Ionizer Company Sues Indoor Air Quality Expert

This Post Has 30 Comments

1. Thanks for bringing this to wider attention. She has the spirit and will to prevail and I am hoping she does. That sweet govt. covid money brought out all the disreputable companies taking advantage of a stressful situation in our schools. Heres hoping they lose and moreover have to pay damages for their non functional “solution”

   1. bill: I also hope she’s able to persevere and win this battle.

2. Thank you for bringing this lawfare to my attention.

   1. Russell: You’re welcome. This story needs to be known by as many people as possible.

3. Interesting, best I can, currently, do is post to Facebook.

   1. Dale: Anything you can do helps. Thanks!

4. I certainly feel for her. In our K-12 practice we were often asked about ionization as a method of air purification…I had a folder of peer reviewed papers and the manufacturer’s own “test” results to send on to school superintendents and I would emphasize that such technology as implemented in commercial HVAC was “snake oil” and akin to elephant repellent. Very tricky marketing as they used HVAC contractors to carry the message to school districts…cheap enough to use COVID money to pay for it, but not so much they had to go to the voters or actual professionals. (If you looked at some of the manufacturer’s testing they were using test “rooms” the fraction of the size of any occupiable room)

   1. David: They’ve certainly done well with their marketing during the pandemic.

5. Thank you, Allison, for bringing this into daylight.

   I love the language on their website under products “_Targets_ Particles”, “_Reduces_ Certain Viruses & Bacteria”, “_Tackles_ Odors”. Those are action verbs all right.

   The search results of “global plasma solutions lawsuit” you suggest are priceless.

   1. Paul: Yeah, they’re an interesting company. They also replied to my post of this article on LinkedIn today.

6. Allison, done because you asked and this BS must be addressed.

   1. Thanks!

7. Did the plaintiff sue her entire family?
   If not, why post a photo of her with her children and partner? That feels strongly inappropriate. Did you get Dr. Zaatari’s permission to use this photo, or is there a more appropriate photo of her to use?

   1. Dee: If you look at the bottom of the article or click the link to the GoFundMe page, you’ll see that photo is the one she used for her fundraiser. Yes, I got permission from Dr. Zaatari to use the photo.

      1. I have enjoyed the fact that I have not been sick a single day over the past 13 years I have had NPBI in my home, office and truck – not one single day. You people are way, way, way off base, underinformed and searching for a problem which does not exists – searching for a cause. NPBI is the best thing that has come along since the Polio vaccine in my estimation and GPS should be awarded the Nobel Prize – not kidding. NPBI is a replication and simple acceleration of nature’s natural cleansing process with nothing else added. Thus, If you have an issue with NPBI you have an issue with nature. Simple as that. There is nothing else on this planet that compares.

         1. Bucky: There’s a difference between anecdotal evidence based on a sample of one and how well something actually works.

8. Thanks for bringing this to light. Hopefully she doesn’t just defend, but brings a countersuit for millions… poetic justice to have them fund more of her research.

   1. Thomas: Yes, that would indeed be a fitting end to this sordid affair.

9. Allison inspires curiosity, and today I called our Gwinnett County Schools (#13 largest school district in the country, as of 2016), their Building Maintenance department in particular. I asked if any school buildings in the district have ionization equipment in their HVAC systems. I did not specifically say “needlepoint bipolar ionization”, just “ionization”. The answer I got was a resounding yes, in all school buildings, and I was told that since 2008 it’s been required by Mechanical code.

   What’s up? Am I confused? I am not that familiar with Mechanical code for commercial, or educational buildings, but is this information correct? Are we talking about different ionization methods? (with which I am also very unfamiliar)

   **********
   Towards the end of the phone conversation I was asked if I was a member of the media, to which of course I said “no”, then I was asked if I was pro or against ionization, to which I reacted that I did not understand the relevance. At the end, I was told that any future related questions will be handled by their media relations. It was a bizarre conversation.

   1. In Cobb County schools, millions were spent not only on overhead UV classroom lights (which were rather quickly removed over obvious concerns about efficacy and safety), but also aqueous ozone hand washing stations. I’m wouldn’t be surprised if they had looked into bipolar ionization too.

10. Can anyone comment on Mechanical code for educational facilities and ionization?

    1. In Minnesota we have a requirement for classrooms to have sound level compliant with ANSI S60 and for MERV 13 filters. These regulations are in the education department rules and regulations for new construction and not in the mechanical Code per se. (The MERV 13 and S60 rules made it difficult to install Classroom unit ventilator, so we don’t seem them anymore, they were problematical in our Zone 6 & 7 climates anyway!) Each state is a little different, but I have never heard of Bi-polar, needle point or any other type of ionization being required in any jurisdiction. (never saw this in WI rules either). The MERV 13 rules unintentionally took care of issues of virus propagation through the HVAC system by capturing virus sized particles before sending through the systems, leaving just in room transmission to deal with. (If you look at the half life of ions.. it’s hard for them to “live” long enough to do any good if you are inserting them at the central HVAC equipmnet.

11. If ionization technology was as effective as the proponents who sell it claim, why do they adamantly refuse to coordinate with industry experts to develop an industry driven testing method to which most everyone can agree has validity? Ionization has been around for decades, yet it is so mysterious, no standard test can quantify its performance? I understand how those who weren’t educated in contamination control were enticed for a cost-effective, readily available solution; however, there were plenty of sales folks in the industry, some reputable, who turned a blind eye to make a buck as well…funny how that aspect is somewhat overlooked.

12. I first encountered GPS a few years back, before COVID, when an iffy mechanical sub was proposing needlepoint BPI in lieu of sufficient outside air. The IAQ “calculation” provided indicated the BPI would reduce all sorts of indoor contaminants below baseline levels. The only thing they did not claim would be reduced was CO2 (of course). Their calculation asserted that a CO2 level of 5000 PPM was “acceptable” because it is the exposure limit (and also cited some naval standard for SUBMARINES).

    I fought hard against it and the engineer who was proposing it. He even said that he had used it to reduce OA in dozens of schools with no issues…the poor kids!

    After that, I was always extremely suspicious of the claims. It seemed very quickly after that, most equipment suppliers in my area began representing an ionization company. Until ASHRAE publishes official guidance indicating the widespread use/adoption of the tech is warranted, I am staying away.

13. I don’t know the technology of GPS and what the third party reports say about it. But I (and others in my family) am massively mold sensitive and we use another brand with multiple forms of ionization. When we are stuck temporarily in moldy spaces (like hotel rooms or other people’s houses), I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they significantly reduce our symptoms.

14. Small spaces with in-room ionization is a totally different thing than we are talking about with this thread. That being said, some residential type units can produce excessive ionized particles that can be hazardous to the delicate tissues of the nose, throat, and lungs.

    1. The article isn’t really specific. Is it specifically putting them in air ducts that you find to be questionable? Or is it advocating the use of it as a single solution solve your indoor air quality issues, instead of recognizing the many other things you should be doing?

       1. Cindi: Here’s an article I wrote about why you should avoid most electronic air cleaners. The ones to avoid are what’s referred to as additive air cleaners, those that add ions, oxidizing agents, or ozone.

          https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/2-reasons-to-avoid-most-electronic-air-cleaners/

       2. What I find objectionable is that the removal of contamination using this technology has not been scientifically tested in real world commercial sized (i.e. full scale) conditions. Most importantly, the various manufacturers and distributors that sell this sort of product has marketed the product in such a way to capture funding from organizations that could be used for implement equipment or operational changes that are demonstrated to reduce contamination in occupied spaces.

15. I stand by my original comment.

Comments are closed.