Hi, I'll interleaf; On Sat, 2015-02-21 at 13:54 +1030, Debra & David wrote: > A major problem with this forum is that threads get so broken up that > they are soon misunderstood and become almost incoherent. (Probably > only Jason has read and understood my posts about this subject right > from the beginning). If every post was kept intact and read in > sequence then things would go smoother. But of course that cant happen > here. > > Anyway I've cut and pasted a few things. (It only took an hour). > > Phil said... > Faraday's Law does not work for making CS. Faraday's Law can measure > how much silver was lost from the electrodes, but it can not tell you > how much remains suspended in solution. > > Me... > It does work for making CS as long as you understand it. Faradays law > tells us exactly how much silver was dissolved into the water. I didnt > say it could tell us how much STAYS dissolved. Basically my original > question was this... 'If 200 ppm is dissolved into the water, but only > 100 uS is measurable with a meter, where's the other 100 ppm gone if > its not showing up in a TE or lying on the bottom of the jar.?' My > musing (comments welcome because I am not an expert on lasers) was > that it may be creating particles so small they do not show up in the > frequency of a red laser. > (Part of the answer may be in a study of saturation points and > solubility levels. Why does silver have a saturation point in pure > water of only about 24 ppm while salt has a solubility level of > 360,000 ppm?). > > Phil said... > Using Faraday's Law to measure PPM in CS is a waste of time and > silver. > > Me. .. > Well thats just silly. In fact its the ONLY way to accurately > determine how much total silver is in the water. (Even the best lab > instruments have shortcomings).
Actually it is a measure of how much silver - in one form or another - has left the electrodes. Where it has gone however, what it has combined with or adheres to - possibly even the other electrode - remain to be determined. I'd tend to agree with you that the exercise is Not a total waste of time. It would take a bit of doing to determine how much could be found in "this"or "that" form or combination. > > Malcomn said.. > Re. your #1; consider silver nitrate, a known poison. Nitrogen composes ~80% > of our air. > Ammonia, NH3, a gas, is present in small amounts just about everywhere that > e.g. ammonium fertilizers are used, etc. > > Me... > Silvernitrate in trace quantities is no problem. Even in strong doses it has > been used in medicine. Look up > silvernitrate on Wikipedia. Anyway, my lack of concern was with compounds > likely to be formed in filtered > domestic tap water. (People have already been doing that for decades by the > way, with no problems, argyria aside) Your claim was that "No silver compounds" had ever been found that were detrimental to human health. I don't claim that a slight exposure once or a few times would necessarily be harmful. I would point out however that the use of silver nitrate in a newborn's eyes to eliminate the possibility of infection, a very common practice in a large percentage of hospital delivery units was discontinued because of the corneal scarring that sometimes occurred; by then antibiotics were a much safer alternative. The presence of ammonia, aka ammonium when it's dissolved in water, is much higher in our environment than it has been in the past, and there are other silver compounds which are toxic to a greater or quite often a lesser degree than silver nitrate. 89 Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 89–108, 1999 q 1999 SETAC Printed in the USA 0730-7268/99 $9.00 —Silver Bioavailability Bioaccumulation Toxicity Review INTRODUCTION Silver ion is one of the most toxic forms of a heavy metal, surpassed only by mercury and thus has been assigned to the highest toxicity class, together with cadmium, chromium (VI), copper, and mercury [1,2]. The sources of silver in the envi- ronment were recently reviewed [3]. > . > > Malcom said.. > Using a nebulizer to inhale ~200ppm CS is likely to cause inflammation and > scarring of your bronchi and lungs. > I've inhaled 27 ppm CS made with good 'distilled' water. > > Me... > 'Likely' to cause inflammation' is a big call based on a survey of one. Maybe > thats your experience but its not mine. So What? Your continuous contentiousness is at least useless; "Survey" of one, indeed! I'm not interested in that sort of interchange. I've used less efficient nebulizers over lesser periods of time with no ill effects but urge caution on you with your purported 200 ppm ionic silver. > I've never had a problem inhaling CS. But if you really want a good story > about inhaling CS ask Jason. > Malcolm said... > Your attitude toward any experimentation, yours or others, is > cavalier. > > Me... > This is really where the chaotic structure of this forum gets > annoying. I have not at any stage advocated the use of high ppm CS, > ionic or otherwise. I simply made some observations about batches I > had made, mentioned them on here, and invited comments. Gail asked for > an example of where highly ionic CS might be useful and I suggested a > possible use. The only 'experiments' I have suggested to members is to > make some CS using tap water and a low current (1mA) generator and > observe what happens. > > Malcolm said.. > Your rejection of suggested checks on your own work has been > ad-hominem and unkind. You clearly can do better, you're intelligent. > > Me.. > Whats checks did I reject? What unkind, ad hominem, comments have I > made? Please cut and past examples. Perhaps you are confusing me with > someone else. About the worst I have said, as I recall, is to call > some members 'inflexible' regarding the future format of this forum. > Now you are painting me as some kind of argumentative troll. I invite > you to provide examples or apologise. You Strongly suggested that Tony was a fool, using his own attempt to provide the information that in using CS on animals, the animals are not usually susceptible to the placebo effect. in doing so you used a "straw man" argument, thus employing both the "kill the messenger" and the "ad hominem" rhetorical ploys combined. QED. > > David (in Australia) > > > > -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:[email protected]> List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:[email protected]>
