Green Building Discussion

 

Topic: Alpine Air Cleaners and Ozone generation

Discussion Participants:

• Marc Rosenbaum asks about Alpine Air Cleaners
• The O'Briens also wonder
• Richard Kadulski is skeptical
• Arnie Katz tries one out
• Hal Levin debunks Ozone Generation (read this!)
• Nadav Malin wonders at their ubiquity
• Preston finds some complaints from the FTC
• Richard Kadulski comments
• Penny Linke and Environmental Health
• Dagmar Epsten on killing mold
• Tom DeRosa from Alpine defends his products
• Mike O'Brien cites some studies
• Arnie Katz looks at air problem sources
• Hal Levin on Alpine's response
• Thomas DeRosa from Alpine responds to Hal
• Hal Levin rebuts Tom DeRosa's claims
• Dona Stankus with some experience

All postings are the opinion of the writer, and BuildingGreen can take no responsibility for their accuracy or appropriateness.

Marc Rosenbaum asks about Alpine Air Cleaners

From: Marc J. Rosenbaum
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 1996 7:56 PM

I am ignorant about air cleaners and accepted an offer to try out an XL-15 from Alpine Air. This unit creates both positive and negative ions using radio waves, which they tout as being good because they travel through walls and therefore create ions in all the rooms of the house, and it makes ozone. Supposedly the ozone levels are safe, although there is no mention in the product literature that ozone is a toxic gas in sufficient concentration. A small variable speed circulating fan supposedly distribute the ozone.

I set the unit up this afternoon in my house, which is very airtight and is ventilated by a heat recovery ventilator moving about 55 cfm continuously. The ozone level is set on the unit by a dial which is marked off in square feet of the area in which the unit is located - in my case roughly 850 sq ft. The unit comes pre-set at 700 sq ft, and the instructions tell you to start it at this setting and if you can smell ozone after one hour turn it down until the ozone smell goes away. Obviously, the sq ft of the house tells you nothing about how fast the air is being exchanged in the home, and so I have kept cranking the setting sown until now I have it set at 50 sq ft!

My questions are: * what is the concentration at which I should be able to detect the ozone by smell (in ppm or whatever)? * at that concentration, is its oxidation potential in the air significant - is it concentrated enough to do any good? * is it likely to circulate far from the unit before it oxidizes into O2? * does anyone have an opinion about a) ion generators b) ion generators which are generating both positive and negative ions and c) whether radio waves thought to be a safe method of generating ions? * is this all a bunch of BS?

Marc Rosenbaum

Top of file

The O'Briens also wonder

From: Maureen O'Brien
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 1:41 AM

Hi, Mark

I also was approached by a very nice Alpine rep here in Portland, who told me all about the benefits of ozone and wanted to particip[ate in one of our environmental building programs to promote Alpine equipment. Being ignorant about ozone but having read of its hazards as an atmospheric pollutant, I contacted the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and they sent me a packet of info about ozone, ozone generators, and Alpine's track record in misleading consumers. Alpine has had action taken by states to restrain their claims, and testing shows a) you can't predict the output of ozone to be within a safe level and b) while ozone does reduce some VOCs (as Alpine claims) it actually increases TOTAL VOCs within the space, as ozone reacts with VOCs to make new ones--in short the generator makes the VOCs higher overall.

Mike

Top of file

Richard Kadulski is skeptical

From: Richard Kadulski
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 1996 12:17 PM

Marc

What you've described sounds a bit like BS. Issues I would like to knwo is - how lound is the fan? Does it generate any EMF? Why would you be looking for ozone in the first place? We know that ozone is an irritant and causes detrimental effects on the lung functions at concentrations above 0.3 ppm. Indoor exposure guidelines (short term limits) I've seen suggest a max of 0.12 ppm for 1 hour.

The whole issue of ions has been, I believe, debunked by Swedish research that hasn't been able to document any positive benefits to negative ions.

Richard Kadulski
Top of file

Arnie Katz tries one out

From: Arnie Katz
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 9:47 AM

Hi Marc: I, too, have been approached by a friend & tried an Alpine unit. Not being sophisticated enough to even think of the excellent questions you raised, I simply put it in the house, fiddled with it a bit, and let it run for a few weeks. Everyone in the family noted that the air felt "different" in a pleasant sort of way. The noise from the unit was a minor irritant. The bottom line was that none of us noticed any difference in the level of respiratory congestion or other symptoms, and so I gave the unit back. My reaction to their literature, frankly, was to check my back & put my hand over my wallet--it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm looking forward to responses to your questions from folks who may be familiar with these processes and the research. Take care, Arnie.

Top of file

Hal Levin debunks Ozone Generation (read this!)

From: Hal Levin
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 1996 9:06 PM

Ozone is a no-no at any concentration in indoor air because is interacts with other compounds typically found indoors and forms irritating and possible toxic ones, and because it is an oxidant and is not good for your lungs at any concentration. FDA established a limit of 50 ppb for ozone indoors and ASHRAE has used that value.

Neg ions remove particles from the air but, unless their is a collector plate (as in an electrostatic precipitator) the ions are removed by attaching to surfaces, not by disappearing or changing their chemistry. They accumulate and soil. Swedish research has found conflicting results for neg ions - the same researcher, David Wyon, both found benefits and did not in successive experiments. Not enough data have been generated in a careful way to draw conclusions. Some people do well with neg ion generators, some do not. But the Alpine is not the solution to IAQ problem, in my opinion; source control and ventilation are the answers. Neg ion generators and ozone generators have the potential to create problems and should not be used except by technically trained people for specific purposes such as odor control after a fire.
Top of file

Nadav Malin wonders at their ubiquity

From: Nadav Malin
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 10:59 AM

Thank you, Marc, for starting this thread, and thanks to all who've responded. I've been seeing the Alpine products displayed at several green building shows recently, and have been trying to figure out what to make of them. If anyone else has useful information that hasn't already been shared, please join in or send it to me directly.

If they generate a net reduction in IAQ, why do so many people seem very happy with them (or are those claims outright lies as well?).

Nadav

Top of file

Preston finds some complaints from the FTC

From: Pres
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 2:08 PM

Anyone who wants to know about action taken by the Federal Trade Commission should look at these:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9506/living.htm

also:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/9509/quantum.htm

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 13, 1996 / Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Prohibited trade practices: Alpine Industries, Inc., et al., 10347

State of Minnesota

See State ex rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, 490 N.W.2d 888, 892 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), aff'd., 500 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. 1993).

Preston

Top of file

Richard Kadulski comments

From: Richard Kadulski
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 12:24 PM

It could also be the placebo effect - you know, just like the dummy thermostat in an office will keep many people happy - they think they are doing something to alter their environment, so it must improve their environment, even though it may not necessarily do anything.

Then once people spend money on something, they are going to be embarrased to admit that they got taken in, if they find out it doesn't really do anysthing specific for them.

(Then again, don't crystals really work?)

Richard Kadulski

Top of file

Penny Linke and Environmental Health

From: Penny Linke
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 12:14 PM

Mike and Everyone,

I've enjoyed reading the discussion about the ozone generating air cleaners because we get calls about these all the time, quite a few of them from Alpine dealers themselves. You all, especially Hal Levin's input, are quite right.

If anyone wants a copy of the June 1995 article by the American Industrial Hygeine Assoc entitled, "Use of Ozone Generating Devices to Improve Indoor Air Quality." which explains what Hal said in more detail including 66 references, just contact us at NIEHS's Clearinghouse.

Penny Linke Environmental Health Clearinghouse ehealth@niehs.nih.gov or psl@asciencees.com 1-800-643-4794 http://infoventures.com/e-hlth

Top of file

Dagmar Epsten on killing mold

From: THE EPSTEN GROUP, Architects, Atlanta, GA
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 1996 1:05 PM

I have worked with some environmentally ill clients who have insisted that ozone generators have helped them with mold problems. Most of them also know that they should not use ozone generators while present. I have shied away from recommending ozone treatments but I usually let people know that it has worked for others. I also let them know that a 24 hour ventilation period with outside air may be a good idea before reentering an ozone-treated space.

Dagmar B. Epsten, AIA, CCS President, The Epsten Group, Architects For Sustainability architec@mindspring.com

Top of file

Tom DeRosa from Alpine defends his products

From: Thomas DeRosa
Sent: Friday, November 22, 1996 10:54 AM

Tom from Alpine here. I just wanted to thank you for allowing us to introduce Alpine's product to you. I am sorry to see that you do not agree with me about the benefits of using ozone and ions indoors to treat indoor air pollution. You mentioned in your letter that you were amazed about how low you had to set the unit in order to not smell the ozone. We discussed over the phone about Parts Per Million of ozone outdoors, whereas you could detect naturally occurring ozone outdoors after a thunderstorm, in the mountains, or on a beach. The fact is that ozone can easily be detected by smell around levels of .01 ppm (FDA regulation for beneficial amounts of ozone indoors is anything below .05 ppm). The fact that you detected ozone by smell did not mean that the unit was set too high. In any case, Alpine now has sensor models available which monitor levels of ozone, and cease ozone production if ozone rises above desired levels. In addition, regardless of air exchanges per hour, etc., Alpine systems can not produce excess levels of ozone when the purification knob corresponds to the square footage of the area you are trying to treat. Variables such as minimal air exchanges, lack of circulation, low levels of humidity, temperature, pollution, and the fact that ozone naturally dissipates after an average of 30 minutes were all accounted for when arriving at the decision as to how many mg/hr of ozone maximum should be produced for a particular square footage. I had mailed, along with the unit, our CSA Certification (which is OSHA accredited), ozone-based chemical equations, third party articles on ozone and ions, and independent lab test results. The fact that Mike O'Brien posted that ozone increases total VOC's in the air is absurd. What is volatile about breaking down lethal or harmful chemicals (such as formaldehyde) into carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen? I would ask Mike, specifically, to list which chemicals ozone reacts with to produce VOC's. Hal Levin pointed out that ozone is not good for your lungs at any concentrations. In that case, if ozone is harmful at any levels, then we should never go outdoors. Furthermore, Alpine systems create both positive and negative ions. The same ratio that is found indoors- 4 negative to 3 positive. Since opposite charges attract, the end result of charged particles in the air are neutral. Alpine systems will never cause electroplation (negatively charged particles chemically bonding to surfaces). It's true that ozone is an oxidant, but the point that is often missed is what is the trade-off? Ambient levels of naturally occurring ozone indoors, the same favorable amount of ppm found outdoors, dramatically reduces chemical gases and fumes, bacteria, viruses, odors, mold and mildew. This was proved in countless independent lab studies from unbiased labs. My mom owns a filtration system manufactured by Environmental Health Sciences. I am not sure if it is the same EHS that supplied Mark O'Brien with the Alpine info, but I would like to know their nature of business. Alpine's President and Founder is one of the world's foremost experts on IAQ, he is listed in the global directory of "Who's Who in Ozone", and he lectures world-wide on IAQ. After the oil fires in Kuwait, he was personally invited by their government for his expertise is dealing with the problems. As for Alpine's products, they are approaching 1,000,000 customers, they have been selling for 10 years, with over 28 billion man hours exposure, and never one single consumer health complaint. It is already known that field research is the ultimate scientific study. You know this from the work that you do. If a researcher sets out to prove that negative ions have no benefits, that researcher will probably find a way to prove it. Arguments can not be made about the billions of man hours exposure to low levels of ozone indoors, especially since Alpine's systems simply replicate fresh outdoor air. Lastly, I do completely agree that a partial solution to poor IAQ is source control and ventilation, but we can't ignore the fact that filtration systems and ventilation have been around for decades, and yet the EPA and World Health Organization still label indoor air pollution as the #1 pollution problem. One popular suggestion is to remove the source of pollution. Well, that may be quite difficult since 80% of dust is dead skin. People are the source of pollution, and the furniture and carpets that we bring into our homes are other sources, as well as building materials. Removing the source is an unrealistic answer. Ventilation is a better solution, but where do you get the clean air from? We can't find it outdoors anymore, and filtration systems can't filter out carbon monoxide and many other common pollutants. And while you're trying to ventilate the polluted air, the indoor environment is continuously off-gassing more pollutants. Lastly, ductwork is a haven for mold, mildew and bacteria. The solution that I see is to attack pollution at the source by using nature's own cleaning agents of ozone and ions. For every indepentent lab test which shows that ozone and ions are not beneficial for treating indoor air pollution, I can show dozens that show the benefits. More importantly, I can just again bring to your attention a 10 year study with over 28 billion man hours of research on humans, not on rats. Zero health complaints and zero health problems. Crayola crayons can't even boast this. Acetaminophen (such as Tylenol) kills over 20,000 people per year. Who has died or even been harmed by fresh air?

Sincerely, Thomas DeRosa

Top of file

Mike O'Brien cites some studies

From: Mike O'Brien
Sent: Friday, November 22, 1996 8:46 PM

Mike O'Brien may BE absurd, but he NEVER makes absurd claims! :<)

Here's the source of the information that ozone generators actually increase total VOCs in a space--a research report from NIOSH:

"Use of Ozone Generating Devices to Improve Indoor Air Quality" by Mark F. Boeniger, Industrywide Study Branch, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, published in the Journal of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, June 1995 (56:590-598).

In a test of the effect of the ozone generator on new carpet emissions, the paper concludes:

"The primary VOCs emitted from new carpets, such as phenycyclohexene, styrene and 4-ethenylcyclohexene, were reduced sharply. At the same time, however, a number of new compounds were detected that were not present prior to introducing ozone. The new compounds were primarily linear aldehydes and formaldehyde... likely products of reaction of ozone with styrene, including benzaldehyde, benzoic acid and acetophenone, also attained much higher concentrations when ozone was present. In addition, after ozone was introduced, the TVOC concentration increased about four fold."

As you can see, the new VOCs are not harmless byproducts as Alpine claims, but are health hazards in their own right.

Mike O'Brien & Associates Environmental Building Consultants Portland General Electric Earth Smart program Earth-Wise Builders Association obrien@hevanet.com

Top of file

Arnie Katz looks at air problem sources

From: Arnie Katz
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 1996 10:25 AM

Thomas DeRosa of Alpine makes some interesting points. A few comments on those areas that I deal with regularly: 1) "Filtration systems can't filter out carbon monoxide." This is correct. But if we're serious about dealing with CO, we need to be telling people to eliminate it from the living space by A) Removing combustion appliances from the living space or B) Making sure they are atmospherically disconnected from the living space--i.e. sealed combustion and direct or induced draft. 2) "Ductwork is a haven for mold, bacteria, etc." Again, correct. In all new construction, and in many retrofit situations, we can deal with this by A) sealing the ductwork with a permanant sealant (mastic), which will help prevent nasties from entering, something we should do for comfort and energy efficiency anyway; B) seal the boots during construction to keep construction debris out of the system, something we should do anyway so we can pressure test the ducts to make sure they're sealed; and C) do not use internal duct liner, which is a nice medium for biologicals to thrive in. None of which costs much in new construction. These can also often be done in a retrofit for less than the cost of an air cleaning machine. The other option, of course, is to simply design the house to eliminate ductwork altogether. But that's another story...

None of which says anything about whether these machines are helpful or harmful, useful or useless. But some of these problems can be more effectively solved in other ways.

Arnie Katz AEC Applied Building Science Center 909 Capability Drive Raleigh, NC 27606-3870

akatz@aec.ncsu.edu

Top of file

Hal Levin on Alpine's response

From: Hal Levin
Sent: Friday, November 22, 1996 11:59 AM

FDA does not callit "beneficial amounts of ozone." They established a limit on devices intended to produce ozone, but, to my knowledge, have never endorsed such devices or the production of ozone as "beneficial."

The concentration of ozone will be location dependent. Since it is produced by the Alpine, it will be highest closest to the Alpine. Its distribution in the space will be a function of air movement and the gradients of ozone in the space as well as the presence of substances with which ozone reacts more easily than others. It is critical to know the distance between a person and the Alpine to make any statement about the concentration. Since ozone is so reactive,

> The fact that you detected ozone by smell did not mean that the unit was >set too high. In any case, Alpine now has sensor models available which >monitor levels of ozone, and cease ozone production if ozone rises above >desired levels. In addition, regardless of air exchanges per hour, etc., >Alpine systems can not produce excess levels of ozone when the purification >knob corresponds to the square footage of the area you are trying to treat. > Variables such as minimal air exchanges, lack of circulation, low levels of >humidity, temperature, pollution, and the fact that ozone naturally >dissipates after an average of 30 minutes were all accounted for when >arriving at the decision as to how many mg/hr of ozone maximum should be >produced for a particular square footage.

The word "dissipates" leaves much to be explained. As I indicated in an earlier post, the dissipation is a chemical reaction between the ozone and other chemicals present in the environment. The result of this interaction can be the production of more irritating compounds than were there before, as is the case with 4-phenylcyclohexene, a contaminant in styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) latex - used as a backing for 85% of commercial carpets sold in the United States.

> I had mailed, along with the unit, our CSA Certification (which is OSHA >accredited), ozone-based chemical equations, third party articles on ozone >and ions, and independent lab test results. The fact that Mike O'Brien >posted that ozone increases total VOC's in the air is absurd. What is >volatile about breaking down lethal or harmful chemicals (such as >formaldehyde) into carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen? I would ask Mike, >specifically, to list which chemicals ozone reacts with to produce VOC's.

> Hal Levin pointed out that ozone is not good for your lungs at any >concentrations. In that case, if ozone is harmful at any levels, then we >should never go outdoors.

Nonesense!. Just because we must endure ozone outdoors does not mean it is good for us. It is not. Nor is it good for animals, nor for many plant species.

Furthermore, Alpine systems create both positive >and negative ions. The same ratio that is found indoors- 4 negative to 3 >positive. Since opposite charges attract, the end result of charged >particles in the air are neutral. Alpine systems will never cause >electroplation (negatively charged particles chemically bonding to surfaces).

If the effect is zero, then what is the point of generating the ions? The point is that the effect is not zero in the intermediate term, and that is how ions charge particles and lead to their removal from the air. How are they removed? By attaching to some surface or some other particle that eventually attaches or falls out. They do not disappear. They simply are removed from the air to the surfaces. That, my friend, is plating out. If I am wrong, then please tell me where the particles go and what the point is of generating ions in the first place.

> It's true that ozone is an oxidant, but the point that is often missed >is what is the trade-off? Ambient levels of naturally occurring ozone >indoors, the same favorable amount of ppm found outdoors, dramatically >reduces chemical gases and fumes, bacteria, viruses, odors, mold and mildew. > This was proved in countless independent lab studies from unbiased labs. My >mom owns a filtration system manufactured by Environmental Health Sciences. > I am not sure if it is the same EHS that supplied Mark O'Brien with the >Alpine info, but I would like to know their nature of business. > Alpine's President and Founder is one of the world's foremost experts >on IAQ, he is listed in the global directory of "Who's Who in Ozone", and he >lectures world-wide on IAQ. After the oil fires in Kuwait, he was personally >invited by their government for his expertise is dealing with the problems.

So what? This is really getting annoying. Just because a government does something does not make it good. Do I need to give examples? Genocide, for instance?

> As for Alpine's products, they are approaching 1,000,000 customers, they >have been selling for 10 years, with over 28 billion man hours exposure, and >never one single consumer health complaint. It is already known that field >research is the ultimate scientific study. You know this from the work that >you do. If a researcher sets out to prove that negative ions have no >benefits, that researcher will probably find a way to prove it. Arguments >can not be made about the billions of man hours exposure to low levels of >ozone indoors, especially since Alpine's systems simply replicate fresh >outdoor air.

I never set out to prove things one way or the other regarding ions. I got interested in negative ion generators back in 1978, and I did my best to understand them. I have reached no conclusions, and I do not believe the research done to date supports any conclusions. The issue I have addressed on Alpine previously is the ozone issue. There is no ambiguity there. However, I stand by my earlier comments on ion generators.

> Lastly, I do completely agree that a partial solution to poor IAQ is >source control and ventilation, but we can't ignore the fact that filtration >systems and ventilation have been around for decades, and yet the EPA and >World Health Organization still label indoor air pollution as the #1 >pollution problem.

More nonesense. Just because they have been around does not mean they are used properly or adequately. Lots of good things are around - like knowledge about the adverse effects of tobacco smoking. That knowledge has not effectively changed the behavior of most people in the world. Teenage American girls don't seem to have gotten the message.

One popular suggestion is to remove the source of >pollution. Well, that may be quite difficult since 80% of dust is dead skin. > People are the source of pollution, and the furniture and carpets that we >bring into our homes are other sources, as well as building materials. > Removing the source is an unrealistic answer. Ventilation is a better >solution, but where do you get the clean air from? We can't find it outdoors >anymore, and filtration systems can't filter out carbon monoxide and many >other common pollutants.

Come on. Are you claiming that Alpine removes carbon monoxide?

And while you're trying to ventilate the polluted >air, the indoor environment is continuously off-gassing more pollutants. > Lastly, ductwork is a haven for mold, mildew and bacteria. The solution >that I see is to attack pollution at the source by using nature's own >cleaning agents of ozone and ions.

Nature also produces formaldehyde, arsenic, and a host of other toxic and carcinogenic materials. Then there are tornados, earthquakes, landslides, and numerous other natural hazards. Just because they are produced in nature does not make them healthy. We often use substances that have adverse effects because their beneficial effects outweight the harms. This is the case with most drugs, actually (as suggest below).

> For every indepentent lab test which shows that ozone and ions are not >beneficial for treating indoor air pollution, I can show dozens that show the >benefits.

There is money to be made by proving the benefits. What money is to be made by proving the harm? Why would anyone want to do so much research when it was already obvious that there is a fundamental hazard that should not be tolerated.

More importantly, I can just again bring to your attention a 10 >year study with over 28 billion man hours of research on humans, not on rats. > Zero health complaints and zero health problems. Crayola crayons can't even >boast this. Acetaminophen (such as Tylenol) kills over 20,000 people per >year. Who has died or even been harmed by fresh air?

What, pray tell, is "fresh air?"

Hal Levin email: hlevin@cruzio.com 2548 Empire Grade, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tel. 408 425 3946 Fax 408 426 6522

Top of file

Thomas DeRosa from Alpine responds to Hal

From: Thomas DeRosa
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 1996 8:11 AM

Mike O'Brien Wrote:

"The primary VOCs emitted from new carpets, such as phenycyclohexene, styrene and 4-ethenylcyclohexene, were reduced sharply. At the same time, however, a number of new compounds were detected that were not present prior to introducing ozone. The new compounds were primarily linear aldehydes and formaldehyde... likely products of reaction of ozone with styrene, including benzaldehyde, benzoic acid and acetophenone, also attained much higher concentrations when ozone was present. In addition, after ozone was introduced, the TVOC concentration increased about four fold."

Hal Levin wrote:

The result of this interaction can be the production of more irritating compounds than were there before, as is the case with 4 phenylcyclohexene, a contaminant in styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) latex - used as a backing for 85% of commercial carpets sold in the United States.

"likely products of the reaction of ozone with styrene, etc."? They don't sou nd too sure of themselves. TVOC is TEMPORARILY increased, if at all. Ozone then continues to break-down the by-products of the above reactions, including the styrene:

C6H5CHCH2 (styrene)+ 20 O3 (ozone) ===> 8 CO2 + 4 H2O + 20 O2

And the formaldehyde:

HCHO + 2 O3 =====> CO2 + H2O + 2 O2

In this case, my recommendation would be that if a new carpet were installed, you would not want to be living in that environment until the chemicals have dissipated. Remember when the EPA installed new carpeting? It took two weeks for them to return to work after nearly all of the employees were poisoned. My suggestion with ozone here would be to sanitize the environment over the course of one day with high levels of ozone before the space is lived occupied.

H.L. - Nonsense!. Just because we must endure ozone outdoors does not mean it is good for us. It is not. Nor is it good for animals, nor for many plant species.

We have "endured" ozone outdoors? Life has evolved with the presence of ozone, and it benefits us in many ways. Need I remind you of Legionnaires Disease? The mold legionella exists outdoors, throughout our country in our soil. It is controlled outdoors by naturally occurring ozone. Legionella is not a threat, unless it is allowed to grow in an environment in which no ozone is present, such as a moist duct system. Ozone is natures cleaning agent. Without it, biological waste excreted from organisms such as bacteria would exist in concentrations much too high for human and most forms of life to exist. Ozone plays a vital role in nature's purification process. Indoors, ozone and ions are depleted. This allows contaminants such as mold, mildew, dust mites, and chemical gases to exist in toxic concentrations. Did you read the cover story of USA Today on November 8th? Dust mites can not exist with low levels of ozone present, which is one reason why they are found indoors- except, for the most part, in my house. I sanitize

H.L. - If the effect is zero, then what is the point of generating the ions? The point is that the effect is not zero in the intermediate term, and that is how ions charge particles and lead to their removal from the air. How are they removed? By attaching to some surface or some other particle that eventually attaches or falls out. They do not disappear. They simply are removed from the air to the surfaces. That, my friend, is plating out. If I am wrong, then please tell me where the particles go and what the point is of generating ions in the first place.

Again, electroplation does not occur. Electroplation, or blackwall, occurs when particles in the air are charged negatively. These negatively charged particles then chemically bond to surfaces. Essentially, Alpine's radio wave ionization charges particles in the air negatively and positively. Opposite charges attract. The small particles bond together. When they bond together, the get heavier. When they get heavier, they fall to the ground as they can no longer stay airborne. The concept is to remove the particles from the breathing zone. Since you can not draw the dust to a filtration system, the solution is to at least remove the particles from the breathing area. Leftover ozone will then react with the particles, and a good vacuum system will finish the job.

> Alpine's President and Founder is one of the world's foremost experts >on IAQ, he is listed in the global directory of "Who's Who in Ozone", and he >lectures world-wide on IAQ. After the oil fires in Kuwait, he was personally >invited by their government for his expertise is dealing with the problems.

H.L. - So what? This is really getting annoying. Just because a government does something does not make it good. Do I need to give examples? Genocide, for instance?

You have annoyed yourself because you missed the point. Why was this turned into a political issue? Is it because most people's views about ozone are plagued and distorted by bureaucratic BS? Are you aware that the US is the only advanced nation that does not use intense ozone therapy to treat cancer and aids patients, and that this therapy is currently considered to be working? In any case, I was simply pointing out that Bill Converse is internationally known as being one of our foremost experts on IAQ and the use of ozone to solve this problem. Few people contain his level of expertise.

> Lastly, I do completely agree that a partial solution to poor IAQ is >source control and ventilation, but we can't ignore the fact that filtration >systems and ventilation have been around for decades, and yet the EPA and >World Health Organization still label indoor air pollution as the #1 >pollution problem.

H.L. - More nonsense. Just because they have been around does not mean they are used properly or adequately. Lots of good things are around - like knowledge about the adverse effects of tobacco smoking. That knowledge has not effectively changed the behavior of most people in the world. Teenage American girls don't seem to have gotten the message.

The inherent problem with any filtration system is that the pollution must be drawn to the system. Even at that point, a filtration system is trying to filter contaminants which it can not. One example is formaldehyde. Others include viruses, carbon monoxide, and many other chemical fumes that even a carbon HEPA filter can do nothing about. Basically, anything below .3 microns in size. After all, air still has to pass through the filter. And yes, ozone will break down carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, viruses, and thousands of chemical fumes that filters can do nothing about. What's worse, low levels of ozone or the above? You said it yourself:

H.L. - Nature also produces formaldehyde, arsenic, and a host of other toxic and carcinogenic materials. Then there are tornados, earthquakes, landslides, and numerous other natural hazards. Just because they are produced in nature does not make them healthy. We often use substances that have adverse effects because their beneficial effects outweight the harms. This is the case with most drugs, actually (as suggest below).

Thank you for clarifying my point. The benefits of using ozone far outweigh the harms. I don't recall writing about the benefits of tornados. My point was that some things that nature produces are beneficial, such as water. Small amounts of ozone, such as the concentrations that exist outdoors, are entered into the environment, so as to remove the more volitile and harmful substances. In addition, almost invariably, the result of reacting ozone with common chemicals found indoors, such as the most prevelant being formaldehyde, is carbon dioxide, water vapor, and oxygen. Notice that ozone is not a result of these reactions. Ozone is canceled out, and oxygen is created.

> For every independent lab test which shows that ozone and ions are not >beneficial for treating indoor air pollution, I can show dozens that show the >benefits.

There is money to be made by proving the benefits. What money is to be made by proving the harm? Why would anyone want to do so much research when it was already obvious that there is a fundamental hazard that should not be tolerated.

This is complete nonsense. Two of the three people that responded to my initial posting reffered to the "Swedish" research which supposedly debunked the benefit of ions. When a lab study completely contradicts all others, there is no recognition? When a study shows that HIV is harmful, there is no benefit to that study? When Merck proves that a competing drug is harmful, there is no money to be made? Alpine is approaching 1 billion dollars in annual sales. If a major manufacturer of filtration systems produces a biased study showing that ozone may be harmful, that company would not benefit?

More importantly, I can just again bring to your attention a 10 >year study with over 28 billion man hours of research on humans, not on rats. > Zero health complaints and zero health problems. Crayola crayons can't even >boast this. Acetaminophen (such as Tylenol) kills over 20,000 people per >year. Who has died or even been harmed by fresh air?

H.L. - What, pray tell, is "fresh air?"

Indoor air is certainly not considered to be fresh air, do we agree on that point? Indoor air is depleted of ozone and ions, and pollutants take their place. Outdoor air, or mountainous air is considered to be fresh air. Outdoor air does contain ozone and ions. Fresh air, therefore, would consist mainly of Nitrogen, oxygen, ozone and ions. Air is considered to be the freshest in the mountains. Mountainous regions contain much higher levels of ozone and ions compared to urban air. Since Alpine's systems restore the balance of ozone and ions indoors, and since the reaction of ozone with common indoor chemicals yeilds oxygen, then Alpine systems create fresh air.

I obviouslly feel that Alpine's systems are the best solution to solving the problem of indoor air pollution. They replicate nature's purification process (not tornadoes, etc.). What are your suggestions? Removing the source and ventelation?

Sincerely, Thomas DeRosa

Top of file

Hal Levin rebuts Tom DeRosa's claims

From: Hal Levin
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 1996 3:08 PM

Here goes, one more time, hopefully the last time.

>Tom wrote: > >"likely products of the reaction of ozone with styrene, etc."? They don't sou >nd too sure of themselves. TVOC is TEMPORARILY increased, if at all. Ozone >then continues to break-down the by-products of the above reactions, >including the styrene: > >C6H5CHCH2 (styrene)+ 20 O3 (ozone) ===> 8 CO2 + 4 H2O + 20 O2 > >And the formaldehyde: > >HCHO + 2 O3 =====> CO2 + H2O + 2 O2 > >In this case, my recommendation would be that if a new carpet were installed, >you would not want to be living in that environment until the chemicals have >dissipated. Remember when the EPA installed new carpeting? It took two >weeks for them to return to work after nearly all of the employees were >poisoned. My suggestion with ozone here would be to sanitize the environment >over the course of one day with high levels of ozone before the space is >lived occupied. > HL: "Temporarily"? No. Not according to careful scientific work published in the very well respected journal of the American Chemical Society, _Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T). See the literature on the combination of ozone with 4-PC. Charlie Weschler's article in _ES&T_, for example, or Zhang and Lioy in another issue of the same journal. It is not just formaldehyde, and I did not even mentioned formaldehyde. There are other (higher molcular weight) aldehydes formed, and the evidence is that these are not short term phenomena. These are on-going processes. The reaction time (deposition velocity in the scientific literature) of ozone with other substances is rather slow. The whole process is dynamic. Emissions from carpets go on for a very long time. It is simply not practical to wait until the chemicals have "dissipated." That is not a scientifically meaningful concept. They don't just "dissipate." They go somewhere. Everything does. Either react or degrade or something. No one was "poisoned" at EPA although many people were exposed to things they could smell and many either were already sensitized or apparently became sensitized by the experience.

Tom wrote: >We have "endured" ozone outdoors? Life has evolved with the presence of >ozone, and it benefits us in many ways.

HL: Ozone concentrations outdoors are considerably higher than historical levels due to anthropogenic sources of the precursors. Background concentrations are extremely low with the exceptions of those created by VOCs emitted from plants, especially around forests where there is sufficient automobile exhaust as well.

Tom wrote: Need I remind you of Legionnaires >Disease? The mold legionella exists outdoors, throughout our country in our >soil. It is controlled outdoors by naturally occurring ozone. Legionella is >not a threat, unless it is allowed to grow in an environment in which no >ozone is present, such as a moist duct system.

HL: Legionella are not "mold," they are bacteria. The threat of Legionella related to buildings is in water systems - either potable, cooling towers, or spas. There the Legionella reproduce sufficiently to result in the delivery of a large enough concentration in the air to subsequently be inhaled and colonize the lung - thus, pneumonia or Pontiac fever. I am not aware that anyone has ever found Legionella amplifying in ducts.

Tom wrote: Ozone is natures cleaning >agent. Without it, biological waste excreted from organisms such as bacteria >would exist in concentrations much too high for human and most forms of life >to exist. Ozone plays a vital role in nature's purification process.

HL: It may be one of many mechanisms that determine the environmental fate of bacteria, but it is certainly not the only one. Furthermore, bacteria are essential for human (and most animal forms of) life as we know it. Thankfully, ozone does not destroy all bacteria in the environment. If it were naturally present and active as Tom suggests, I do not think life would not have evolved from its earliest forms.

Tom wrote: > Indoors, ozone and ions are depleted. This allows contaminants such as >mold, mildew, dust mites, and chemical gases to exist in toxic >concentrations. Did you read the cover story of USA Today on November 8th? > Dust mites can not exist with low levels of ozone present, which is one >reason why they are found indoors- except, for the most part, in my house. I >sanitize > HL: USA Today? Not the source of my knowledge on indoor environments. Sorry.

> > Tom wrote: >Again, electroplation does not occur. Electroplation, or blackwall, occurs >when particles in the air are charged negatively. These negatively charged >particles then chemically bond to surfaces. Essentially, Alpine's radio wave >ionization charges particles in the air negatively and positively. Opposite >charges attract. The small particles bond together. When they bond >together, the get heavier. When they get heavier, they fall to the ground as >they can no longer stay airborne. The concept is to remove the particles >from the breathing zone. Since you can not draw the dust to a filtration >system, the solution is to at least remove the particles from the breathing >area. Leftover ozone will then react with the particles, and a good vacuum >system will finish the job. > HL: Particles that are large and heavy enough to fall out (to the floor) by gravity are large enough to be resuspended by air currents or by people walking around or by kids playing on the floor. I would like to have some references to peer-reviewed scientific literature confiming the processes as Tom has described them. I just do not believe it works so simply and cleanly. I am not interested in Tom's advocacy; I would like to see some science. This is not religion, it is physics and chemistry. Let's see the evidence.

Tom wrote: >You have annoyed yourself because you missed the point. Why was this turned >into a political issue? Is it because most people's views about ozone are >plagued and distorted by bureaucratic BS? Are you aware that the US is the >only advanced nation that does not use intense ozone therapy to treat cancer >and aids patients, and that this therapy is currently considered to be >working? In any case, I was simply pointing out that Bill Converse is >internationally known as being one of our foremost experts on IAQ and the use >of ozone to solve this problem. Few people contain his level of expertise. > HL: Again, I would like to see the scientific evidence for your claims. Peer reviewed scientific journals, please, not USA Today.

Tom wrote: > The inherent problem with any filtration system is that the pollution >must be drawn to the system. Even at that point, a filtration system is >trying to filter contaminants which it can not. One example is formaldehyde. > Others include viruses, carbon monoxide, and many other chemical fumes that >even a carbon HEPA filter can do nothing about. Basically, anything below .3 >microns in size. After all, air still has to pass through the filter. And >yes, ozone will break down carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, viruses, and >thousands of chemical fumes that filters can do nothing about. What's worse, >low levels of ozone or the above? You said it yourself: > Filtration systems do not 'try to filter formaldehyde.' More nonesense. Filtration is for removal of particulate matter. Some air cleaners do "try" to remove gases, some even "try" to remove formaldehyde. Some manufacturers (other than Alpine's) make claims for their products that are not reasonable or sound scientifically. But the filter itself does not try to do anything. And what did I say myself?

Tom wrote: > Thank you for clarifying my point. The benefits of using ozone far >outweigh the harms.

HL: That is simply your view. Again, I would like to see some scientific evidence - such as a peer reviewed risk assessment.

Tom wrote: I don't recall writing about the benefits of tornados. > My point was that some things that nature produces are beneficial, such as >water. Small amounts of ozone, such as the concentrations that exist >outdoors, are entered into the environment, so as to remove the more volitile >and harmful substances.

HL: Wow! Now there is some sort of greater wisdom that is actually making the ozone at the beneficially concentrations and not at harmful ones. Try checking out the evidence on the health effects of ozone as found in the outdoor air of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. Not healthy. Not beneficial according to any report I have ever seen or any claim I have ever read except Tom's.

Tom wrote: >In addition, almost invariably, the result of >reacting ozone with common chemicals found indoors, such as the most >prevelant being formaldehyde, is carbon dioxide, water vapor, and oxygen. > Notice that ozone is not a result of these reactions. Ozone is canceled >out, and oxygen is created. > HL: Nice chemical balance, but only a small part of the far more numerous and complex processes that are occurring.

Tom wrote: > This is complete nonsense. Two of the three people that responded to >my initial posting reffered to the "Swedish" research which supposedly >debunked the benefit of ions. When a lab study completely contradicts all >others, there is no recognition? When a study shows that HIV is harmful, >there is no benefit to that study? When Merck proves that a competing drug >is harmful, there is no money to be made? Alpine is approaching 1 billion >dollars in annual sales. If a major manufacturer of filtration systems >produces a biased study showing that ozone may be harmful, that company would >not benefit? > HL: I said that there were two studies with contradictory results from Sweden, in response to your original posting. But it was not lab testing, it was a field study, and the investigator himself, David Wyon, will not support your claims of benefits.

Tom wrote: >More importantly, I can just again bring to your attention a 10 >>year study with over 28 billion man hours of research on humans, not on >rats. >> Zero health complaints and zero health problems. Crayola crayons can't >even >>boast this. Acetaminophen (such as Tylenol) kills over 20,000 people per >>year. Who has died or even been harmed by fresh air? > HL: Please provide references to generally accepted scientific journal articles.

Tom wrote: >Indoor air is certainly not considered to be fresh air, do we agree on that >point? Indoor air is depleted of ozone and ions, and pollutants take their >place. Outdoor air, or mountainous air is considered to be fresh air. > Outdoor air does contain ozone and ions. Fresh air, therefore, would >consist mainly of Nitrogen, oxygen, ozone and ions. Air is considered to be >the freshest in the mountains. Mountainous regions contain much higher >levels of ozone and ions compared to urban air. Since Alpine's systems >restore the balance of ozone and ions indoors, and since the reaction of >ozone with common indoor chemicals yeilds oxygen, then Alpine systems create >fresh air. > HL: That is totally ridiculous. Please provide references to published studies of the ozone concentrations in mountain air that show those concentrations to be higher than those found in urban air. This is totally ridiculous.

Tom wrote: >I obviouslly feel that Alpine's systems are the best solution to solving the >problem of indoor air pollution. They replicate nature's purification >process (not tornadoes, etc.). What are your suggestions? Removing the >source and ventelation?

HL: Alpine apparently does to some extent replicate nature's process of electrical storms - lightning creates abundant air ions and ozone. But that is not the only way nor the primary way that clean(er) air is created. (I still reject the use of the term "fresh air" to imply "healthy" or "cleaner" air.) In nature, in the ecosphere, there are many processes in a dynamic balance. Humans have altered that balance quite radically and to a degree simply unprecedented historically. It is sheer wishfulness and incredible hubris to believe that we can continue to generate pollutants and then remove them and maintain the balance by generating even more. We must reduce the production of contaminants and their introduction into our indoor environments as well as the larger environment. Ventilation is an acceptable local solution for temporarily elevated rates of contaminant production in enclosed environments. The wind serves that function outdoors, but we cannot control it. In the end, what we can control is the introduction of contaminant sources and the use of ventilation and, where appropriate, air cleaning and filtration. The first and most effective strategy is source control. The others should be used only as required to supplement the first one, source control.

I do not want to continue this dialogue until I have seen some peer-reviewed reports of well-designed and conducted experiments or studies to support Tom's claims. There are simply too many unsupported and unreasonable claims and too little scientific evidence for his statements to justify further discussion.

I would urge any listers interested in any device that produces ozone intentionally to clean air to contact the FDA and the Consumer Products Safety Commission for information before purchasing and using such devices.

Regarding ion generators, I do not have any strong views on whether they have health benefits or not. Various people I know have reacted quite differently to them. They will remove particles from the air, but there must be some attention to where those particles end up and what the net result is in terms of human exposure or other end points of concern.

Hal Levin email: hlevin@cruzio.com 2548 Empire Grade, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tel. 408 425 3946 Fax 408 426 6522

Top of file

Dona Stankus with some experience

From: NMBlues@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 1996 5:34 PM

Re: Alpine Air: spoke with a very chemically sensitve interior designer recently whose specialty is IAQ. she has used these and has found them helpful --thought you should not leave them running as Epsten cautioned and she further cautioned that on specific settings they kill plants over a time period .... so does not sound too wonderful to me. if anyone wants me to put them in touch with her, email me.

dona stankus NMBlues@aol.com