Terry, great questions...
> Questions like: > 1. Does particle size matter below a certain size? (1/4" chunks are too big, yes!) This is one of, if not the major, >consideration. If coffee-colored, LVDC CS is just as effective (in killing pathogens) as crystal-clear, HVAC CS, then >variations in voltage and current are only relevant to the speed of CS-brewing. Terry, to a greater or lesser extent, yes, I believe particle size does matter. There is plenty of scientific data to suggest it ( I don't have anything handy at the moment, but I'll start looking ), although the data is not specific to silver itself. Bioavailability is the greatest issue. There is little doubt that any "decent" colloidal silver will be effective to a certain degree - WHERE it reaches. Now, how the body deals with CS, I think is still very much in question. It has been measured how small a "particle" must be for sublingual adsorption, for instance. Ionic substances ( as long as they remain ionic ) are more bioavailable than non-ionic substances, so I think the question is far more important when considering particle silver. When I find some references, I will forward them. For instance, according to a recent material datasheet I was reviewing, over-exposure to silver particles in the lungs can cause lung damage and pulmonary edema. Therefore, it is a wise consideration to apply caution. > 2. Apart from known silver compounds (silver-nitrate, > and silver compounded to any already toxic metal like > mercury, lead, cadmium, etc.) is the fear of making > silver compounds from any other minerals found in > water simply a superstition? (Minerals we think > nothing of drinking such as what is found in spring or > well water.) A superstition is something that is > feared without any logical reason, or even in the face > of logic. I have repeatedly seen newbies admonished > with great authority to NOT use salt, that this is > dangerous. Or, no other water but DW or Deionized > (maybe RO) should ever be considered. Yet I have seen > no data to substantiate these ideas. The reason for the caution here is one of common sense. Isolate any variables as much as possible, so one knows what they ARE making. I know of quite a few silver compounds that are easy to "accidently" make. I'm certain there are many possible complex compounds one can create which haven't been studied at all concerning health effects. AgBr AgI AgCl AgOh AgNO3 Now, these are very simple chemical combinations that are easy to predict. If one wants to make these, it is far less expensive to buy them directly in bulk - if you find a wholesale supplier or manufacturer, it can even be cheaper than making colloidal silver. Silver Bromide is not toxic, unless one considers Bromide as an undesireable substance in the body in excess which I do ). Silver Iodide is certainly a beneficial substance, but I wouldn't want to drink it as a part of diet. Silver Nitrate is the big kicker, and I think it is worth taking pains to try to avoid its production. When one spikes their water with salts, one creates an abundance of Silver Chloride. Why would one want to do this on purpose? The primary object here is to create a substance which contains pure silver, in a form that can be used in the body, and a form which is effective for treating conditions of health. Again, if one is wanting compounds, it can be cheaper to just buy the compounds rather than making them via the electrolysis process. The common sense is to create the desired product using the desired method. The electrolysis process was designed ( in our case ) to try and create pure silver. On the other hand, I would not hesitate to even use tap water if I did not have distilled water available. I personally would never use such a substance long term, simply because the long term effects are unknown. I believe I can prove that silver is toxic, even electro-colloidal silver, if used in a certain manner ( which isn't drinking it ). I can consistantly reproduce negative symptoms when using a nebulizer, and treatments are done excessively over a 72 hour period. It is one of the things I am studying. The symptoms are very short term, and subside rapidly, I believe BECAUSE silver is not being used in a form that remains in the body for long reference Roger Altman's excellent toxicity study ). The toxicity is very similiar to garlic. Skin oils are changed, the nervous system is definitely affected, and a rash can be induced. These manifestations are not negative in themselves, I have come across similiar reactions with other substances. The fact remains that a toxic reaction is provoked. These reactions are not of a concern to me, since they can be harnessed, used as a diagnostic tool, and can indicate when a maximum dose has been achieved. But I, for one, would feel incredibly uncomfortable if I was pumping the lungs full of excess silver compounds, of the unknown variety. PURITY is a principle that can be followed with wisdom. Just because one is following a principle, does not mean that there is a superstition AGAINST something else. > A significant amount of time, money, equipment, etc., > is expended by the Technical-oriented folks on the > List on determining how to make CS with small particle > size, or a preponderance of ions or particles, or a CS > that has no color. Yet, little if any of this research > seems to address the question, Does this method > improve the microbe-killing or health-enhancing > benefit of CS? (Which, in my opinion, is the top > priority.) Point and case is petrie dish studies regarding effectiveness of different colloidal silver. I know there are a few out there who have done "a bit" of studies regarding this. I didn't save the references ( Product X vs. Product Y ), but I remember coming across at least three laboratory studies that show a greater effectiveness of one product over another. There are some vendors out there that have done some work. > To be objective, and because this may very well be > true, it may be quite important, what color CS is, or > what voltage or current is used, or the addition of > various substances as "starter". Or it may turn out > that ionic CS is better at fighting some kinds of > ailments and particulate CS others. But it doesn't > seem that any comprehensive, methodical research is > being conducted to determine this. I realize that the > kind of research that measures the microbe-killing > effect of CS is more expensive to conduct, and that > there may be gov't/legal loopholes to be resolved > before such research could even be conducted. Most of > the technical type people on this List have limited > finances/resources for conducting the specific kinds > of research I am suggesting. There is a TON of data out there. Problem is, it doesn't look like people are sharing it. I've tried to coax some data out of a few organizations for CS and other substances ). They usually refuse to respond. People willing to take on the expenses of doing such studies usually have an agenda which includes protecting their research. > Yet the question still remains: How do we know any of > this matters in the slightest? How do we know if one > type of electro-colloidal CS is better than any other? > Speaking subjectively, my own experience with the CS I > make using a very simple method (that anyone else > could use) is so good, it is sometimes hard for me to > take seriously the discussions of ionic vs > particulate, 0.1 vs .001 size particles, meso vs > non-meso, colored vs clear, stirred, heated, > magnetized, oxygenated, prayed-over, etc., Colloidal > Silver, when there is not ALSO offered some kind of > data to indicate that this particular > method/technique/adjustment makes CS more effective at > doing what we seek for it to do. We read impressive > testimonies about nearly every kind/type/method CS > made. > > If you build a whole method and line of reasoning on > an unsubstantiated assumption, isn't that risky? The > medical establishment has done that on a wide variety > of issues. They are left with scrambling around trying > to bolster their position, trying to "save face" in > response to mounting scientific evidence that exposes > their faulty premises. Let us not do the same. > > The proposed newbie CS FAQ/Info Primer (a great idea) > must be careful to separate fact from unproven > assumptions. "It is believed by some, though not all", > should be made clear, or else CS superstition will > quickly appear. Here I definitely agree. When I approach the issue of colloidal silver with people, I always STRONGLY suggest they start off by making their own with the nine-volt battery setup. Why? Because one can only go UP from there. Once one becomes comfortable with the real idea that colloidal silver can have a great impact on health, then one can apply this confidence to exploring the great work being done by those who are exploring the idea of EXCELLENCE. > Please don't misunderstand, this is not a criticism of > the technical folks on the List, I am glad to have > found such a resource of people like you. I just feel, > speaking for myself only, that we will never be able > to withstand general scientific scrutiny if we base > our discussion and data on unproven premises. Speaking only for myself, the proof is results, and although I love solid scientific data and theory, it is not my main consideration. The scientific community does not judge things by scientific evidence. Try to get clear on this. The scientific community is very political. Acadamia is raging out of control ( par for the course if you study the history of "science". The best one can hope for is to find individual scientists, and present well thought out information. In fact, the "scientific community" has so many ingrained prejudices, that a trend is starting to appear.... Corporations seem to simply be ignoring Academia, hiring their own staffs, giving them R&D money, letting them create, prove their creations, passing regulatory statues, and then marketing. I really expect this trend to continue. Academia is actually getting behind the times, and this has been TRUTH since at least the 1980s. In my view, this is a disturbing trend. >We also may find that we have been "Beating a dead horse", > much like the AMA expending large amounts of time and > money trying to find a drug that will cure cancer. The AMA ( and other organizations ) expend this money because they have to justify their existance. I don't really think it's an applicable comparison here, although the point is well-founded. I don't know anyone here that I would accuse of beating a dead horse! -- 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]>
