You're aware of carcinogenic risks of meat and alcohol yet you likely still consume both? I doubt 10 fewer seconds of ionization a day will compensate for the few years of your life lost to those.

You are aware of the term Whataboutism because that is essentially what you're doing here? Pointing the finger in a different direction instead of discussing the subject at hand. It's a similar rationale with climate science to say well China and India are big polluters. Therefore the U.S. should trash the planet, i.e. two wrongs don't make a right. The planet and our bodies don't care where the pollution is coming from, only that more of it is more harmful, and in this case, the pollutants are completely unnecessary to consume the product, coffee. And to answer your question, no I don't consume meat like millions of other people who choose not to consume it for health, ethical, and environmental reasons.

What I find so disheartening about some of the enthusiasm over tech like this one is the engineer's mindset particularly found on this board that any incremental gain in mechanical function is worth the sacrifice to human or environmental or labor health. And here the evidence of incremental gain in function for an additional cost and potential health risks is slim. Why not give consumers the choice to take or not take that risk? Charge more for grinders with the ionizer if it's so great and less for those without it.

In fact, that is precisely what Acaia is doing, offering its ionizer separately for an additional cost: https://acaia.co/blogs/news/new-produc ... e-ion-beam There's no need to have these ionizers built into every grinder a company manufacturers so you have it whether you want it or not.

LewBK wrote:And to answer your question, no I don't consume meat like millions of other people who choose not to consume it for health, ethical, and environmental reasons.

Same, that's nice.

I wasn't aware Zerno charges extra for a built in ionizer?

The impression I'm getting from this board is Zerno is planning to add the ionizer as a standard feature in all of its grinders in future manufacturing rounds. It should be an option for an added cost, not a feature of every grinder, in my opinion. But since it isn't out yet with the ionizer, we'll see.

Why not give consumers the choice to take or not take that risk? Charge more for grinders with the ionizer if it's so great and less for those without it.

Adding a SKU or going to a custom build will add cost to all consumers. This is a reality of manufacturing that has held now for over 100 years. Only when it is believed that a sufficient number of consumers will actually purchase another SKU does it make sense to offer it. As soon as the SKU is listed for sale, you need to be ready to deliver. It isn't as simple as "just adding" or "just removing" a part. Would you be willing to pay the real, incremental cost for your snowflake?

If you don't want a grinder with an active ion generator in it, don't buy one. If you want that grinder badly enough, buy a stock one and clip the power lead to the ion generator.

Everything we do has incremental risk associated with it. Each of us has a different tolerance for perceived incremental risk. You have indicated that you believe that there is an incremental risk associated with the ionizer on the grinder or associated with one. Past that, the discussion is no longer adding information.

The planet also don't see us or them as pollution or pollutant, it's input, conversion, output and byproducts.

A more customized product/separate product always result in more waste, not exactly what you are wanting to do here.

All production line benefit from standardize product and optimization.

A more customized product/separate product always result in more waste, not exactly what you are wanting to do here.

All production line benefit from standardize product and optimization

It doesn't make sense to me for people to be saying things like this in a thread that first mentioned Acaia, which is making a separate ionizer you can add to the grinder or not add to the grinder. It's not adding any waste at all or cost at all. It's a separate product, an add on. What is wasteful is adding features to products people may not want or need. Moreover, these are small-run bespoke grinders that can be customized in various ways. Adding something or leaving something out is not like stopping the entire Eureka or Mahlkonig factory to make a shift for certain customers. In fact, Zerno could easily just outsource the manufacture of an ionizer to some other company like Acaia and let it be an add-on at purchase like an extra burr set or some other extra posters here routinely purchase as part of a package of accessories they add on when purchasing a grinder. That would actually save Zerno money.

Of course it is far more wasteful to have a separate product all together.

Instead of simply having one integration grinder, you want ioniser to have its own power supply, its own casing, its own supply and storage, with a bunch of height and angle adjustability in order to fit in different grinders.

How is this not a lot more wasteful?
"Cost" here is cost as in the pollution/resource used that you emphased so much just a few posts ago.

How exactly is adding an ioniser a waste when it helps retention and is utilized every single grind when it's integrated?

why would you want this?

It's only wasteful to sell the ionizer separately if you assume everyone wants the ionizer add-on. Rather, it is wasteful if you add a feature half of customers don't want but the manufacturer insists they have anyway and charges them extra for it as part of the overall price to build it into the machine. Acaia is making the right choice here by letting the grinder be modular and upgradable-or downgradeable from my perspective-to consumer demand specifications.

As per Guidelines for productive online discussion

Dogmatic or repetitive replies are rarely welcome.

Perhaps the best place to further discuss health-driven suggestions about the Zerno grinder incorporating an ion generator is with Zerno directly.

LewBK wrote:There are definitely listings for ionizer and carcinogen health risks on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?star ... s_sdt=0,39
Moreover, there is this: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality- ... r-cleaners
I am very familiar with air purifiers and those serious about them for home use generally don't recommend ionizers because of their ozone and carcinogen creation. It seems unnecessary and an added cost to already appealing grinders. Zerno should let consumers choose for themselves if they want it or not.

I did read the articles you cite above. The health risks come from ozone, which is not directly emitted by air ionizers (like the Zerostat or the anti-static coffee grinder gadget discussed in this thread), but incidentally generated downstream in small amounts and only in those electrostatic generators of much higher power than the Zerostat or the grinder add-on gadget. And although ozone is a respiratory irritant, what the EPA and the Google Scholar cited article are concerned about is the ability of ozone to react with volatile substances like formaldehyde and certain particulate aerosols to render them more carcinogenic...not that the positive and negative ions produced by electrostatic ionizers are themselves carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to one's heath. Ozone generators can be used to "clean" contaminated air (due to fires, mold, etc.) but only in unpopulated spaces. They shouldn't be used in occupied spaces. Low powered intermittently operated ion generators, like the Zerostat don't worry me. There are a lot of other much more serious environmental hazards to worry about.

In fact, one could argue that the frustrated aggravation and release of stress hormones generated by dealing with staticky clumps of coffee during the AM espresso making ritual is far more damaging to one's health than a few clicks of the Zerostat...