Matthew said,
>I vote for EIS. It is not trademarked. It describes
the
production process as well as the product.<
Which product does EIS describe? The stuff that Stan
Jacobs brewed? That was electrically/electrolytically
isolated silver. EIS only refers to what it is
possible to brew with electricity; it does not
delineate purity of water or addition of starter or
particle size or color or quality or brewing time or
safety. Brown, coffee-colored, argyria-producing
sludge can be produced with silver, water and
electricity, and be accurately called EIS. Silver
particles that can be measured in and limited to
billionths of a meter (nanometer) imply correct
brewing procedures. For particle size to be
nanometers, you cannot add salt or other starters, nor
brew too long, nor use tap water or any water with any
substances in it, because these things produce larger
than nanometer-sized particles.
EIS is so vague that it does not communicate anything
except the presence of silver, electricity and - by
inference - water.
EIS is just fine for our usage on the silver-list,
where we know what we mean, the same as we understand
what we mean when we say *CS*. I like *CS* just fine
because it uses one less typing stroke.
I recently stumbled upon a list where the members were
discussing several websites promoting Colloidal
Silver. The members of this list were predominently of
an allopathic medical perspective. They did not appear
to be professionals, just sympathetic to the medical
paradigm. They were highly critical of these CS
vendors they were discussing, partly because the
vendors made all kinds of claims about the benefits of
CS without offering any substantiation whatsoever, but
also because these CS vendors did not know what they
were talking about. They used scientific-sounding
terms without even knowing what they meant. They used
their own proprietary vocabulary with their own
subjective and personal definitions, but used them as
though they were valid scientific terminology. They
looked and sounded like unprofessional, rank amateurs,
which totally discredited them and, by association,
totally discredited the validity of any silver
preparations.
We do the same. We talk about ions and particles using
the definitions given by various CS vendors,
definitions which are incorrect and inaccurate by
normal scientific standards.
We also will be dismissed as amateurs, and CS/EIS with
us.
On the list, we can use any vocabulary we want, as
long as we all understand what we mean (which is not,
in fact, a given), but when anyone with a professional
background reviews our information, we will be
dismissed, and our product with us.
Actually, we use a vocabulary amongst ourselves that
not only does not reflect normal scientific
definitions, we do not even agree amongst us what they
mean, and many spirited discussions have occured on
this list because we were discussing apples and
oranges. New members struggle to understand what is
being said until - by osmosis, I presume - they get a
sense of what these words mostly mean.
There are actually three points to all this
discussion: One, that we need to speak like the rest
of the scientific world, using their vocabulary and
definitions of terms so that they will at least listen
to us. Two, that we need to differentiate between
large-sized silver particles - what we have been
calling *colloidal* - and small-sized silver particles
- what we have been calling *ionic* - and three, that
the term, *nanosilver* is a term already being
utilized by the mainline scientific community to
describe silver particles of a very small size.
Why don't we use this term also?
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]>
