Dan Nave wrote: > Perhaps it would be useful to define what constitutes a "metal" as in > "metallic silver" as this is apparently what is being referred to by the > Colloidal Silver purists as silver particles. > > Is there something that distinguishes "metallic silver" from a silver > compound, or an ion in solution, etc?
Metallic silver is neutral and has all it's electrons, silver compounds are all ionic silver, at least when in solution, and are missing one or more electrons. Marshall > > > I imagine there is something wrong with the way this is stated as silver is a > metal regardless of it's state? > > Dan > > >>> Terry Chamberlin <[email protected]> 11/21/2005 3:51:56 PM >>> > 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 bacteria's oxygen metabolism enzymes. > In turn, this destroys the bacteria's cell membranes, > stopping the replication of the bacteria's 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 didn't 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)." > > I'm 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 don't 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 Stan's brew that was nanosilver > (particles measured in the billionths of a meter), but > these smallest particles had nothing to do with his > argyria. > > And that's 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]> >
