Global Warming?

Indeed, he is not at all convinced that global warming is even a real phenomenon (please refer to this BBC article). He acknowledges that the average global temperature has risen by three tenths of a degree Fahrenheit in the past thirty years. However, he points out that during the previous thirty years, average global temperatures actually declined (the article doesn't say by how much, I presume by some fraction of a degree). He sums up his position doubting the existence of the phenomenon of global warming thusly: "I think there's only one position, and that is the position that the data leads you to". He has looked at the temperature data and he has made his determination. However, I must ask, is this the only parameter that should be considered in evaluating the presence or absence of global warming? In my opinion, the answer to this question is no.

It is a fact that glaciers all over the world have been in retreat for approximately the past 100 years. I have seen numerous examples providing photographic evidence that glaciers have retreated up mountain slopes, in some cases by miles, in the past 100 years. High altitude glaciers that occur on mountain tops in tropical regions, such as Mt. Kilimanjaro in Kenya, are expected to completely disappear within the next several decades. Glaciers in Europe that have been relatively stable in size and thickness for thousands of years have experienced dramatic reductions in size in the past 100 years. You may recall the discovery of the now famous Iceman, a stone age hunter who died high in the Italian Alps about 5000 years ago and was entombed and preserved in ice all those long years, only to be exposed by the recent rapid melting of his frozen grave.

It is not only mountain glaciers that are rapidly diminishing. The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, which hold enough frozen fresh water to dramatically raise global sea levels if it were all to melt (not to the point of the somewhat ridiculous movie Waterworld, but you get the idea), have been showing some definite signs of melting much faster than falling snow can rebuild them. These gigantic ice sheets, some as much as three miles thick, are in constant slow motion. New snow falls in the interior of these huge islands. The weight if this new snow slowly compacts previous layers into ice. As more weight is added, the ice flows slowly outward toward the ocean. In the case of Greenland, the ice near the ocean is simply receding inland, exposing long ago covered rocks and soil. In the case of Antarctica, the glaciers actually extend far out to sea, in some cases, by hundreds of miles. In the past few decades, these floating glaciers have been getting thinner and the outward extent of the sea ice, which varies from winter to summer, as the ocean water freezes and thaws, has been rapidly diminishing. A few years ago, a gigantic ice berg over 100 miles long and 20 miles wide broke off of one of these huge Antarctic ice sheets and is currently drifting near Antarctica, as it slowly melts. Some scientists are very concerned that in the next 50 years or so, all of the floating glaciers surrounding Antarctica will thin to the point of breaking away and melting. The consequences of this potential rise in global sea levels, will be dire to low lying islands and countries like Bangladesh, much of whose land area is near to the current sea level.

There is one other area of great concern. It is the sea ice that covers much of the Arctic Ocean. Satellites have been monitoring the thickness and area of the Arctic sea ice for more that ten years. In that time, the ice has lost a significant percentage (about 20 percent, if I remember correctly) of its thickness. Also, the greatest annual winter extent of the sea ice has been getting smaller every year. Some wildlife biologists who study polar bears are very worried that large numbers of polar bears may eventually die of starvation because their habit of hunting on the pack ice during the winter is becoming increasingly difficult as the area of ice coverage continues to diminish.

Ok, the facts so far are that the global average temperature has increased slightly and the Earth's volume of frozen water has been measurably reduced. Any first year chemistry student should be able to deduce a possible correlation between these two sets of data. It takes heat to melt ice. It is quite possible that the phenomenon of global warming has been masked because the increase in atmospheric heating, caused by the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide trapping infrared radiation from the sun, is being counterbalanced by the melting of ice.

Now lets consider one additional set of data. Michael Crichton apparently only considers atmospheric temperature data. I think that oceanic temperature data is also very important. The oceans role in regulating the Earth's climate is not entirely understood, however, the existence of vast oceanic currents has been known for at least 200 years. It was Ben Franklin, the noted scientist and American revolutionary thinker, who discovered the Gulf Stream, the giant river of warm water which flows from the tropics up the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and Canada and then across the Atlantic past Iceland and on to England. It is this gigantic conveyor belt of heat that makes life so much more pleasant and tolerable in northwestern Europe. During the 20th century, oceanic scientists discovered that the Pacific Ocean experiences a periodic oscillation of warm water from one side of the ocean to the other, from east to west and then back again. When this large area of warm water returns to the eastern side of the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of Baja California, a phenomenon called El Nino occurs. The presence or absence of El Nino can have dramatic effects on the weather of the entire United States, Mexico, and Central America. In the past twenty years, the period of years between the recurrence of El Nino events has been growing smaller. This strongly suggests that the oscillation of the warm water from one side of the ocean to the other and back again is gaining speed. This would indicate, to a student of physics, that the system is gaining energy. Assuming that the oceans are absorbing heat energy from the atmosphere, it is possible that the oceans, like the ice, could be playing a role in masking the existence of global warming.

There are two potentially disastrous problems associated with the melting of ice, and the increase of oceanic water temperatures, respectively. Lets consider the effect of the melting of fresh water ice from Greenland and the Arctic Ocean first. Scientists who have studied the mechanism that drives the Gulf Stream, have discovered that there are huge columns of water in the North Atlantic in which the salinity (salt content) is much higher than the average oceanic salinity. Water with higher salinity is heavier than water with lower salinity, and thus it sinks. These columns of saline enriched water are continuously regenerated by evaporation from the ocean's surface. The sinking of these columns of "heavier" water is the engine that drives the circular flow of the Gulf Stream around the Northern Hemispheric Atlantic Ocean. The problem with adding large quantities of fresh water from the melting of Greenland's ice sheet and the melting of Arctic ice, is that the North Atlantic will become gradually less saline. There may be a point at which the water will simply stop sinking and the Gulf Stream will stop flowing. Ironically, this could actually be the same mechanism which in the past has been the triggering cause of new ice ages.

The second potential disaster involves a substance called methane hydrate. This is a frozen combination of methane and water that occurs in huge deposits on sea floors all over the world. If a chunk of methane hydrate is brought to the surface and allowed to warm up to air temperature, it will simply melt and evaporate. Or, it can actually be set on fire, burning slowly until all the methane has been consumed. What is important about methane is that it is a very potent greenhouse gas. If huge amounts of methane were suddenly released into the atmosphere, it could cause a very dramatic increase in global atmospheric temperatures. Some oceanic scientists are concerned that if the water temperature of the oceans rise enough, huge amounts of methane hydrate may melt and separate into water and methane. The resultant release of this methane would cause a significant increase in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature.

So, we may be faced with the potential of a new ice age, or perhaps a very uncomfortable increase in temperature, or maybe some bizarre combination of both. Certainly, not all the facts are in and more data needs to be collected before we can make accurate predictions about what will actually occur as a result of the continued increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses that human beings are producing. However, wouldn't it be far more wise to err on the side of caution and take strong steps to reduce the emission of gases like CO2 into the world's atmosphere, rather than wait and do nothing, as Michael Crichton suggests? I think that we should be proactive and do everything we can as soon as possible. If we do nothing, our descendants may be very very angry with us. What do you think?

Epidemiology/Health Services Research

Arterial Hypertension Determined by Ambulatory Blood Pressure Profiles
Contribution to microalbuminuria risk in a multicenter investigation in 2,105 children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes
Axel Dost, MD1,2, Christoph Klinkert, MD3, Thomas Kapellen, MD4, Andreas Lemmer, MD5, Andrea Naeke, MD6, Matthias Grabert, PHD7, Joachim Kreuder, MD2, Reinhard W. Holl, MD7 for the DPV Science Initiative

1 Department of Pediatrics, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany
2 Department of Pediatrics, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany
3 Pediatric Practice, Herford, Germany
4 Department of Pediatrics, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
5 Helios Children's Hospital, Erfurt, Germany
6 Department of Pediatrics, University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany
7 Department of Epidemiology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Axel Dost, Department of Pediatrics, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Kochstrasse 2, D-07740 Jena, Germany. E-mail: axel.dost@med.uni-jena.de

OBJECTIVE—Arterial hypertension is a key player in the development of diabetes complications. We used a nationwide database to study risk factors for abnormal 24-h blood pressure regulation and microalbuminuria in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed in 2,105 children and adolescents from 195 pediatric diabetes centers in Germany and Austria. Individual least median squares (LMS)-SD scores were calculated for diurnal and nocturnal systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP), and mean arterial (MAP) blood pressure according to normalized values of a reference population of 949 healthy German children. The nocturnal blood pressure reduction (dipping) was calculated for SBP as well as DBP.

RESULTS—In diabetic children, nocturnal blood pressure in particular was significantly elevated (SBP +0.51, DBP +0.58, MAP +0.80 LMS-SD) and dipping of SBP DBP, and MAP was significantly reduced (P < 0.0001). Age, diabetes duration, sex BMI, A1C, and insulin dose were related to altered blood pressure profiles; dipping, however, was only affected by age, female sex, and A1C. The presence of microalbuminuria was associated with nocturnal DBP (P < 0.0001) and diastolic dipping (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS—Our observations revealed a clear link between the quality of metabolic control and altered blood pressure regulation even in pediatric patients with short diabetes duration. Nocturnal blood pressure in particular seems to mainly contribute to diabetes complications such as microalbuminuria.

Abbreviations: ABPM, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring • DBP, diastolic blood pressure • LMS, least median squares • MAP, mean arterial pressure • SBP, systolic blood pressure • SDS, SD score

Understanding Ozone

Preface: The following information is provided to help you better understand the difference between natural, beneficial levels of ozone found in fresh air, which can also be duplicated indoors with residential air purifiers; and the potentially unsafe levels of ozone produced by fuel combustion from millions of automobiles and aircraft, typically found in large cities with heavy air pollution.

What is ozone?

Ozone, also known as "activated oxygen," is an oxidizer produced by nature to keep our air clean and safe to breathe. Nature converts regular oxygen into activated oxygen (ozone) to oxidize (burn up) harmful air pollutants. Through the process of reacting with most air pollutants, ozone converts these harmful substances into more harmless compounds, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor. After ozone reacts with pollutants in the air, it instantly reverts back into breathable oxygen. Ozone is created naturally outdoors, primarily from sunshine and lightning from over 40, 000 electrical storms that occur on earth daily. The ozone made from these sources is considered both essential and harmless. These beneficial levels of ozone are found virtually everywhere on earth including in forests, meadows, over the ocean, and up in the mountain tops; far away from the high pollution levels found in cites. This is how our air has been purified outdoors for thousands of years before industrialization. This tiny amount of ground level ozone is absolutely essential to life. Without natural amounts of ozone in the outdoor air we breathe, every living thing on earth would likely die from massive chemical and biological pollution.

Ozone can also be produced through fuel combustion. When man produces too much ozone, such as by millions of automobiles and aircraft in large cities, the ozone itself can become irritating to our respiratory system. These large cities will then issue "ozone alerts." These higher levels of ozone are typically proportional to the amount of pollution in the air. Understanding that the many air pollutants produced from combustion cannot easily be measured, the ozone, which can easily be measured, is used as a pollution level "indicator." It should be acknowledged that the respiratory problems experienced in these large cities are directly related to the massive amounts of particles and other combustion pollutants (the visible haze) in that air. Further, the ozone in that polluted air is also simultaneously acting as a purifier to help clean the pollutants from that air.

Regarding ozone safety, it is the amount of ozone in the air that is important. As an example, fire is also an oxidizer, which can be both good and bad. A small amount of fire is great to heat a home or cook a meal. At the two extremes: no fire at all could leave one cold and hungry, or too much fire could burn a home down. In essence, certain levels of fire are beneficial and others are not. Nonetheless, our need for fire must be acknowledged and proper levels must be maintained to receive the benefits from it. This analogy of fire parallels the distinction between safe levels of ozone being maintained indoors by small air purifiers and the other two extremes: the total absence of ozone indoors and vehicular levels in large cities. We must remember that nature depicts our need for such things as ozone, ions, oxygen, food, water, sleep and exercise. Too much or too little of any of these and we will likely become ill. Yet, in just the right amounts, they promote good health.

Can we trust nature's air purification ozone levels?

We all know that we need oxygen in our air to stay alive. However, too much or not enough oxygen can be a detriment to our health. The exact amount of oxygen that we need for optimum health is determined for us by nature. Likewise, the amount of activated oxygen (ozone) essential for a healthy existence on earth is also accurately determined for us by nature. Despite nature's natural pollution from oil fires, forest fires, volcanic gasses, and all of the added pollution from nearly six billion people on the planet, nature still does a miraculous job of purifying earths very limited air supply… without the use of chemical air fresheners or air filters. This is one of the reasons we like to go out for fresh air and is clear proof that we can trust in natural ozone levels.

Conversely, most indoor environments have air that is missing healthy levels of ozone. Surprisingly, these indoor environments can easily have air pollution levels as much as 500% higher than those found outdoors in large cities. This indoor air pollution can contain three different types of contaminants that include: 1) floating dust particles from a variety of unpleasant sources, 2) chemical gasses being continually emitted from carpet, furniture, plastics, clothing and building materials, some of which off-gas for as long as 20 years, and 3) biological contaminants such as mold, mildew, dust mites, mite excrement, bacteria and viruses. These pollutants can cause a long list of respiratory ailments and other ill health effects.

In today's energy efficient structures, there is virtually no ozone available in our indoor air because there is no source for it. Do we have direct sunshine that does not pass through glass, or electrical lightning bolts inside of our houses or the buildings we work in? Of course not. Do we even open our windows? Not as often as we should; if we did, the beneficial effects of any entering ozone will only last about five minutes after closing the windows before converting back into oxygen. The air then starts to become rancid again. If we could leave all of our windows and doors wide open, 24 hours a day, all year long, we would have much less of an ozone deficiency problem in our homes. It is obviously impractical to leave our windows open for security reasons, as well as indoor temperature and humidity control. This is why millions of people now use air purifiers to replace the natural, beneficial levels of ozone in their indoor air.

Why is there so much confusion about ozone?

There is considerable confusion regarding the use of indoor air purification systems that produce ozone as part of the air purification process. This confusion always stems from a lack of understanding about the "levels" of ozone in air. Adding to this confusion, all levels of ozone are measured in tiny amounts called "parts per million" (PPM), which means that both safe and unsafe levels are called "low" levels. There is, however, a very significant difference between .03 PPM, typically found in fresh outdoor air and 1.0 PPM that can be found in smog. This amount in fresh air for instance is 33 times lower than the smog level. In fresh air, nature produces a level that we all enjoy breathing. On the other hand, the much higher amount found in city smog could be irritating to eyes and lungs.

People who replace the safe levels of ozone in their indoor air enjoy, and often rave about, the benefits they receive. Yet, other people are afraid of using ozone indoors because they associate these beneficial levels of ozone with the much higher levels of ozone produced by automobiles and aircraft. The irony is that these same fearful people breathe beneficial levels of ozone every time they step outdoors for "fresh" air. In truth, for any scientist, doctor, or government agency to compare the safe level of ozone replaced indoors by small air purifiers, to the amounts of ozone produced by multi-millions of vehicles, offers an "apples to oranges" comparison that lacks both scientific evidence and common sense.

Further, it should be no surprise that government information regarding ozone and air purifiers is very confusing. Documents referenced by the government refer primarily to levels of ozone from mass vehicular combustion. They, incorrectly, do not address the distinct difference between these higher levels and those produced by small residential air purifiers. One has to read through numerous pages of information about possible health affects of vehicular ozone to find the official statement that those levels of ozone below the government standard of .05 PPM are known to be harmless. This misinformation and lack of clarification only serves to confuse people who do not thoroughly research Indoor Air Quality (IAQ).

Who profits from this confusion?

It would appear that there are five groups that significantly profit when people remain confused on the ozone issue. First, there are those who manufacture and sell chemical deodorizers, which literally pollute indoor air while attempting to cover up odors caused from lack of ozone. Sales are evidenced by the huge displays of these products found in stores everywhere. Second, there are the HEPA air filter companies that profit when people do not understand the difference between basic filtration and ozone-enhanced air purification technologies. Third, there are doctors, many of whom now have waiting lists of people who are suffering with breathing disorders. Certainly most doctors have the best interests of their patients in mind; however, medical doctors have no IAQ training and do not fully understand the seriousness of the indoor air pollution problem. Unfortunately, the medical alternatives are surgery or prescription drugs for those who suffer IAQ-related illnesses. (Note: Do not discontinue any medications without first consulting your doctor.) Fourth, there are the manufacturers and dealers of drugs, which treat only the symptoms associated with breathing indoor air. Ads and commercials for these drugs are now shown repeatedly on national television and in magazines. Despite the long list of side effects that can, in some cases, be worse than the breathing disorder, these companies are selling multi-billions of dollars worth of drugs to people suffering from indoor air. Fifth, our government approves these drugs, and then collects taxes on them from people who often become as dependent on these breathing medications as street addicts do to illicit drugs. They know if you cannot breathe, you'll pay the money. With so much money being made treating only symptoms, one should consider why so much confusion and misinformation is being disseminated regarding the benefits of ozone replacement. The absurdity is that those same, supposedly learned people, who perpetuate misstatements about ozone, breathe air that contains ozone and has been purified by ozone every time they step out for fresh air.

Are all ozone producing air purifiers safe?

During a government-cited test, a machine rated for a large area of 3,000 sq. ft. was placed into a small room of only 350 sq. ft. and then adjusted to the maximum setting. Not surprisingly, it was discovered they had to drastically violate the instructions, by nearly 10 times, in order to achieve levels that are not recommended for occupied spaces. These higher levels can create a temporary smell similar to chlorine from an indoor pool and are used only to sanitize a room or eliminate strong odor problems in temporarily unoccupied rooms. While sanitizing and odor removal are beneficial features, this was not the correct setting for normal indoor air cleaning in occupied areas. And, of course, we do not operate our home appliances on maximum settings unless we have a beneficial reason to do so, and then only according to instructions. Additionally, any air purifier that produces ozone should have full adjustability to control the ozone output.

Virtually every governmental agency and health organization agrees that the average levels of ozone produced naturally throughout the earth are completely harmless to our health. While there are now a number of companies manufacturing air purifiers that reproduce ozone indoors, ensuring scientific validation for safe levels of ozone production is recommended before purchase. At the time of this writing, there is only one company, which as a result of a federal court hearing, has had their air purifying efficiency claims validated in governmentally-approved laboratories. This company proved that their air purification systems could effectively eliminate polluting odors, tobacco smoke, and even secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is one of the most difficult indoor air pollutants to eliminate because it consists of thousands of chemical gasses and microscopic particles that can trigger allergy and asthma attacks. This same company has also proven that their air purifiers can kill harmful mold, mildew, and bacteria under normal use, and rapidly when used in the sanitizing mode in unoccupied rooms. Additionally, in June 2001, the FDA approved ozone as an antimicrobial agent in the water we drink and on the very food we eat, because it works and is safer than other means of disinfection.

Are there known benefits from ozone replacement?

At the time of this writing, the leading company in ozone replacement technologies has sold multi-millions of ozone replacement air purification systems. Most of these systems are being used 24 hours a day, some for over 17 years. They are being used in every conceivable indoor environment including homes, offices, day care centers, bars, restaurants, nursing homes, factories, hospitals, laboratories, retail stores, etc. With billions upon billions of hours of use, there has not been so much as one substantiated injury from replacing beneficial levels of ozone to indoor air. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.

People who have been replacing the missing ozone to their indoor air have been giving testimony to the many benefits. Users have claimed that difficult odors from pets, smokers, mold and mildew are virtually eliminated; that their homes smell like fresh air; that house plants thrive and cut flowers last longer; even that their pets feel better and have been seen sleeping in front of air purifiers, just as instinctively as they would an open window. Farmers who are now replacing ozone to the air in barns have reported significantly reduced barn odors, as well as a reduced rate of animal death by disease. When one considers the high levels of airborne contaminants being found in virtually all indoor environments, perhaps it should not seem unusual that there would be so many personal testimonies from people replacing the ozone in their buildings.

As astounding as these testimonies are, it is the stories concerning humans that are most remarkable. There have been claims of chronic headaches disappearing, allergy and asthma symptoms ceasing or diminishing, snoring cessation, increased sense of smell, children and adults sleeping better, etc. It should be noted that despite the testimonies from those who purify their indoor air, it is illegal for the manufacturers and dealers of air purification systems to make any health claims such as these. While testimonials may compel us to consider the possible benefits of natural air purification indoors, air purifiers only treat the air, not people. They are not guaranteed to cure health problems and are not sold as medical devices or as a medical "cure."

Does ozone replacement solve all IAQ problems?

Absolutely not. There is no single measure that can solve all IAQ problems. As important as ozone is to our indoor air quality, it is only one of the factors involved in improving our indoor air. For the best possible indoor air quality, there are five other strategies that should be followed in addition to ozone replacement: elimination of indoor contaminants through source reduction; ventilation to bring in oxygenated air from outdoors through the installation of make-up air vents and by opening windows as often as possible; filtration (trapping) of physical particles through the use of quality air filters in furnaces, as well as, HEPA filtration in vacuum cleaners and room air cleaners; ionization of airborne particles that are too small to be trapped in filters but equally, if not more, dangerous to our lungs; and dehumidification to control biological contaminants.

With millions suffering from indoor air related illnesses, people should take every precaution they can, including natural ozone replacement.

How bad is the indoor air in houses and buildings?

Since the 1970's, we have been making our homes very airtight and energy efficient. Consequently, this causes homes to collect, compound and even create pollutants in the indoor air we breathe. Correlated with the energy saving measures, we have had epidemic increases in the number of people who are now suffering with allergies, asthma and other health problems. Hundreds of thousands of people are being hospitalized and millions now need doctor visits, drugs, shots and inhalers. Indoor air pollution is a widespread problem in both new and old homes, whether located in cities or in rural areas. It is non-discriminating, affecting everyone from infants to senior citizens. The U.S. government has considered the indoor air pollution problem to be a #1 environmental health concern.

On average, each human will breathe approximately 2,500 gallons of air every day without proper consideration of its purity. We spend approximately 90% of our time indoors breathing continuous amounts of particle pollutants, off-gassing chemicals and airborne biological pollutants. All three of the categories of indoor air pollution can affect everyone to varying degrees with a wide range of symptoms. These symptoms can include stuffy nose, nasal drip, ear infections, itchy throat, itchy eyes, tearing eyes, sneezing, chronic coughs, wheezing, headaches, sleep difficulty, snoring, dizziness, tiredness, fatigue, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, sinusitis, sinus infections, mild and severe asthma, as well as allergies to dust, dander, pollen, mites, mold and chemicals. All of these symptoms can be caused by, or aggravated by indoor air contaminants. Odors from new construction materials, remodeling, paints, urethanes, new carpet, new vinyl, house pets, smoke, mold and mildew are also indicative of indoor air contamination. If we lived outdoors and breathed fresh air all of the time, it would be unlikely that we would be experiencing these epidemic levels of symptoms. If you or those you care about suffer from any of the symptoms associated with indoor air, it is recommended to take every measure possible to clean your indoor air, without delay. The longer the exposure, the greater the health risks.

Understanding Electrical Ions

What are electrical ions?

Ions are an invisible form of electrical energy in the air. Through the sun, vegetation, and lightning, ions are made continuously and are in abundant supply outdoors. As an example, if you were to remove the powder from a medication capsule, the amount of air inside would be approximately one cubic centimeter. In this tiny amount of air, nature will make approximately 4,000 negatively charged ions and 3,000 positive. Research has shown ions to have health benefits for our bio-electric human bodies, but perhaps most important, ions perform an absolutely essential function in cleaning our air of particles.

How do ions work?

It would probably help to think of electrical ions as little magnets that float through the air and attract invisible dust particles also found in the air. Just as a magnet can pick up many metal paper clips in one lump, ions can bond many dust particles together. When this process occurs, the newly formed, larger particles become too heavy to stay floating in the air, so they fall to the ground and become dirt. Put another way, if nature did not make ions for us, our air outdoors would be so thick with particles that every living thing on earth would have been choked to death a long time ago. It is largely because of ions that our outdoor air becomes non-irritating, crisper and easier to inhale. In fact, if we all lived outdoors, the epidemic levels of indoor air illnesses would likely be nonexistent. However, we spend approximately 90% of our time indoors where we do not have the benefits of direct sunshine, planetary vegetation, or bolts of lightning, and thus virtually no ions to clean particles from our indoor air.

Why should I replace ions in my indoor air?

Most of the particles in outdoor air are rendered harmless due to the synergism of ions and their sister air cleaning ingredient ozone. Indoors the situation is much different. We seal these natural air purifying ingredients out of our homes with deadly precision. Now add to this, the creation of massive amounts of indoor particles. Just since you started reading this your body has created approximately 4,800,000 particles. These are particles of dead skin being sloughed off of your body. Each person in your home or workplace will create about 40,000 particles each and every second. We shed billions of these particles everyday and there is no way around it. In fact, human dander generates 80% of the dust you see in your home. The other 20% can consist of pollen, mold spores, pet dander, insect parts, microscopic urine and fecal particles from pet accidents, dust mites, dust mite excrement, etc. This all sounds bad enough, but it becomes worse when we realize that even more contaminants attach themselves to these particles for a free ride in your air. Contaminants such as radon gas, bacteria, and viruses have no other means of locomotion other than on the floating dust particles inside your home. This is why people get sick so easily indoors. You don't catch a cold from fresh outdoor air; you catch a cold from inhaling dust particles with someone else's viruses attached to them. Essentially, without an ionizer, the wet linings of your respiratory system are the primary method of particle removal from the air. Obviously, this is also causes sickness and disease. With an ionizing air purifier, the smallest of airborne particles become enlarged through ionic aggregation. This allows the particles to be filtered from the breathable air due to their increased size, or settled out of the breathable air by gravitation, due to their increased weight.

How do I replace ions indoors?

There are a variety of air purification and filtering systems available that can replace electrical ions in your indoor air. The most common ionizers, including HEPA filters with built-in ionizers are limited to ionizing only one room. If you want balanced ionic coverage throughout your home (and you should), you would need to purchase a separate ionizer for every room of your home. Further, these types of ionizers have the potential of causing a phenomenon called “Black Wall Syndrome”, whereby the particles are bonded to walls, causing a discoloration which cannot be washed off. There are now improved ionizing technologies which provide a balanced coverage of ions with only one unit required for an average sized home, and they have the added benefit of producing ions in the same positive/negative ratio as outdoor air. If you or those you care about suffer from any indoor air symptoms or illnesses, you should replace the ions to your indoor air. It is highly recommended to take all measures possible to clean your indoor air, and without delay; the longer the exposure to indoor air pollution, the greater the health risks.

Make-Up Air Ventilation

by Building Inspector and Indoor Air Specialist, Dan Schilling

What is make-up air?

Make-up-air is fresh, outdoor air, which is brought into a home or building in a designated fashion, on an as-need basis, through a specially installed vent pipe. Make-up-air prevents dangerous back-drafting of fuel burning appliances and infiltration of outdoor air in ways that could prove detrimental to a house or to our personal comfort. Make-up-air vents also improve indoor air quality and reduce sick building syndrome.

In many new construction projects, the installation of make-up-air vents is a code requirement. Until recently, no homes or buildings were built with make-up-air vents, albeit, we now know the serious consequences that can occur when make-up-air is not provided indoors. The problem revolves around negative air pressure in a home. Negative air pressure occurs whenever air is being sucked out of a building without a way for replacement air (make-up-air) to re-enter. Every time you operate a bathroom or kitchen exhaust fan you are sucking air out of your home. The same is true whenever furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces, whole house fans and clothes dryers are being operated. These appliances can suck from 50 to 1450 cubic feet of air per minute out of your house. If your house were a balloon, it would get smaller each time one of these components was operated. Your house cannot contract like a balloon, so the result is negative indoor air pressure.

Negative air pressure can literally poison your indoor environment. Negative air pressure can cause poisonous radon gas infiltration by actually pulling it out of the earth from underneath your house. Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer following smoking. Negative air pressure can also poison your indoor air with carbon monoxide and other combustion byproducts by causing back-drafting. Back-drafting is a term used to describe reversed air flow down chimneys and vent pipes of fuel burning appliances like furnaces, water heaters and fireplaces. Combustion pollutants that would normally migrate naturally up and out of chimneys or vents are instead sucked back into the house. The carbon monoxide levels retained in the house are typically not high enough to set off an alarm, but they are nonetheless poison and may cause occasional headaches, fatigue and flu-like symptoms, as well as, long term health problems. Finally, back-drafting can waste fuel through inefficient combustion and cause premature corrosion of chimneys, vent pipes, and the interiors of furnaces and water heaters.

Evidences of back-drafting are seen often by home inspectors. These can include stains at the draft doors and hoods of furnaces and water heaters, as well as, soot stains above fireplace openings. These evidences are a clear indication of what the occupants of the home have been inhaling. Sometimes the evidences are quite visible but the lack of visual evidence does not preclude the need for precaution.

The solution is to provide a regulated amount of fresh air into your home with the use of a make-up air vent. After installation, these vents work automatically on an as need basis. Whenever the indoor pressure drops, the vent allows fresh, oxygenated air to re-enter the house. When possible, the temperature of this incoming air is also tempered through a long run of ducting, or within the air return duct preceding the furnace and/or air conditioner.

The inlet is located outside the house like a clothes dryer vent, only designed to allow air in. While many heating contractors install these vents with barometric or spring loaded dampers, I do not recommend them because they only open when the blower is running. A make-up air vent should not be restricted by a damper so it will work whether or not the blower is running.

With so many ways air can be exhausted from a home, the best way to know for sure that you will not be affected by negative indoor air pressure is to have a make-up-air vent installed. Make-up-air maintains balanced air pressure and will improve the overall air quality indoors.

If you already have a make-up air vent, be sure to keep the exterior air inlet clean. If you do not have one, call a heating and cooling contractor to have one installed.