Marshall wrote: The problem is that in the process of making CS, the silver leaves the wire as ions. Ions are very reactive and will react immediately with many things. Once the ions combine and form colloid then the silver becomes very non-reactive. So if your water has 50 ppm of salt in it, the first silver ions will combine with the chlorine in the salt and produce silver chloride. Only after all the elements that will combine with the silver ions are consumed will sufficient quantity of ions be present to actually start making colloid. Thus depending on the water, you may have to make several hundred ppm of ionic silver, which will combine and likely precipitate out, before you ever make the first clump of colloid.
Terry responds: I follow your reasoning (I think), but, if this is true, we should be able to say that folks who use a salt starter would not have much if any success using CS made this way, nor would we see reports of success. However, that is not the case. People have had such good experience with salt-seeded CS that they swear by it. Marshall wrote: The theory [small particle size being essential] is pretty sound. Silver buried inside a particle can do nothing, and particles of silver which never contact a pathogen can do nothing. When you reduce particle size then the surface to volume ratio increases, and the number of independent particles increase. Both effects should increase the effectiveness. Also you have to consider what size is required to pass through the stomach wall. We do know that when you add salt to ionic silver, the silver precipitates out. If the silver is gone out of the water, then we know that it will not be effective since nothing is left but slightly salty water. Terry responds: Again, this sound theory doesnt explain the success of CS made in ways that, according to that theory, shouldnt work. Scientifically, bumblebees cant fly, either. Marshall wrote: We know that color defines particle size, and that particle size determines stability. We know that when the particles settle out, the remaining liquid is less effective at the very least. We also know that if the particles are too big they will not make it into the blood stream. I tested this when I was a child. When I swallowed a dime, it made it through without ever making it to the blood stream (thank goodness). Terry responds: OK, I think we are in agreement, dont swallow silver dimes. But I was thinking of smaller sizes, and my question was, At what size does size become an issue? Next question: Is it even possible to make electro-colloidal silver with particles too big to be utilized by the body? Remember, the mechanically ground-up silver ingested by the blue-bloods in Europe was still effective. A silver dollar in the bottom of a milk pail had a deterring effect on bacteria, which leads me to conclude that a very big particle size (a silver dollar) was still utilized by a different dynamic than the size of the particle. Marshall wrote: > How do we know if one type of electro-colloidal CS is better than any other? (Quoting Terry)< What other? Grinding silver up in a machine? That is like trying to use bowling balls for a job that requires ball bearings. If you make CS by reduction of silver nitrate, then you end up with other chemicals in the product, and most likely some silver nitrate will be left as well. We know the dangers of silver nitrate. Terry responds: I meant, is one type of electro-colloidal CS better than any other type of electro-colloidal CS? Is LVDC better than HVAC, or submerged electrodes vs. suspended, or high current vs. low current, or DW vs. RO, or smiled-at vs. frowned-at? Marshall wrote: It is true that CS is such a fantastic antibiotic that all of it seems to work no matter how it is made, and whether it is primarily ionic or colloid. But why not make it the best that you can. Lets say that an anthrax has been developed that is somewhat immune to silver. Then what? One is limited as to the amount of CS they can take by how much water they can drink. Most effective CS could make a difference in you life. Terry responds: But thats the point. What determines what is the best that you can? What is the most effective CS? Marshall wrote: (Quoting Terry) > If you build a whole method and line of reasoning on an unsubstantiated assumption, isnt that risky? < What assumptions are unsubstantiated? We KNOW that color depends on particle size, this has been known for almost 100 years. We know that larger particles cannot make it through the stomach lining. [Larger than what? - Terry] We know that when a particle is made smaller the surface to volume ratio increases. We know that ionic silver will immediately combine with salt making silver chloride. [Then why does salted CS work? Terry] Terry responds: Actually, virtually every assumption we have about CS is unsubstantiated. Of course, we must define substantiate. Does that mean, I took some CS and I felt better, or, When I put it on my burn, the pain went away. ?? To the person who is saying that, CS has been substantiated. For myself, its my experience and the experience of my clients that has substantiated CS for me. For a doctor/scientist, that is not substantiation. (Substantiate = Establish as true.) The assumption that "particles big enough to cause the CS to look like coffee are too big to be effective" is an assumption that fails in the face of enthusiastic reports of coffee-colored CS curing a gastro-intestinal disorder of years that had not responded to any conventional medical treatment (as happened to a client of mine). This client had forgotten and left the wires in and the juice on all night. He completely dissolved one of the wires! He said it looked like mud. He picked up the 8-oz jar and, without straining it, drank the whole thing, mud and all! He had a rush of energy like he hadnt had in many years (he has Chronic Fatigue Syndrome). His gastro-intestinal problem had caused him to experience cramps after he ate anything. Was kicked out of the military because of it (and his CFS). All the small-particle size theory doesnt allow for this to happen. AVRA wrote: 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)... [An idea that scientific data suggests is an idea that is not substantiated - Terry] ...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. [Another issue, which has not been shown to be dependent on particle size Terry] 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, [Actually, I think its ABsorption - Terry] 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. [I have seen no substantiation of the idea that particle size = bioavailability. But I would be interested in the info about silver in the lungs Terry] AVRA wrote (Quoting Terry): > 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? < "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." [Yes, there are many possible silver + ? compounds, but how many of them are unhealthy? How many unhealthy ones are possible or likely using well or spring water? I recently talked with a client to whom I had sold silver wires and instructions. She had tried to brew CS once and it turned a light pink. She threw it out because she was afraid it might contain cadmium (explaining, to her, the pink color). I suggested to her that, if there was cadmium in her water, she shouldnt be drinking it anyway. Yes, toxic compounds can be made with toxic metals, but the toxic metals are still toxic metals. Are there toxic silver-compounds made with ordinary minerals found in water? Terry] When one spikes their water with salts, one creates an abundance of Silver Chloride. [Is that a problem? Terry] "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. [Pure silver sounds good, but is it important? Is water with pure silver in it any more effective than water with silver plus other minerals in it? Has it been demonstrated that silver which is all alone in the water is more effective than silver combined (not compounded) with other minerals? Terry] The electrolysis process was designed (in our case) to try and create pure silver. [What you are calling "Pure silver" is actually "isolated" silver. The silver I use IS pure silver. The concept that silver works best if not accompanied by other minerals is not consistent with the Holistic philosophy that approaches health by trying to give the body ALL that it needs, not just the isolated "active ingredient" Terry] "On the other hand, I would not hesitate to even use tap water if I did not have distilled water available." [I am like you, and I dont make CS with anything but DW. I am just challenging the attitude I see prevalent that, "We KNOW that its bad to make CS with anything but DW". I remember a List member whom I havent seen for quite awhile Robert Squires, was it? who was a missionary in India, I believe. He built simple, basic CS makers and sold or gave them to doctors all over India. He was having fantastic results, successfully treating malaria and other, terrible diseases. He was using the only available water around, from the river! Rather than being concerned with the water he was using, he said, We use the CS maker to purify the water, as well as make CS. (An approximate quote) - Terry] "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. 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." [You are, of course, completely right.] "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." [Right again. Start KISS, progress as or if you need to.] "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." [You have hit the nail on the head. But the reason to seek substantiation, even experientially, is to make sure that our assumptions are trustworthy, that we are not building a structure that has a faulty foundation. I, too, dont expect to convince the general scientific community that inflexible, prejudiced, political body of the merits of CS, whatever scientific evidence we have. In this case, I personally want to see some experiential evidence (at least) to support such accepted ideas as Small Particle Size, Low Current, DW Only, etc. I also want objectivity. I have repeatedly seen people who only use DW scorn people who use salt, even though the latter folks are excited by the results they get. But how do we KNOW we should avoid salt? Terry] Jeannine wrote: Hmmm Sir (don't remember your name)... forget the technical stuff. Go ahead make yourself a pot of CS using tap water - that'll teach you. It will be bitter - have a real strong afterbite to it. Before I got on this list that was the way I was making it. Thank God I found this list.. because made with DW the taste is minimal. [I have made CS with tap water, and you are right, it tastes quite bitter. My concern is is it still effective against bugs? (Taste or no taste) Terry] Terry writes: I really appreciated the response to my questions. I appreciate the discussion, and the spirit in which it was given. Intelligent, sensible responses from intelligent, sensible folks! _______________________________________________________ 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]>
