Thanks Ivan for the defence, I was beginning to think the group cared nothing about helpful information, just something to pick at! I feel, as you do, that there was no bias and thus they did not speak with a forked tongue, as most government agencies do!
My concern is for humanity, not semantics, and I felt some very relevent data was presented for the silver list members! [email protected] --------------------------------------------- Marshall wrote: > Considering that they called silver a heavy metal, I would not put much credance in any of the rest of > it. Obviously they have not done proper research. Ivan wrote: Research into what? Whether silver is a heavy metal or not? Would you ignore the message because the messenger calls his donkey a horse, or fill in the ditch because the ditch digger calls his shovel a spade? The researchers are looking at silver as a water pollutant and toxic metal to water creatures, and so choose toxic metal terminology. In fact they conclude that while the toxicity of silver is high to marine micro-organisms, it is low to marine creatures, and very low to vertebrates. The main interest in this report, to my mind, is the actions of silver in the body and the olgliodynamics it displays. This is a very good report, as it does not have an agenda to follow. Ivan. -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
