CPAPtalk.com

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:04 pm

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:01 pm

My position is that their product may not kill anyone, so live and let live. But their commercials and shills just might scare people away from a life-saving treatment. And that motivates me to speak up, despite my better judgment.

I haven't seen their advertisements, so you might be right. If they are doing that, that's pretty sh**ty and I'd have to agree with you. Though it may mean they are scummy and scare mongers... it doesn't mean the machine doesn't work. I'm 100% positive it's not required, but if that is their advertising message, then that's pretty crappy.

We have already established in earlier threads that the machine does not work, since it is not industry-respected levels of power. Although it might be useful for "sterilizing" little pieces of paper, if anyone happens to use little pieces of paper in their treatment for anything.

But it is not our job to prove whether something works. It is our job to point out that no meaningful testing has yet proved that it does work. After that, if someone wants to go out and buy some magic beans to grow a stalk, that's entirely up to them. Maybe it will happen. Maybe it won't. It's their money. Buyer beware.

But if someone comes to this forum and asks me if I'm buying it, I will tell them why I ain't buyin' no beans or SoCleans.

Hey, just me.

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:09 pm

We have already established in earlier threads that the machine does not work, since it is not industry-respected levels of power. Although it might be useful for "sterilizing" little pieces of paper, if anyone uses little pieces of paper in their treatment for anything.

Indeed, the tests that have been touted on the charlatans web page were artificial, not real world... they stuck filter paper on a mask and then tested the paper, instead of doing the real world thing and taking a freshly used mask, swabbing it, running it through their machine, swabbing it again, and then culturing the two samples.

One has to wonder WHY they only tested paper... perhaps it's because even trace amounts of ozone can do a good job sanitizing *PAPER*...

However, I've yet to see a paper cpap hose/mask/water tank.

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:29 am

CapnLoki wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:17 am

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:41 am

Well CPAP machines are actually small compressors, and compressors generate static electricity. Where you have static electricity you have ozone. I’d hope all the important seals are ozone resistant, but maybe they manufacture for planned failure after so many years.

Cpap pumps are actually fans, with brushless DC motors which generate little if any ozone. It sounds like you're just making this up.

The fan is being used to increase the pressure... so it acts like a compressor. There are lots of methods to create a compressor... pistons, diaphragm, etc.

It’s not the motor that generates the ozone, it’s the act of compressing the air... think lots of air friction...

I work in the computer industry, and generally you don’t want to blow compressor air at computers to clean then because of the static.

Gas Dusters have compressed air at 145 psi; a cpap at pressure 10 is at 0.14 psi, or thousand times less pressure. Your case is pretty weak. As I said, you're making things up.

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:09 pm

We have already established in earlier threads that the machine does not work, since it is not industry-respected levels of power. Although it might be useful for "sterilizing" little pieces of paper, if anyone happens to use little pieces of paper in their treatment for anything.

Well that's were I disagree. I looked over those threads and they are lacking in facts. In fact after researching I'm pretty convinced they do a good job of sterilizing the humidifier reservoir at the very least.

Soclean generates 25ppm ozone. In an aquarium we'd be using 0.3ppm to treat pathogens. Here's a handy chart.

0.001 to 0.125 ppm
The natural ozone concentration in air.
0.1 ppm
The typical maximum allowable continuous ozone concentration in industrial work areas and public and private spaces.
0.15 to 0.51 ppm
The typical peak concentration in American cities.
0.2 ppm
Prolonged exposure of humans under typical work conditions produced no apparent effects.
0.3 ppm
The threshold level for nasal and throat irritation. Some species of plant life show damage.
0.5 ppm
The level at which Los Angeles, California, declares its Smog Alert No. 1.; can cause nausea and headaches.
1 to 2 ppm
The level at which Los Angeles, California, declares its Smog Alerts No. 2 (1.00 ppm) and No. 3 (1.50 ppm). Symptoms: headache, pain in the chest and dryness of the respiratory tract.
1.4 to 5.6 ppm
Causes severe damage to plants.
5 to 25 ppm
Lethal to animals in several hours.
25+ ppm
Likely lethal to humans in one hour.

palerider wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:59 am

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:52 am

Perhaps future manuals from manufacturers will NEED to clarify and specifiy what sorts of cleaning are NOT necessary,

That's going to be a long list...
Types of cleaning not necessary:

• 10 minutes in household microwave
• Radioactive steriliation
• Steam steriliation
• flushing with any kind of liquids (that should take care of a bunch)
• 30 minutes in a 350 degree oven
• etc.

So that must mean 9 minutes 59 seconds in the microwave is OK

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:17 pm

. . . Soclean generates 25ppm ozone. . . . 25+ ppm Likely lethal to humans in one hour.

Using the same logic as a SoClean claim, then:

Me imitating the logic of a SoClean commercial wrote:Oh my! So, according to scientific data, if I am using SoClean for an hour, that could potentially KILL me! That's MUCH worse than a few lousy germs! Man, what can I buy to protect me from SoClean?!!! AAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Call 1-800-IMA-SUKA for the Anti-SoClean protection device to make sure you don't die of ozone poisoning.

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:04 pm

I haven't seen their advertisements, so you might be right.

I have seen their TV ads and heard the radio ads. Pretty much qualifies for scare mongering in my book and playing on people's fears and insinuating that if they don't use the device they will maybe get sick and die.

One of my main gripes (there's more than one) is that they promote that they "sanitize the air that you are breathing".
Think about it...they can't do that because even if it nukes everything like they say ....people don't use their cpap when the device is doing the supposedly nuking stuff. That's not safe to do anyway...the breathing of ozone. That's a good way to kill your lungs.

It's room air you get through the machine...the same room air you breathe no matter whether you are using the machine or not.
It doesn't need to be sterilized or sanitized and if it did you got a bigger health problem going on.
It absolutely cannot do anything to the air that you are breathing through the machine...the ozone is gone by the time you turn the machine on (hopefully anyway) and it takes only a couple of breaths for any air that might have been in the mask that was nuked to be replaced by regular room air.

They say they can do (and are doing) something they simply can't do. Plain and simple.
They cannot sanitize the air you breathe and I heard that ad with my own 2 ears and nearly choked when I heard it.
The nuking of the germs/bacteria on the mask or in the hose...I don't know if they do that or not. Not interested in setting up a lab and doing petri dish experiments to prove it and I sure won't be taking their word for it since I already know that they tell bold faced lies with the sanitizing of the air statement. I figure if they tell me one lie...probably wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to tell me more lies and I wouldn't believe them if they told me the sun rose in the East and set in the West without verifying it myself.

Pugsy wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:40 pm

They cannot sanitize the air you breathe and I heard that ad with my own 2 ears and nearly choked when I heard it.

Yes, I can see how that could be misunderstood or taken to mean it does something it doesn't. I could see vulnerable people falling for that type of wording.

On the other hand, a clean and sterilized reservoir, tubing etc, means the air from the cpap does contain fewer pathogens. If your reservoir is full of Serratia marcescens, then you will be breathing that bacteria in much higher than normal concentrations. If you clean your reservoir on a regular basis, you shouldn't get it. If you don't though, once it's established, Serratia marcescens biofilms do hold up against soap to some degree so you might need something like vinegar.

It's equally dangerous to let people think they don't need to clean their CPAP equipment on a regular basis. Especially older people and people with compromised immune systems. If SoClean works and works for some lazy individual who wouldn't otherwise clean their equipment, then that may be a good thing.

I just don't think it's so black and white as it's been made to sound on here. (I can see why people get upset though if they are scaring people out of CPAP therapy.. but maybe they are just scaring them just enough to actually take regular cleaning seriously)

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:53 pm

It's equally dangerous to let people think they don't need to clean their CPAP equipment on a regular basis. Especially older people and people with compromised immune systems. If SoClean works and works for some lazy individual who wouldn't otherwise clean their equipment, then that may be a good thing.

Here's where I have a big problem.
There's "clean" and there is "sanitize". Both verbs and one doesn't necessarily equal the other.
The SoClean device doesn't remove anything...it kills (assuming it does what it says it does which is another different discussion).
It doesn't remove any accumulated facial oils from the mask...it doesn't remove snot, slobber, cough phlegm from the mask.
It doesn't clean anything...in fact they tell you that and promote a nice little product to wash your mask with prior to using the device.
A product they sell...big surprise there.
To me "cleaning" means removing the crud that can get on a mask. Otherwise you just have maybe sanitized/sterile snot, slobber, or whatever on the mask. You happy with that idea???

As for the elderly or someone with a compromised immune system...those are special need folks and they need to be getting with their doctor to figure out whatever is sufficient for their special needs. Not relying on a product that is not always so truthful about what it does or can do. If their doctor thinks the device is sufficient...so be it but they still will need to manually remove any snot, slobber, crud, facial oils from their equipment with soap and water. That's for the patient and doctor to sort out when anyone has special needs.

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:53 pm

If SoClean works and works for some lazy individual who wouldn't otherwise clean their equipment, then that may be a good thing.

That is, from my point of view, the primary lie--that if you use SoClean, you don't have to clean your equipment as often. I do not believe that statement is supported by equipment manufacturers or by science.

You must clean your equipment whether you use SoClean or not. There is no proof--or even hypothetical-based, anecdotal evidence--that SoClean lessens, increases, or in any way affects, influences, or changes the need for actual cleanliness.

If someone buys SoClean in order not to clean as often, then they have just paid 300+ smackeroos for something that, if anything at all, increases their risk of [fill in the blank].

It is circular reasoning of the most illogical sort when the sales pitch is, "that thing is so dirty that you need to buy something that will convince you not to clean so often."

Brilliant!

Pugsy wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:04 pm

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:53 pm

It's equally dangerous to let people think they don't need to clean their CPAP equipment on a regular basis. Especially older people and people with compromised immune systems. If SoClean works and works for some lazy individual who wouldn't otherwise clean their equipment, then that may be a good thing.

Here's where I have a big problem.
There's "clean" and there is "sanitize". Both verbs and one doesn't necessarily equal the other.
The SoClean device doesn't remove anything...it kills (assuming it does what it says it does which is another different discussion).
It doesn't remove any accumulated facial oils from the mask...it doesn't remove snot, slobber, cough phlegm from the mask.
It doesn't clean anything...in fact they tell you that and promote a nice little product to wash your mask with prior to using the device.
A product they sell...big surprise there.
To me "cleaning" means removing the crud that can get on a mask. Otherwise you just have maybe sanitized/sterile snot, slobber, or whatever on the mask. You happy with that idea???

As for the elderly or someone with a compromised immune system...those are special need folks and they need to be getting with their doctor to figure out whatever is sufficient for their special needs. Not relying on a product that is not always so truthful about what it does or can do. If their doctor thinks the device is sufficient...so be it but they still will need to manually remove any snot, slobber, crud, facial oils from their equipment with soap and water. That's for the patient and doctor to sort out when anyone has special needs.

Yup... have to say I agree with all of that. I just don't want people to think if their doctor recommends a soclean for whatever reason, it's 100% snake oil. Also I got a little worried with people talking about pink slime in their reservoir... that's a real issue that should be dealt with.

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:10 pm

. . . I just don't want people to think if their doctor recommends a soclean for whatever reason, it's 100% snake oil. Also I got a little worried with people talking about pink slime in their reservoir... that's a real issue that should be dealt with.

If a doc recommends it, that doc needs a review of the reason for that doc's conduct, since his practice has been unduly influenced by radio and TV ads, or worse.

And if someone has Serratia marcescens in the tank, the solution is to clean the tank, and to do so according to manufacturers' instructions, rather than to base one's actions on the lies of a SoClean commerical.

On a side note, it makes me happy that Pugsy got sucked into this thread.

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:23 am

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:15 am

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:40 am

Anyone have an actual link where ResMed or another cpap manufacturer recommends against soclean? I haven’t found anything in searching.

Actually, it is SoClean itself that recommends against SoClean, since its own disclaimer states:

The SoClean dudes themselves wrote:We are not affiliated or endorsed by any PAP equipment manufacturer.

As far as I am concerned, that statement constitutes game, set, and match in my decision-making.

Sometimes the largest truths get hidden in the smallest of fonts.

That’s just a basic legal requirement... so when they create adapters for ResMed, they don’t get sued for intellectual property reasons. Honestly that doesn’t show anything. Otherwise ResMed could claim by using their name they are attempting to confuse the consumer that it’s a product under their brand. Any lawyer worth his grain of salt would require them to write that.

You mean they have Lawyers worth that much! Jim

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:29 am

The fan is being used to increase the pressure... so it acts like a compressor.

Not to mutate the waters, but my understanding is that the general term in the industry for what produces very mild levels of pressure is often "blower." But the meanings of the words "fan," "compressor," and "blower" may change a bit according to context in some disciplines in order to provide clarity for comparative purposes.

jnk... wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:14 pm

Righteous wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 25, 2018 11:29 am

The fan is being used to increase the pressure... so it acts like a compressor.

Not to mutate the waters, but my understanding is that the general term in the industry for what produces very mild levels of pressure is often "blower." But the meanings of the words "fan," "compressor," and "blower" may change a bit according to context in some disciplines in order to provide clarity for comparative purposes.

That’s my understanding as well... blower may be more accurate. In any case my understanding is that high(ish) velocity air movers generate static electricity in confined spaces. I’m sure it’s tiny and any ozone would be super tiny, but it may still be a design consideration. Honestly I have no idea if they care or think about that. I just stated it as a possible reason they MIGHT use ozone resistant materials (ie it’s not outside the realm of reason)

As an example, we had a server room that was too hot all the time... we ended up adding a bunch of box fans to the room to keep the air moving. In the winter that room ended up having massive static electricity issues from those fans (not fun around servers). That’s just from adding a bunch of low pressure box fans.