How much salt is used? I think only a few grains, right? I would guess it is less than 5 ppm, so it would get reacted out fairly fast.
Marshall Terry Chamberlin wrote: > 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]>
