I think that it's surface area and permeability properties that do the job Even the most ugly sludge contains small particle CS and will work, and fairly large particles can be at least somewhat effective wherever they can get to... the question being, what else do they do? In all probablility, the one is not bad, but the other is better. Ken
At 08:57 PM 9/30/01 -0400, you wrote: >All logical reasoning is based upon certain >assumptions. It becomes, then, paramount to establish >the accuracy of our assumptions. Several assumptions >have become the basis of conclusions on this List as >to what is best for CS generation and its afficacy. I >am unsure, however, that these assumptions are >correct. > >One of the primary assumptions that we use to validate >different CS-making methods is particle size. The >reasoning is this: The smaller the silver particles, >the more easily assimilated they are. It seems obvious >to me that swallowing gravel-sized chunks of iron ore >would not be an effective way to supplement my need >for iron. So, yes, it is certainly possible to try to >ingest a mineral in which the particles are too big. >But at what point does the size become small enough >that it is no longer a relevant factor? Ive read many >website statements from various CS vendors that CS >must be a certain size before it can be assimilated, >but never are such statements substantiated by any >kind of research or even objective empirical evidence. >Yet, we seem to accept almost as an axiom that >particles bigger than a certain size (say, .01 micron) >are too big to be effective. Where does such an >assumption come from? I understand that .01 micron is >7,000 times bigger than a red blood cell (according to >several CS vendors). Since red blood cells do not >accumulate in the capillaries in our skin (causing >red-colored argyria), it would be reasonable to assume >that silver particles 70.0 microns in size would not >cause argyria (though they might not be effective >against pathogens). > >We believe that the royal families in Europe were >known to grind up silver into powder, stir it into >wine or water and drink it for its curative and >protective powers. We reasonably assume this is why >they were called blue-bloods. And there is every >reason to believe that this mechanically-ground up >silver did what it was intended to do (in fighting >pathogens). Ive said this before, and never seen any >comments to it either way: How much bigger would the >smallest ground-up silver particle be than the largest >electro-colloidal silver particle? 1,000 times bigger? >10,000 times? If I brew CS until it is a deep, dark, >brownish gold (in which we would assume that the >particles are quite big to be refracting light to that >color), I still cannot see any single particles >swirling about in the CS. Eventually, I would see some >settle to the bottom, but not at first. But the >smallest mechanically-ground-up silver would be >visible to the naked eye even after being stirred and >still swirling around in the glass. > >My question is: If mechanically-ground particles have >the desired anti-microbial effect, to argue over the >efficacy of even the largest electro-colloidal silver >particle seems to me like arguing over how many angels >can sit on the head of a pin! What is called, >Hair-splitting. > >Now, if it could be clearly demonstrated that .01 >micron-sized CS killed pathogens faster and better and >deader than 0.1 micron CS, then it would be reasonable >to include particle size in our methodology. But if no >one was able to demonstrate any conclusive, measurable >superiority in the efficacy of any one size of CS >(under, say, 1.0 or 2.0 micron and down), it would >change our whole approach to generating CS. This would >be a blow to the vendors that base the superiority >of their product on its small particle size, but we >are, after all (I hope) seeking truth here. > >A related Assumption Topic is using salt as a starter. >The first thing I did was to research silver-chloride. >I was unable to find anything whatsoever that >incriminated it as a toxic substance. Someone may have >some info I couldnt find. Please send it to me if you >do. The other argument against silver-chloride is that >the salt compounded to silver made bigger particles. >Apart from the fact that I have seen no substantiation >for that oft-made statement, we havent yet even >established that particle size is a significant factor >in the efficacy of CS. > >Some folks would find it terrible news if it finally >came out that the simplest, cheapest, un-stirred, >non-current controlled, yellow or gold 27-volt DC CS >was just as effective (or even close to) as the best >stirred, current-controlled, heated, high-voltage AC >CS made. > >Do I think that is the case? No, not really, but if it >was, I would sell my HVDC CS to those who didnt want >to bother to brew it themselves, and CS makers to the >rest. > >WE ARE NOT HERE TO MAKE MONEY ABOVE ALL ELSE. WE ARE >HERE TO HELP OTHERS FIRST, AND MAKE A LIVING BECAUSE >WE DO, AND BECAUSE WE DO IT WELL. > >I invite response from whoever wants to, on List or >off. > >Terry Chamberlin >Metabolic Solutions Institute >RR1 314 Carleton Rd >Lawrencetown, NS B0S 1M0 >902-584-3810 voice >413-826-7641 fax service >[email protected] > > >_______________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca > > >-- >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]> > >
