Ionization Bracelets

Factual Questions
1

While eating Saturday morning breakfast, I came across and infomercial for a bracelet that supposedly “emitted ionized particles”. Do they really do anything? And $50 for one the bastards? All they are is a ring of a slightly flexible metal with two balls on each end. You slip it around your wrist and bend it to make it stay on. The people in the ad were claiming it did everything from give athletes the edge to win the big game to relieving sinus pain, with one interviewee literally crying on camera, exclaiming, “Praise god for this product.”

Is there actually something to this, or is it just another sham to get your hard-earned $50? I have a strong feeling it’s BS, but I figured I’d better go to the experts. (Hehe.)

2

Was it the Q-Ray? Hey, they’ve got a Mission Statement (which sounds more like a disclaimer to me):

Uh huh. It’s CYA time, big time. And this is cute, from the Warranty:

Ionization process? From the FAQ:

It is perfectly legal to sell snake oil, as long as you make it clear that there is no scientific claim regarding snake oil’s ability to do anything other than be snakey and oily. And have lots and lots of “it is believed” disclaimers…

I notice it doesn’t say that it “emits ions”, only that it’s “ionized”. Everything in the whole wide world can be said to be “ionized”–you, me, my cup of coffee, the mouse pad. Everything carries either a positive or negative charge. You can buy those negative ion generators, to add negative ions to the air.

If it really did “emit” ions, it would be radioactive (I think). Yes? No? Any physicists out of bed yet? :smiley:

From Merriam-Webster:

3

At first glance, it occurred to me, also, DDG, that the only way for a solid metal bracelet to “emit ions” is for it to be radioactive, but that’s just speculation.

If it is the Q-Ray Bracelet, the manufacturer is apparently being sued, according to The Archives of Xenomedicine, a section of the Tarrant County Physician Magazine. A study was supposed to be completed last June, but I can’t find anything on it.

4

Nope. They are completely unrelated. In really simple terms, radioactivity is a property of certain elements, while ionization is a type of bond between elements, or the products of dissociation of those bonds.

In particular, sodium and chlorine combine ionically to produce sodium chloride (table salt). As part of the process, the chlorine takes an electron away from sodium.

Dissolve salt in water, and it’ll break the bond between (some of) the sodium and chlorine, but rhe chlorine will keep the electron it “stole” - so now you have a positively charged sodium ion, and a negatively charged chlorine ion. Pour the salt water into your humidifier, and gee whiz, you’re emitting ions, and will undoubtedly live to be 300 years old, although you will have to change the filter more often.

5

Well, hang on a second, Some Guy… Is it not true that Alpha Emission is, in effect, the emission of a Helium ion?

6

I thought it was just the nucleus of a helium atom… but they would mean it had less electrons than protons… so it could be called an ion. But isn’t it just a couple of joined protons and (sometimes) some neutrons?

7

Some forms of radioactivity do emit ions (alpha definitely, and one might also make a case for beta particles (electrons) being ions), but there are other ways to get something to emit ions. On the other hand, I can’t think of any way to do it with just a piece of solid metal other than radioactivity. Then again, though, I can’t think of any way that it would be good for you, either, even if it did happen, so what do I know?

8

That’s exactly right, Speaker. An ion is any charged atom, whether it’s charged positively or negatively. Notation-wise, if I’m not mistaken, the ions from salt dissolved in water (see Some Guy’s post) would be Na[sup]+[/sup] and Ca[sup]-[/sup]. I think that an Alpha particle, being a Helium nucleus, would be He[sup]++[/sup].

Technically, the streams of protons used in some particle accelerators are simply streams of H[sup]+[/sup] ions.

I think, though, that making the case that free-floating electrons are also ions would be difficult, indeed. How would you notate that similarly to the above? Just a minus sign floating on the page like this: [sup]-[/sup]?

Sorry, I just like playing with [**sup] coding…

Not to hijack the thread any more, but is it possible to get a negatively-charged ion with more than one extra electron? Would a single carbon atom hold onto four extra electons if given the opportunity? Making C[sup]----[/sup]?

9

Huh. I always thought the notation for that was C[sup]4-[/sup].

All this talk of ions and atomic bonds makes me want to switch majors from Anthropolgy to Chemistry or Astrophysics.

10

Sure, you can get ++ or – ions. But the trouble is that the more charge you develop, the more strongly the oppositely charged particles are going to be attracted to you. So four - ions are lower in energy than one ---- ion. Carbon typically doesn’t form ions, it forms covalent bonds involving electron sharing rather than electron stealing. If you had a C---- ion sitting in solution, the water around it would strip off the electrons so you’d get a C and four OH-.

11

Getting back to the subject[sub] you hijacking bastards :D[/sub], allow me to rephrase the latter part of my OP:

Is it in any way, shape or form possible for the aforementioned ions to cure anyone of any ailment? Hell, I’m sure anyone could bolt some metal to them and claim it does something, but can it be proven?

12

Well, Lemur, what if you’ve got a carbon atom sitting in free space, see, and you. . .

What? Oh. Ahem.

Is it possible for ions of unknown atoms to cure someone of some illness somewhen? Sure, it is possible. Doesn’t seem very likely, to me. But anyway…

Your last question, Lateralus, is at the heart of the debate, such as it is, over alternative medicines and therapies in the over-the-counter market.

And the practical answer is yes, any idea which can be tested can be proven. How do you test the bracelets? You take a bunch of sick people, and put real bracelets on them. You take a second bunch of sick people, and put fake bracelets on them, which are indistinguishable from the real deal. Then you wait a couple weeks, months, or years, and measure how sick these people still are. If the group with the real bracelets had more healing than the group with fake bracelets, then the bracelet is doing something. If the two groups got better about equally, then the bracelet isn’t doing anything. If they got worse, then the real bracelets are causing harm to the wearers.

The above is, of course, just a quick overview of how medical testing is done. I don’t mention “double-blinding” the test, “randomizing,” the fact that you should do more than one test in order to confirm the effect, the fact that technically, “proof” is always elusive, or numerous other details.

Why is this at the heart of the debate? Because pharmaceutical giants spend millions of dollars doing this sort of testing before they’re allowed to put a drug on the market. The “New Investigational Drug” license costs about $25 million by itself. The testing will show not only that a new drug is effective for a large number of people for a specific disease, but that it is, for the most part, safe when used as directed.

These fly-by-night snake-oil salesmen don’t have that kind of money. And by simply avoiding precise disease claims, such as “this bracelet will cure your sciatica,” the companies making and selling these things don’t legally need to do any testing whatsoever. They didn’t say it’d cure your disease, so you’ve got little recourse when you get pissed off because it failed to do so. And almost all risk is assumed by the buyer, as well. If the bracelet harms you, well, you were an idiot to use it in the first place, since all the “evidence” they have is, for example, some movie star saying “it’s great!” (but who pointedly avoids saying what it’s great for).

So, yes, many of the claims made by snake-oil salesmen can (and should) be tested. Instead, they go the cheap route, using vague language to conform to the letter of the law. Specifically, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. The DSHEA ripped the guts out of the FDA’s and FTC’s enforcement capabilities regarding herbs, vitamins, and the like. People making medical “devices” such as this bracelet are following along, too.

The bracelet is a Pyramid Hat, and will be one until it is properly, and successfully, tested.

Oh, excuse me for ranting.