Terry Chamberlin wrote: > Marshall said, > .. I am still somewhat at a loss here as to what > terminology to use to definitively separate a > molecular silver ion from a suspended silver crystal. > I still like the "molecular ion", but maybe another > good term would be a "disassociated ion". > > Part of the confusion is also tied to the definition > of *colloidal*. Dr. Carey Reams (physicist, > biochemist) didnt limit the size of a colloidal > particle to something unable to passing through a cell > wall. He said that some colloids were so small they > could pass through glass. Also, the concept that > suspended silver particles are not utilized by the > body or that ionic silver particles are > argyria-causing to the body is irrelevant if silver > particles are changed by the body into *ionic* silver > by stomach acid, digestion, etc.
But they aren't. The opposite is true, ionic molecular silver is changed into nanoparticles in the blood stream. > But silversmiths who > were exposed to metallic silver powder and either > inhaled it or continually got it on their skin > acquired argyria. The inhaling is easy to explain since the lungs oxidize metallic silver particles into silver oxide with h2o2. Getting it on the skin is harder to explain, and in fact I suspect that it may be an incorrect assumption, all was really absorbed by breathing it. If metallic silver on the skin causes argyria, then millions of people would have it from wearing jewelry, an none do. > Either the silver particles did > cause argyria, or else the silver particles were made > ionic by some metabolic function (digestion, etc.), Yes, we have already covered how the lungs do that many times here. I think it would be considered oxidization though, not digestion. > > which then caused argyria, or else more than one form > of silver can cause argyria. What form you start with is irrelevant, as long as it is ionic when it enters the blood stream. The following are facts: 1. silver compounds that dissolve can enter the blood stream directly as molecular ionic silver through the stomach wall.. 2. silver nanoparticles that enter the stomach are either not effected (they enter the blood stream as particles, hCl does not attach silver nanoparticles), or if there is free sulfur available they can "tarnish". Normally there is no free sulfur in the stomach, but one might not want to eat eggs at the same time they take CS. 3. Silver particles that enter the lungs cause the lungs to produce H2O2 either through hypooxygenization or hyperoxygenization. The H2O2 reacts with the silver producing silver oxide which is then absorbed into the blood stream. > In any case, argyria does > not occur when silver particles (in any form) are > nanometer in size. > That is true. > > Dr. Robert Demling emphasized the point that, as > silver particles become smaller, they operate in > unique ways that larger particles do not. When you are > discussing nanosilver, all the rules and concerns are > different. Silver particles that are in a certain > range of sizes are considered suspended in water, and > we have called them *colloidal*. When they fall below > a certain size, they are considered to be dissolved, > and we have been calling them *ionic*. We arbitrarily > label the first group *particles*, though they are all > particles (using common scientific definitions), and > the second group *ions*, though they are also > particles, and both groups all have a charge (which is > the common definition of an ion). Including silver > nitrate into the group called *ionic* only muddies the > water even more, because we have (inappropriately) > been using that word to specify silver particles so > small that there is no concern for safety, they are > too small to be a problem. From a purely literal > standpoint, silver-nitrate IS ionic because it has a > charge (does it?), but that makes us need a vocabulary > that differentiates between *good ionic* and *bad > ionic*, and were already having trouble with *ionic* > and *colloidal*. There is no good ionic vs bad ionic. Silver nitrate it poisons use to the anion, nitrate, not the cation silver. Silver oxide and silver hydroxide are not poisonous, and that is what the ionic compound portion of EIS is. I think we should use molecular ionic for the silver compounds, such as silver oxide which is what we usually refer to as ionic silver, and either colloidal particles, or silver nanoparticles for the colloid part. > > > I have looked up the definitions of *dissolved*, > *solution* and *homogeneous* (a word that is part of > the definition of a solution). I have tried to find a > clear description of the properties that would make a > distinction between the two, but found it to be quite > unclear. If the particles are bigger than a certain > size, they are declared to be in suspension. If > smaller than that, they are labeled *in solution*. Also in the case of silver, a ion (from a disassociated molecule) is reactive, forming silver chloride when salt is added, and a silver nanoparticle is pretty darn stable, not being effected by any acid no matter how strong at room temperature, only reacting with free sulfur or H2O2. > I > have repeatedly seen an (apparently) arbitrary > measurement of a particle in *suspension* of .001 to > 0.1 nanometers, with the inference being that a > particle smaller than .001 nm is now in solution and > no longer in suspension. Where did that standard come > from? If a particle that is .001 nm is in suspension, > why is a particle that is .000999 nm in solution? What > is the difference between suspension and solution? To > say that the silver is now dissolved into the water is > a meaningless statement with out a clear definition of > *dissolve* and *solution*. The dictionary says that it > is *homogeneous*, another word with a vague > definition. Those definitions are completely arbitrary. They are probably from trying to define any substance, not just silver. Fortunately silver gives us a big plus in figuring out if it is colloidal or molecular ionic, add a little salt, and the ionic will fall out, but the colloidal will not. THAT is the difference we should be concerning ourselves with with EIS. There is a big difference in the chemistry, even if there is no difference in the size (for instance the Ag++ of Ag2O will be two atoms, and so will a two atom colloidal particle, but one will react with chlorine and the other will not, and one is ionic molecular silver and the other silver nanoparticle colloid) > > > Argyria HAS been caused by metallic silver particles, > i.e., silver dust. I don't believe so, that is silver dust in the blood stream. First how would it even get in the blood stream, it is too big to be absorbed. Second it is already a silver particle, so how is argyria going to be formed which is formed by a silver particle growing so fast that it gets stuck in the skin. As I indicated before, the initial for of silver is irrelevant, all that is relevant is what form it is in at the time it enters the blood stream. Now if you inject silver particles, that is a different story. They are so big they would get stuck in capillaries and tissues all over the place, but that is not what we normally mean by argyria. > This is best demonstrated by the > incidence of argyria among silversmiths, who are > exposed to silver dust on their skin and inhaled into > their lungs. Once again, we know silver dust becomes silver oxide in the lungs and goes into the blood as an ionic compound. What mechanism forms the absorption of silver on the skin? Is the dust basically working itself into the skin forming a tattoo directly? If so, this is irrelevant to taking it orally where it has to get into the blood stream first before it can reach the skin. > This seems to me to rebut the idea that > only silver ions cause argyria. Silver oxide formed in the lungs IS silver ions, so that does not rebut it. Silver dust may or may not cause staining of the skin directly, but even if it does, that done nor refute the idea that only ionic silver when taken orally can cause argyria, any more than saying that a carbon filled tattoo can cause tattoos when taken orally. Of course anything that is implanted directly under the skin can cause staining, but that is irrelevant to if staining can be cause by oral dosing of the same material. > I have repeatedly seen > the silver-salt-sunlight-photo concept described as > the mechanism causing argyria, but I do not think it > is that simple. It would not, to me, explain > silversmith argyria adequately. I think I already have. > > > The evidence is strong that silver in ANY form is > lethal to pathogens. The vendors who claim that one > form or the other is not effective are either ignorant > of the widespread experience of many, many people, or > else they are being dishonest in order to promote > their products. Since we know that, the smaller the > silver particles, the safer they are (Demling), we > have wanted to differentiate between the safe and the > unsafe. > True. > > I personally am not concerned about ionic or colloidal > or particulate or whatever. If you dissolve/suspend > pure silver into pure, steam-distilled water using > electricity, and you dont brew it until its muddy, > you will find it to be beneficial to your body without > needing caution about using it. True. > > > As far as safety is concerned, I think the only real > consideration is particle size, although Demling also > says that the smaller the particle, the more effective > and stable it is. We have identified some of the > factors that affect particle size. Particles will be > bigger if the silver is joined to other substances > minerals, chemicals, proteins, etc. Particles will be > bigger if they aggregate to themselves (basically, > larger silver particles). The silver will break off > the anode in bigger chunks when the electricity has a > high amperage (whatever the voltage). I don't think the silver ever breaks off in chunks at all, only a stream of ions leave the anode, and if the concentration is over a certain level, they will aggregate into silver nanoparticles. When you increase the current density then the concentration near the anode increases increasing aggregation, and if you don't stir, or if the water is hot you have the same effect. If chunks were breaking off then the size would be affected by the voltage, not the current, and all our tests have confirmed that it is current not voltage that effects particle size. > The evidence > indicates that silver particles that are large because > of being joined to proteins or minerals (compounds) > are more likely to contribute to argyria than large > particles that are pure silver (up to a point). In > other words, I would rather drink pure yellow CS than > yellow silver nitrate. Of course, Id rather drink > crystal clear CS, but if there is nothing in it but > silver, water and its byproducts, I have no hesitation > in freely drinking yellow CS. > > I submit that all that matters is particle size. > Specifying types of silver particles (colloidal, > ionic, particulate, atomic, etc.) is unimportant and > irrelevant to safety and effectiveness, until the size > is too big. Huh? The type is relevant, as well as the size. Silver ions are extremely reactive, and silver particles are very non reactive, that is easily proven with the the salt or HCl test. Silver ions will plate out on silver particles when in the presence of a developer such as caffeine, and in a basic solution, silver particles are unaffected. Silver ions will form silver particles when exposed to uv light in the skin, silver particles can't form silver particles, they already ARE silver particles. > How big is too big? Anything darker than > yellow (whether colloidal, ionic, particulate) is > suspect. It may be perfectly safe, but no one knows > for sure. Crystal clear CS/EIS is completely safe in > any quantity, because in order for it to be/stay > clear, it must have small particle size, in the > nanometer range. If we are making a point of brewing > nanosilver, we dont need to worry about argyria or > anything else. > That is correct. IES should never be able unsafe in any quantity. > > Since clear CS/EIS is so easy to brew, our problem is > solved. For the newbies, it is simple: Use > steam-distilled water, .999 or better Fine silver, > dont brew until its brown (stop at clear, yellow or > gold). Drink freely, use it everywhere. Everything we > make has some ionic (I say its ALL ionic), some > colloidal (I say its ALL colloidal), some particulate > (I say its ALL particles). I do not believe anyone > can control the process to the point where he can make > NOTHING but nanometer-sized particles, it will always > have a range of sizes. It will when using the EIS method. There are methods of making colloidal particles that are consistent in size, but it is hard to do. Marshall > > > 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]> >
