On Fri, 31 May 2002 19:48:17 -0600, "Richard Sobe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Please clear this up for me. I know colloidal silver is the actual metal >suspended in the liquid and ionic silver is positively charged silver atoms. >Which one is more beneficial and which one is more detrimental. Neither is detrimental. Both are effective in killing pathogens but apparently work differently. Ionic silver must be in solution, where it will eventually combine with various molecules in the body. That is, ionic silver is effective in a fluid medium. Actual silver metal appears to be effective (how effective, I don't know) in the dry state. >I've read both sides of the story stating that one or the other is better, but >which one really is and how is it proven? Lots of work would be needed to prove effectiveness to the FDA and medical community. Lots of money. Lots and lots of money. :) >I would assume that the silver particles are the beneficial part because of >what I've read about the ionic silver being able to combine with other >substances such as chloride to form silver salts which is what causes Argyria. >Is this right? I suspect not. But I don't know for sure. I do know that argyria needs silver concentrations far, far greater than any colloidal silver (or ionic silver) could produce. 10,000 parts per million or greater (that's a 1% solution). -- Dean -- from (almost) Des Moines -- KB0ZDF -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
