Talk:Oxygen bar

message: In the article concerning "Oxygen Bars" there is a statment that the flavored water used to scent the oxygen CAN damage the lungs and cause inflammation etc.  Unfortunately this is not correct.  It has NOT yet been proven in any way shape or form that the scented water causes any ailments to the lung or any where in the body for that matter.  If it did, or if the writer has evidence of this, I am sure that the FDA would loved to be informed.
As it stands now, it is only a theory pushed by opponents of this type of 'therapy'.  While I myself am not a huge fan of Oxygen Bars - stating without proof that the scents can cause lung ailments is bad science and faith. Most complainants are unfounded - such as too much oxygen will be inhaled or that the flavored water causes lung problems.  In the type of atomosphere these things are in, it is highly unlikely - and even the FDA conceeds this - that too much oxygen will be inhaled.  They have really not stated a lot about the use of scents except that perhaps further studies are needed.  And of course, the scents aren't even mandatory - many use them just for further relaxation or for 'proof' that they truely are getting oxygen and are not merely being taken for a ride.
:Actually, there is some rationale for this claim. The scents used in oxygen bars work on the same principle as, say, car air fresheners, which have been demonstrated to be harmful with excessive exposure: they give off oils which saturates the lining of the nasal tract. I'm not saying this is necessarily harmful, but people with conditions like asthma can be very sensitive to it. Sloverlord 00:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise... It's better to be safe than sorry. It's a lot better that taking precautions on things with no medical background than to simply overdose on such. And even if it was simply "flavored water", the flavoring itself is not in of itself, water. Unless the flavoring itself contained NOTHING but the smell itself ( No additives, protectants, preservatives ), you cannot deem the safety of such use in mind. So I think that this part should be in there. I could make a bar where eating grass is good, and since there are no "research" on it, say that there's no way that it could harm me...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.27.88 (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There is an opinion by a lung specialist in the article referenced that "Inhaling oily substances can lead to a serious inflammation of the lungs, known as lipoid pneumonia". No need to inform the FDA, they published the opinion. --RexxS (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: My professional focus is on respiratory pathologies. I'd like to make it very clear that oxygen IS potentially dangerous at high concentrations for extended periods of time. The idea that "too much oxygen" will not be inhaled is, unfortunately, quite false. Oxygen toxicity is very real, and occurs far too often. Even the decreased moisture can be dangerous; think of all the people who get nosebleeds every time they fly in an airplane, and that's without having the oxygen blown directly into their noses. RexxS's recent edits convey the primary message quite succinctly. From my perspective, feel free to debate the addition of scents all you'd like, but it is essential that the message be reinforced that oxygen *is* a drug, and can be very dangerous if used incorrectly. --Adamwpants (talk) 4 January 2009  —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtle Error Or Should I Say "Air"? 

message: It's rather ironic that Oxygen bars in nightclubs claim that their practices are "healthy". After all, if one were truly concerned about health, one wouldn't go to a nightclub. With the noise pollution, air pollution (smoke), and tons of alcohol consumed (although that's a pesonal choice) claiming health benefits as a reason to go to an oxygen bar is silly. Oh yes, and not to forget that staying out late at night is not particularly a healthy habit for the body or mind.
:A) It's not ironic; look up "ironic"; B) "noise pollution" is not proven to be a health risk; C) "air pollution" does not occur at every bar, and most oxygen bars ban smoking for obvious reasons; D) Staying out late is not unhealthy. XINOPH | TALK 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "noise pollution" can indeed be a health risk - exposure to more than 85 decibels of noise can cause permanent hearing damage. Silver (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) This is actually a (rare) correct usage of 'ironic.' 2) Staying up late is most definitely unhealthy. 66.244.80.7 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen Bars...why focus on health? 

message: This version of the article reads too much like an advert, but may contain some relevant and useful information.  violet/riga (t) 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon advert edit 

message: into this article because they are both very small and closely related.
:If you mean this article: Gas duster, then it's for two different purposes. --UNHchabo 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Bottled Air 

message: "oxygen is a strong oxidizing agent" made me laugh
probably a comparison to nitrox diving would be a good Idea. --maayan (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously 

message: Some individuals, however, experience little to no effect from the extra oxygen.
The most popular flavours of oxygen are strawberry and chocolate.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate the practice of adding scents, which can lead to inflammation of the lungs and pneumonia, or inhaling bacteria and other pathogens.
Some companies have also been known to sell "20th century air".
TrevorLSciAct 04:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untill Citations are found for these items I'm keeping them here. 

message: Surely the article should say a lot more about oxygen bars (or whatever they are called there) in Japan, which as I understand it are rather older than the 1990s and are not associated with nightclubs; they are used during the day and are more for people wanting respite from the pollution in Tokyo. Ben Finn 13:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: The section about 7-Eleven and the website that sells canned air in the US is similar to an advertisement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodyhurts01 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: as an ad. Now what I should've done was get off my butt and worked on it, but someone will gradually come along and do that as well. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  kind of an advertisement... 

message: On that one link to that company's site, they say that just 200 years ago, the %02 was at 40% in our atmosphere.  Is this factual in any shape or form? It dosnt have a great deal to do with this article, but I could not find anywheres else where it listed what our o2% was since the start of the Common Era.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.249.0.61 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely untrue. As an example, the FDA reference used in the article quotes Mary Purucker, M.D., Ph.D., a pulmonary specialist in CDER as saying, "We've evolved for millions of years in an atmosphere of about 21 percent oxygen." --RexxS (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of increased O2 in air? 

message: It seems that all of the external links in this article are adverts. Some added by User:COLIAN. Colian is the name of the company set up to market the oxygen bar in France (see ).
Looking at WP:ELNO, they breach points 1,4,5 and probably both parts of WP:EL#ADV. I have therefore removed them. I would strongly urge anyone wishing to add external links to read through WP:EL in its entirety and consider whether the information they wish to link could be written into the article. I would hope anyone adding external links to the article would at least discuss them here first and establish a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I have re-instated this section once more. It was previously reinstated by IP 71.139.183.2 on 1 January 2009 with the summary: "Reinstate removed paragraph; all data within it can be corroborated with the Oxygen Toxicity entry." and then re-deleted by IP 71.237.22.104 on 2 January without any reason given.
I have asked twice at User Talk:71.237.22.104 for the IP user to give edit summaries, and done my best on this page to explain to them how they can collaborate with others to improve this article. I would suggest that changes to the article should be discussed here - or at the very least should contain edit summaries that explain the reason for the change. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the recent round of edit-warring, I've rewritten part of the section to make it clear that the concern is mainly pulmonary toxicity, which (although unlikely) can occur at atmospheric pressure - and I've cited it to help understanding. Perhaps this will be acceptable? If not, please feel free to discuss here. --RexxS (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precautions 

message: I am about to revert (for the second time) a number of links made by , since WP:LINK clearly states:
#Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. This may include plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions.
#Year articles (1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—that is, the events in the year article should share an important connection other than merely that they occurred in the same year.
I can see no justification for linking such commonly understood major geographic features as "Tokyo", "Beijing", "North America", "Canada", "New York", "Florida", etc. - as none of those articles are "particularly relevant to the topic of the article". The link of 1966 is expressly against community consensus (as recently expressed in WP:DATEPOLL). In addition, I believe that in the phrase "Oxygen Bar guests will normally pay $1.00 USD per minute (or for the UK £5 for 10 minutes)", the links to USD and Pound sterling are completely unnecessary, since one or the other of these will be commonly understood by any reader.
I find it distasteful to revert the addition of such inappropriate links for a second time, particularly as I took the time to explain to the IP user why these links should not be made. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking common terms 

message: Oxygen supplements might be the autism treatment of the future.
New insights provided by clinical psychologists active in the field
of neurology, indicate that the ailment wich has up till now allways
been asociated with genetic defects, might be a physiologic impairment
of the main arteries, leading up to the brain.
"Ruptured muscles make for a constricted blood flow" argues one clinical psychologist,
"and a bottleneck effect may occur as the remainder of the muscles have more
weight to carry, thus a bottleneck effect may occur that puts the hemoglobine
under pressure and releases all the oxygen when blood flows past the obstructed area 
releasing the oxygen from the red blood cells."
Accoarding to the specialist, the addition of supplement oxygen in autism patients
may negate the effects of oxygen deficiëncies, 
wich include less oxygen for the production of adenosine triphosphate
in braincell tissue.
"Rigid behaviour patterns can´t stay out," explains the klinical psychologist,
as the cells involved oftenly discontinue and disrupt their activities to protect
against overheating, "braintissue goes to sleep mode to preserve itself from too much
stress".
"Minor usage of oxygen supplements, of say, a few inhalations per our,
would be prepherable to the current treatments for
ADD wich is low dosage of amphetamine, wich increases the oxygen intake of the cells.
Having less oxygen to begin with however, means that the dosage is oftenly increased
to maintain the desired effects, leading up to a full blown addiction oftenly seen in
the schoolyards of the US and the EU, where rythalin is solld to fellow pupills as
a drug.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketejan (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Oxygen therapy. I can't see that oxygen bars are likely to be the treatment venues of choice for autism (or any other ailment for that matter). --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen versus Autism 

message: Nowhere in this article does it state what the effects are when using Oxygen in this manner. Does it make you feel anything? Does it make you feel nothing? Why do people do it? etc etc
Yes possible health benefits/consequences are named, but nothing is mentioned as to why people use it recreationally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.0.201 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to ascertain why people use oxygen bars, one can only presume that people believe the hype put out by the vendors of oxygen bars. I won't dignify the site with a link, but you can search Google and quite quickly find a website that claims that "300 years ago the Oxygen content in the air we breathe was over 38%". If folks believe such utter rubbish as that, they will probably also believe the other nonsense (e.g. oxygen "helps you rave all night long" and "counteracts the effects of ageing", etc.) When scuba diving, I regularly breathe oxygen at much higher partial pressures than those encountered in oxygen bars and I can assure you that it doesn't make you feel anything. Nevertheless, it is well-known that subjects often experience a given effect because they are expecting to feel it, and that helps explain the difference between anecdote and data. It is quite certain that no properly conducted studies have shown any evidence for the sort of claims made. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presumably people do feel something, else why would they pay for it?  And your enjoyment of the scuba diving may well be enhanced by the oxygen, but you might not realize it.  In any case, I know I once got oxygen during an anxiety attach and it felt amazing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects 

message: (((((Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists says that "As health professionals, we cannot ethically or morally support providing oxygen therapy to those who do not require it."))))))
these canadian therapists are twisted.  they are saying that it is morally right to deny people like you and me a little extra of something that is every living thing's right to have given to us by G*d himself because it is not a matter of life and death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.157.14 (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is something that we should clean up.  We shouldn't have ethic or moral based judgements in these articles, but should strive for 
an informative and neutral position.  A Hard-copy encyclopedia would never insert statements like that into an article, and it does not provide
information, but only opinion- as it states "ethically, or morally".  
174.101.148.118 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Regulations

message: I've restored the article to the state that it was in prior to  by an IP which removed well sourced criticism of oxygen bars and substituted unsourced promotional garbage. Rubbish like "Today, cutting edge researchers believe that even relatively healthy people may have trouble extracting all of the oxygen that they need from the air." should make it obvious that  had no interest in improving the article and merely wanted to use it to encourage the gullible into these establishments.
I don't think anything vital has been lost as I've found an archived version of the page which became a dead link. With all due respect to Lotje, I don't think that reflinks improved the article with . "|publisher=Books.google.com" ought to be a red flag and should have been spotted before accepting the edit. Please feel free to reinstate the other reference changes if you feel that the article benefits from using cite templates, though. --RexxS (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring previous version 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oxygen bar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090619205117/http://www.bsudailynews.com:80/home/search/ to http://www.bsudailynews.com/home/search/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified