Karl Becker <kwbecker...@gmail.com> wrote: Came across this article about research showing nano silver particles being harmful to human cells. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140227115424.htm
=========================== Jim Holmes wrote: "Because of the possibility of human exposure to nanoparticles, there is an urgent need to investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying the cellular responses that might be triggered." More pharmacrook scare crap. =========================== Yeah, the entire article basically is a scare tactic, mixed in with a "particle" of truth (pun intended). But there are a couple of points worth mentioning. The interesting thing is, nowhere in the article could I find the MEASUREMENTS of these presumed "nano" silver particles. Many marketers are capitalizing on the nano craze, calling ionic or colloidal particles "nano" when they aren't. This is important. It's important because most TRUE nano particles-which are SMALLER than those particles created when we make colloidal silver-ARE dangerous. Nano particles are now used in everything from stained glass (which one doesn't eat) to cosmetics, which is harmful as these nano particles go right into the skin. Generally speaking, "nano-izing" a substance changes its character completely, and usually not for the better. But the industries that profit from nano-izing never admit that there are any dangers. So the author of the article is talking out of both sides of his/her mouth. "Nano-izing" silver is harmful, but "nano-izing" other substances isn't? Puh-leez! Nenah Nenah Sylver, PhD author, the NEW Rife Handbook (2011) Holistic Handbook of Sauna Therapy (2004) VoiceBio and Biomodulator certification <http://www.nenahsylver.com> www.nenahsylver.com; <http://www.rifehandbook.com> www.rifehandbook.com --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
