood and has an extremely low failure rate. And yet these methods are suppressed and persecuted by the FDA, because the profits of the drug industry would be affected.

 

Something is wrong - time to think for yourselves and investigate all options ...

[blue2blue]

The federal government warns against ozone generator / ionizer type devices. Ozone is considered a pollutant and -- as you note -- a health hazard. This type of "air cleaner" has been found by thorough testing to be ineffective.

 

Here's a write-up on the dust-up between Consumer Reports and gizmo-makers, Sharper Image:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/05/technology/personaltech/sharper_image/

 

The magazine also said that people with asthma or respiratory allergies are especially sensitive to indoor ozone, an irritant that can worsen asthma, deaden sense of smell, raise sensitivity to pollen and mold, and may cause permanent lung damage. The May issue is being published only two months after Sharper Image agreed to pay Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, $525,000 in legal costs after a federal judge dismissed a libel lawsuit alleging the publisher printed false information in an October 2003 article about the Ionic Breeze's ability to reduce airborne particles.

In extensive testing of ozone and non-ozone type air cleaners, CU found that only air cleaners with strong filtering (and typically fairly loud motors to force air through the filtering) were effective at removing smoke and other particles from circulating air. The most effective -- and potentially less noisy -- filtering was found to be force-air type systems built into houses and buildings.

 

While it's true that electrostatic air cleaners do collect some foreign material on their plates -- and it can be visually impressive -- it is typically not nearly as effective as a good motorized filter unit.

 

 

(My mom's friends convinced her-- for a while -- that these expensive, inefective products were the bee's knees and I had to do a lot of research to convince her otherwise. But me, Consumer's Union, and the federal government finally got through.)

 

BTW... Sharper Image's Ionic Breeze came in second from the bottom -- even among the largely ineffective electrostatic cleaners.

 

____________

 

One thing I really have to call you out on (not you, personally, mind you ) -- the assertion that "Apparantly it is possible to cure AID/HIV and many diseases by treatments using ozone."

 

It is not.

 

I know you don't mean to spread misinformation or false hope but this sort of thing has caused a lot of heartbreak -- and stripped the innocent, gullible, and overly hopeful of a lot of money in the past.

[Projector]

The federal govt contends that flouride in drinking water is safe and may other industrial complex myths. When the average Joe realizes that the government is a leg of the global elite and does NOT have the best interests of the flock in mind, our world will change for the better.

 

 

Isn't it interesting that ozone is mother natures way of dealing with pollution naturally but all of a sudden it becomes a major health hazard where the government is concerned. Thee pollution index uses ozone as a marker. The ozone is ONLY there trying to clean up what it is marking.

 

The government contends that mercury dental amalgams are safe in our heads, oh until they are removed, then they need to be treated like the toxic waste they are, properly bagged and disposed of. Don't even get me started on the incoherency of government rules (which mostly come about by heavy lobbying by major corps and industrerial agendas).

 

 

Now as far as shock ozone treatments go, they can be great to kill mold and break down pollutants but it is also important to see why you have a mold problem in the first place and take measures to correct it. There are companies in many areas now using mold sniffing dogs to find the source of your problem. I highly recommend this avenue. It may be good too to use a hepa filter as part of your clean up afterwards.

[rasputin1963]

Oh lord--- and I just bought last week the IONIC PRO CL-369 !!! :eekphil: :eekphil:

 

I've had it one week, and I have noticed that my home smells cleaner... no doubt about it. But gee, if it's "damaging my lungs permanently"???????

 

Now-- correct me if I'm wrong-- but I was under the impression that the proof of an ionizer was not only in the dust collected on its internal blades, but in the way the ions bonded to odor, dust and smoke molecules, forcing them to fall to earth.

 

I remember a bar I used to frequent which had a bunch of negative ion generators on the ceiling... You could see no clunky big filtering engines, only delicate little spindles sticking out of the ceiling... Now, 9/10's of the bar's denizens were smoking cigarettes.... but the air in the bar was not cloudy AT ALL... The bar owner told me that the ion generators forced the smoke to fall to the floor.... He said that ever since he installed those spindles, the bar's floor had become dirtier than ever, while the air at head-level was much clearer. Could this all be nonsense? I saw it with me own eyes!

[greendoor]

Yes - ozone needs to be treated with respect. It IS lethal - that's how it kills germs. I don't agree with the low power products that are designed to be used in an occupied room. I'm talking about shock treatment in an unoccupied room. Think of ozone as a powerful bleach, that doesn't leave a chemical residue.

 

Blue2blue - thanks for those great examples of how our governments do NOT have the public interest at heart. This is very obvious to many thinking people.

 

With any type of knowledge there are 3 kinds of people:

The ignoramus - doesn't know, doesn't care

The conformist - goes along with whatever he is told

The heretic - is willing to explore alternative views

 

Practically any new technology was discovered by heretics who dared to ignore what the conformists were saying.

 

"Heavier-than-air flight is impossible" - sure.

"The world only needs about 7 computers" - fine.

"Guitar bands are history" (said to The Beatles) - yeah, right ...

[greendoor]

Air ionizers and ozone generators are two different things - although similar, and some do both.

 

Ionised air has an electrical charge that charges dust/germ particles and causes them to stick to surfaces. It doesn't kill them - and ultimately just speads the problem from one area to another.

 

Low amounts of ozone can give a fresh smell, but not really kill all bacteria, viruses etc. It obviously lowers the amount of oxygen available to your lungs, and might do damage.

 

This is not an advertisment or endorsement - but the reading material at this site is very interesting: http://www.air-zone.com/shock.html

 

As far as medical applications: http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/ozonetherapyed.html

 

Yes - your government is opposed to this. Because the drug companies are huge business and they bankroll your government. Your government, at the top levels, believes in population control, and the "management" of disease is all part of the plan. Choose who you trust very, very carefully.

[Projector]

Nice to see another soul who has left the control grid and has taken up critical thinking beyond the controllers. *waves*

[blue2blue]

Yeah...

 

Strike a blow against those dangerous corporate fascists at the non-profit, non-advertising-supported Consumers Union...

 

I'm sure those concerned environmentalists and communitarians at Sharper Image deeply appreciate your support.

 

And for Heaven's sake, don't pay any attention to the science.

[Anderton]

Well one of the headlines that flashed by me today was about how a cancer therapy actually helps spread cancer, so they're kind of re-thinking it...I should say so.

 

The problem is I do believe that there are a lot of alternative therapies that have considerable merit. When you see someone who was given six months to live, does alternative therapies, and is still going strong 15 years later, you kind of get the point On the other hand there is a vast array of outright quackery, designed to accumulate big bucks for unscrupulous people, who hide behind the "big government is persecuting us" shield.

 

You have to take each of these on a case by case basis. Some heretics are Copernicus. Others are the ones who pushed Laetril.

[Anderton]

And I will add that the big drug companies are pretty suspect...how did they manage to bypass all competitive bidding on the medicare prescription program? They're a huge lobby. And it doesn't take much cynicism to realize that a cancer patient is a highly profitable cash cow for the medical industry.

[Anderton]

I found a link to the cancer story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502348.html?hpid=sec-health

[Projector]

I agree Craig, critical thinking must be applied all around. The cancer business is big business and as another poster pointed out there IS an agenda for population control. This has been widely reported. War is big business too. When you follow the money on all of this, it leads back to the same pockets.

 

Beating cancer is easy. Remove toxicity, utilize highly nutritious, non toxic food (juices ala Gerson therapy), emotional and mental work (guided imagry etc) and cleanse the accumulated toxins from your system and return the body back to a good state of flow. Do this and cancer will switch off.

 

Cancer is a state of toxicity. In our incoherent lifestyles we are literally poisoning ourselves.

 

Knowledge is power. Kind of like your reviews. ;-)

 

 

Btw, non-profit does not mean non-influenced.

[blue2blue]

Forget ozone for a moment and let's talk about science -- which is increasingly under attack by everyone from those who want to discredit global warming findings to scriptural creationists to those who want the Bush FDA to continue ignoring science and proper testing methodology and approving ineffective and sometimes unsafe drugs...

 

 

Is science always right?

 

No. Science is the process of exploring what is not known, observing it, testing it, and attempting to develop an understanding of it.

 

It is a process which by its very nature cannot always assure the ultimately correct answer.

 

But the Scientific Method, which is part methodology and part ethical system -- with its rigorous testing and re-testing methodologies and its insistence on careful peer review. This system has evolved in order to help assure that science gives the best answer possible at any given time using the best evidence available.

 

 

Unfortunately, that best answer is not always convenient or profitable for every sector of society.

 

And, as our knowledge continues to expand, it becomes increasingly difficult for lay people to understand much of the core evidence and methodology that goes into developing scientific consensus.

 

And that is why a rigorous adherence to scientific principles and methodology is so important.

 

 

Now I think a few people here have something with their sense of betrayal -- but it is not science which is betraying them -- but rather the rejection of science and the manipulation of ignorance which lies at the part of the problem, whether it is Bush's FDA approving ineffective and/or dangerous drugs or some of the big oil companies and some of the automobile manufacturers trying to tell you global warming is just hippie paranoia...

 

 

Crag's example brings this to the fore.

 

It was science and research that brought us this deeper understanding that some forms of treatment can help spread cancer. It was part of the ongoing scientific process that led us to these therapies -- and that same process that leads us to a deeper understanding that there may be hidden dangers to them.

 

But the article linked has one serious flaw as edited for this publication. Knowing it was prepared by Reuters' science desk editor it likely did contain some less "newsworthy" info that simply didn't make it into the abbreviated news format of the Washington Post's daily news stories. What the article DOESN'T point out -- and which is crucial for a proper understanding of the issue -- is that because of some of these very same "problematic" therapies, many, many more cancer patients survive far longer than those of earlier times.

 

The tendency (for some) to jump on this story as some kind of "proof" that science is out to get or exploit you is... not supported by the facts.

 

[monstermaker]

If your musty studio is in a basement it might be humidity causing mold or mildew. In the warmer months your a.c. should remove most of the moisture in the air. If it does not then you might want to consider a dehumidifier.

Another thing to consider is your ductwork if you have a forced air system. Mold and mildew love it in there. A solution to this is ultraviolet lamps. It's a proven fix if installed properly.

Duct cleaning done properly may help.

Consider upgrading to a good pleated filter for your furnace or air handler.

Electronic air cleaners are great for fine particulates but need dutiful maintenance.

From what I've read ozone cleaners work to a point but but I've never met anyone who swears by them except sales people. A little is good. Too muh may be bad for the air in your house.

Talk to a reputable air quality specialist.

[blue2blue]

BTW... I think some here are conflating -- presumably through simple ignorance -- the beneficial properties of the ozone layer -- far above altitudes habitable by humans and still in a small concentrations -- with the introduction of extra ozone into the human environment.

 

Few -- at this point -- would argue about the benefits of a healthy ozone layer (although the anti-science crowd had their way with this until the profits were made and the damage was started in earnest):

 

 

The highest levels of ozone in the atmosphere are in the stratosphere , in a region also known as the ozone layer between about 10 km and 50 km above the surface. Here it filters out the shorter wavelengths (less than 320 nm) of ultraviolet light (270 to 400 nm) from the Sun that would be harmful to most forms of life in large doses. These same wavelengths are also among those responsible for the production of vitamin D , which is essential for human health . Ozone in the stratosphere is mostly produced from ultraviolet rays reacting with oxygen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

 

But that's up there -- not down here on the ground where we have to breathe it.

 

 

Low level ozone   Main articles: Tropospheric ozone and Photochemical smog Low level ozone (or tropospheric ozone) is regarded as a pollutant by the World Health Organization . [14] It is not emitted directly by car engines or by industrial operations. It is formed by the reaction of sunlight on air containing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that react to form ozone directly at the source of the pollution or many kilometers down wind. For more details of the complex chemical reactions that produce low level ozone see tropospheric ozone or Seinfled and Pandis (1998).   Ozone reacts directly with some hydrocarbons such as aldehydes and thus begins their removal from the air, but the products are themselves key components of smog . Ozone photolysis by UV light leads to production of the hydroxyl radical and this plays a part in the removal of hydrocarbons from the air, but is also the first step in the creation of components of smog such as peroxyacyl nitrates which can be powerful eye irritants. The atmospheric lifetime of tropospheric ozone is about 22 days and its main removal mechanisms are being deposited to the ground, the above mentioned reaction giving OH, and by reactions with OH and the peroxy radical HO2

[Projector]

I am all for science. I wish it was actually being practiced. Now that corporations rule the planet we have seen a morphed version of science into what I refer to as the role of scientician. This unique beast resides in character somewhere between a credentialed, degreed, institutionally "hoop-jumping, papered being crossed between a used car salesman or lawyer.

 

We are in an age where science is shopped out to, what amounts to, guns for hire.

 

Yes, the scientific method in all of its former glory, although not perfect, is a useful method of exploration. What a renaissance it would be if you returned to using it as a tool away from hidden agendas. The possibilities for its use in serving mankind instead of mankind's masters, are endless.

[Super 8]

 

The cancer business is big business and as another poster pointed out there IS an agenda for population control. This has been widely reported. War is big business too. When you follow the money on all of this, it leads back to the same pockets.

 

 

Oh gawd... It's amazing how fast this {censored} goes from herbal supplements to the Illuminati.

 

 

Btw, non-profit does not mean non-influenced.

 

 

Considering the number of times the Consumer's Union has been sued over the years for reporting the facts, I think it's safe to say they're on our side.

[blue2blue]

Yeah... I think it's important to look at the players in that particular drama... Who has more credibility and demonstrated concern for consumers and truth in vending -- the nonprofit consumer advocates Consumers Union (who have, indeed, been sued or threatened by everyone from big auto companies to some big retail chains) or the yuppie techno-novelty catalog outfit, Sharper Image?

 

 

With regard to the very reasonable fears expressed above of manipulation and distortion of science by those who would, for their own purposes, try to manipulate us as consumers and/or voters -- I think the best antidote for that is more and better science -- and not a retreat from testing, observation, and rigorous methodology.

[philbo]

Errr.. There is some confusion here. A negative ion generator is NOT the same as an ozone generator. Not even close.

 

It requires an electric arc to form ozone from air, such as a lightning bolt, bug zapper or welder. Inhaled ozone has been known to cause brain damage and induce lots of free radicals into the bloodstream if inhaled regularly. If you feel it's good for you, go for it... but please don't force it on your kids.

 

Negative Ion generators simply use high voltage to put a negative electrical charge on both air and dust. This also happens (due to static electricity) when water falls across rocks. I keep a fountain running in my house for this reason.

[blue2blue]

You're right that they shouldn't be conflated. Ionizers typically use an intense electrostatic field to produce negative and/or positive ions; ozone generators are optimized to produce the oxygen allotrope, ozone, typically through a UV light or corona discharge tube.

 

(There is basically no regulation of these products by the EPA or FDA. That said, the FDA will only tolerate so outlandish a medical claim: "Ozone Generators Generate Prison Terms for Couple, second article, midway down the page.")

 

Unfortunately ionizer type products also produce ozone as a byproduct.

 

Consumers Union tested the five leading ionizer type products using the testing standards from Underwriter's Laboratories as measured against the voluntary ozone emission standards that some manufacturers use (the same as that set for the FDA for medical devices) and they all failed.

 

CU went on to cite two units, the IonizAir P4620 and the SurroundAir XJ-2000 as having especially high levels, the SurroundAir about SIX TIMES the permissible measurement.

 

PDF of CU Report

 

 

From CU's New concerns about ionizing air cleaners:

 

While ozone dissipates indoors, it can create other pollutants in the process. Research suggests that ozone reacts with the terpenes in lemon- and pine-scented cleaning products and air fresheners, creating formaldehyde--a carcinogen--and other irritants. Those byproducts can be absorbed by beds and carpets, and be released over an extended time frame. Research has also found that ozone reacts with terpenes to create additional ultrafine particles, which are hard to filter and can go deep into lungs.

 

[Anderton]

Blue2Blue, I hope that if you are a lawyer, I am never in the position of being an expert witness with you being the cross-examiner.

[blue2blue]

Well, Craig, I've got that pit bull jaw thing... Also, for decades I would find myself in arguments without access to reference materials or other ways to answer factual questions... And I would get really frustrated when I knew the answer to something but had no way of proving it. (Mind you I didn't always know the right answer. ) So, I figure, nowadays, there's no reason to argue in darkness.

 

 

With regard to this one, I'm kind of protective of my mom. And she had really been sold on these things, she was going to spend as much as fourteen hundred bucks on an electrostatic one (she didn't want fan noise).

 

And I was a fan of them in the 70s. (I also was a big believer in biorhythms, the mystical importance of deja vus, alien abduction, earth shoes, SAABs, and satellite anti-missile systems -- but I finally got tired of ending up feeling like a chump all the time. So I started putting a little effort into vetting what I decided to believe in. A revelation.)

 

Anyhow, since then, I'd come across a few things about negative ion generators that raised the warning bells.

 

And by the time my mom bought into the ozone/ionizer thing -- it was the internet era so I did a lot of research -- and I didn't like what I saw. I talked to her at length, gave her a bunch of support materials and we were good for a while.

 

But then someone got a hold of her again. (A lot of her friends are "true believers" in these things -- and probably about half of them have the discredited Sharper Image Ion Breeze.) And she ended up at a store specializing in them.

 

This time the hype was "ozone-savvy" in the sense that the emphasis was on the electrotatic process and how it was designed to produce negative ions, not designed to produce ozone, like an ozone generator.

 

What they didn't really cover was that they also produced ozone as a byproduct.

 

This time I bought the back issue of Consumer Reports with the report on ionizers, I went through a LOT of abstracts of the science, looked at the Lung Association's stuff on them (they don't like them, either, it's that ozone thing), looked at the EPA stuff on ozone generators and ionizers again and read the materials my mom had collected from the manufacturers which were long on warm and fuzzy and very short on everything else.

 

When I got it all together I sat down with my mom and we looked at a lot of charts and some graphs and the CU reports and the EPA and some other stuff (I swear, this was a big deal) and she finally came away convinced, once and for all, that the thing that works is a HEPA filter driven by a powerful fan -- and that's either built in or somewhat noisy. But now she understands the realities.

[fantasticsound]

 

...From what I can tell - ozone is created by lightening (the ozone layer) and it falls to earth with rain, as it mixes very well with water. This is the fresh, clean smell after a storm. Ozone is lethal - it kills microbiological stuff like mould, bacteria, viruses, yeast. So it is nature's perfect steriliser for cleaning up this planet. It breaks down to harmless oxygen, so it is far superior to chemicals. Importantly - germs cannot develop immunity to ozone. This is great news, because the incompetant medical profession is breeding antibiotic-resistant super bugs in their hospitals. If anyone should be using ozone, it should be the medical profession - but they are totally hooked on drugs, so expect a severe backlash from the drug lords. People are already using ozone to treat water for pools and drinking. Ozone generators are used for de-stinking motels. The food industry is using ozonated water for sterilisation and extending the life of perishables. Apparantly it is possible to cure AID/HIV and many diseases by treatments using ozone. Seems logical enough - but for some reason these techniques have been banned. The powerful drug lords would lose money if the peasants discovered they could cure themselves. If I had a life-threatening disease I would certainly be checking out ozone therapy right now. Ozone certainly is lethal if handled wrong. But so are chemicals and drugs. For example, chemotherapy is only about 10% effective because it shuts down your immune system. And yet the drug lords make billions of dollars playing with their cancer victims who accept the huge death rate. Ozone treatments kills pathogens and cleans up the blood and has an extremely low failure rate. And yet these methods are suppressed and persecuted by the FDA, because the profits of the drug industry would be affected. Something is wrong - time to think for yourselves and investigate all options ...

 

 

What I love about everything you posted is that your claims have absolutely no scientific backing whatsoever while simultaneously ignoring known scientific principles. (In regards to ozone as a cure-all.)

 

How is it this conversation has gone on so long without recognizing some basics about oxygen in general, and ozone in particular.

 

Oxygen, as we all know, is pretty much essential for life as we know it. Did you ever think for a second why that is? Oxygen is essential to combustion and oxidation, both of which are destructive processes. The very kiss of life is also responsible for tearing down living tissues.

 

In particular, it is known that free radicals (single oxygen atoms) are responsible for aging processes as well as a host of other health issues, including cancer. Oxygen's most stable form is the O2 we breathe. O3, ozone, is not particularly stable. When it breaks down to O2 there is a free radical oxygen atom primed and ready to wreak havoc on living tissue.

 

I am not an expert in this field, not by a long shot. I suggest you do your own research before you are led to the panacea of ozone as medical treatment.

[blue2blue]

Well, in all fairness to greendoor, he has maintained that ozone has to be treated with caution and that it is toxic in higher concentrations... but I'm sure he's a better spokesperson for his position than I could be -- and I'm really afraid someone is going to accuse me of being so ready to argue that I'll take either side...

 

[greendoor]

Thanks for all the ideas. As expected - mixed reactions, some intelligent thought provoking and just as much mis-understanding and paranoia.

 

I'm not anti-science - but a lot of what passes for science is pure propaganda. Any big-money interest group can hire scientists to say whatever they want them to say. Would you believe a McDonalds Nutritionist?

 

For my studio mould problem, i've bought a de-humidifier. I have no interest in a ion-generator, or a low level ozone generator - because I believe that creating and breathing ozone is bad for ourlungs. The person who suggested UV lamps is inadvertently recommending a type of ozone generator - I looked into this and dismissed this too.

 

Seems the 'ozone shock treatment' part was completely misunderstood by most people. Look at it this way: if you have mould to remove, what do you use? Chlorine, bleach, chemicals?? Strong ozone can do the same thing or better - JUST DON'T BE IN THE ROOM WHEN USING IT. The ozone then breaks down to oxygen, and nothing is left after a few hours but a clean room full of fresh air. If you use chemicals - these remain in the room and are bad for your lungs.

 

Ozone and ozonated water is being used by various industries, and when used appropriately it seems like a really good non-chemical way to kill germs. And the germs cannot develop immunity to it.

 

Sorry about the diversion into medical uses - but in doing my research I found out about these excellent alternative therapies that actually work but are being suppressed. The FDA are known to victimise alternative medical practices that threaten the drug monopolies. This equals murder in my view.

 

Population control is murder. This is nothing about science - it's about the rich elite exploiting the poor by denying them valid treatments. They are only allowed invalid treatments such as chemo therapy - which simply don't work. Chemo therapy trashes your immune system - the very thing that is needed to reverse cancer. Who benefits?

 

The medical profession, by and large, is just a meat processing industry that is motivated by greed first and foremost. Where is the true, open, honest scientific research that is testing ozone therapies? I expect the drug companies are petrified that something they can't control or profit from is far more effective and could wipe out their business overnight.