This is the first of two halves of my post, as it is too big for one post. The second is following immediately.
The trouble with discussing inhaling silver "particles" is that that very word conjures a picture of chunks of metal becoming clogged in the lungs. The scientific definition of "colloidal" is particles of something too big to pass through the lining of a cell wall (among other factors). We attempt to differentiate between silver particles that are colloidal and particles that are small enough to easily pass through cell walls. We call these smaller particles "ionic", even though the use of the word in that way is not scientifically accurate. In truth, some colloidal particles are small enough to pass through glass, and some ionic particles are huge (mayonnaise could be considered ionic). I cannot find terms in the scientific vocabulary to help distinguish between these two, yet it is important that we do. The discussion of silver accumulating in various organs of the body must, by definition, be concerned with COLLOIDAL particles, i.e., particles too big to pass through a cell wall. Particles of silver that are 1/7,000th to 1/15,000th the size of a red blood cell (what we are calling "ionic") would behave in totally different ways than "colloidal" particles of silver, precisely because of the size difference. I posted a discussion of this awhile ago, but there was a lively discussion of something else going on (magnets, I think), and I saw no response to my post. Let me try again. Here is my prior post: A major part of the confusion about the topic of silver toxicity comes from not differentiating between one form of silver and another or one method of preparation and another. It reminds me of the study (a spoof) in which a group of men were first given whisky and water, then gin and water and then vodka and water. In every case the men got drunk, which led the scientists to conclude that water made you drunk. Unless clear distinction is made between ionic/colloidal silver (EIS/CS) and all other forms of silver preparations, we are talking apples and oranges. The reason why CS is safe is for several reasons. One, the quantity of actual silver ingested is so very low, especially compared to the amounts mentioned in the scientific reports of the occurrence of argyria. Second, if made correctly, the particle size is so very small that it simply does not accumulate in the body like the large-particle silver salts and proteins. Third, there is no consideration given by the scientific community to differing accumulation/excretion rates of different forms of silver. The primary mechanism that has been at all acknowledged as causing silver to accumulate in the human body is the fact that large silver particles (compounds, salts, proteins, even large colloids) can accumulate in, as an example, the skin, because these particles get caught/lodged in the capillaries of the skin, being too large to pass through. It is a recognized fact that silver joined to other substances (proteins, minerals, etc.) produce very large particles. On the other hand, *ionic-colloidal* (EIS) silver particles range in size from 1/7,000th to 1/15,000th the size of a red blood cell, making the idea of them getting stuck in the capillaries rather ludicrous. Fourth, the issue of accumulation/excretion. Does any/every form of silver (protein, salt, colloid, ionic) accumulate in the human body at the same rate? Or even at all? Roger Altmans medically supervised study demonstrated that clear, very tiny particle size CS did not accumulate in the human body whatsoever, even when ingested in voluminous quantities (quarts per day). This is not at all true of silver nitrate, sulfadiazine or silver arsphemamine. All of the studies appear to operate on the assumption that all forms of silver accumulate in the body, whatever the form, whatever the particle size or however fast/slow the ingestion. But this must be taken into consideration, else estimates of quantities leading to argyria are meaningless. If I ingest one gram of silver (Which silver? What form?) over a period of one week or one year, does that make a difference? Altmans study demonstrates clearly that it does, at least concerning colloidal silver. Yet even the toxicology statistics discuss the methods of silver excretion (recognizing that the body does make an effort to dispose of extra or unnecessary silver). If the body does indeed excrete silver, wouldnt this affect accumulation rates? Obviously, if I ingest one gram of silver over a thirty-year period or if I do it in one day, that would be very significant. Yet none of the studies or statistics seem to comment much on that important dynamic. Historically, we know that members of Europes royalty mechanically ground up silver into powder, stirred it into water or wine and drank it to protect themselves from sickness. How much larger would the smallest ground-up particles be than the largest particles found in electronically isolated colloidal silver? A thousand times bigger? 10,000 times? A million times? Some colloidal particles are so small they can pass through glass. Argyria was such a common occurrence among the royalty that it earned them the name "blue-blood". When CS is prepared in improper ways, the particles become very large and the amount of silver in the preparation increases significantly. Even the reports that identify colloidal silver as the culprit do not examine the brewing process or the components of the preparation. Did they use tap water? Was it Fine silver or Sterling silver? How long was it brewed? What color was the CS? (In other words, what size were the particles?) In these cases, the term "colloidal" is scientifically accurate (using the standard scientific definition), but wholly inadequate for making any distinction between large or small sized silver particles. Stan Jones acquired a faint bluish tinge under his eyes, but he made 8 ounces of CS using city tap water and brewed it for one hour. His CS would have looked like coffee, and he drank the whole 8 ounces each day! This was not Colloidal Silver, much less ionic silver (as we are defining them). It was a sludge of silver compounds created by the interaction of the silver with the chemicals/minerals in the water. The scientific references to cases of argyria caused by colloidal silver do not impress me, given the way most scientists fail to differentiate between various forms of silver solutions/treatments, nor to even consider the principles of particle size or silver accumulation/excretion. Intravenous administration of an estimated total dose of 4-20 g silver arsphemamine over a 2- to 9.75-year period caused argyria in humans. Argyria developed after a total dose of 4-8 g in some patients, while in others argyria did not develop until after a total dose of 10-20 g (Gaul and Straud, 1935). http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/silver_f_V1.shtml The above is quoted from a govt website, and they start at 4 grams or more. Argyria, a characteristic and irreversible gray or blue-gray discoloration of the skin and mucous membranes, has been observed in individuals that have ingested both metallic silver and silver compounds in small doses over periods of months or years. Argyria, both generalized or localized, has resulted from such uses as antismoking lozenges containing silver acetate, breath mints coated with silver, silver nitrate solutions for the treatment of gum disease, and silver nitrate capsules for relief of gastrointestinal discomfort (ATSDR, 1990; Stokinger, 1981). No colloidal silver (EIS) here. The generalization of "small doses" (whatever that means) and "months or years" makes the above statement useless. The only value in this statement is to identify silver nitrate or acetate as something to avoid. The estimated total dose required to induce argyria by ingestion is in the range of 1-30 g for soluble silver salts (Nordberg and Gerhardsson, 1988). OK, now were down to "merely" 1 gram. The article only mentions soluble silver salts, not colloids. The estimated total dose Over what period? In your whole life? All at once? This statement is meaningless. It can only have any meaning if absolutely none of the silver is excreted from the body, an idea these same scientists have refuted by discussing the various avenues that silver actually is excreted. Now, in fact, this study did say that an estimated total dose of 4-20 g silver arsphemamine over a 2- to 9.75-year period caused argyria in humans. One comment someone made was that as little as 1 gram cumulative dose caused a case of argyria but seemed to conclude that something closer to 1.84 grams cumulative dose (the amount of silver in 8 grams of silver arsphenamine) was likely to cause argyria. Thats cumulative, not per day!! The person who said this, like the above quoted scientists, makes no differentiation between one form of silver and another, small or large particle size, or considers the probability of differing accumulation/excretion rates between one form and another. I refer to Altmans study because, to my knowledge, no other study of accumulation/excretion rates in humans has even been performed by anyone else. Rats, mice, dogs and monkeys they know about, but they have little comment about humans. All the animals excrete at least 90% of the silver, 94% if orally ingested. One critic also said, Furthermore, the EPA gave LOW CONFIDENCE to its reference dose, because it simply didnt have enough studies. I think if youre telling people whats established as safe, you ought to point out that even your own source is skeptical of its own work! Our own source is not the EPA or any other govt agency, because they do not examine nor test nor even consider true colloidal/EIS silver. Notice this next: ATSDR (1990) reports that the deposition of silver in tissues is the result of the precipitation of insoluble silver salts, such as silver chloride and silver phosphate. OK, we know that ATSDR (1990) is discussing insoluble silver salts, so we know what they actually mean when they next say this, The acute toxicity of silver compounds appears to be high. Oral LD50 values for mice reported for colloidal silver and silver nitrate are 100 mg/kg and 129 mg/kg, respectively.. When they say, colloidal silver, they are referring to large-particle silver salts and compounds, NOT tiny-particle silver colloids made from Fine silver and distilled water. Plus, 100 mg/kg is interesting. 100 mg of what? Silver? Silver nitrate? 100 mg of silver is alot of silver, considering that our doses, even when freely drinking our CS, is usually measured in micrograms. Their refusal to differentiate between the two is both unscientific and irresponsible, and demonstrates a prejudice in the scientific community that would not be put up with about any other scientific inquiry. If we did want to refer to a govt agency as our source, we would refer to the FDA, who cannot find a single report of any kind of toxic or negative reaction to pure, electronically isolated CS. Second part following. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- 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: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
