Frank, Did you just insult me? The fact that I have decided to go back to university as a pharmacology undergraduate is neither here nor there, you either accept my opinion or not. I don't mind which. And remember that Dr Maass is not immune to error either.
If I submitted such experimental results to my instructor in analytical chemistry, without some attempt to characterise the influence of the background solution, I would not expect good marks. Ivan. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Key [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, 1 June 2001 04:22 > To: *Silver-List* > Subject: Re: CS>An epiphany? > > > Ivan wrote: > > > Perhaps, but this is not a simple ratio. As I noted at the > time, your first > > reading above the base line results in a concentration of twice as much > > silver as actually ingested (assuming a 100% absorption), and > your second > > reading, greater than three times the amount ingested, and you > note that the > > concentration was still increasing. Your blood silver rise of 375% is > > meaningless without an accompanying determination of the > relative increase > > across a range of concentrations which included instrument > error, in other > > words, a calibration curve...which admittedly may have been > difficult given > > the problems you were having. > > The experiment report explained that the blood cells (red & > white) and the > high sodium caused the silver reading on the AA to be unusually > high. This is > because the AA used did not have a background correction system needed to > compensate for such measurements. > > However, the AA was calibrated using standard silver solutions so > that minus > the blood cells and high sodium the silver concentration would be > accurate. > All of the silver readings were within the linear calibration > range of the AA. > > Because the concentration of blood cells and sodium were uniform > among the > blood samples, any effect of raising the apparent silver reading > would effect > all the sample measurements in a uniform fashion. This would have > the effect > of making the absolute reading of silver higher than normal, but > would not > effect the relative value of the readings. By normalizing the > reading we have > expressed the results in a ratiometric (relative) fashion rather > than using > the absolute values. This simple makes the results "relative", > meaning that > sample two is x percent higher/lower relative to sample one. Because the > background nature of the blood cells, etc. has the same effect on > all reading, > the effect essentially is cancelled out by normalization. So, yes it is a > simple ratio. > > This is a standard scientific procedure and in no way alters the basic > calibration of the AA nor does it render the readings unreliable. > > I thought we had explained this in the report in enough detail to avoid > misunderstandings. > > Clearly that is not the case. > > Final comment: the normalization procedure used was reviewed and > found acceptable by Dr. Maass, Professor of Chemistry. I am > inclined to respect his opinion over that of a student in > freshman chemistry. > > > frank key -- 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]>
