For some reason this following post is not showing up on the forum; Im
deleting various parts to see where the offense may lie
I dont care about our gut feelings regarding silver toxicity as much as
I care about the actual numbers. Is it at all scientific to say silver
is not toxic to fish? Give me the numbers, the studies, not gut feeling.
*"Acute*toxicity values for both*freshwater*macroinvertebrates and fish
ranged from 0.9 µg/L to 29 µg/L" Extracted from Section 8.3.7 ‘Detailed
descriptions of chemicals’ of the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines.
Thats the LC50, the concentration of silver in the water that kills
half the fish. Its not because you killed the microbes, it harms the
embryos, gills and so on.
Was the overview study the same as putting people in unrealistically
smoky environments and declaring it harmful? No, those were
occupational levels, and the conclusion was not just "silver is toxic",
they covered non toxic observations, and gave levels. So if you were
to inhale silver, you could try a calculation and see if you were close
to that 50 micrograms per cubic meter level where damage was seen under
the microscope and clinical symptoms. They gave a pretty good
suggestion that we can clear it out in a few months, so we might assume
we can get away with it to fight a lung infection for a period of days,
then take a break.
Do you think chronic inhalation of silver is non toxic and will do no harm?
I have been on this forum for a long time, maybe 12 years or more? When
did it start? Ive noticed that people have an emotional feeling about
silver toxicity, but never bother to look at studies and actual numbers.
They scoff at any suggestion that silver can have a toxic component to
humans. This, in my humble opinion, is a similar mentality to the
people who have an emotional feeling about how bad covid is. They shut
down any conversation if I tell them covid just isnt that deadly for
healthy people.
Their emotion shuts down dialogue and throws out data. Why be that way?
thanks
Max
