Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

My wife and I are in our seventies. We live in a 112 year old Victorian home in northern Illinois which, along with its ambience and charm, comes complete with over a century of accumulated dust, dander, pollen and whatever else has wafted its way. We also have two long-haired dogs - a Sheltie and a Golden Retriever. I will warn you up front that I really appreciate those reviewers who actually tell me something about their experience with a product so I always try to do the same. This means I tend to write detailed and lengthy reviews, so if you expect to learn about our experience strap in and get comfortable. My wife has developed a problem that seems to worsen when the weather gets cold and we find ourselves spending more time indoors during the winter: she tends to suffer from nasal and sinus congestion which seems to be particularly acute in the mornings. Over the counter congestion remedies help, but the condition is chronic and quite frustrating. As we entered another winter I began thinking about things I may be able to do to help alleviate the problem and I came upon the idea of trying an air ionizer in our bedroom. I had a passing familiarity with ionizers and the reviews for this particular product were good so I ordered one. I didn't tell her about it - I just got it and plugged it in. Within two days I noticed - and she did as well - that she was no longer waking up congested. Now, understand that I am a lifelong skeptic. I am prone to approach any "new" or "Improved" development - especially when it happens to be involved in the process of trying to sell me something - with more than a little bit of a jaundiced eye. I want to be able to understand it. If you're trying to sell me something, I want you to be able to prove to me that it works. So when this seemed to have a rather dramatic positive effect I did what I should have, by nature, done in the first place: I conducted a bit of research. And I discovered something fairly rare. The information on air ionizers is muddy at best. The best I can do to illustrate this is to reference two points offered in the Wikipedia entry for air ionizers. Air ionizers work by producing negative ions (anions) which are electrostatically attracted to particles in the air. These charged particles are then attracted to a nearby grounding surface such as a filter, a wall or a floor, removing them from the air we breathe. A portion of the Wikipedia article states: "The frequency of nosocomial infections in British hospitals prompted the National Health Service (NHS) to research the effectiveness of anions for air purification, finding that repeated airborne acinetobacter infections in a ward were eliminated by the installation of a negative air ioniser—the infection rate fell to zero, an unexpected result." Unexpected to say the least! A 100% success rate is rare...and remarkable. But the problem here is that, as good as this news is, it is anecdotal. It is not a properly conducted scientific test and therefore must be taken with a large grain of salt. Could other factors have been involved? Certainly. So we can't conclude with complete confidence that this instance "proves" anything. On the flip side, the very next portion of the Wikipedia entry states: "However, a 2013 comprehensive review of 80 years of research into air ions and respiratory function outcomes found that there was no clear support for any beneficial role in respiratory function, nor evidence for significant detrimental effect. In conclusion, 'exposure to negative or positive air ions does not appear to play an appreciable role in respiratory function.'" But read that again carefully. The people who make air ionizers do not actually claim that their product provides any direct "beneficial role in respiratory function" - they claim that it knocks gunk out of the air. Which it does. It is not the exposure to negative ions that makes a difference; it is the demonstrable fact that those negative ions reduce the presence of potentially harmful particles in the air that produces the beneficial outcome. As a result, though the science is admittedly murky, I come down on the side of believing that this ionizer is producing a beneficial effect that has demonstrably - and positively - affected my wife's health. And for that reason I should give this device five stars. Except... Several other reviewers have commented that they found the operating instructions for this device to be either insufficient or confusing. I am going to disagree. The device has three settings and they are clearly described in the accompanying paper. They are: Position 1 - Night light is on, air ionizer is off. Position 2 - Night light is on, air ionizer operates on a motion detector which turns it on for 30 minutes whenever motion is detected. Position 3 - Night light is off, air ionizer is on constantly. These instructions are neither insufficient or confusing - they are STUPID! They describe a major flaw in the basic design of this product: I would guess that a significant percentage of the consumers who purchase this device assume that when the night light is on the ionizer is working and when the night light is off the ionizer is also off. But their assumptions are wrong both ways. When the night light is on, the ionizer MAY be off...or it MAY be in motion sensor mode. The only thing you can know for sure is that if the night light is OFF - the ionizer is ON! And that is a mind-numbingly idiotic design. First off, why in the world would you want the night light ON and the ionizer OFF? The only reason for that is that you just want a night light - and if you paid this kind of money for a night light then - excuse me - but you're an idiot. And conversely, if you want an ionizer but you don't want another glowing doohickey in your room, why not provide a setting on the device where the ionizer is ON while the night light is OFF? I hope the manufacturer is paying attention to the reviews of this device because they need to rethink the fundamental design. A good number of their customers are quite likely using their product thinking that it is functioning because the night light is on and getting no actual benefit from ionization whatsoever. Of course they're not going to think it works...because it isn't working! So our rating is four stars - because while the functional design is weirdly and majorly flawed, it still seems to be doing what we had hoped it would do. I realize that our experience is purely anecdotal and should have little impact on your decision to purchase as it is entirely possible we are experiencing a placebo effect. But given that my wife did not know about the purchase and did not know I had installed the device in our bedroom, the chances of a placebo effect are greatly diminished. Still, coincidental factors could be involved - we did a bit of housecleaning in preparation for the holidays and gave both our dogs a bath recently - but neither would have had a profound effect on our bedroom. In the end, all I can say is that we experienced a desired positive effect from the installation of this device and recommend it. We would recommend it even more highly if the functional design made sense. By the way, if you found this review helpful and/or informative I'd really appreciate it if you'd leave a comment or at least hit the little button that says it was worthwhile. It would be nice to know whether the time I spend doing this is proving to be beneficial to anyone out there. Thanks!