Dear Brooks: Thank you very much for an excellent and informative assessment on that article. Great. Faith G. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brooks Bradley To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:47 AM Subject: [RE]CS>claims that colloidal silver consists of dangerous NANOparticles
Dear Nenah, I believe the person-source relating to the nanotechnology products and their effects.....was referring to the feature article in the fall 2007 issue of the "OneEarth" periodical which the Natural Resources Defense Council publishes. While the article focused on nanotechnology products in general....nanosilver products were the featured item. The author (Robin Marantz Henig) produced an adequately researched "layman's level" presentation on the general uses of nanosilver products, but inserts several "well-placed" caveats which appear to generalize in the areas of safety. e.g. "Silver has a long history of use in humans, and it has generally been found to be safe.". The general tenor of the author tends to be one of "knowing dismissal" of the alternative-medicine community......stating that a Sedona, Arizona firm that had been making outrageous health claims for their "liquid mixture of silver and water". The author jumps....without any literary transition.....from a condescending comment about the absence of "premarket safety-testing requirements).....to a "worrisome" (unspecified) general study which indicts "carbon nanotubes" as an agent which facilitates formation of "biological substrates on which other tissue can opportunely build "other tissue" ----and become a scaffolding for new layers of collagen that could block airways?". The author dusts off the old bugger-bear that CARBON nanoparticles can cross the blood-brain barrier....and by inference....silver also. Never does the author furnish ANY evidence that nano-size silver has ever caused any untoward effect in the human brain chemistry. The author spends considerable effort toward raising the specter of being an "unknown" agent to the extent he introduces the following doublespeak...."The qualities that make nanoparticles a potential threat to health and the environment are the very same qualities that offer a wonderful opportunity to improve that same health and environment" My personal conclusion as to the underlying "message" of the article is that SOME RESPONSIBLE AGENCY LIKE THE EPA should be encouraged to establish a REGULATORY INFLUENCE "for producing, handling, and marketing, nanoproducts in general and colloidal silver -----by inference/association. This type of article is, particularly, vexing to those championing properly-made EIS colloids. The reason being that it is quite difficult to respond to such a slick "Madison Avenue" type diatribe which includes half-truths, spins, omissions, misleading statements drawing obtuse conclusions....and rank editorial convolutions of fact. Such indirect attacks on safe, useful, but unpopular (with the Pharma-Cartel) substances/protocols have the same general effect as a doctor telling his female patient not to worry because she is "just a little-bit" pregnant. I ask your indulgence for this lengthy post.....but I hope my commentary (biased as it is) is of some value to the list membership. Sincerely, Brooks Bradley.
