Re: Air-Zone vs. Aranizer, WHO to believe?

I'll try to separate the marketing hype from the facts, and then
give my opinion (separately, so as no to confuse the issue).
First off, a disclosure. I own two Aranizers and am very please
with them. I have the NS-8 for my office and the NS-5 for my room
at night. The NS-8 is a powerful machine. It floods my work area
nicely. I wish I would have gotten the next size up for my bedroom.
We have a large bedroom, and I just don't think it has enough kick.

That said, if you remember from previous discussions about O2 vs. O3,
Aranizers claim to produce higher forms of ozone, which they call
"Aran". Aran is suppossed to be O4, O5, O6, etc. In other words,
it has many more negatively charged singlet oxygen atoms.
In the other corner of the ring, Air-zone claims that "all" ozone
generators output these higher forms of ozone, and that when they
count mgs/hr, they are only counting O3, whereas Aranizer is counting
all the other forms (O4, O5, etc.), which artificially bumps up their
mgs/hr spec. Furthermore, Air-zone claims that these higher forms of
ozone are so unstable that they can only last for fractions of a second,
so saying that the machine produce these higher forms is meaningless.
Both machines claim zero nitrous oxide output.

my opinion

So, who to beleive? I know I'm happy with my Aranizers. I've never
owned an Air-zone. Although if I ever needed another ozone generator,
I think I would be tempted to try an Air-zone. Particularly one of their
industrial shock units. When I smell what comes out of the Aranizer,
it smells like, well, ozone. Just like what comes out of my water
ozonator.
In my opinion, either one of these companies will give a superior product
than one of the name brand products like Sharper Image, etc. So, either
way you probably won't go wrong. Whichever company you go with, get the
most mgs/hr for the dollar.

Is Air-zone's claim true that Aranizer is tainting their output ratings?
I honestly don't know. I do know that my bedroom unit is rated at 2500 mgs,
but I don't think it's enough. Take that for what it's worth.

Now, about breathing ozone (or Aran, as the case may be). The EPA has
made a statement that ozone is a poisonous gas. Notice whenever they
have smog alerts, they always mention the ozone concentration, as though
it's part of the "evil smog" that's poisoning the atmosphere.
What baffles me is that these authorities can't grasp that ozone is the earth's
way of cleansing itself. Of course you will find ozone where there is smog.
That's because the ozone is attempting to oxidize and burn up the smog.

Also, when an "ozone virgin" typically starts breathing high concentrations
of ozone, they typically start caughing and wheezing. So, a person might
conclude, "Gee, the EPA must be right. It must be poisonous to me, therefore
I shouldn't breath it." Again, all the ozone is trying to do is it's job.
Your lungs have been filled with all kinds of pollutants and the ozone is merely
attempting to burn off the toxins. So for awhile, you *will* cough and wheez,
etc. Especially if you've been a smoker or lived in a highly polluted environment.

But the EPA's statement has really put companies that produce ozonators in a
quandry. Do they go against the EPA? Instead, most acknowledge that ozone
purifies the air, but add the disclaimer that they produce "safe" levels.
The "truth" is, a person with clean lungs can breathe huge amounts of ozone
without any problems whatsoever. Is Aranizer's naming of their output "Aran"
an attempt to skirt the EPA issue? I don't know. Maybe if I were manufacturing
these machines I'd do the same.

At any rate, that's my two cents.


Tweet