RE: Jeff and's comments re: Jim

[Guest guest]

Again You mischaracterize most of my comments as well as the EPA

reports. Here is the results of the study attached.

The important parts are this:

(Pre-Ozonation) (After)

Outside 15 52

Inside 20 14

Crawlspace 360 75

Interior Wall 120 2

I would say this is a pretty significant change -- read the report and

the conclusions of the inspector.

There have also been a number of studies done at Purdue, U Penn, Univ.

of Wisconsin, etc., that show eradication of mold, yeast, bacteria, and

virii by ozone.

The FDA has approved ozone for the treatment of food, waste water and

drinking water -- in Milwaukee, Ozone is used in the drinking water

treatment plant specifically because chlorine was not effective enough

at killing crypto spridia!

Ozone is now used in most spas and many pools in place of Chlorine to

prevent the growth of algae, mold, and bacteria!

You specifically said that we must " remove all of the mold " -- how

exactly do you distinguish between the contaminating mold and the

natural mold? And when you distinguish between the two, do you paint

the natural mold orange so that it is not inadvertently removed?

Lastly, you urge people to not use ozone shock treatments because of the

EPA documents entitled " Ozone Generators That Are Sold As Air Cleaners "

-- I would urge everyone to read this document. If read in the proper

light, you will find that it agrees with all of the statements I have

made.

We do not advocate ANYONE breathing ozone -- we expose no one to ozone

in any of our treatments (unless it is present outside already). We do

not use ozone generators as air cleaners.

What literature says that it is ineffective in homes? I suppose that

all the hot tub dealers that are now equipping their units with

ozonators are wrong? Why is it then that we haven't seen a major

epidemic of legionaire's disease? All of the lab studies I have seen

indicate exactly the opposite -- Ozone is very effective at killing --

be it microbes or the cells making up your mucous membranes, lungs, etc.

You can't have it both ways -- either it is effective and shouldn't be

inhaled, or it isn't effective and is thus harmless.

You simply cannot take an advisory that was written about an air filter

that produces an ozone concentration of 0.05 ppm, and apply it to a

process that uses a pure ozone generator that employs a concentration of

20ppm!!

Jeff R.

Message: 17

Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:14:30 -0700 (PDT)

From: Jim <jvincent537@...>

Subject: Jeff and's comments re: Jim

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,....

You seem to be having a bad day or something.

Your last message implied I couldn't read anything but

a simple sentence, that I was unaware that mould is

ubiquitous, and that I was rediculous (your spelling). Actually, I took

that comment about ridiculous as a bit of a complement since you had

called Dr. Joe Klein ridiculous as well. It appears you want to lower

this discussion on the effectiveness of ozone treatment to a

gutter-level. Sorry, not interested.

I will make a couple final comments and that will be

the last time I address this subject with you. After

this you can say what you like.

I always understood, and I thought you and everyone

else did as well, that the point of this discussion

was whether ozone was effective to treat contaminating

mould i.e. the stuff that is growing in carpets,

behind walls, or elsewhere in a building. I never

considered we were discussing getting rid of all the

" natural " mould too. If anyone suggested to me that we

must get rid of the " natural " mould too, I would agree

with you that that would be impractical. I think that

is a given for anyone addressing mould in buildings. I

guess I have discussed this subject so often with

others that I just assume we are all talking about

getting rid of the contamination, and we realized that

" normal " mould is something we have to live with.

You make a statement, " When we treat a home with ozone

shock treatment, it will reach an uncountable level at

the end of the treatment. " This statement implies you

have tested at the end of some treatments and can

back-up the statement with data. Which, of course, is

what Joe Klein asked you to do earlier in this

discussion. When my son was younger we played a

counting game trying to see who could count something

fastest. One day he figured out he could win if he

closed his eyes and said " none, cuz I have my eyes

closed " (we laughed at his cuteness). I am not

suggesting you conducted your testing with your eyes

closed but if you didn't check in wall cavities, take

swab sample and air samples and test thoroughly (and

scientifically??) then you really don't know what is

left, or if it is " countable " .

Well Jeff it's been a slice. I don't wish you good

luck with your ozone shock treatment procedures

because the literature tells us is is largely

ineffective in homes. I do hope that anyone

considering using ozone treatments will read the

literature availalble from EPA and the Health

Departments in the states of Minnisota and California.