Fw: RE: *Ozone comment in error?

[Guest guest]

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 hours as that

is about the life of an ozone molecule. What ozone seeps into an average

residence is usually destroyed by agitation within hours so to be healthy some

ozone supplementation is needed.

Ken

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

FAIR USE NOTICE:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Ken,

Who was the reviewer of the EPA documents? Did they have any

relationship to the products you promote?

Why don't you answer my questions? You chastized me on the IEQuality

board recently for " outing " your non-scientific basis for your

scientific-sounding opinions. You said you only wanted a discussion.

So, for the third time in a month, here I am. Where are you?

Who was the reviewer of the EPA documents? Did they have any

relationship to the products you promote?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----Ken wrote:

> Gil,

>

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

> ozone generators in particular some comments by Weschler.