Thousands of allergy sufferers have fallen for the great air cleaner scam. It's hard to believe that an air cleaner would actually pollute the air, but some of the most popular models do just that. The EcoQuest air cleaner, for instance, is supported by outlandish marketing claims such as "Fresh Air by EcoQuest is the safest, most sought after air purifier in the world." But this air cleaner is not safe, especially for people with allergies or asthma. EcoQuest air cleaners emit large amounts of ozone, a lung irritant that can trigger asthma attacks. In fact, if you look in the instruction manual, you'll see that it warns users to make sure that the room is unoccupied before "sanitizing" with ozone. The manual also suggests airing out the room before going back into it. Why, then, is this ionic air cleaner so popular? It's because of deceptive marketing claims made as part of a pyramid scheme. People continue to fall for the scam, but once they start using the air cleaner at home, they realize they've been had.

After running the unit for 2 days, my son was having to use his inhaler, and my daughter had to use her inhaler after 3 days. They were both having the early symptoms of an asthma attack. air duct clean huarenBy the third day, I also had some chest pain, and I don't have respiratory problems. oransi erik ultra air purifierMy son could not quit coughing after we had the machine in our house for 3 days. novita true hepa air purifierWhen we were out of the house, he was fine. I don't know which is worse, my kids having asthma attacks because of secondhand smoke or my kids having asthma attacks because of the (Ecoquest) Fresh Air."But that's not all. Other popular air cleaners are just as bad. Sharper Image, currently in bankruptcy, settled a class-action lawsuit in 2007 for $60 million after they misled customers about the effectiveness of their Ionic Breeze air cleaner.

The Ionic Breeze also emits ozone and is not recommended for allergy sufferers. And then there's the Oreck XL air cleaner from the infomercials. , one consumer writes: I purchased two of the Oreck XL Professional Air Purifiers after the TV ad. I made the mistake of trusting David Oreck and his ad I'm trying to get a refund and trying to get them to stop taking money out of my bank account. I'll NEVER buy another product that has the name Oreck on it. A true HEPA filter is vastly superior to the Oreck air cleaner. As the collection plates on the Oreck XL become full, the air cleaner loses efficiency, and the plates must be emptied. HEPA filters, on the other hand, need to be replaced only once every five years, and they're guaranteed to capture 99.97% of household allergens. Unlike the Oreck air cleaner, HEPA air purifiers do not emit ozone. As a rule of thumb, if a manufacturer uses the word "ionic" to describe an air cleaner, then it most likely emits ozone. Also be wary of "electronic" air cleaners, as they may emit ozone.

If you suffer from allergies or asthma, trust HEPA air purifiers to safely and effectively remove allergens from your home.In November 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit that the Sharper Image Corporation filed against Consumers Union (CU) over reviews of the Ionic Breeze Quadra air cleaner [1]. The lawsuit, filed in September 2003, concerned articles in the October 2003 and February 2002 issues of Consumer Reports which concluded that the Ionic Breeze was "ineffective" as an air cleaner and produced "almost no measurable reduction CU dismissal motion [2] was filed under California's Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against PublicThe statute, originally enacted in 1992, provides a way for a defendant served with a complaint arising out of constitutionally protected speech to move for dismissal of the lawsuit at the outset—before the personal and financial costs of litigation pile up. Under the statute, a defendant can

immediately bring a "special motion to strike" to force the plaintiff to show that its claims have legal and factual merit, thus placing a heavy burden of proof on the plaintiff. the anti-SLAPP motion, Michael Pollet, CU's long-time general Consumers Union believes the district court will see Sharper Image's lawsuit for what it really is—a meritless case aimed at silencing an honest critic that has held the public's trust for nearly 70 years. We are confident that we will prevail because our magazine's review of the Ionic Breeze is not only protected by the First Amendment, but is fully accurate, as Sharper Image CU's motion also stated that "Because Sharper Image cannot come forward with any evidence from which a finding of malice could be made, this action must be dismissed." contends that there could be no finding of malice because CU's findings are opinions, based upon fully disclosed truthful facts. The challenged article fully discloses Sharper Image's criticisms

of CU's testing procedure. Further support for CU's motion on malice comes from CU's use of two nationally known independent experts who reviewed and validated CU's test protocols, rejected Sharper Image's claims, and confirmed CU's opinions about Sharper Image's criticism, said Joseph W. Cotchett, CU's lead counsel on the defense [2]. In February 2002 issue, CR reported that the Ionic Breeze Quadra air cleaner "proved unimpressive" and that its tests "found almost no measurable reduction in airborne particles." [3] The company complained, maintaining that CR's tests, based on the industry standard for measuring clean-air delivery rateSharper Image replied that the Ionic Breeze technology is "vastly different" from that of other air cleaners and would fare better in a longer test. CR's experts re-examined their test procedures and had them reviewed by an independent expert, who confirmed the validityThis year, in addition to regular tests for

air cleaner Ratings, CR then ran additional long-term tests to find out whether the Sharper Image technology is, as the company says, "so unique" that we have to "look beyond the limiting CADR test protocol" to evaluate it fairly. these in-depth tests, CR tested the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze and the similar Honeywell Environizer against two high-scoring air cleaners, the Friedrich electrostatic precipitator and the In its extended testing, CR gauged how well each air cleaner could handle the periodic introduction of small amounts of pollutant into a sealed test chamber over a 6-hour period. One set of tests used smoke, another fine dust. A second set gauged how well each cleaner worked for the next 17 hours, after the last injectionFor both sets of tests, CR's experts ran the Ionic Breeze and the Environizer on high to maximize performance; others were on low, their quietest setting. CR reported that the Ionic Breeze and the Environizer didn't come close to the performance

CR's experts concluded that they were but ineffective and advised readers that there are much better air cleaner choices In dismissing the Sharper Image lawsuit, the court concluded that the company "has not shown that the test protocol used by Consumers Union was scientifically, or otherwise, invalid," and had not "demonstrated a reasonable probability that any of the challenged statements were false." [1] The dismissal entitled CU to reimbursement for legal fees an costs, for which it collected $525,000 early in 2005. In previous reports, CR has criticized the claims made for ozone-generating "air purification devices" of the type marketed by Living Air, Alpine Industries, and EcoQuest [5]. Californians have filed at least two lawsuits seeking class-action status for consumers who bought Ionic Breeze air purifiers from The Sharper Image during the past five years [6]. In 2005, another class-action suit was filed by Sharper Image stockholders who believe that the company's management withheld information in order to support the price of the company's stock.