RE: Ozone comment in error?

June 18, 2005

Ken,

I was intrigued by one sentence in your letter on ozone. You stated " Test

results show that aerosolized bacteria and mold can be reduced nearly 50% in

about 4 minutes using only .05ppm of ozone. " .05 ppm is the same as 50 ppb.

That is a fairly typical level in most major cities much of the summer. If

ozone is so effective, why is there still a significant mold level still

reported in weather reports on ozone non-attainment days. These days are far

longer than 4 minutes. Perhaps your numbers are off an order of magnitude or

more.

Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:25:19 -0400

From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...>

Subject: Re: Re:* air cleaner/ Rosie

Dear Rosie,

I really wish you hadn't had brought this up at this time. If you had

waited until after the first of November the results of a number of tests

presently being prepared for publication would have I'm sure proven these

EPA opinions faulty.

In answer to your concern about ozone when used in air purification creating

hazardous substances let me offer the following comment..

The paper of Weschler as referenced here is mis-reported. It is true that a

product was created that is more " toxic " (defined

as meaning a lower dosage is required to produce a harmful effect) than the

original irritating substance that was found in carpets.

But it ignores the fact that the " toxic " chemical that was produced was an

extremely small fraction of a trace amount and its dosage was so small

that it could never accumulate to a level to be harmful. And Weschler never

claimed that it was harmful.

The distortion here is that harmful levels of these chemicals (aldehydes and

Formic acid) can not be reached with trace amounts of ozone. If that were

true an identical problem would occur in a well ventilated building where

ozone is brought in along with ambient air. Weschler himself has given

sworn testimonies that he is

unaware of any instance where a harmful byproduct has been created by the

use of low levels of ozone.

The analysis of complete indoor air reactions is difficult if not impossible

to make. The interactions are far too

complex. But if we accept that the ozone in fresh outdoor air is not harmful

then that same level indoors will also not be harmful.

Test results show that aerosolized bacteria and mold can be reduced nearly

50% in about 4 minutes using only .05ppm of ozone. The only tests to the

contrary are those using dry mold spores or environments where the bacteria

or mold were not aerosolized. This has been well established in peer

reviewed papers dating from the 1930's. It is obviously true that ozone or

its byproducts cannot kill that which it cannot come in contact. On the

other hand since the penetration of ozone is a function of time and since in

general ozone is most effective in areas of high moisture, ozone can

penetrate even into library books over a period of time to control mold

growth.

The bottom line is these EPA comments are as silly as those of 30 years ago

made by the FDA regarding saccharin being a cause of cancer after they

overdosed laboratory animals with consuming saccharin daily. It took a good

many years before the FDA reversed itself regarding saccharin.

The largest US manufacturer of ozone purifiers has sold over 5 million

machines without one injury or illness. Don't you wish auto manufacturers

could have a record like that!

Did you know that as of last year almost all oranges leaving Florida are

being " washed " in ozone water? Did you know that before the last Olympics

in California the swimming stadiums were made to replace their use of

chlorine for water purification with ozone bubbling through the water as

such is considered safer by the IOC?

Did you know that the meat packing industry estimates that in five years

almost all packaged beef, pork and chicken will be " washed " in a

concentrated ozone bath to kill all surface germs before packaging?

Sincerely,

Ken

June 18, 2005

-

From: " Gil Vice " <gilvice@...>

> Ken,

>

> I was intrigued by one sentence in your letter on ozone. You stated " Test

> results show that aerosolized bacteria and mold can be reduced nearly 50%

> in

> about 4 minutes using only .05ppm of ozone. " .05 ppm is the same as 50

> ppb.

> That is a fairly typical level in most major cities much of the summer. If

> ozone is so effective, why is there still a significant mold level still

> reported in weather reports on ozone non-attainment days. These days are

> far

> longer than 4 minutes. Perhaps your numbers are off an order of magnitude

> or

> more.

Gil thank you for pointing this out. I had a wonderful giggle after reading

your thought-provoking comments because the ozone levels in Houston are much

highter than 50ppb. See

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/air/monops/lessons/housdata.txt chart for

ground-level ozone levels in Houston for 22 years til 1996. In 1996 highest

measured was 199ppb. lol that would mean all the mold in Houston should

have been killed! I can attest that is not the case. And our ozone alerts

are certainly longer than 4 minutes, more like days and weeks rather than

minutes. Or are we talking about ground-level ozone versus Stratospheric

ozone which is found 9 to 18 miles high where it shields us from harmful

ultraviolet rays from the sun. A high accumulation of ozone gas in the lower

atmosphere at ground level is air pollution and can be harmful to people,

animals, crops, and other materials.

I'm so enjoying our discussion on this subject. We all need to take an

interest and determine what is safest for us all.

Rosie

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 6/14/2005

June 18, 2005

> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:25:19 -0400

> From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...>

> Subject: Re: Re:* air cleaner/ Rosie

>

> Dear Rosie,

>

> I really wish you hadn't had brought this up at this time. If you had

> waited until after the first of November the results of a number of tests

> presently being prepared for publication would have I'm sure proven these

> EPA opinions faulty.

Dear Ken:

Please be sure to email me and the group the November tests plus who is

doing the tests, how they are done; what equipment, strenght of ozone

generator, etc. Thanks in advance.

> The largest US manufacturer of ozone purifiers has sold over 5 million

> machines without one injury or illness. Don't you wish auto manufacturers

> could have a record like that!

Please send me documented proof of the above statement that there has never

been one injury or illness? Can you personally state you know everyone of

these 5 million individuals who have purchased these machines and have

personally spoken with them to validate this statement. And if this US

manufacture you quoted is claiming no injuries, please send me name and

address so I made make the first claim of injury from an ozone generator and

I will be pleased to have several thousand others which whom I have direct

contact to send in same statements of their illness caused by ozone

generators.

Valentine's Day (also our anniversary) I received from my darling husband a

Sharper Image Ionizer to wear around my neck to protect me from chemicals,

etc. Thought was sweet but I began to react so I personally took it back to

Sharper Image which of course if full of demo models of their ionizers which

do emit ozone. Had long talk with the store manager and he even admitted

that customers return these products due to negative impact on their health.

So please Ken provide me proof of these 5 million machines having " zero "

injury or illness to those that bought the machines, their family members,

pets, birds and friends visiting their homes.

Thanks so much,

Rosie

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 6/14/2005

June 18, 2005

One question no one has addressed...

If this WONDERFUL *eyes rolling* manufacturer aka Bill Cnnverse (snake

oil salesman) product is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO effective....

1. Why was the corp sued in fed court in TN by the FTC for fraudulent

claims?

2. Why did the state of FL claim that his product is not proven (no

independent lab results) for all his allegations?

3. Why did a FEDERAL JUDGE in MN claim that his devices are not to be

used in the prsence of humans?

4. If this is SOOOO wonderful....why after the FTC litigation did he ON

PURPOSE split the corporation into TWO separate

corporations...manufacturing and sales/marketing. Very simple...now he

can NOT be responsible for what his MLM/sales croonies claim. He shielded

himself.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Healthier4all wrote:

> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:39:30 -0500

> From: Healthier4all <Healthier4All@...>

> Reply-

>

> Subject: Re: [] RE: Ozone comment in error?

>

> > Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:25:19 -0400

> > From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...>

> > Subject: Re: Re:* air cleaner/ Rosie

> >

> > Dear Rosie,

> >

> > I really wish you hadn't had brought this up at this time. If you had

> > waited until after the first of November the results of a number of

> tests

> > presently being prepared for publication would have I'm sure proven

> these

> > EPA opinions faulty.

>

> Dear Ken:

>

> Please be sure to email me and the group the November tests plus who is

> doing the tests, how they are done; what equipment, strenght of ozone

> generator, etc. Thanks in advance.

>

> > The largest US manufacturer of ozone purifiers has sold over 5 million

> > machines without one injury or illness. Don't you wish auto

> manufacturers

> > could have a record like that!

>

> Please send me documented proof of the above statement that there has

> never

> been one injury or illness? Can you personally state you know everyone of

> these 5 million individuals who have purchased these machines and have

> personally spoken with them to validate this statement. And if this US

> manufacture you quoted is claiming no injuries, please send me name and

> address so I made make the first claim of injury from an ozone generator

> and

> I will be pleased to have several thousand others which whom I have

> direct

> contact to send in same statements of their illness caused by ozone

> generators.

>

> Valentine's Day (also our anniversary) I received from my darling husband

> a

> Sharper Image Ionizer to wear around my neck to protect me from

> chemicals,

> etc. Thought was sweet but I began to react so I personally took it back

> to

> Sharper Image which of course if full of demo models of their ionizers

> which

> do emit ozone. Had long talk with the store manager and he even admitted

> that customers return these products due to negative impact on their

> health.

>

> So please Ken provide me proof of these 5 million machines having " zero "

> injury or illness to those that bought the machines, their family

> members,

> pets, birds and friends visiting their homes.

>

> Thanks so much,

>

> Rosie

>

> --

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 6/14/2005

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

________________________________________________________________________________

>

June 20, 2005

Your letter stated " What I read is without natural ozone of between 20 and

60 ppb we'd be knee high in slime and mold. " I'm not so sure if that is

true. Many areas of the country commonly have 20-60 ppb ozone. Some of this

is due to pollution, some to natural processes, such as reaction of sunlight

with VOC's from pine trees (the cause of the Smoky look of the Smoky

Mountains). However, desert areas of the southwest, away from population

centers, often have ozone levels below 20-60 ppb. And they are not swimming

in mold. The controlling factor is sunlight's UV component, along with low

RH. Generally, most mold researchers will say that the highest mold levels

are found just prior to sunrise. Sunlight helps us produce vitamin D, but

also in too high exposures gives us melanoma. Molds surface to volume ratio

is far higher than higher organisms, causing UV to be very effective in

penetrating deep enough to kill it. Therefore, I still believe the EPA

guidelines are correct, that there is no use for ozone generators in routine

IAQ maintenance.

Gil

Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 16:05:38 -0400

From: " kengib . " <jkg4902@...>

Subject: Fw: RE: *Ozone comment in error?

Gil,

I took those numbers from a review of the EPA documents regarding ozone

generators in particular some comments by Weschler. Here is what I was

using:

" On the contrary ozone levels at or below .05ppm have

been shown to reduce aerosolized bacteria, aerosolized

mold by as much as 50% in as little as 4 minutes. In

addition double bonded hydrocarbons such as

isobutylene show as much as 35% reductions in that

same time frame. Dr Weschler, an opponent of ozone,

admits that low levels of ozone can react with double

and multiple carbon bonded materials and that there are

over 8,000 chemicals in that classification.

Boeniger's paper did not take into consideration the

interactions of the " soup " of chemicals that make up air. "

Of course the numbers I'm borrowing are from lab tests. The outdoor

experience to which you refer is variable. Let's accept there to be a

higher ozone content at mid day and a lower content at mid night as natural

ozone is a product of sunlight and its degradation curve is steep.

Your comment [question] is quite meaningful. What I read is without natural

ozone of between 20 and 60 ppb we'd be knee high in slime and mold.

This is my justification for trying to maintain at least a 40ppb ozone

content indoors. Let's agree indoor rooms will lose all ozone within 24