Dear Brooks, If you did not see my post Sunday afternoon re: -- whether particulate (elemental) or ionic silver is more effective -- we are prepared to run an 'in vitro' evaluation per the protocol [example of which] is now posted on our website under "Analytical Services" (in Para 3.there is a button to retrieve the current 'paper'. We won't presume to say this is in any way definitive and of course it does not take into account the transport issue, or any of the other complex issues that must eventually be addressed. This is only a simple approach to determine relative killing power. But that is at least a start on a question that to date has only incurred conjecture in this forum. Stephen
ps for those who don't know the site it is www.natural-immunogenics.com -----Original Message----- From: brooks bradley [mailto:liat...@flash.net] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:00 PM To: silver-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: CS Tip of Possible Interest Dear Arnold, Although there was no, definitive, data accumulated positively establishing efficacy of ionic vs particulate agents......the anecdotal evidence did seem to favor, somewhat, particulate agencies. We utilized solutions of varying ratios, from 90% ionic X 10% particulate, to 70% ionic X 30% particulate. The anecdotal results did, in fact, accrue in favor of the higher particulate liquids. However, since the control rates of all solutions were so high (never lower than 80%), it is rather academic----and speculative---to attempt to use this (uncontrolled) study as a basis for establishing an effectiveness superiority.....for one or the other. Our staff seems to be divided over this issue; and, probably, rightly so. The reason being that the exact range of efficacy of pure ionic vs pure particulate solutions has---to our knowledge---never been scientifically concluded (especially considering the difficulty of generating CS of 100% solely ionic, or solely particulate nature). To wit: by establishing a suitable range of tests over a variety of repeatable conditions-----especially in vivo----which would allow objective results to be unfailingly quantified. It is my PERSONAL opinion that high particulate concentratilons do, indeed, exhibit superior control effects for topical applications----most especially in cases where residual mass/volume of the control agent are of increased consideration. I am not so confident about in vivo circumstances. In closure I would suggest that the course of prudence would suggest a CS containing at least 10% particulate silver derivatives. I do suspect that each demonstrates advantages under different specific circumstances; if correct, recommending a policy for using CS solutions containing appreciable percentages of both representatives, appears most sensible. Hoping I have not opened the door for excessive conjecture...... Sincerely, Brooks Bradley ----- Original Message ----- From: Arnold Beland To: silver-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:06 PM Subject: Re: CS Tip of Possible Interest Thank You Brooks, for some useful information. At the risk of starting a skirmish, should we use Frank or Ivan's CS for this? Best Regards, Arnold ----- Original Message ----- From: brooks bradley To: silver-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 5:16 PM Subject: CS Tip of Possible Interest Recently, we completed an investigation which yielded information I believe to be of possible value to the list membership. While it is well known that CS solutions as weak as 5 ppm are of value when impinged upon the surfaces of conventional air conditioning filters, there was small data available as to how effective. We found that approximately 3 ounces of 10 ppm CS sprayed over (both sides) of a 20" X 20" X 1" AC intake filter.....once every 10 days, reduced the general viable bacteria/virus populations (expressing on the filter surfaces) to 5%--or less--of those found on the control filters. In some cases, where 20 ppm was used, and the interval for filter cleaning shortened to 7 days----the efficacy improved to better than 98%. It is of interest to note that some filters were mechanically/pneumatically cleaned by simply knocking them against a screened surface and exposing to 60+ psi cleaning via air hose nozzles 4 times....before being replaced with new ones-----without substantial degradation in overall system performance. Of note was, free-air samples from areas serviced by a $1000.00 air-scrubber, contained MORE live pathogens.....than did the CS test areas utilizing the foregoing arrangement of CS impregnated intake filters. One word of caution.....because of the large, initial, wetted surface of the intake filter it would be prudent to check the filter for heavier-than-usual accumulations of dirt/dust particulates at about 5 days. after the initial installation.. This is of special importance in areas exhibiting high dust concentrations. It may be of import for members to know that approximately 80% of all A/C system failures have their primary cause as "restricted air flow"......mainly from occluded intake filters (this includes, but is not limited to: frozen evaporator surfaces, compressor failure due to excessive work-load, continuously high discharge pressures,etc.) I hope this information is of value to some. Sincerely, Brooks Bradley.
