It appears that silver nitrate is being used again on babies: http://www.parenthoodweb.com/articles/phw1380.htm http://www.sangfroid.com/babypix/plan.html http://www.lamaze.com/baby/firsthour/articles/0,9474,167862_80951,00.html
>From what I recall silver nitrate was discontinued in the 70's due to pharmacutical companies pressing for the use of patented antibiotics which would earn them more money. Sometime (I believe in the late 80's in Knoxville), a hospital was sued because a baby went blind because the antibiotic was not broad enough spectrum to kill something it was exposed to in the birth canal. At the trial they presented evidence that silver notrate would have killed it and that the only reason they stopped using silver nitrate was to increase profits by using a patented antibiotic. I remember thinking at the time it serves them right, even though I knew nothing of CS at the time. I did not realize they had started using it again until a little while ago when I was researching the history. Since they now offer both, my suspicion is that they are doing this to cover themselves against another law suit, but tell the parents that the "silver nitrate" will burn the eyes to get them to use the other as much as possible. Marshall Ode Coyote wrote: > Reid > My chemistry is also pretty limited. I think you have me mixed up with > someone elses postings. > From what I gather, silver nitrate is dangerous because very small amounts > contain a lot of silver ...and... silver nitrates are corrosive to body > tissues and leave black stains. > Even still, until fairly recently, it was used in virtually all new born > babies eyes to prevent infections. > Ken > > >Reid Harvey wrote: > > > >> Ken, > >> > >> Also, back to my limited chemistry, I would like to know why it is that > >> one would have to isolate one element in a simple compound as the > >> culprit in a health problem. For example with silver nitrate why does > >> the problem have to be either the silver or the nitrate. I think the > >> problem is probably the compound. Another example: it's been stated > >> here that gold chloride is highly toxic, yet gold metal is beneficial > >> and chlorine is a lot less toxic. > > > >You have a good point here, although gold chloride is not a good example > >since chlorine is deadly toxic.A good example would be hydrogen cyanide, > >HCN, which is deadly toxic, yet hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen alone are > >totally harmless. > > > >Marshall > > > > > >-- > >The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > > > >To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: > >silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com -or- silver-digest-requ...@eskimo.com > >with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > > > >To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > >Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > >List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> > > > >
