For the Nanobubble Skeptics
| Published: May 8, 2010 – 10:03 am
O, there has been a spate, a flood (pun intended), of messages and web postings asserting that tiny bubbles cannot have any measureable, or even noticeable, effect on the world – especially the enormous world of tiny germs.
This has come up on account of my involvement with Activeion, a company that sells a remarkable set of products: systems combining electronic and hydraulic devices to produce very, very small bubbles in water. Now when we say small, we are talking especially small, on the order of 50 nanometers in diameter. That’s 50 billionths of a meter, which is somewhat less than a ten-thousandth of the thickness of a human hair, or a tenth of the wavelength of green light, for example.
I too was quite skeptical of the existence of what we now call nanobubbles. After all, one cannot easily photograph them with visible light. They are smaller than the lower limit of optical wavelengths.
Nevertheless, compelling calculations show that one in about 250 water molecules can be replaced with an oxygen molecule carrying an electric charge, and a nanobubble will persist for a substantial fraction of a minute.
That aside, I ran my own tests of the efficacy of what has come to be called “activated” water– nanobubble-bearing water. From my direct experiments, I conclude that electrically charged nano-bubbles disrupt the cell walls of bacteria. Rigorous lab test show that they also denature viruses. As you look into this, you may come across the expressions, “bactericidal” and “virucidal.”
In science educator fashion, I baked very clean cotton swabs in an oven at 75 Celsius (170 Fahrenheit) for about an hour. I prepared a bacterial growth medium using boiled bouillon and gelatin cooled in sterile-baked aluminum dishes. I swabbed a number of household surfaces before and after I sprayed them with nanobubble-bearing water. I prepared otherwise untainted control versions of the medium in dishes. I left the dishes covered for three days at room temperature. The treated surfaces produced substantially fewer bacterial colonies on my growth media. My results are consistent with the rigorous results from ATS Laboratories in Minnesota. This lab routinely checks the efficacy of antimicrobial products, the kinds of things used in restaurants, cafeterias, and the like.
While nanobubbles cannot be photographed in conventional fashion, consider these recent micrographs of bacteria. Visit Activeion.com. Use your judgment. See if we’re on to something.
Keep in mind also that the Tennant Company, which supplies floor and surface cleaning equipment to many institutions around the world, has incorporated nanobubble-generating cells in many of their floor washing systems for a few years. Skeptics like you and me have to consider that Tennant’s customers buy these products for some reason.
What I find so appealing about these products is that they are a way to accomplish more with less. As you may know, I strongly believe that this way of thinking is the key to our future. We have almost seven billion people living on what’s proving to be a pretty small planet. If we can find ways to do more with the less, it will help many of us live into the next century.
I’m curious about the source of the water. Was it water straight from the tap? Was it distilled water? I’m also wondering why you didn’t prepare a second control that you sprayed with water that didn’t come from the device in question.
I\’m curious about the source of the water. Was it water straight from the tap? Was it distilled water? I\’m also wondering why you didn\’t prepare a second control that you sprayed with water that didn\’t come from the device in question.
I don’t know if your personal tests were properly performed and reproducible with comparisons with plain water. Is there evidence those cells photographed after the spray were the result of the spray? It sure sounds like Woo Woo to me and at the very least, it will force people to do more with a whole lot less money left in their wallet if they do decide to buy this battery powered water spray bottle.
Sorry but that is how I see it. Although, I did get some entertainment value watching that 9 minute video.
So, if there was a charged oxygen molecule (O2), then where are the 2 molecules of hydrogen (H2). For a 1 in 250 concentration of molecules, I doubt that battery will last very long to separate that many water molecules in that bottle!
I remain very very skeptical, sorry.
Bill,
So far, you’ve only demonstrated that “activated” water is better than nothing. Next, demonstrate that it’s better than chlorinated tap water, and that it’s better than the chemicals it’s advertised to replace.
Customers buy these products because they want “to do more with less,” same reason customers buy into water scams like homeopathy, Kangen water, and water-fueled cars, as well as other too-good-to-be-true scams like perpetual motion machines, dowsing rods, and get-rich-quick schemes.
Here’s a whole website on water scams: http://www.chem1.com/CQ
I hope Activeion’s ionizer works as advertised, but Bill, if anyone gets sick or dies because the ionizer was substituted for a proven disinfectant, you’ll have blood on your hands. Keep that in mind when you receive your paycheck.
Max, I agree. I sure want to know that my safety is not endangered by someone else believing that product works as they claim. I’ll take the proven chemicals and disinfectants over this woo woo water with “nano” bubbles that you can’t see. Now, if you can’t see the bubbles, how do you know the devices is still working if it ever worked? Do you have to taste the water first?. I say this product is VERY DANGEROUS to our safety in many ways. Thanks Bill, the next thing you will be promoting is the ionic shower where you put this device on your shower head and you won’t need shampoo or soap! Then get rid of toilet paper too and just spray after deposit!
Interesting.
I’m not about to invest in it personally, but it looks to me like an idea more than worth looking into, any way to cut the use of harmful chemicals getting dumped down drains (and all over the food at some places… mmm, bleach burger!) is a step in the right direction. To the skeptics… I can see your points, but I must add, nobody in their right minds is going to jump on this as their sole cleaning product until it is well proven and tested, it is an idea and a possibility, buckets of soupy water won’t be out of work any time soon.
im in 5th grade and i am doing a sciuence fair progect aboutdo canines or huimans have more bacteria in their mouths im almost done ill keep you updated with my score
Kell, they are marketing a “commercial” and “industrial” version which has the danger of being used in hospitals and the food industry. There is the harm in this woo!
Could this be a possible answer to the chemical-resistant bacteria that are showing up world-wide? Hmmmmmm……..
Even if Activeion’s ionizer does disinfect with plain water, how does it compare to a cheap steam cleaner?
Wow, that is interesting! I’m guessing your detractors (aka Reality & Max) work for a chemical company, and don’t like this sort of result.
Nope, don’t work for a chemical company. I am a Skeptic and combat the woo forces in the world. This Activeion is woo and a big ripoff. Sorry bill, you got had!
Guess again, Lou. I’ve seen hospital-acquired infections, and don’t like scams that might cause an increase in infections.
From another skeptic site, someone named James said this:
“Nye got $150,000 plus stock options for the endorsement.”
Now, I don’t know if this is true or not but it is a lot of money to endorse something so it is suspect.
You can treat a surface or article as much as you wish, as water vapour leaves no residue and shouldn’t harm it.
Bill,
I was provided by Amazon with one of these units. I have written a review of the product on their website. I wasn’t particularly concerned with the product claims to kill germs, preferring to wait for qualified tests from an unaffiliated lab. The test results provided by Activion were laughable. I was reminded of Groucho’s maxim “who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes”.
My interest was in simply seeing if the thing would do basic cleaning. I tested it against plain old water on a number of surfaces. I really wanted it to work, but the simple truth is that it doesn’t work any better than water alone. Did you try that?
Perhaps there’s something to “nano-bubbles”. Perhaps there’s something to virgin’s tears and eye of newt. I’d prefer to believe that your wish for green overcame the skepticism that you’ve admirably shown in other areas. But as far as I’m concerned, your credibility is damaged. You’ve got work to do.
Bill,
I dont know if you read coments since you dont seem to reply (your a busy guy!) But I hope this technology works as you say it does. If only as a harmless cleaning agent, it would be worthwhile to get some of the poison from going down our drains.
I would describe myself as not wanting to be labeled a “skeptic”, or a “easy believer” but rather a pragmatic realist, I dream, but question my own dreams.
I do wish there was more examples, Beyond the molacule images which while interesting, arent “proof” to me. More like eye witness accounts, which as we know, are the least valid evidence there is. I mean even Windex adverts have a close up showing a “streak free” shine. I don’t recall seeing that anywhere.
Some people say it creates overpriced bleach, from what I see, I disagree, because it seems at worst, it would create TEMPORARY bleach, which is a different thing altogether, much better for the enviroment.
I’ve read Amazon reviews, and most of them arent convincing either way.
If there was any way there was a more evidence, I would be much happier. However your endorcment goes a loooooong way with me so I lean towards believing because you do.
And to the people who comment about the amount you were paid… A) Be as skeptical of some random web post about how much it is as you are of everything else. and B) For freaken Bill Nye’s seal of approval? That’s worth a lot more than the numbers I’ve seen tossed about by faceless names online.
Anyway just wanted to say I’m not 100% with ya Bill, but I am keeping an open mind. And hope for more evidence, beyond the screams of the full time skeptical community.
Aaron
I apologize for the double post, but I had to comment that every positive review on Amazon is attacked in comments (so far mostly by people who seem to have never touched the product)
While some of the people claim things that could be valid, the majority just cement the repliers standing as a “professional skeptic”
Once again, no matter what, Bill Nye is a class act all the way. And if push comes to shove, I’d take his word over some random post or website on the internet.
(sorry for typos before, 4 year old running about made me forget spellcheck!)
AaronB,
Was there another article or something to get these posts started again? I find the so called evidence provided by Bill as laughable. I just don’t think Bill thought this through enough and got scammed!. I saw an infomercial for this product and the whole audience got one of these devices. It was a joke.
By Bill’s absence from replying to us here raises some eyebrows! Even the old king of the Skeptics was surprised at Bill.
Just a couple of comments about Bill’s support of what is almost certainly a well-funded scam.
First, if the description of blown-up E. coli is valid it should be published in the standard way in a refereed journal. Otherwise there is no way to evaluate the work. Valid science is not the product of marketing departments. As Bill well knows.
Second, whether the Activeion actually works or not – and as yet there is no third party testing which has not been paid for by the manufacturer – there is little doubt that the Activeion company has put out misleading and fraudulent hype, including hiring an advertisting agency to post fake reviews on Amazon. This was proven by an Amazon reviewer, link below. Legitimate companies don’t do thing like this. Shame on you, Bill.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R15Z8EHDR451N5/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
See Comment 3.