Marshall, Thanks for a good answer. I'm supposing that where using electrodes of 99.0% the thing to do would be to test the newly made CS for the presence of mercury and arsenic, that these would be more dificult to detect in the metal. Also I could try saturating a couple of candles with the CS, then take some filtrate and have a couple of labs test for arsenic and mercury.
I've had a lab test for the presence of silver, in the very first filtrate that comes out of the purifier, and they find that this contains a tiny amount, which is at the approximate EPA limit. Then after the first couple of liters pass the purifier I take a sample again and have this tested. Results indicate there is no longer any detectable silver in the filtrate. I'm imagining that much the same approach could be taken with arsenic and mercury, testing very first filtrate for their presence, then testing the filtrate mafter a couple of liters. If this last indicates presence perhaps a third and fourth test could be implemented in order to plot a curve. Also I may want to see how the silver workers go about their work, if it appears as if arsenic or mercury may be involved. Or are these metals a natural byproduct? By the way, what's wrong with nickel, and might there be other elements to watch out for. Lead? Barium? Please feel free not to answer if this would have an overwhelming dimension. Thanks, Reid Marshall Dudley said: It would help if you knew what the other 1% is. If it is mercury, arsenic or lead, stay away from it. If it is copper and/or gold, then by all means it would be fine. I believe nickel would also not be too much of a problem as long as the water is not highly acidic. Marshall Reid Harvey wrote: > Silver Friends, > I am soliciting the opinions of the knowledgeable here as to the purity > requirements of silver electrodes, for use in making concentrated CS, of > the type that would be used to saturate ceramic water purifiers. This > CS would not be recommended for ingesting, only used for water filter > saturation immediately after production. I am well aware that three > nines (99.9%) is minimal purity for CS that is ingested, what about two > nines (99.0%) for the purpose of saturating permeable ceramics? What > about less than 99.0%? > > The purifiers are to be for the use of low income people, for whom low > cost of the system is all important. My impression is that 99.9% silver > may be double or triple the price of 99.0%. From what I'm seeing here > in South Asia it is not difficult to insure 99.0% purity for locally > processed silver electrodes. But 99.9% must be imported. So this is > much more expensive, particularly in ensuring the additional step of > rolling an ingot into an electrode. I'm also of the impression that the > major impurity in the silver may by copper or nickel, metals that would > also become situated in the purifiers, not flushed into the filtrate. > > What do you think? > Reid -- 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]>
