Langsley said,
>The fact remains that an ion of silver in our context
is one atom of silver minus one electron. And that
means that it is one size and doesn't vary.<
Actually, that is one of the important points, and it
is very important. An ion is NOT one atom of silver
minus one electron. It is one atom or GROUP of atoms,
which means that it is not one unvarying size, but can
be as big as a group of atoms can get and still have a
positive or negative charge.
Concerning the info cited from the website:
www.billmackstuff.com/silver-information.html Mr.
Mack said,
Silver inhibits the growth of bacteria by
deactivating the bacterias oxygen metabolism enzymes.
In turn, this destroys the bacterias cell membranes,
stopping the replication of the bacterias DNA.
Source- Acupoll Precision Research, April 2003
Beiersdorf, Inc.
I searched for both Acupoll Precision Research and
Beiersdorf, Inc. separately. Acupoll is a company that
rates the products of other companies, and they had no
info about silver whatsoever. Beiersdorf is the
company that owns two bandage companies Curad and
Elastoplast - that sell bandaids containing silver in
the pad. Nothing on their website contained the quote
from Mr. Mack's site. Mr. Mack made many statements on
his website about silver, but referenced none of them,
except for the Acupoll/Beiersdorf one, and info about
silver didnt exist on their sites. He also defined
terms like ions and colloids in ways that do NOT agree
with mainstream scientific usage.
Langsley further said,
Basically, there are two silver components in
colloidal silver products which give them their
properties, silver particles and silver ions. Silver
ions are silver atoms which have an electron missing
in the outer shell. They are the smallest possible
form of silver, about .28 nanometers. Silver particles
are metallic silver consisting of clusters of silver
atoms. They can range in size from less than a
nanometer up to 1000 nanometers (1 micron).
Im sorry, but that whole paragraph disagrees with
standard science. Since ions ARE particles, and
particles with a charge (such as we all generate) ARE
ions, that first sentence is meaningless. Silver ions
are silver atoms which have an electron missing in the
outer shell. No, silver ions CAN BE atoms, but they
can also be clusters of atoms, if they have a charge.
Also, they are only missing an electron if they are
negative, but contain an extra electron if they are
positive. They are the smallest possible form of
silver, about .28 nanometers. That is only true if
you are talking about a particle that is that size.
However the inference in that sentence is that there
is only one size of silver ion, which completely
disagrees with the rest of the scientific world. The
largest silver particle that has a charge is an ion.
The real issue is defining what it is we make and
use; being consistent with that
definition/description/name; and communicating it to
others.
No, the real issue is to abandon our personal,
subjective, proprietary definitions, which keep the
scientific and medical professionals from taking us
seriously. The meaning of the term, scientific
gobbledygook, is to use scientific words and terms
with faulty or inaccurate definitions (or even
outright false ones) or to use them in an inapplicable
or inaccurate application. To arbitrarily distinguish
between a silver particle and an ion when they
both have a charge is to look ridiculous in the eyes
of a normal scientist. Why dont we call a particle of
silver that is too big to pass through a cell wall a
da-da and a tiny particle that can pass through a
cell wall a de-de. Maybe we can get the rest of the
underground/alternative culture to agree with us and
accept these words and their definitions. Then we
would all speak the same language and there would be
no confusion. But heaven help us if we attempt to
discuss the benefits of da-da or de-de with anyone
with any scientific background!
But that is already the case. Even worse, we use words
that are familiar to the scientific community
differently than they do.
As you can see from the definitions above an ion of
silver is, according to one site, .28 nanometers, and
the other, 1/4 nanometer
. One important one for me is
that there is at least one company who uses some form
of "Nanosilver" as a brand name. The one I found this
morning is actually called "Nano-Silver". There are a
number of other sites using some form of nanosilver to
describe products ranging from silver citrate to
colloidal silver to electrically isolated silver. So
once again, it seems that we are inviting ambiguity
with the use of nanosilver.
It is common-place to find vendors who use all the
words we use and other words besides in inaccurate and
even misleading ways. For us to use words as they are
commonly-defined and accepted by the scientific
community does not invite ambiguity, it invites
clarification. When someone defines ion or
particle different than the standard scientific
usage, they are the ambiguity.
Even you said that "I make EIS that is approximately
90-95% nanosilver and 5-10% colloidal." So which is a
more accurate and easy to understand name/descriptor
for what you are making? I say it is EIS as it
includes both colloidal and what you are calling
"nanosilver" in its definition.
The term, EIS, is a good general term for everything
we make with water, silver and electricity, but is of
no value in distinguishing between types. Our
complaint against the FDA/EPA is that they make no
distinction between silver salts and compounds that
have been clearly implicated as causative of argyria
and therefore should be avoided (they call them all
colloidal), while we maintain that properly prepared
CS/EIS/nanosilver is completely safe. When I am
assuring a client that they have no worries, it is by
explaining the difference between large-particle and
small-particle silver preparations. When that
prospective client has any medical/scientific
background (which is happening increasingly), I must
speak the same language and use the same vocabulary as
that professional, or I will not be taken seriously.
As for particles: an ion of silver goes into solution
in the distilled water rather than being suspended as
a particle.
That sentence would be meaningless to a scientist
because a particle of silver that has a charge (as all
ours do) IS an ion.
As for calling the end product ionic silver: This
*may* be somewhat misleading or confusing to some
because of the reasons you have pointed out. That is,
that there is more than one meaning for the terms ion
and ionic. That doesn't mean that the "one atom minus
one electron" meaning for an ion is invalid. It simply
means that there other equally valid meanings for the
term.
No, there is NOT more than one meaning for the terms
ion and ionic. Not legitimate scientific meanings.
Scientific gobbledygook invents other definitions, but
that is what we are trying to steer clear of.
I think the fact that there can be ions of compounds
such as silver citrate or silver chloride is a non
issue and clouds the real issue with diverting
arguments. And how is the term "nanosilver" going to
obviate that? To my mind the term "nanosilver" is
equally ambiguous. It may or may not be ionic, it may
or may not be a silver compound, etc.
Have you looked at the websites I posted? If a nano is
a billionth, how is the term ambiguous? Nanosilver
would have to be particles measured in billionths. If
we are trying to differentiate between large silver
particles and very small silver particles because of
the potential of large particles to cause argyria, we
need to be able to distinguish between the two using
valid vocabulary.
You also say, "Colloidal silver CAN produce argyria,
as demonstrated by Stan Jacobs." Actually Stan Jacobs
was not taking genuine colloidal silver he was taking
a home made, electrically isolated silver product,
which, because it was improperly made contained silver
compounds, which caused the argyria. From my
understanding of the term "nanosilver" based purely on
your definition of nanosilver here. The substance Stan
Jacobs ingested would be included in that category
-nanosilver.
Actually, Stan Jacobs was ingesting almost nothing but
colloidal silver, since compounds are also colloidal,
as defined by standard science. It is this ambiguity
about colloids that allows the FDA to call colloidal
silver dangerous. And yes, there was certainly a
percentage of Stans brew that was nanosilver
(particles measured in the billionths of a meter), but
these smallest particles had nothing to do with his
argyria.
And thats precisely the point of this discussion. If
we do not have a legitimate, recognized vocabulary to
distinguish between what can cause argyria and what
cannot, and described in a manner that a mainstream
scientist finds legitimate, we cannot argue with them
over the benefits and safety of what we produce, nor
have any basis for opposing their blanket
denunciations of the silver solutions we produce. Far
from nitpicking, I believe this issue to be essential
in our desire to see CS/EIS/nanosilver recognized by
the medical/scientific community.
From my understanding of the term "nanosilver" based
purely on your definition of nanosilver here
My definition is obtained from respected, mainstream
scientific authorities. It is essential that we avoid
having any personal definitions of our own.
Terry Chamberlin
__________________________________________________________
Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down...
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
