negative ion generators

[pbjba]

Health Canada says that there are no studies to back up
that neg.ion generators provide any health benefits.
However I recently read a book by Fred Soyka ( 1977 )
that talks about MANY studies that have been done about
neg ion gen.In particular he talks about the work done by Dr.Felix Gad Sulman who was essentially an authority on the
subject.Dr.Sulmans studies showed quite clearly that neg.
ion gen. DO have many beneficial health results.Does anyone
have any further info on this subject?
Thanks

[tcburnett]

Negative ions are Ozone. Ozone, in sufficient quantities, makes the air fresh and relatively pure by grabbing airborne pollutants and tossing them to the floor. A negative ion generator is really a miniature lightning storm called a ‘corona discharge’ machine. Waterfalls do the same thing, just in a different manner.

Now to answer the question. Manufacturers tout all sorts of health benefits from their machines. I haven’t read anything which says that excess Ozone is in any way detrimental to health, but I don’t know of any definitive clinical studies, either.

[Irishman]

Uh, tcburnett, if ozone is not detrimental to health, why do big cities have ozone watches? Here in Houston they’ve started watching the count, broadcasting it on the news. On high ozone days, they post alerts and tell the old, young, and those with breathing problems to stay indoors.

[Padeye]

Ozone is O3, a more reactive form of Oxygen than the O2 we typically breath. It is a pollutant in the lower atmophere and is harmful to health. Not the same as an ion which is a change in the number of electrons.

[tcburnett]

*Originally posted by Irishman *
**Uh, tcburnett, if ozone is not detrimental to health, why do big cities have ozone watches? Here in Houston they’ve started watching the count, broadcasting it on the news. On high ozone days, they post alerts and tell the old, young, and those with breathing problems to stay indoors. **

Well for heaven’s sake, Irishman! You aren’t supposed to BREATHE IT!

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html

[tcburnett]

*Originally posted by Padeye *
**Ozone is O3, a more reactive form of Oxygen than the O2 we typically breath. It is a pollutant in the lower atmophere and is harmful to health. Not the same as an ion which is a change in the number of electrons. **

Well, what IS the difference between O2 and O3 if it’s not one electron?

[Korzdan]

Well, what IS the difference between O2 and O3 if it’s not one electron? **
[/QUOTE]

Actually, O2 is two oxygen molecules bonded together, O3 is three oxygen molecules bonded together. The number does not refer to the number of electrons possessed by an individual atom, it refers to the number of atoms in the molecule.

Korzdan

[Padeye]

Sorry but my chemistry is really rusty. Ordinary oxygen is O2, two oxygen atoms in a single molecule, ozone is O3, three atoms. IIRC the configuration shared outer shell electrons make ozone more reactive. That’s why things like rubber tires, plastic and your lung tissue deteriorate more with exposure to O3. This high reactivity is what makes the ozone layer above the earth so fragile.

Ionization is adding or removing electrons only, not changing chemical makeup. IIRC the “rain” smell is just negative ions. Strong ozone has a distinct “electric” smell which is a quick way to detect an arcing power supply. Copies and laser printers have a corona wire which generate ozone as a by product but is supposed to be filtered out of vent exhaust.

[Padeye]

I think I see where the problem comes from. I should be using subscripts in this case. The way I’m writing it looks like I’m referring to isotopes.

[pbjba]

Gentleman,Gentleman,
Your losing sight of the original question.
We are not talking about ozone !!! We are talking
about ions.Specifically,neg.ion generators and their
supposed benefit to our health.
Supposedly, Niagara Falls is the biggest ion generator
in the world but no studies have been done on it.
The book that I read about ions ( written in 1977) said
that about 5000 scientific documents had been written world
wide on the subject of ionization. They generally concluded
that positive ions are bad for you, while negative ions are
beneficial for you.One study was presented in 1960 by a Dr.
Krueger in the Journal of Physiology but who knows how to access that.The big gun on the subject at that time seemed to be a Dr.Felix Gad Sulman who is an Israeli.
This whole subject came out of a discussion on the FOEHN SICKNESS which occurs in Germany and is known by many others names throughout the world. In the middle east it is
called the Sharav,in France it is called The Mistral, in North America we it the Chinook. It has many different names
in many countries.But in general it is called a WITCHES WIND
and it brings positively charged ions to whatever area it is raging through.It can be so bad that in Munich,operations are cancelled when the Foehn winds are blowing.
Gentleman,that is just a teeny weeny sample of this info That I have on ions.If you can find out any thing else I would certainly appreciate it.
Thanks pbjb

[jb_farley]

in response to the original question, do you know how well the studies you mentioned were set up? Very many types of alternative medicine are filled with reports ‘studies’ which were in no way sufficiently designed to root out eroors. eg, no controls, or not double blind, etc.

Health Canada may simply be referring to the fact that no sicentifically valid studies of negative ion therapy have been done. (Note that I don’t know whether thestudies were valid, just explaining one explanation)

jb

[douglips]

Try this article from the Australian Skeptics.

Excerpt:

In a later study, Dr Sulman set out to prove that changes in weather conditions are reflected in
the hormone secretion of 500 females. He claimed to have carried out the study “double-blind”
to eliminate any placebo effect. In a double-blind experiment, neither the experimenter nor the
subject are told when the conditions are varied, thus eliminating bias. A close look at Dr
Sulman’s report reveals that the experimenter adjusted to the conditions until the required
results were achieved Those reports would be excusable if produced by someone unskilled in the
methods of science, but when published by no less than a professor of pharmacology, one can
justly suspect bias. The results given in these reports are very scrappy, and give no assurance
that the trials were conducted in a truly scientific fashion. Furthermore, Dr Sulman had an axe
to grind, as he is financially linked to one of the big manufacturers of negative ion generators.
Dr Sulman issues certificates recommending negative ion therapy based on his experimental
"proof’ of their beneficial effects. Manufacturers of ion generators use Dr Sulman’s claims as the
hub of their sales promotion literature.

Doesn’t sound that promising to me.

[douglips]

Oh, and hereis another article that is pro ion generators. Unfortunately, they do not describe the control group results for most of these studies, and many of the ‘studies’ are in fact just anecdotes.

Here is a great excerpt:

Tchijewsky’s colleague, Dr. D. A. Lapitsky, tried
          raising small animals in air completely devoid of oxygen.
          He added only negative ions to the air as they were about
          to die from asphyxiation. At which point, their
          respiration frequency drastically increased, as they
          began to sit up and run around the chamber (Tchijewski,
          1960).

OK. However, these studies sounds promising, but I am not investing the time to decide how statistically significant they are. On the surface, it is interesting:

 In a study conducted in a Swiss textile mill, negative
          ionizers were placed in two, 60’ by 60’ rooms, each
          containing 22 employees. In one room, the negative ion
          electronic air cleaner was turned on during the course of
          the study. In the other room, the negative ion air purifier
          was permanently turned off, although the employees in
          this room were led to believe they were working in a
          room enriched by negative ions. During this six-month
          study, a total of 22 sick days were lost by employees
          working in the room in which the negative ionizer was
          operating. In the room where the machine was not
          operating, a total of 64 days were lost to sickness. During
          a month-long flu epidemic, the first group lost a total of 3
          days to sickness, while the second group lost a total of 40
          days to sickness (Stark, 1971).

[Padeye]

Those anecdotes reek of bad science. Animals left in an atmosphere “completely devoid of oxygen” have a tendancy to die within a few minutes. Adding oxygen, ionized or not is going to have a positive effect.

[pbjba]

Hi guys,
The author of the ion book was just a
layman who suffered from the "Witches Wind "
while living in Switzerland.How knowledgeable
he is on the scientific methods for evaluating
experiments is anyone’s guess.Both the Swiss
Textile co. and the Tchijewsky studies were in
his book.What I find a real hoot is in the Aussie
Skeptics report. The author of the report references
a B. Zylberberg who just happened to be my doctor
in Toronto 25 yrs. ago !!! ( He was an allergist and
a chest specialist of some kind )Now, is that a
synchronistic event or what ?
At stores in my area ( Sears ) they are selling
air cleaner/ion generators. Press one button for the
air cleaner or press a second button for the
ionizer.I guess it can’t kill me, so I may give it a try.
Thanks for all your help.