Talk:Oxygen bar

Subtle Error Or Should I Say "Air"?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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).

Oxygen Bars...why focus on health?
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)


 * 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) Looking at the moon can kill you!


 * 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)

Anon advert edit
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)

Merge Bottled Air
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)

Seriously
"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)

Untill Citations are found for these items I'm keeping them here.
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)

Japan
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) second --maayan (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

kind of an advertisement...
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)
 * ✅ 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)

I think the tag could probably be removed, the bit about 7-eleven seems relevant enough, though it could probably be changed to convenience stores if anyone thinks it still sounds too much like an ad, and the canned air company thing has been removed, so if unless someone can come up with a decent reason not to, i think i'm gonna remove the tag after a few days, that is if i remember.72.94.196.3 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Claims of increased O2 in air?
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)


 * 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)

Recent change from article to advert
Today, the article has been almost completely re-written without a single edit summary or comment here. All criticism and the the references have been removed as well as the wkilinks to asthma, emphysema, Oxygen toxicity, Acute respiratory distress syndrome and Bronchopulmonary dysplasia - all of which give relevant background information with cites. It now reads just like an advert, complete with Question and Answer and trendy bullet-pointed exclamations. Although it was not in good shape before, it is a disgrace to an encyclopedia now - see WP:SOAP. I'm reverting to the article as it was on [27 November]. If User:Oxygeninc and the anon IPs want to advertise Oxygen bars, I'd suggest they get their own website. If they are interested in improving this article, I'd suggest they discuss it here. To start off, I'll offer this: for each reliable citation they find to support the material they insert, I'll find a reliable citation for a piece of criticism. That way the article gets improved and WP:NOV should stand a chance of being met. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has been reverted by User:Oxygeninc to their version, again without edit summary or comment here. I won't edit-war by reverting again, but I would value any outside opinion on the relative merits of the two versions. I see that Oxygen Inc is the name of a company which sells Oxygen bars and is based in Colorado USA. The anon IP which started adding promotional material 12 minutes after User:Oxygeninc deleted all of the criticism is also based in Colorado. I believe that is prima facie evidence of WP:COI to add to the edit-warring. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with RexxS here. However, in general, this is a poorly crafted article which relies on basically no references. What would be better is to cite reliable sources which discuss the subject and to present the cited material in a neutral manner. I know very little about this subject or where to search for reliable sources, but perhaps a simple Google search may be a good place to start. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, Levine. I only came across this article while working on Oxygen toxicity and remarked at the time that it could use considerable amount of work. I totally agree that it's best to find good sources first and write the article from them, but that's not how I found the article. It's a pity that the subject gets so much "hype" as it means you have to wade through pages of ghits that are gossip, just to get one good reference from a reliable source. I've found one here:
 * which gives some background and recommendations from the UK. I'll try to make use of it and search for others tomorrow. --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * which gives some background and recommendations from the UK. I'll try to make use of it and search for others tomorrow. --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, I’m new to Wikipedia, however I am an expert on the subject Oxygen Bar for about 8 years now. The old article is very biased towards one company and was probably written by them. I play fair and just want the truth about Oxygen bars to be known. There is a lot of incorrect information out there and I’m simply trying to set the record straight. So please teach me what you would like me to do I’m simply trying to get the proper word out on the subject. Not promoting our company or any others at all unlike the article that was there before. A lot of that information was outdated and no longer relevant. Thank for the help ;-)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain here. I've commented on your Talk page about signing and edit summaries. I fully agree that the article is in need of updating and I am happy to work with you (as are others) to improve it.
 * You will need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so a certain style of writing is expected. For example, a Question and Answer section is unlikely to be found in a paper encyclopedia, and is unlikely to be accepted here. You should try to summarise the points as good prose and use that (along with any references to where the information came from). If you find creating references difficult (and most newcomers do), just make a note on the talk page here of the url and the information you are referring to and I or someone else will create the reference for you. The same applies for the bullet-pointed list you inserted earlier: make it into good prose if you can and give a reference for its source.
 * You may be wondering why I ask for sources. You are an expert in the field and these are "things you just know". Well the problem is that Wikipedia requires its content to be verifiable (see WP:V). It's a rule that applies to all article content. To take an example: If you add "Benefits of oxygen: Heightens concentration, alertness and memory", anyone could ask "How can I tell the statement is true?". You give a reference to a book, a journal or a website (one that is recognised as reliable) that shows it is true.
 * Now, if I put back the statement "The FDA has warned against the use of industrial generators, as they do not have the proper filtration, and high concentrations may cause difficulties in breathing for some people with medical conditions." and you say "How can I tell it is true?", I include this reference:
 * and anyone can click that link and see that the FDA (a reliable source) quotes Mary Purucker, M.D., Ph.D., (a pulmonary specialist in CDER) as saying "People with some types of heart disease, asthma, congestive heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, such as emphysema, need to have their medical oxygen regulated carefully to oxygenate their blood properly." That would verify the statement about some people with breathing conditions.
 * I'd love to see the article improved, but taking out statements that have reliable sources that back them up is unlikely to do that. Why not read through all of the sources you can find (and the two I've given here and in my comment above), pick out the important points and write something into the article (in prose), giving the references you used?
 * By the way, it would help me if you could explain why the section (and its reference) that you took out on your last edit doesn't belong in the article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, it would help me if you could explain why the section (and its reference) that you took out on your last edit doesn't belong in the article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Precautions
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)


 * 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)

Percentage of Oxygen and Health Risks
No where in the article does it mention what percentage of oxygen is being provided by these businesses. There is some discussion on the health risks, including oxygen toxicity. We can't have a valid discussion on the health risks unless we understand how much oxygen is being delivered and for how long.

The article states that this bars use industrial oxygen concentrators. But it does not mention the type or the concentration levels used. Medical concentrators can get up to about 90%. I don't know what these “industrial concentrators” do but I think that would be interesting information to be incorporated into the article.

The limiting factor is the delivery system. The article references the use of Nasal Cannula. It would be helpful for information about the flow rates of Nasal Cannula be added to the article. Nasal Cannula can deliver gas at 1-6 litres per minute. Delivery at 6 LPM can be uncomfortable so I imagine the flow rate in the bars is about 2-3 LPM. Nasal Cannula flow rates above 4 LPM can make talking difficult. If someone can get the actual flow rate that would be important for the reader to know also.

Nasal Cannula can deliver between 20 and 40% oxygen to the user based on the purity of the supply. With medical oxygen being 100% (practically), this directly translates to 20-40% oxygen to the user. However if the industrial concentrator only concentrates to 75% oxygen (with 25% other gases) than a Nasal Cannula delivers less oxygen. This is one of the reasons people think that Oxygen Bars are a rip off. Using a Crappy concentrator can give the customer no more oxygen then they can normally get for free.

The health concerns listed in the article are incomplete and list health issues that are unrealistic. Oxygen Toxicity and the condition known as Atelectasis (shrinking of the Alveoli) are serious health issues but one very unlikely to be run across in an oxygen bar. The customer would have to breath high levels of oxygen (higher than a Nasal Cannula can deliver) for long periods of time (many many hours) before these two conditions will start to appear. Oxygen Toxicity and Atelectasis are normally found in hospitals where patients are undergoing long term medical Oxygen Therapy.

One health risk that was not listed in the article needs to be listed. Customers suffering from COPD should NOT go to Oxygen Bars and use the oxygen machines. People with long term COPD develop what is called a Hypoxic Drive where, due to their condition, their breathing patterns are governed by the levels of oxygen in the blood and not by the levels of Carbon Dioxide as in non-COPD people. EMS, when responding to COPD calls seldom deliver oxygen over 25% to the patient. And this is done by professionals and the COPD patient is never left alone but is under constant observation. A COPD person walking in to an Oxygen Bar should not suddenly start sniffing higher percentages of oxygen. I feel that the article should cover this instead of Oxygen Toxicity.

I think it is important for the article to have more scientific information in addition to the cultural information. To me, the purpose of the article should be to give the reader all the information they need in order to decide for themselves whether an Oxygen bar is a good thing, a rip-off, a trend, or a health hazard. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that I've read a manufacturer talk about delivering around 90% O2, so I'd agree with your figure for medical concentrators, but I need to find the source again to verify that. I also have seen a figure of "about 32%" for delivery via nasal cannula, but again I'd need to check sources. Even so, the fraction of O2 delivered via nasal cannula will vary considerably with the cannula, its fitting and the flow rate. Clearly, nobody will be receiving less than 21% O2, so I wouldn't be surprised if "around 30%-35%" is likely. However, the possibility of the customer deliberately blocking atmospheric ingress (to avoid being "ripped-off") can't be discounted, which leads to the possibility of even higher FO2 occurring. As we are only certain that the lower possible limit for pulmonary toxicity is about 0.3 bar (see ), it would seem to be prudent to consider the risk of pulmonary toxicity, given an unknown FO2, even if that risk is slight. Perhaps you can cite a reliable source that would show that risk to be negligible, given the fact that O2 is delivered in an unmonitored way? If so, it would be a worthwhile amendment to the article, to be able to say there is no risk of pulmonary oxygen toxicity.


 * I was able to cite the warning for asthma and emphysema to the FDA, but they didn't mention COPD. Nevertheless, we have an article explaining Hypoxic drive and the Oxygen toxicity article states: "Hyperoxia can also indirectly cause carbon dioxide narcosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). ". So we have a wikilink and a reference that would verify an addition along the lines you outlined. Why not add that? It would be useful to have a source that illustrated the dangers of respiratory acidosis and we would need a source to verify the 25% FO2 you mention when EMS respond to a COPD call.


 * I'm very sympathetic to adding more scientific information to this article. The problem I've found with that is that there don't seem to be many studies addressing this setting (or none that I could find anyway) and so we're left with a pronouncement from the FDA and the UK HSA's guidelines. We cannot simply use our own experience or synthesise conclusions beyond what our sources say. As we don't know the highest possible FO2 deliverable, nor do we know the maximum time that customers are allowed, I seriously doubt whether we are able to give the reader all the information they actually need to make a decision. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I used my old text book "Brady Emergency Care" and specifically Chapter 6 Oxygen Therapy for the information on the Nasal Cannula and how Oxygen Toxicity and Atelectasis both require high concentrations of Oxygen for long periods of time. For both conditions, the text states that in the EMS operational environment (approximately one hour of treatment and transport) neither of these conditions are a concern.


 * One additional piece of information that is missing from the main article pertains to how long are customers of Oxygen Bars using Oxygen? That is an important piece of data when trying to identify the health risks of Oxygen.  At a Dollar a minute (which I think the article states, it is doubtful that a customer is hooked up to the equipment for 2-3 hours.  That would get pretty expensive.  :)


 * If the customers of the Oxygen Bar are just sniffing for 5 minutes, I can't really state there will be a significant health risk.


 * Do these Oxygen Bar businesses need to be inspected by the county/state? If not, I think that is an important piece of information for the reader.  I fear that these Oxygen machines in these businesses are not inspected by the state and the user has no idea what they are sniffing.  Frankly, and only speaking for myself, the more I research on these Oxygen Bars, the less I am willing to ever go there.  Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone has added information about state inspections, although it needs to be remembered that only applies in the USA, so I'll try to find out what the position is elsewhere. I've add a sentence about COPD and I've re-written the oxtox section to try to reflect your perspective. It would be helpful if you still have access to your "Brady Emergency Care" to expand the reference to give the edition and the page(s) you used. If you are unsure about how to edit the cite book template, just post here and I can add it for you. Anything else you can think of to improve? --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking common terms
I am about to revert (for the second time) a number of links made by, since WP:LINK clearly states:
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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)

Oxygen versus Autism
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)


 * 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)

Effects
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

The problem is any effects could just be placebo. The time I tried it for free at a convention, I felt more alert, focused and a sense of clarity. but who knows. could all be in your head. -Tracer9999 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Regulations
(((((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)


 * 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)

Restoring previous version
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Section on health benefits is overly skeptical
I came here after reading https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1215424733455560709?s=20 and checking out the linked study. The section on claimed benefits in the article seems very negative, and the statement that blood is fully saturated at 21% and more oxygen cannot have an effect is directly refuted by that study & it's references. I don't have access to more than the summaries (at least not easily), but their results should probably be incorporated in the article.

H0536330126 (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia editors have agreed not to use primary sources such as Kim et al, 2013 for reasons that are explained in WP:MEDRS. A single, uncontrolled, unblinded study of 18 individuals is a very long way short of what is required to support a medical claim that runs so counter to accepted knowledge. I don't think anybody can seriously contend that blood is normally carrying any less than 95% of its capacity of oxygen in any healthy individual, so you're mistaken to suggest that the study refutes that. Put simply, there is no evidence whatsoever than any healthy individual gains any benefit whatsoever from breathing air with oxygen fractions between 30% and 35% (which is what they typically get in an oxygen bar). The only exception to that is the potential benefit of nitrox to scuba divers, but that's comparing apples and pears. The section on claimed benefits is rightly very critical of any suggestion of benefit, and I expect it to remain so. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia editors have agreed not to use primary sources such as Kim et al, 2013 for reasons that are explained in WP:MEDRS. A single, uncontrolled, unblinded study of 18 individuals is a very long way short of what is required to support a medical claim that runs so counter to accepted knowledge. I don't think anybody can seriously contend that blood is normally carrying any less than 95% of its capacity of oxygen in any healthy individual, so you're mistaken to suggest that the study refutes that. Put simply, there is no evidence whatsoever than any healthy individual gains any benefit whatsoever from breathing air with oxygen fractions between 30% and 35% (which is what they typically get in an oxygen bar). The only exception to that is the potential benefit of nitrox to scuba divers, but that's comparing apples and pears. The section on claimed benefits is rightly very critical of any suggestion of benefit, and I expect it to remain so. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)