Having experienced the phenomenal effect of XionX negative
ion bands for myself, I decided to look into the research behind them to see
how it stacked up.
Of course, there are many manufacturers of negative ion bands and
“balance bracelets” with similar or related claims about how their bracelets
work to produce their balance and strength effects. In the main these come down
to the output of negative ions (anions), which are said to balance the excess
of positive ions (cations) produced by electronic equipment, especially EMF
sources like mobile phones, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices and also by intense
exercise and lifestyle stress.
We'll get onto just how relevant all this is in a minute, but
first of all it is important to say that this is WHY we are testing the XionX
negative ion band in the first place. XionX make a big deal out of the fact
that, of all the various negative ion bands and bracelets out there, their band
produces way more negative ions than any other – claiming a difference of a
factor of 20 (i.e. the XionX negative ion band produces 20 times the number of
ions as other bands). This is clearly a large difference, and seems to be
backed up by examination of the XionX bracelet with a simple ion meter, which
does indeed indicate a far higher incidence of ions present, as measured by the
device! (1-2,000 ions/cc versus 20-50 in other brands)
But what does this mean? Is it significant or is it just a
meaningless fact?
In fact, from a natural health perspective, this makes perfect
sense and is highly significant.
The production of negative ions has long been known to have
beneficial effects. The ions themselves are simply atoms or molecules that have
gained an extra electron, giving them a negative charge. This occurs in nature
from friction, often between air and water.
From sitting by waterfalls, strolling on the beach or just
venturing out after a thunderstorm, we all know that “fresh” feeling that
arises when the air is full of negative ions. Conversely, when the air is full
of positive ions, the opposite is true – air seems stale and dust collects in areas
such as computer rooms, on TV screens and in front of computer monitors, where
a whole new condition known as VODS (Video Operator Distress Syndrome) has been
named. These are all sources of high numbers of positive ions which, as we will
see are not beneficial to health.
Going to the extreme, air that is de-ionized cannot support life,
neither can de-ionized water. Animals raised in air that has been de-ionized
die within 2 weeks. The inability to use oxygen properly is fatal unless
negative ions are added to the chamber they are in, which leads to an immediate
and startling recovery. Conversely, the addition of positive ions to even
sufficient air makes them lethargic (sleepy and uninterested) and has been
shown to negatively affect concentration and brain function. Perhaps this is
why NASA has made sure all spacecraft included ionizers since the earliest days
of space travel.
"...it was concluded
that ionized air prevents weak individuals from early death, increases the
growth of birds and their productiveness (egg lying), helps to assimilate food,
increases general metabolism, raises physical activity, improves reproduction, favorably
affects the composition of blood, increases the resistance of an organism
[animal] and has preventive and therapeutic value in some diseases." (A.L.
Romanoff. The application of artificially ionized air; Science 81 (2109) 536-7.
[1935])
Sounds pretty positive to me, but it doesn't stop there. Negative
ions have been shown to have many, many positive health effects, from reducing
dust, viruses and bacteria (so helping prevent respiratory disease) to
improving sleep patterns, reducing depression and protecting from toxic
chemicals, such as cigarette smoke. Indeed, as one of the key advocates of
negative ion use,
Fred Soyka puts it
“... based on 5,000+ scientific documents that have been published
regarding negative ion studies, all support the conclusion that an overload of
negative ions seems to be beneficial”
So why are negative ions so beneficial, whilst positive ions can
be dangerous?
Well, as far as my limited resources have shown, no-one seems to
have come up with the answer (or even really tried). Some statistics, such as a
reduction in respiratory disease may simply be attributable to the huge
reduction in bacteria, viruses and dust shown by numerous studies, although
there may also be other effects taking place. The scale of these effects (66%
and 78% reduction in sickness days in 2 frequently-quoted studies) is so
enormous that it is virtually unprecedented in its impact.
However, although this is extremely interesting, from a natural
health perspective, the sheer breadth of effects on everything from egg
production to blood composition and immune system function is staggering. The
impact on animals that were otherwise on a certain road to asphyxiation is even
more telling as the use of negative ions was, in that case, literally the
difference between life and death. And perhaps it is this, as well as the seemingly
protective effect against multiple toxins that gives us the biggest clue to how
negative ions benefit health and how negative ion bands might be very
supportive of health.
As many eminent scientists have shown over the years, our bodies
are under assault 24 hours a day from chemicals known as “free radicals”. These
can either come from our environment or be generated within the body itself,
but the effect is the same whatever the source – they “steal” an electron from
another atom or molecule in order to become electrically “stable”, damaging
cells and tissues in the process. Indeed, free radical damage has been
suggested as the main cause in numerous diseases, from ischemic heart disease
(the biggest single cause of death in the western World) to cancer and
autoimmune diseases like ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease).
One of the answers to this has been to introduce antioxidants into
the body, usually via the diet. Antioxidants are naturally occurring chemicals
extracted from fruits and vegetables that readily “give up” a spare electron, neutralizing
free radicals and so preventing them from doing their damage. The protective
effects are very similar to those seen with negative ion bands and generators,
and it is therefore not an enormous leap of faith to think that the effect may
actually be not just similar, but exactly the same.
Perhaps, by providing an excess of negative ions (and therefore
spare electrons), ion generators (and also “negative ion bands”) ensure that
the body has a plentiful supply of electrons ready to neutralize the free
radicals we combat every day, and so prevent the “disease” they would otherwise
cause. This would explain why, for example, it can take an animal up to 2 weeks
to die from being in a de-ionized environment (as the damage over time
gradually increases) but the introduction of negative ions causes a sudden and
dramatic improvement (by neutralizing the free radicals and so preventing any
further damage as well as providing improved oxygen absorption).
Could it really be this simple? Occam's razor states that the
simplest answer is usually the correct one and this simple answer seems to fit
all the boxes about WHY balance bracelets and negative ion bands work. It would
also back up the claims made by the manufacturers of the XionX negative
ion bands that the higher the output of negative ions from such a band or
bracelet, the more beneficial it could be. Of course, the converse would also
then be true – if your band produces little or no ions that could enter your
system, then it is unlikely to help much, either in preventing disease or
improving physical function.
