Water-Related Topics

Air Related Topics

Is Tap Water Safe?

Water doesn’t have to taste or smell bad to contain harmful toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Water treatment facilities are geared towards the prevention of waterborne diseases. A recent environmental protection agency survey identified over 700 potential hazardous chemicals in the U. S. water supplies. Despite the use of chlorine by municipals, resistant strains of bacteria and cysts such as giardia and cryptosporidium can survive in tap water.

The few viruses that survive common municipal water disinfection practices to emerge at the tap water are considered by most to be nothing to worry about, but…<from Disinfection Doubts-to be typed yet>

-January 1993:”Disinfection Doubts”, Water Technology Magazine

Back to top

Tap Water Linked to Diabetes

Arsenic in the U.S. water supply may be linked to an upswing in cases of type 2 diabetes, a new study finds.  The toxin is commonly found in drinking water, though usually at levels so minuscule that experts did not think it posed a threat.  But a new study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore found that even tiny amounts of arsenic can have a harmful effect.  An analysis of arsenic levels in the urine of 788 people found a nearly fourfold increase in the risk of diabetes in people with minute arsenic concentrations in their systems, compared with people with even more negligible amounts.   Arsenic can enter the water supply when minerals break down naturally or as an industrial pollutant.  Some advocates are now pushing for tougher drinking-water standards and better filtration methods.   “The good news is, this is preventable,” study author Dr. Ana Navas-Acien tells the Associated Press.

- The Week, September 5, 2008

Back to top

Disinfection Doubts of City Water

The few viruses that survive common municipal water disinfection practices to emerge at the tap are considered by most to be nothing to worry about, but a Canadian study disputes that assumption.
Pierre Payment, a Montreal virologist at the University of Quebec’s Armand Frappier Virology Research Center, originally bet an American colleague a study of viruses in tap water would prove municipal water critics wrong. He lost the bet.
His million-dollar study examined the health of Montreal suburbanites who consumed conventionally treated Des-Praires river water, and compared it to those whose homes were equipped with an $800 under the counter RO unit.
From 5-10% of the Des-Praires flow is untreated sewage, but no studies had indicated that Montrealers suffered from it. The river water provided to some 40,000 people in the city’s outskirts regularly met standards similar to U.S. drinking water standards after undergoing chlorination, ozonation and various filtration processes.
In fact, testing detected no viruses in tap water studied – but even one virus in 1000 liters of water can result in illness, and for every virus detected, as many as 100 can go unseen, Payment says. In addition, U.S. water utilities aren’t required to directly monitor virus numbers.
So instead of counting viruses, Payment tracked the health of 2400 water-drinkers for 18 months, looking for telltale bouts of virally induced gastrointestinitis. Half the test population’s kitchens were outfitted with RO units that passed no viruses or bacteria, and subjects were questioned over the phone and through questionnaires about their health bi-weekly.
The trend was noticeable almost from the first month, says Payment. Across every age group, sex and religion, people who drank tap water that hadn’t passed through the RO complained of illness up to 35% more often.
Among the RO consumers, 5% contracted illness because of contaminated RO filters, but projections indicate that for every 10,000 consumers of non-RO water, an estimated 2,000 illnesses above the usual number are reported. For children under five, the estimates climb to a range between 4000 and 8000 illnesses above the norm for the same number of individuals.
The study casts doubt on U.S. central treatment plant abilities to meet stringent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards, which mandate that viruses and bacteria in tap water make no more than one in 10,000 consumers ill per year. It also suggests that water may be as significant a contributor to gastrointestinitis as food.

(Water Technology, January 1993)

Back to top

Filtered or Bottled Water?

The two main options facing consumers who wish for high quality drinking water are bottled water or water filtered at home.

Bottled water is of three kinds: distilled water, spring water or reverse osmosis water.  The FDA standards for bottled water are looser than than EPA standards for public water.   Spring water is generally the better choice because of its mineral content and alkalinity.  Glass containers are preferable because plastic containers will leach solvents into the water.  However in general we don’t see that even spring water in delivered in glass container as being better than RO water supplemented by liquid minerals and Alkaline Water Drops.  The reason is echoed in an article in the Sept 7, 2007 issue of The Week magazine.  While we disagree with its statement that bottled water is not cleaner or healthier than the water you can get from the faucet in most communities, most of the article is consistent with our research over the years.  The most notable part is the last two sentences under the section Is bottled water really better: “In a 1999 study, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) discovered that 18 of 103 bottled-water brands tested had more bacteria than allowable “under microbiological-purity guidelines.’ About a fifth of the samples also contained such chemicals as toluene, xylene, and adipate—albeit at levels permissible under federal and state standards.”  Another words, you cannot be certain that the water in the bottle has not picked up harmful elements as it’s filtered by mother earth or in storage, and that herbicide and agricultural run-offs has not penetrated to that groundwater reservoir.  The only way to be sure is to request a comprehensive water analysis report of the water every few months or so.  Also from an environmental standpoint, undoubtedly extracting and transporting water across vast distances probably leave much higher carbon footprint than RO water.
There are numerous advantages to making your own reverse osmosis water fresh at home, as shown below. The main purported advantage of spring water is that it is higher in minerals. However, according to many health professionals, the body gets most of the trace minerals it needs from the food we eat. Moreover the minerals that occur naturally in spring water are inorganic and not readily assimilated by the body.

Back to top

Bottled Mineral Water May Not Be Safer to Drink
Researchers say people with weakened immune systems who are hospitalized are often given bottled mineral water under the assumption that it is not contaminated and therefore safer to drink than tap water.
But the results show that there is still a risk of infection from common illness-causing bacteria, such as legionella, from bottled mineral water. Infection with legionella bacteria can lead to a serious, pneumonia-like condition called Legionnaires' disease.
In their study, researcher Rocus Klont, of the University Medical Center Nijmegen in the Netherlands, and colleagues analyzed bottled water from nine European countries and seven others, including Canada, Australia, and Mexico.
They found all of the bottles appeared to have been properly sealed, which eliminated the possibility of contamination after bottling.
Laboratory tests showed 37% of the samples had evidence for contamination with bacteria, including legionella, and 4% had evidence of fungal contamination.

SOURCE: 44th Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Washington, D.C., Oct. 30-Nov. 2, 2004.

Back to top

Why Reverse Osmosis – A Cost Comparison

Reverse Osmosis technology is proven to remove Contaminants from your tap water.  (See article “How Does Reverse Osmosis Work”)

Better than store bought filtered water because it’s made fresh with the same technology at your own home.

It’s more cost effective:
If your usage is 2 gallons a day (average household usage is 3 gal a day including drinking and cooking):

That’s a saving of $149 per year.  If you use 3 gallons a day, your savings is $312 per year!

Making your water at home makes sense.

• The price is the same even if you wash vegetables with pure water that doesn’t contain chlorine etc that can enter your food.
• No chemicals leaching from plastic containers.
• No time spent buying water.
• No hauling heavy bottle water.
• Environmentally friendly: no pollution from truck delivered water.

 Good for your Health 

• Good for your Wallet
• Good for the Planet
• Good for your Back

Back to top

How does Reverse Osmosis Work?

The R. O. process uses a semi-permeable membrane that has the ability to remove and reject a wide spectrum of impurities and contaminants from water using only water pressure. These contaminants are automatically rinsed down the drain. The purified water is then stored in a tank, providing you with great tasting water any time day or night.

Back to top

Uses and Benefits of Pure Water

Drinking Water for You
Due to its absence of pollutants, purified water tastes better and works more efficiently in the body. It is not only vital to all of our internal processes, it also cleanses the body of toxins that affect our well-being.

Your Pets
Our three dogs (5-6 years old) have been healthy on RO water since puppyhood.  We soak their mail ordered Evolution Diet in RO water for about ten minutes before feeding them.  According to directions of the pet food company, this will prevent dehydration from drinking too little water.  Lately we have also started adding drops of liquid trace mineral to their water.  We also mix in some brewer’s yeast and flaxseed meal in their food as supplements.

Cooking
Chemical additives and minerals in tap water interfere with the natural flavor of vegetables, soups and most anything cooked in or with water, as well as juices, tea,  and coffee.

Chlorine, minerals and organic tastes and odors interfere with the chemistry of tea and coffee making. Moreover, the minerals "bind" coffee and tea molecules, thus increasing the amount of coffee/tea needed by up to 50%. In addition, juice concentrates will taste better than ever when made with purified water. By replacing the same pure water removed from the fresh juice during processing, you allow the full flavor to develop.

Ice Cubes
When made with purified water, ice is clearer and harder, melts more slowly, doesn't spoil the flavor of beverages and leaves no annoying flakes in mixed drinks.

Baby Formula
Since infants are especially susceptible to the hazards of water pollution, purified water is of special benefit when preparing their food and formula.

Weight Loss
The excess mineral salts in tap water and softened water promote an increase in body fluids/weight and a decrease in the electro-negativity (the "liquidity") of the blood stream. Pure water acts as a dispersant in the blood stream, thus increasing its electro-negativity. This, in turn, promotes detoxification and weight loss.

Low Sodium Diet
If you are avoiding it in your food why have it in your water?  Final rinse for hair and skin minerals in water combine with soap or shampoo to form "soap-scum" - your bathtub ring, for example. The same residue plugs the pores in your skin and coats your hair. To reduce this residue as much as possible, use pure water after the final rinse. Furthermore, tap water is typically quite alkaline. Pure water, having a lower pH, will show less of a tendency to dissolve the acid mantle that protects your skin.

Humidifier
They evaporate water into the air, leaving its impurities (primarily mineral deposits) behind or dispersing them together with the steam. The mineral deposits are desirable neither in the humidifier nor on surrounding surfaces. Health is also a concern since a good portion of the water pollutants will float in the air. Here they may irritate the respiratory system and enter into the blood stream much more quickly and efficiently than they could through ingestion.

Other Uses:
Plants
Aquariums
Better cleaning results
Photography
Steam irons, car radiators, car batteries, etc
Final rinse for car, window, crystal, windshield, etc.

Back to top

Is Fluoridation Safe? A Case Against Fluoridation!

The Science behind the opposition to this controversial practice.

The American Natural Hygiene Society opposes fluoridation of public water supplies. The Society is scientifically and philosophically skeptical of most attempts to “improve” on Nature.
The following is a letter to the editor of the Hendersonville N.C. Times-News by John Yiamouyiannis, PhD., (biochemistry) of Delaware, Ohio, author of Fluoride: The Aging Factor, and an outspoken opponent of fluoridation. The Hendersonville City Council had just voted to fluoridate public drinking water.

According to the handbook, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1984), fluoride is more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic. If no sane person would even contemplate adding lead or arsenic to the water supply, why did the majority of the Hendersonville City Council vote to add fluoride to the drinking water of the citizens of Hendersonville and Henderson County?
With regard to pills and drops containing the amount of fluoride found in a quart of water, the Physicians’ Desk Reference (Medical Economics Company, Montvale, N.J. 1992) points out that: “In hypersensitive individuals, fluorides occasionally cause skin eruptions such as atopic dermatitis, eczema, or urticaria; gastric distress, headaches, and weakness have also been reported. These hypersensitive reactions usually disappear promptly after discontinuation of the fluoride.”
The Canadian Dental Association recommends: “Fluoride supplement should not be recommended for children less than three years old” (Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Vol. 59). But how can you prevent children under the age of three from getting this much fluoride when it is in their drinking water? Similarly, how can one discontinue fluoride consumption to avoid its side effects when it is added to the very water one drinks?
From 1990 to 1995, The Journal of the American Medical Association published four separate articles linking increased hip fracture rates to fluoride in the water. (JAMA, Vol. 264, 1990; JAMA, Vol. 266 1991; JAMA, Vol. 268, 1992; JAMA, Vol. 273, 1995).
Of the approximately 50 studies that have been done with regard to fluoride and genetic damage, virtually all of them have shown that fluoride causes genetic damage. Even researchers form the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a Division of the U.S. Public Health Science, admitted: “In cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of the evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberrations (genetic damage)” (Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Vol. 21, 1993).
And despite their protests to the contrary, results from a study by Procter and Gamble, the makers of Crest toothpaste show that as little as haft the amount of fluoride used to fluoridate public water supplies leads to sizeable and significant increase in genetic damage (Mutation Research, Vol. 223, 1989).

Cancer Connection
In 1963, the National Cancer Institute sponsored studies at St. Louis University showing that low levels of fluoride increased the incidence of melanotic tumors in fruit flies by 12% to 100% (Genetics, Vol. 48, 1963).
In 1965, researchers from the University of Texas found that one part per million fluoride in the drinking water increased tumor growth rate by 25% (Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 119, 1965).
As a result, Dr. Dean Burk and I began joint studies to see if there was a oink between fluoridation and cancer. (Dr. Burk is one of the founders of the National Cancer Institute and retired from the Institute as head of the Cytochemistry Division. He coauthored with four Nobel Prize winning scientists, including Dr. Otto Warburg, and is co-author with Dr. Lineweaver of one of the most often cited articles in the history of biochemistry.)
Our results, published from 1975 to 1977, showed that after correction for the age, sex, and race compositions of the populations examined, a 5% increase in cancer death rate amounting to approximately 10,000 additional cancer deaths per year in the U.S. was observed (Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 95th Congress, 1st session, Sept 21 and Oct. 12, 1977, GPO 99-316-0, and Fluoride, Vol. 10, 1977).
During Congressional hearings, officials from the U.S. Public Health Services were chastised for withholding data and instructed to conduct animal studies to determine whether or not fluoride causes cancer. The results, which were supposed to be reported in 1980, were not released until 1988-1989. In the meantime, two other research groups found that fluoride caused cancer.
In 1984, researchers at the Japanese Dental College at Tokyo showed that fluoride exposure transformed normal cells into cancer cells (Cancer Research, Vo. 44, 1984). Their work was confirmed by American researchers at Argonne National Laboratories who showed not only that fluoride transformed normal cells to cancer cells, but also that fluoride increases the cancer-causing ability of other chemicals. (Carcinogenesis, Vol. 9, 1988).
Finally, the long overdue result from Battelle Research Institute, the group hired by the U.S. Public Health Service, came in. They showed that fluoride was linked to a rare form of liver cancer in mice, oral tumors and cancers in rats, and bone cancer to male rats (Pathology Data Sheets issued by Battelle Memorial Institute on Feb. 23, 1989 and April 11, 1989).
Disappointed with their own results, the U.S. Public Health Service tried to cover up the fluoride-liver cancer and fluoride-oral cancer inks shown in their own report. However, Dr. William Marcus, the chief toxicologist for the U.S. Environmental Agency’s Office on Drinking Water, exposed the cover-up (Lancet, Vol. 336, No. 8717, 1990).
Since then, the National Cancer Institute (Results of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, U.S. Public Health Service, 1991), the New Jersey Department of Health (A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males, New Jersey Department of Health, 1992) and The Safe Water Foundation (Fluoride, Vol. 26, 1993), all found that the incidence of osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer, substantially higher in young men exposed to fluoridated water, compared to those who were not. The Safe Water Foundation Study also reported a link between fluoridation and oral cancer in humans.

Does Not Prevent Decay
All the recent large-scale dental surveys have shown that fluoridation does not reduce the decay rate of permanent teeth. In particular, survey results conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service of over 39,000 school children, ages 5-17, from 84 areas around the United States (Fluoride, Vol. 23, 1990) and of 60,000 school children in New Zealand (Community Health Studies, Vol. 11, 1987, and supplements) found no reduction in the decay rates of permanent teeth as a result of fluoridation.
On the other side of the coin, a fluoride sub-committee of the National Research Council admitted that 8% to 51% and sometimes up to 80% of the children living in areas fluoridated with the amount of fluoride recommended by promoters of fluoridation have dental fluorosis (which literally means fluoride-poisoned teeth), first noticeable as chalky white spots on the teeth.
(Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, National Academy Press, 1993).

Back to top

On Kangen or Alkalized Ionized Water

Some people like Electrolyzed Reduced Water (ERW) machines like the Kangen machine or the Alkalizer because Reduced Water retains the minerals in the water and is alkaline.  However these machines do not remove the majority of the harmful chemicals and heavy metals in the water.  Also the alkalinity and mineral intake of our body is largely determined by our diet, so while these are side benefits, but do not by themselves justify the high cost of RW machines  ($1,500 - $5,000) in our opinion.  What makes the Reduced Water machines compelling are the antioxidant property and perhaps micro-clustering (for easier assimilation) of RW water.  For more information: http://www.h-minus-ion.org/index.html

The ‘perfect’ drinking water system in our opinion is a combination of Reverse Osmosis System and a Electrolyzed Reduced Water (ERW) machine like the Kangen machine or the Alkalizer, because you have the best of both worlds that way.  The RO system can remove virtually all the harmful heavy metals and chemicals in the tap water that the RW machine cannot (see the contaminant rejection table in our article How Does Reverse Osmosis Work), while the RW machine can infuse the water with antioxidants.  We do not carry RW machines at this point, but we know that the Kangen machine can be hooked them up to a RO system.  We’re still checking how much water pressure is needed for the Alkalizer to determine if it is compatible with RO systems.  

Back to top

A Word on Mineral Content & Alkalinity of RO Water

According to studies only 10 to 20 % of our mineral intake comes from water, while most come from our food.  While it’s true that people in regions of hard water tend to live longer, drinking hard water probably is not the main reason for their longevity.  Rather, if we infer from the presence of hard water that the soils in those regions are more abundant in nutrients, food quality probably accounts for much of their good health.  Since the studies I’ve seen are generally about indigenous people in rural areas, these people probably eat more locally grown produce. 

Therefore the fact that RO water contains little mineral is not of great consequence since our diet is much more important in that regard.  Mankind has been collecting rain water as drinking and cooking water down the ages, and rain water is essentially distilled water, very similar to RO water in terms of its mineral content and alkalinity.  It is more important that we remove contaminants in the water, and RO technology has been proven to do that extremely reliably, provided the RO system is well constructed and regularly maintained.  Examples of the harmful substances in our water supply are lead, fluoride and arsenic, all of which are in the Houston City water supply (according to the 2007 Water Quality Report) at a level that we do not feel comfortable with.  Fluoride is intentionally added but we believe it does more harm than good.  Also you can easily boost your mineral intake by adding concentrated liquid minerals and crystal calcium (Whole Foods Market/Vitamin Shoppe) to the water, or by taking liquid mineral supplements such as: www.vitalearth.org. If you have a Reduced Water machine in addition to your RO system, some models can be combined with mineralizers to automatically add minerals.  You can also add a calcite filter to the RO system to add calcium to the water automatically.
The alkalinity of our body is also largely determined by our diet.  Many foods considered to be healthy are acidic, like blueberry, pecans, pinto beans, corn, sunflower seeds and brown rice.  According to our research the important thing is to balance the intake of alkaline and acidic food so that you eat at least 70% alkaline foods.  One can find comparison charts of alkaline and acidic foods at websites like www.becomehealthynow.com.   Also while RO water is slightly acidic, if desired you can make it alkaline by products like Alkaline Water Drops (www.ionlight.com). 

  Back to top

Air Ions – Nutrients We Breathe
by Pierce Koslosky, Jr., Judith Riddle

An essential link in the chain of our good health and vitality is the air we breathe. Daily our lungs take in and release about 50000 gallons of air. But just as chemically treated, sprayed, overcooked foods may lose nutritive value, air treated in similar ways loses its value. Pollution is an obvious hazard in our environment, but researchers have found a more subtle yet potent danger in the loss of air ion content.
Air ions are small air molecules which have taken on a positive or negative electrical charge. In nature, the ratio of positive to negative ions is approximately even. Negative ions predominate in areas which have traditionally been regarded as therapeutic centers – certain Asian and European spas, areas near springs and waterfalls, mountaintops, and the seashore.
Hipprocrates foreshadowed modern research on positive ions when he wrote in the 5th century B.C. that “northern winds occasion disorder and sickness.” Hot, dry winds such as the sharav in Israel, the Santa Ana of California, the foehn of Germany and the Chinook of Canada are positive ion-predominant. In their paths, weather sensitive people complain of breathing difficulty, nervousness, and migraine. In Bavaria, doctors postpone all but emergency surgery and judges are more lenient when the foehn blows.
Dr. Robert Massy, who is presently engaged in ion research at the University of the Trees in California, points out that we often create our own ill winds in living and working environments. While human activities rarely create negative ions, the pollution of our cities and the climate-controlled aid of our homes remove both positive and negative ions. And many appliances, the television receiver, for example, create positive ions.
To explain how he became involved in ion research, Dr. Massy tells about his former sleep problem. “While a student,” he recounted, “I was impressed by the stories of great scientists who slept very little, like Edison. But I required 10-12 hours of sleep daily. I tried several methods hoping to improve this situation – various diets and exercises – with no results.
“Years later when I was editing the new edition of Victor Beasley’s book, Your Electro-Vibratory Body, I read the ion research it discusses. I tried sleeping in a room with a negative ion generator, and I found I gradually needed less sleep. Now I get six hours or less each night and feel more rested than when I got ten.”
More serious was the situation of Mr. K. of San Jose, CA. Mr. K. had worked steadily as a plumber all his adult life. But, at age 50, he found himself unexplainable depressed and suffering from severe headaches. His doctor told him that he had serious sinus problems and that he must simply learn to live with them. Though he took large doses of prescription drugs, Mr. K. had no relief.
Eventually he found himself unable to continue working. He tried a negative ion generator on the advise of a friend, but he was amazed when his head began to clear. “It seemed to help almost instantly,” he reported. Within days he was relieved of headaches and depression and able to return to work.
While science cannot completely explain a recovery such as Mr. K.’s, research has revealed many hitherto unknown properties of this tiny resource, the ion.
All living organisms, from bacteria to human beings, are affected by air ions. As early as 1933, experiments at the Central Laboratory for the Study of Aerionification in Moscow indicated that air ions are lethal to bacteria, with negative ions acting more effectively than positive ones.
Yet while microorganisms are alone in being endangered by ions, plants and animals benefit form them.
Dr. Albert Krueger at the University of California found, for example, that seedlings grew as much as 50% faster in a negatively ionized atmosphere. In tests with rabbits and mice, he discovered a two-to-one increase in the survival rate of animals which were infected with an influenza virus and then placed in a negatively ionized setting. 56% of the animals died.
Dr. Krueger pinpointed the ions’ biological effects as being localized in the trachea, and began to search for clues to the body response triggered by ions. He and hi research tam discovered that serotonin, a powerful neurohormone involved with the endocrine system, circulation and metabolism, was inhibited by negative ions. Positive ions increased the blood level of serotonin and produced diarrhea, muscle spasms, and labored breathing.
Dr. Krueger explained some of the beneficial effects of negative ions on the tracheas in terms of how they affect the tiny cilia filaments which line the windpipe, trachea, and bronchial tubes.
Cilia maintain a wavelike motion of 900 beats per minute, lubricated by mucus. They keep the air passages free of foreign matter, including pollen and dust. In the presence of negative ions, they energize; the beat increases dramatically to 1200 times per minute and mucus flows freely. Positive ions, on the other hand, decrease the beat to 600 times per minute, and the flow of mucus is inhibited.
Early research on the role of ions in the functioning of human systems was conducted by Dr. Felix Sulman at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The Sharav winds of Israel have adverse effects on up to 30% of Jerusalem’s population. Complaints range from respiratory difficulties to migraine, irritability, and depression.
Sulman speculated that the high ration of positive ions in the Sharav might be creating an overproduction of serotonin. When he treated patients with serotonin antagonists or with negative ions, his suspicions were confirmed: the symptoms were alleviated.
Researchers had previously noted that serotonin seemed to play a role in the control of pain. At the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Igho Kornblueh treated over 200 burn victims in a negatively ionized atmosphere. In over ten years of treating patients with burns ranging form mild to severe, Kornblueh found that most patient felt relief as quickly as 10-15 minutes after exposure to ion-rich air, and conventional painkillers were unnecessary. In addition, the incidence of infection was reduced and healing accelerated.
Other physical effects of ions were revealed in a 1972 Swiss study. For 30 weeks, 309 volunteer employees of a bank worked in a negatively ionized atmosphere. A control group of 362 employees worked in “normal” air. Time lost due to respiratory illness by the group breathing negative ions was decreased by 94%; for each day they lost from work, the control group lost 16 days.
And the following study concerned ions’ effects on circadian rhythms.
In 1978, Hawkins and Barker of the University of Surrey, England, were surprised to find that not only did the ion content of the air their subjects breathed affect psychomotor performance, which they expected, but that it also altered their circadian rhythm.
Control subjects who did not breathe ionized air showed the normal circadian pattern – a rising level of performance between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., and then a steady decline toward 9 p.m. Subjects exposed to positive ions declined in performance more rapidly, and to a greater extent.
Those exposed to negative ions showed significantly improved performance in psychomotor tasks such as visual and auditory reaction time and mirror drawing. Also, they maintained a high level of performance throughout the afternoon and the evening.
Psychological states also appear to be affected by ions. At the Catholic University in Buenos Aires, the team of Udabe, Kertiesz and Franceschetti treated large numbers of patients suffering from psychoneuroses and anxiety syndromes. The patients were exposed to negatively ionized air for periods ranging from 15 minutes to 2 hours, 10-20 times. The researchers were particularly impressed by the disappearance of somatic complaints, i.e., having an actual, physical or corporeal basis. They claimed positive results in 80% of their patients.
Air ions are an important natural resource which are being depleted by modern environments. The small ion content of a cubic centimeter of mountain air averages 3000 to 4000 ions per cm(3). But at the end of an eight hour day in a typical climate controlled office, the count is below 100 ions per cm(3). The ions have been removed by the heating or cooling systems, or by bonding to pollutants in the air.
Researchers at the Imperial University in Japan found that maintaining the same temperature, humidity, and even carbon dioxide rations – but decreasing the ion content – caused workers to complain about depression and to perspire.
While negative ion generators are available – even as optional equipment now on the Mercedes Benz automobile – there are several steps which will improve the ionic atmosphere in which we live.
Synthetic clothing, such as polyester, contributes to static electricity, depleting the air of ions. The same is true of metal or plastic furniture.
Electrical appliances create positive ions.
Plants are beneficial air resources, both thriving in an ion-rich atmosphere and acting as time ion generators.
As more is revealed about air ions and their importance, perhaps we will exert greater efforts to restore and maintain these nutrients of the air.

References:
Victor Beasley, Your Electro-Vibratory Body
University of the Trees Press, 1978
L.H. Hawkins and T. Barker, “Air Ions and Human Performance,” Ergonomics, Vol. 121, 1978, pp 273-278
A.P. Krueger and E.J. Reed, “Biological Impact of Small Air Ions,” Science, Vol. 193, 9/24/76
F.G. Sulman, D. Levy, A. Levy, Y Pfeifer, E. Superstine and E. Tal, “Air-Iconometry of Hot, Dry Desert Winds (Sharav) and Treatment with Air Ions of Weather Sensitive Subjects,” Int. J. Biometeor, 1974, Vol. 18, pp. 313-318

Back to top

Which Plants Improve Indoor Air?

Living Plants Willing The Battle for Clean Air!
If members of your family frequently suffer from sore throats and stuffy noses, they may be reacting to something more serious than allergies or the common cold.

Indoor air contaminants from seemingly benign sources such as furniture, drapes, carpets, insulation, paint and office machines can cause a variety of symptoms that include respiratory irritation, dizziness, headaches, skin rashes, nausea and vomiting. In fact, the EPA has issued a report stating that indoor air pollution may pose serious acute and chronic health risks with an economic impact of tens of billions of dollars per year.
The GOOD NEWS for homeowners and office workers: A low-cost, attractive solution does exist. Research conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) shows that you may clean the air you breathe just by placing live plants throughout your home and office.

House Plants Improve The Air
NASA’s studies concluded that common indoor plants can dramatically reduce toxic chemical levels in building with poor ventilation. NASA recommends placing 15 to 18 plants in an 1,000 sq. ft. home to clean and refresh the air. Maximize effectiveness by placing plant where air circulates and keep plants fresh and healthy.

Natural Air Pollution Fighters
Plants which proved effective as natural pollution fighters included those available at most florists or garden centers. Gerbera Daisy, Bamboo Palm, Spider Plant, Dracaena Marginata, Mass Cane, Spathiphyllum, Janet Craig and English Ivy lead the field in effectively reducing levels of a number of noxious gases found in almost every home and office building.

Harmful Toxins Absorbed By Plants
Plants have been found effective in reducing the levels of common toxins such as benzene, formaldehyde and trichloroethylene (TCE).
Benzene is a common chemical found in many products including gasoline, inks, oils, paints, plastics, and rubber. It is an additive in detergents, explosives, pharmaceuticals and dyes and has long been known as a skin and eye irritant.
Formaldehyde is found in virtually all-indoor environments, including foam insulation, particleboard or pressed wood products. It is used in consumer paper products treated with resins, including grocery bags, waxed papers, facial tissues and paper towels. Most household cleaning agents contain formaldehyde. The EPA recently conducted research which shows formaldehyde, which is an irritant to mucous membranes of the eyes, nose and throat, may cause a rare throat cancer in long-term occupants of mobile homes.
TCE is used in metal degreasing and dry-cleaning processes. It is an ingredient in printing inks, paints, lacquers, varnishes and adhesives. The National Cancer Society considers TCE a potent liver carcinogen.

Spider Plant – Chlorophytum comosum ‘Vittatum’
Ease of Growing: Very easy to grow.
Light: Indirect or bright-diffused light is best.
Water: Moderately moist soil is preferred.
Temperature: Moderate – Prefers 65-70 degrees F daytimes and 60-65 nights.
Key Tips for Success: Dry soil, over fertilization, low light, fluoride salts or excess boron could cause leaf tips to brown. Watch for spider mites and provide good drainage.

Peace Lilly – Spathiphyllum species
Ease of Growing: Very easy to grow.
Light: Low light location is ideal.
Water: Moderately moist soil is preferred.
Temperature: Warm– Prefers 70-75 degrees F daytimes and 65-70 nights.
Key Tips for Success: Under watering and excess salts or fertilizers will cause leaf edges to brown. Insects are generally not a problem.

Chinese Evergreen – Aglaonema ‘Silver Queen’
Ease of Growing: Very easy to grow.
Light: Low light location is ideal.
Water: Moderately moist soil is preferred.
Temperature: Warm– Prefers 70-75 degrees F daytimes and 65-70 nights.
Key Tips for Success: Remove over-grown shoots to encourage new growth and keep the plant bushy. Possible problems include scale and mealy bugs.

Weeping Fig – Ficus benjamina
Ease of Growing: Easy to grow, but requires a little special attention.
Light: Indirect or bright-diffused light is best.
Water: Moderately moist soil is preferred.
Temperature: Warm– Prefers 70-75 degrees F daytimes and 65-70 nights.
Key Tips for Success: Repotting is seldom necessary as ficus grow best in small containers. Watch for red spider mites, scale and mealy bugs.

Golden Pothos – Epipremnum aureum
Ease of Growing: Very east to grow.
Light: Indirect or bright-diffused light is best.
Water: Moderately moist soil is preferred.
Temperature: Warm– Prefers 70-75 degrees F daytimes and 65-70 nights.
Key Tips for Success: Pothos will not branch when pinched. Low light will cause plant to lose some variegation. No major problems.

(Note: Other plants which have been found to be effective at removing pollutants form the air include heart leaf philodendron, aloe vera, mini-schefflera, peperomia, corn plant and mother-in-law’s tongue).

Back to top

Air Quality and Productivity

One of the most significant factors in improving knowledge worker productivity is generally overlooked by concerned management. This is the environment of the office itself. Its impact upon the efficiency and effectiveness of office workers is considered too rarely by those trying to improve worker effectiveness and efficiency.

Take, for example, the apparent impact of office air quality on the individual’s work. A study released earlier this year by Honeywell Technalysis identified key factors in office worker performance. (The study reflected random interviews with 600 office workers, 18 years or older, who worked more than 20 hours a week, at a site with five or more employees.)

Office air quality was rated as a key productivity factor after such commonly emphasized things as adequate workplace lighting and temperature. It ranked before such other office environment factors generally presumed to influence worker productivity as overall housekeeping, workspace size, quiet and proximity to other workers. Some 20% of those interviewed reported that they often had difficulty working due to poor air quality. Among the problems reported were lack of air movement, cigarette smoke, the air being too cold in winter and the air being too hot and/or humid in the summer.

The study indicated that women office workers were about 40% more likely than men to experience air quality problems. This might be attributed, however, to the study respondents’ reports that me were more likely than women to work in fully enclosed offices, to have access to windows and to be able to move about within the larger office area.

Indoor air often is proving, environmental scientists report, to be more contaminated than outdoor air. The cigarette smoke cited by the study respondents can contain up to 3,000 contaminants itself. In addition, ordinary office air may contain formaldehyde (exuded by such things as insulation material, carpets and draperies), ozone (produced by the operation of certain electronic equipment) and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides (generated by improperly vented combustion appliances – such as stoves located in employee break areas).

A quick review of the office environment will identify possible air quality problems. For instance, is cigarette smoking allowed in office work spaces? Are office windows sealed shot? Is the workspace assigned to individuals severely restricted? Do large numbers of employees spend their entire workday operating a microcomputer, work processor or computer terminal? Do employees complain of recurring eye irritation or discomfort?

Positive answers to several of these questions may signal the need to have a professional analysis of office air quality. In some localities the board of health may be able to perform the evaluation. In other instances it may be necessary to arrange for an environmental engineering firm to do the work. And, of course, the permission and cooperation of the building management firm may have to be secured if the workspace involved is leased.

Nationally accepted formal standards for indoor air quality do not exist. However, this sort of analysis can determine how closely air quality in a particular office site conforms to the recommendations for air exchange and acceptable pollutant concentrations recommended by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers. (1791 Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, GA 30329).

Back to top

713.520.5900