Allergy Consumer Review Issue #44

In This Issue

Review of sebo vacuum cleaner - upright vacuum with best rating

Air Purifiers for Bedroom Odors - Tales from Customer Service

Hunter Humidifier Review - new models

Spicy Odors - settling a law suit the right way.

Smokers Choice for air purifiers

Ozone machines and the FDA

Government Update on Alpine Air purifiers

Cat odors

Hypoallergenic Cats for cat allergy

Better cat food, less cat dander?

Allergy Relief Products

Review of SEBO vacuum cleaner
Upright vacuum with best rating
by Mercia Tapping, President, AllergyBuyersClub.com

Rating: Excellent.
Category winner for upright vacuum cleaners
Sebo vacuum price: $449.00

Pluses:

1. We found the sebo x1 upright vacuum cleaner a delight to use. It moves effortlessly.
2. The sebo is a moderately quiet vacuum cleaner compared to other upright vacuums, and certainly would not be considered noisy.
3. The sebo will shut off if the roller is jammed. This is not only a safety feature, but it eliminates the potential of destroying the vacuum belt and motor.
4. We found it very easy to clean the roller.
5. The handle on the sebo x1 can be lowered to the ground to allow for vacuum cleaning under beds, dressers, etc. This feature was appreciated by all of our testers.
6. The sebo vacuum has excellent suction, surprisingly so for an upright lightweight vacuum cleaner. Our testers reported that you never have to go over an area twice.
7. It is easy to change over to the different vacuum attachments and use them, which we have found unusual for an upright vacuum cleaner.
8. The hose can be removed as you go to do your dusting and get under the heating system without having to stop and retrieve other attachments. One of our testers was delighted with "on the fly", close quarter vacuuming and dusting.
9. For an upright vacuum cleaner, we found the sebo cleans the bare floors very effectively, which is one of the most often heard criticisms of upright vacuums.
10. The sebo vacuum has a large vacuum cleaner bag (1.4 gallon).

Minuses:

These were difficult to find.

1. The sebo vacuum is a little bulky and heavy to carry upstairs compared to canister vacuums, but not to most other upright vacuum cleaners. It is the lightest upright vacuum we have tested.
2. The vacuum noise is moderate but not overbearing. You are able to hear the phone ring.

Summary

Everyone who has tested the sebo x1 upright vacuum cleaner has given it rave reviews. All our testers have voted it as their hands down favorite vacuum. We have sold the sebo x1 for over two years with zero complaints and zero returns. That is a pretty impressive track record. It is a powerful, HEPA upright vacuum cleaner and built to last for 15 to 20 years. In our book they cannot get much better.

Top

Q. Via email:
Subject: RE: air purifiers

Hi. I found your site on Google and really like your info and analysis. One question that I did not find: which bedroom-sized air purifier would best to remove the smell of farts? Sorry to be so indelicate. I share a bedroom and this is a really important issue for me. The weather is getting cold and I'll have to close the windows soon.

Thanks! J

A.

Hi J,
I would agree this is a delicate subject.

Without getting too technical, human gas is mainly methane. Unfortunately, methane is not able to be adsorbed by gas filter media such as carbon. However, an air purifier with a good gas filter would help to some extent but I cannot guarantee it will alleviate the odor altogether.

The best air purifier would be the IQAir HealthPro Plus for $699.99. This is our most efficient air cleaner for particulate removal and it also has a very effective gas filter for gases and odors.

Another good air purifier would be the Clarifier for $499.00. This unit contains 15 pounds of charcoal and zeolite for the adsorption of gases and odors.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Thank you,

Dave Barnaby
AllergyBuyersClub.com Staff

More information on the IQAir air purifier or Clarifier air purifier.

Top

Editor's Note: Hunter have a zero inventory policy making it difficult to deliver these humidifiers in a timely manner. So if you want one be prepared to wait, and if you do not, consider yourself lucky.

For this season's updated Humidifier Comparison Chart.
Hunter Humidifiers. (models 34255, 33257, 34355) from $109.95

Pluses:

• The patented Permawick filter system is still clearly the feature which makes these Hunter humidifiers shine. This allows you to only have to clean the filter once per season, a boon in any busy household. It also ensures that even the laziest of humidifier owners will not cause bacteria to be discharged into their environment.
  
• The new built-in digital humidistat allow for a precise monitoring of humidity levels which prevents over humidification, all too easy to have happen. In fact, we find that built-in humidistats reduced the amount of water used by our testers, before needing to refill the humidifier with water.
  
• The new Hunter Nite-Lite models have an optional feature (you can turn them off ) which appeals to parents for the baby nursery humidifier or for all those who stumble around in the night and have poor night vision.
  
• The water level in the Hunter humidifier is always very easy to visually monitor.
  
• All these Hunter humidifier models have an auto shutoff feature, which we like from the safety perspective.
  
• The 5 year limited warranty on these are unusually long, probably speaking to the need to build up consumer confidence after a 2001 recall of a previous Hunter humidifier model. It is a great deal for the consumer as far as we are concerned. Humidifiers of this price point are notorious for breaking down.

Minuses:

• A cool Mist humidifier often feels a little "cool" to people in the North East in winter season and for that reason might prefer a Warm Mist.
  
• Cool Mist humidifiers work best if they are run continuously as they seem to take up 2- 6 hours to reach required humidity levels (35-45%) even in a fairly confined space.
  
• Last year, Hunter called these humidifiers "Whisper Quiet" and have wisely dropped that tag line to "Care Free". There have been considerable improvements in noise level in these Hunter models over the past year, but they are still not noise free. We no longer think of them as "noisy" but for the really noise sensitive, this would not be the humidifier of choice. You can still hear them switching themselves off and on, if you listen very closely.
  

Summary:

Despite some minor gripes, we think that Hunter has managed to come out with three new real humidifier winners. We do think the consumer will get confused with the choice of about 20 different models and will not be able know which model they are buying unless they are really paying attention. We have chosen only to feature the top three models, as we think when people examine the benefits of the new Hunter humidifier models, they would be disappointed with the others.

Incidentally, I personally recommend setting a humidifier to 35 to 45%, which is comfortable, without being high enough to encourage mold or dust mites.

Review by customer of Hunter humidifier model 34355

Hi Mercia,

Well, here is the report on the first night. I set the unit up -- took no time. Placed it in the corner nicely hidden. I ran it early on high setting as the instructions suggested then turned it down to low fan setting. My partner came to bed at 11pm and eventually said, "oh, by the way, when are you going to set up that humidifier I want to see how much noise it makes and whether I can tolerate it." I guess that tells the story, because I didn't tell him it was already running until this morning. You will probably address this in your newsletter, but at what setting do you suggest one set the humidistat in order to have a comfortable room and not deal with any of the negatives of setting it too high?

Thanks. TB

See all Hunter humidifiers at AllergyBuyersClub.com

Top

Spicy Odors - settling a law suit the right way.

Bob on our AllergyBuyersClub.com Staff recently had a lawyer call him about a client who had won an $1,800 judgment against his duplex neighbor whose spicy cooking odors were making him sick.

The lawyer wanted to know if we might have a solution to remove these odors. His reasoning was that the $1,800 paid to either the courts or the plaintiff would penalize someone but leave the problem unsolved. And taking an intelligent approach he wanted to solve the problem.

Bob's solution was an IQAir GC Multigas, an air purifier specifically designed for odor and gas removal that also has very good particulate removal. He suggested that the unit be placed in the kitchen where the spices were being used since it is most effective to capture odors, gasses, and particles at the source before they dissipate into the air.

The odor problem was solved at about ½ the cost of the judgment.

Another alternative machine for this problem would have been the Clarifier at $499 which has plenty of carbon fill.

http://www.allergybuyersclubshopping.com/iqairgcseries.html
http://www.allergybuyersclubshopping.com/car20airpur.html

Top

Editor's Note: I wrote to Jim and told him that I did not think he would be 100% satisfied with any air cleaner. That being said, we tried to answer his question.

Q. I'm ready to buy 3 air cleaners. From you, if you can help and convince me.....

I need help in selecting a model. Every manufacturer has evidence why theirs is the best solution. I'm tired of researching. Please pick the models best for my application and explain why.

I'm going to do the same with a several competitive manufacturers that use the same and different technologies as well, then I'm going to buy 2 for application #1 and 1 for application #2. I've already read all about filtering, air flow, ozone, particle sizes, noise, maintenance costs, efficiency and energy draw, maintenance frequency, effectiveness longevity....

I'm also looking for a good price, but effectiveness is most important. I will spend up to US$2000 for all 3 but were I to just pick units from different companies based on what I have already read, I would probably end up spending US$400 each for application#1 (2 of them) and US$200 for application #2, for a total of only US$1000.

I'm only interested in removing the affects of indoor cigarette smoking under the following 2 conditions (different solution for each condition).

APPLICATION 1:
600 Sq Ft. apartment, nearly continuous cigarette smoking, 6 hours a day.
Noise is not a big issue. Efficiency is not an issue. I will only run it when people are smoking, perhaps an hour or so after.
Most of the time, the apartment is vacant.

APPLICATION 2:
1000 Sq. Ft. living room.
I just want to be able to smoke in the house, while sitting on the sofa watching TV, 1 to 2 cigarettes an hour, several hours a day. I can sit right next to the unit if that will help. Noise is an issue. It must be quiet so as not to disturb the person sitting next to me watching TV, since the unit will likely be right next to them if it is right next to me.

In both applications 1 and 2, I want to make sure the smoke actually gets captured, because I don't want it settling down into the furniture and carpet. I do not want to "mount" either unit. Frequency of cleaning is not an issue, I'll clean it everyday if needed. I don't want to have to frequently buy new filters because if that is the case, it just won't get done and the unit will end up useless.

I prefer to be contacted only by E-mail, but you are welcome to send information by regular mail. Consider that I wish to make a decision within the next 3 days.

A. Hi Jim,

We do have a number of units to choose from when considering cigarette smoke. These would be the IQAir GC Multigas, Clarifier, Allerair 5000 D/S, Austin HEGA, and the Blueair 501 with the smokestop filters. The Blueair 501 and the Austin HEGA would be for under 600 square foot applications, so I would not recommend these for your #2 applications.

For application number one, the IQAir GC Multigas would be the number one unit. This unit will have the particulates including the smoke particles filtered out by the H11 filter. This will enable the four gas filter cartridges to be available to adsorb the gases and odors from the cigarette smoke. The final filter is a post filter sleeve, which will prevent any of the carbon particles from the gas filter breaking off and being disbursed into the room. The price is $949.95. There will be filters to change but this unit will tell you when with a reminder light so you will not forget to change them. Also, the indicators will eliminate any guesswork.

A good second choice would be the Allerair 5000 D/S double smoke unit which will have 21 pounds of activated carbon to adsorb a great deal of chemicals, gases, and odors resulting from the cigarette smoke. The price is $599.95. This also has expensive filters to change and the unit will not tell you when they will need to be changed.

For application number two, I would recommend either the IQAir GC Multigas or the Clarifier. The reason I would not recommend the Allerair is because the unit is noisier than the IQAIR or the Clarifier. The Clarifier would cost $499 and contains 15 pounds of activated carbon to adsorb the gases and odors. It is the most cost effective choice. However, my first choice, if price was not a factor, would still be the IQAir GC Multigas because of the fact the particulates of smoke will be removed by the H11 filter thus allowing the pores in the gas filter to be able to concentrate on the gases and odors. Smoke is made up of millions of tiny particulates and they will clog the pores of carbon in a gas filter very quickly.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
Dave Barnaby
AllergyBuyersClub.com Staff.

http://www.allergybuyersclubshopping.com/airpurifiers.html#voc

Top

Ozone machines and the FDA
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access (CITE: 21CFR801.415)

Code of Federal Regulations
(Title 21, Volume 8) (Revised as of April 1, 2002)

Sec. 801.415 Maximum acceptable level of ozone.

(a) Ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy. In order for ozone to be effective as a germicide, it must be present in a concentration far greater than that which can be safely tolerated by man and animals.

(b) Although undesirable physiological effects on the central nervous system, heart, and vision have been reported, the predominant physiological effect of ozone is primary irritation of the mucous membranes. Inhalation of ozone can cause sufficient irritation to the lungs to result in pulmonary edema. The onset of pulmonary edema is usually delayed for some hours after exposure; thus, symptomatic response is not a reliable warning of exposure to toxic concentrations of ozone. Since olfactory fatigue develops readily, the odor of ozone is not a reliable index of atmospheric ozone concentration.

(c) A number of devices currently on the market generate ozone by design or as a byproduct. Since exposure to ozone above a certain concentration can be injurious to health, any such device will be considered adulterated and/or misbranded within the meaning of sections 501 and 502 of the act if it is used or intended for use under the following conditions:

(1) In such a manner that it generates ozone at a level in excess of 0.05 part per million by volume of air circulating through the device or causes an accumulation of ozone in excess of 0.05 part per million by volume of air (when measured under standard conditions at 25 (deg) C (77 (deg)F) and 760 millimeters of mercury) in the atmosphere of enclosed space intended to be occupied by people for extended periods of time, e.g., houses, apartments, hospitals, and offices. This applies to any such device, whether portable or permanent or part of any system, which generates ozone by design or as an inadvertent or incidental product.
(2) To generate ozone and release it into the atmosphere in hospitals or other establishments occupied by the ill or infirm.
(3) To generate ozone and release it into the atmosphere and does not indicate in its labeling the maximum acceptable concentration of ozone which may be generated (not to exceed 0.05 part per million by volume of air circulating through the device) as established herein and the smallest area in which such device can be used so as not to produce an ozone accumulation in excess of 0.05 part per million.
(4) In any medical condition for which there is no proof of safety and effectiveness.
(5) To generate ozone at a level less than 0.05 part per million by volume of air circulating through the device and it is labeled for use as a germicide or deodorizer.

(d) This section does not affect the present threshold limit value of 0.10 part per million (0.2 milligram per cubic meter) of ozone exposure for an 8-hour-day exposure of industrial workers as recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.

(e) The method and apparatus specified in 40 CFR part 50, or any other equally sensitive and accurate method, may be employed in measuring ozone pursuant to this section.

FTC 1998.
While the filter's efficiency is a factor in assessing the effectiveness of an air purifier in particulate removal, this figure overstates the actual effectiveness of the air purifier in removing pollutants from the air in a user's environment. The actual effectiveness of an air purifier depends on a variety of factors including, the amount of air that the air purifier processes, the nature of the pollutant, and the rate at which the pollutant is being introduced into the environment.

Additionally, there is no guarantee that an individual who suffers from allergies or other respiratory problems will derive a discernible reduction in symptoms through the use of these or other air purifiers. Whether individuals will derive such relief depends on many variables, including the source and severity of their allergies, whether the allergens at issue tend to remain airborne, the rate at which the allergens are emitted into their homes or offices, and other environmental factors.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1998/9808/9623154cmp.htm

Top

Government Update on Alpine Air purifiers
from MLM Watch Home Page

This article was revised on March 13, 2002.
Alpine Industries Ordered to Stop Unsubstantiated Claims for Ozone Generators

Alpine Industries, of Greeneville Tennessee, manufactures various consumer and commercial products and markets them through independent distributors. Its best known products are air-purification devices -- ozone generators that circulate room air through an electrically charged plate. The plate converts the oxygen into ozone that is recirculated into the room by a fan in the unit (1). The company states that its distributors have sold more than three million of its air-purification systems since 1987 (2).

In January 2000, a federal court ordered the company to stop making health claims for its ozone generators (3,4). In April 2001, the judge assessed a civil penalty of $1.49 million plus costs and interest against Alpine Industries and its president William J. Converse. The court also entered an injunction barring Alpine and Converse from making any claims that the "air purifiers" sold by the company remove any indoor air pollutant, except for "visible" tobacco smoke and some odors. It also cautioned the defendants that they cannot represent that these claims mean that the devices actually remove chemicals, particles, or microorganisms from indoor air. Finally, the court barred the defendants from claiming that their products prevent, or provide relief from, medical conditions of any kind or that sensors in the machines control the ozone levels in indoor spaces (5-7).

Background History

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits ozone exposure in industrial settings to 100 parts per billion (ppb) over an eight-hour day, six days per week. The FDA has set a limit of 50 ppb for the ozone from electronic air cleaners used as medical devices (1). This standard would apply whenever such a device is marketed in interstate commerce with claims that it is effective in preventing, curing, mitigating, or treating any disease. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded:

"Available scientific evidence shows that, at concentrations that do not exceed public health standards, ozone is generally ineffective in controlling indoor air pollution. The concentration of ozone would have to greatly exceed health standards to be effective in removing most indoor air contaminants (8)."

In 1990, Alpine issued a recall under which 13,000 units of its Air Electronic Air Purifier, Model 150, were fitted with smaller ozone-generating plates to reduce their ozone output. The FDA stated that this was done because the device could generate ozone in excess of the 50 ppb limit established in 21 CFR 80.1415 for devices that generate ozone by design or as a by-product (9).

In 1992, when Alpine and a sister company named Living Air Corporation were located in Minnesota, Consumer Reports rated their ozone generators "not acceptable" because they generated unsafe levels of ozone. The report also noted that in 1991, in a civil action, a Minnesota state court had found Alpine Air Products and its president had improperly claimed that ozone (a) was safe and necessary indoors, (b) had positive health benefits, and (c) had posed no risk to people with respiratory problems, and (d) that Alpine air cleaners emitted only low and harmless levels of ozone (1).

Consumers Union tested an Alpine 150 unit purchased before the Minnesota court ruling and a Living Air XL15 after the ruling. The test found that the Alpine 150 produced 90 to 180 ppb with its regular plate and 625 ppb with its power plate. The Living Air XL15 was tested for three sizes of rooms that were either sealed or had one air exchange per hour. The levels dropped below 50 ppb only for the smallest room that underwent one air exchange per hour. Consumer Reports concluded:

"Ozone generators have limited value in unoccupied spaces. But we don't think they belong where people breathe (1)."

"You may be able to improve the air quality inside your house without spending hundreds of dollars on an air cleaner. Just opening a few windows or using the kitchen exhaust fan may do the job. In addition, you should do what you can to minimize or eliminate sources of air pollution (10)."

For those who feel they must have an air cleaner, the magazine recommended choosing an electrostatic or high-efficiency-arresting (HEPA) model designed to clean a whole room. The models tested by Consumer Reports are no longer marketed. According to the company's attorney William A. Erhart, the product was redeveloped with a better type of ionizer and a HEPA-like filter (11,12). Attorney Erhart also contends that Consumer Reports got an artificially high reading by testing the device at its maximum output rather than by following the instructions for normal use (12).

Federal Enforcement Actions
In 1995, the FTC charged that Alpine and Living Air were making unsubstantiated representations. The case was settled with a consent agreement in which the companies and their president, William J. Converse, agreed not to make unsubstantiated claims that:

* Their products eliminate or clear specified chemicals, gasses, mold, mildew, bacteria and viruses, or dust from the environment.
* The use of ozone is more effective than air cleaners using filters in cleaning or purifying indoor air.
* The products do not create harmful by-products.
* The products prevent or provide relief from allergies, asthma, and other specified conditions (13).

Violations of FTC consent agreements can trigger penalties of up to $11,000 per day per violation. (In 1995, it was $10,000 per day.) In December 1997, at the FTC's request, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal court suit charging that Alpine had continued to make claims for which it lacked competent scientific evidence (14). A product brochure, for example, had stated:

"ARE YOU LIVING IN A SICK HOUSE? And is it making you sick too? Many otherwise unexplained physical ailments can probably be traced to dust, various chemicals, bacteria and a host of other airborne pollutants trapped inside with you -- inside where you spend 90% of your time..."

"Revitalize your indoor air at home with the power of a Living Air Model 880. The 880 replicates nature by emitting ozone and negative ions into the air. This effect, the same one created by a thunderstorm or waterfall, freshens otherwise stale indoor air by oxidizing airborne pollutants and knocking down floating particulate (15)."

The case was tried in October 1999, after which the jury issued a verdict that generally favored the FTC but supported claims that Alpine's generators could eliminate or reduce odors. The jury also concluded that the devices could remove visible tobacco smoke but not the airborne particles or gasses in the smoke. On January 10, 1999, a federal judge issued an injunction barring Alpine from making any claim or representation that:

* Any Alpine product can eliminate, remove, clear, or clean from indoor air any quantity of any pollutant, contaminant, microorganism (including bacteria, viruses, molds, and mildew), chemical or particulate, with the exception of "tobacco smoke"
* Alpine's products prevent or provide relief from any health or medical condition of any kind
* The sensor installed on any of its air cleaning machines is capable of controlling the ambient level of ozone in indoor air.

The injunction also ordered the company to notify its distributors of the ruling (4).

Shortly this order was issued, Alpine sold its marketing operations to EcoQuest International, a new corporation. Michael Jackson, who had been Alpine's vice president in charge of marketing, was the purchaser. It also issued a statement that:

"The jury was not judging the effectiveness of Alpine's products only the depth of Alpine's scientific evidence. This is an important distinction. A more accurate accounting of the verdict is that the jury agreed with the government's contention that Alpine did not have sufficient, reliable scientific evidence to support these claims. Once the new research is complete, we hope to have substantiation on additional product benefits. Until then, we encourage our customers to use the three-day product trial period to determine what personal benefits they might receive (16)."

Alpine's reference to the three-day trial period is interesting. In January 1999, Convergys Marketing Research and Database Consulting Services interviewed 800 purchasers whose names were selected from a random sample of warranty cards that had been sent to Alpine during the previous two years. The survey found: (a) 94% of the purchasers bought the product after taking advantage of the free in-home trial; (b) based on the trial -- 98% had concluded that the product was extremely effective in reducing odors, reducing dust, pollen, and other particles, and reducing molds, mildews, and bacteria; and (c) 97.2% were satisfied with the product at the end of the three-day trial (17). Attorney Erhart included this report with a letter to me in which he stated that "97% of the people who purchase the product are satisfied." (11) The obvious question is why the survey didn't ask how the customers felt later. To measure customer satisfaction, the proper approach would be to ask how the purchasers felt about the device after at least a year rather than three days. The Convergys survey was guaranteed to find a high satisfaction level among new purchasers, because dissatisfied users would have been unlikely to buy the device. Moreover, short-term satisfaction is not a reliable indicator of effectiveness against the symptoms of allergy, which can vary considerably from day to day and season to season.

On April 11, 2000, the FTC and U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion asking the court hold Alpine, Converse, Jackson, and EcoQuest in civil contempt. The government's motion alleged that Alpine and Converse had violated the January order by making prohibited claims about their ozone generators and that Jackson and EcoQuest, although not specifically named in the order, are bound by its terms (18). The judge agreed (7,19). His $1.49 million penalty represents $1,000 per day for 1,490 days of "continuing failure to obey" the 1995 order against making unsubstantiated claims (5).

Alpine now describes the judge's verdict as a "victory" for the company because the judge established a method for presenting the FTC with evidence supporting its air-purification equipment (20). However, the judge merely said that (a) the FTC would have to respond in timely fashion; and (b) if the agency rejects the evidence, Alpine can appeal to the court (7). The standard necessary for modifying injunction is still "competent and reliable scientific evidence."

For Additional Information on Ozone Generators
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Statement
* Questions and answers. Air cleaners designed to intentionally generate ozone (ozone generators)

Top

Cat Odors
Answers by Mercia Tapping, President, AllergyBuyersClub.com

From: Sherri

Mercia,
I wasn't able to open your suggestion page for keeping allergies at bay when living with cats. Will you please cut and paste and send it or make another suggestion on how to open this page?

I have a small apartment - very open - and have just "adopted" a second cat. The odor of the litter itself is overwhelming to me (even the clean litter and I've tried several kinds) the dander of course is a second runner up to allergens.

I am searching for a quiet cleaner that will keep the odor under control and allow me to breathe much easier. Suggestions?

thanks. Sherri

Sherri,

The first suggestion I would make about cat litter odor is to buy premium clumping cat litter. I buy EVERCLEAN from Petco at a disgustingly expensive price, after figuring out the supermarket brands are worse than useless. I clean out the clumps on three huge pans on an every other day basis for my two busy Siamese cats.

At home, I use a IQAir Healthpro plus for odor control with great success. Another solution which is less costly ($200 less) and possibly more effective would be the plain carbon Clarifier.We have been using the Clarifier unit in our offices in a room where there used to be a terrible musty odor. The amount of carbon in it would probably last a good long time. My only beef with the Clarifier units is I personally would need one of the guys to change the filter. I am fumble fingered with screwdrivers and have arthritis. I need my husband to open the screw tops on jars for me! Both units have controls to adjust noise levels

http://www.allergybuyersclub.com/acr/acr_34.shtml This is the link to the previous issue of the newsletter where I revisited how to live with cats.

Good Luck.
Mercia Tapping,
http://www.allergybuyersclubshopping.com/iqair.html

Answer to question on odor control for cats and choosing between the Clarifier and Blueair.

Sue,

If I had to choose between the Clarifier and the Blueair for odor control of any kind the winner would be the Clarifier unit. Although the Blueair is very quiet, and now the smoke stop filters have more carbon in them, nevertheless the Clarifier unit is has much more carbon and therefore would be more effective in cat odor. It has an excellent HEPA filter and would also do a first rate job of filtering out the cat allergen.

Good Luck.
Mercia Tapping

http://www.allergybuyersclubshopping.com/car20airpur.html

Top

Hypoallergenic Cats

EDITOR'S NOTE: Hypoallergenic cats are not allergy free cats, but it is possible they produce less dander and the allergy causing protein. I found this web site interesting and worth publishing.

Dear Mercia,

I'd like to put up a link from website about Siberian cats to your page http://www.allergybuyersclub.com/acr/acr_34.shtml#2 about living with cats at allergy buyers club. May I?

I am trying to keep as much info as possible for the allergic person who wants cats, and this sort of information I don't have well written up or linked. I prefer links to good sources because it is independent and offers outside resources.

As a cat lover, you might also be interested in reading about Siberian cats, by the way.

Thank you,
Kit

http://home.comcast.net/~siberian_cats/
http://home.comcast.net/~siberian_cats/aresiber.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~siberian_cats/comment3.html

Top

Better cat food, less cat dander?

Editor's Note: I found myself wondering after this email as to whether my own drop in cat allergy reaction could be in part due to the small fortune I spend on high grade food for my pampered Siamese cats. I feed mine Nutro Natural Choice and I notice they rarely vomit any more so it must be better for them right? One of my cats has much less visible dander, too.

Dear Mercia,

Thanks for your article on cat allergies. I have 3 cats of my own and fortunately, am not (very) allergic to them. But plenty of my friends and relatives are. Recently, I switched my cats away from the usual commercial food to a pet store brand called Wellness, which has only what are called "human grade" ingredients. Since the switch-over, I have noticed a significant drop in dander in my cats' coats and some of my visitors have also said that their allergy attacks were less severe when they were over.

One theory about why cats are so allergenic is that it is because of the food we feed them -- which has really nasty stuff in it. If we ate what they ate, people would be allergic to us, too.

Thought you might be interested in this. They say that the bad commercial pet food might also be a contributing factor in the recent rise of cancer cases in pets.

Roberta Newman