"willshak" wrote in message
...
Just saw a Pat Murphy Stark (cute blond, 'Miss NYS' winner in 1990) direct
marketing TV ad for the AirForceIonizer. Claims to do what the larger,
more expensive ionizers, like the Sonic Breeze, do.
Sells for $50, but if you act now, $10 for two. :-) Cleaned all smoke from
a fish tank in 6 minutes. Nothing about cleaning it though. Perhaps it's a
throwaway.
No Google links for AirForceIonizer.
--
Bill

whether or not ionizers provide health benefits can be argued either way

some are effective at removing smoke from the air but can cause particles in
the air to "attach to nearby surfaces such as walls or furniture, or attach
to one another and settle out of the air" - see below

so the particles are not filtered out and still in the room, no good if the
particles are unhealthy

u.s. epa indicates "high efficiency particle filters or electrostatic
precipitators" are more efective " in removing particles of dust, tobacco
smoke, pollen or fungal spores."

some of what the u.s. epa says about ionizers:
from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html

"...some ozone generators are manufactured with an "ion generator" or
"ionizer" in the same unit. An ionizer is a device that disperses negatively
(and/or positively) charged ions into the air. These ions attach to
particles in the air giving them a negative (or positive) charge so that the
particles may attach to nearby surfaces such as walls or furniture, or
attach to one another and settle out of the air. In recent experiments,
ionizers were found to be less effective in removing particles of dust,
tobacco smoke, pollen or fungal spores than either high efficiency particle
filters or electrostatic precipitators. (Shaughnessy et al., 1994; Pierce,
et al., 1996). However, it is apparent from other experiments that the
effectiveness of particle air cleaners, including electrostatic
precipitators, ion generators, or pleated filters varies widely (U.S. EPA,
1995). "