> in article ak9dd4$s1$1 at clam.prodigy.net, David Wright at
>wright at clam.prodigy.net wrote on 8/24/02 8:53 PM:
>>> In article <MPG.17d1c85868a14c179899c5 at news6.bellatlantic.net>,
>> Laura A. Robinson <firstinitiallastname at technologist.com> wrote:
>>> circa 24 Aug 2002 12:24:16 -0700, in rec.pets.cats.health+behav,
>>> Jacqueline (jacquelinejunk at hotmail.com) said,
>>>> 2) Good air cleaners, we'd like to get a variety of plants that
>>>> clean a variety of things out, as we don't know what exactly the
>>>> problem is
>>>>>>> I would invest in some actual air filters/purifiers (speaking as
>>> somebody who is allergic to anything that bears fruit, flower or
>>> fur). Sharper Image has something called the Ionic Breeze; I have
>>> two of them and they're phenomenal. Additionally, you could get more
>>> traditional air filters; I've used several types of those, as well.
>>>> Interesting, because Consumer Reports tested the Ionic Breeze as part
>> of their last ratings of air cleaners (Feb 2002) and found it to be
>> basically useless. They said it removed almost no particles from the
>>>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
>> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
>> "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
>> were standing on my shoulders."
>>>> Y'know, I don't know about the ionizers, but they have said too that
> the HEPA purifiers are not doing anything really but I find that hard
> to believe as when I changed my carbon filters the other day, you
> would not BELIEVE the amount of dust on them that would have been
> floating in the air. I think they must do something. Also, Grant, cat
> with allergies, likes sleeping in that area of the room, which he
> didn't before. Anecdotal, yes, but still gives pause to wonder.
I think Consumer Reports has gone downhill in the last 10 years. Their reviews are less and less detailed, and some are even inaccurate when it comes to items I have had personal experience with. :(