On Saturday November 19 2005 5:14 pm, Terry Chamberlin wrote: <SNIP> > > If we agreed to utilize the accepted definition of > Nanosilver being particles smaller than a certain size > (such as that discussed by Drs. Demling and Burrel), > we can also share our information with other > professionals without having to define certain words > our way, which damages our credibility. As it > presently stands, we have used *ionic* to mean > particles of a certain very small size, which is not > correct, and would not be understood by a doctor or > scientist. Since *nano* refers to one-billionth, it > cannot mean colloidal. <SNIP> > Terry Chamberlin
Hi again Terry and all. I'm glad to see this topic genuinely being discussed. Thank you for your input. About the size of an ion: Unfortunately all that information was on my old computer which had a hard drive crash so I am not able to provide a link to the source at this time but I'll keep looking. However that specific number is of relatively little importance. The fact remains that an ion of silver in our context is one atom of silver minus one electron. And that means that it is one size and doesn't vary. But even that is of relatively lesser importance. However for the sake of discussion, below are a couple of definitions of silver ions I found last night on the web. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ from http://www.billmackstuff.com/silver-information.html Basically, there are two silver components in colloidal silver products which give them their properties, silver particles and silver ions. Silver ions are silver atoms which have an electron missing in the outer shell. They are the smallest possible form of silver, about .28 nanometers. Silver particles are metallic silver consisting of clusters of silver atoms. They can range in size from less than a nanometer up to 1000 nanometers (1 micron). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ frpm http://www.health2us.com/ions.htm In the case of colloidal silver, it is solid particles (of silver) in a liquid (water). It is not in fact a suspension, as the definition of a suspension is particles larger then 1 micron (1,000 nanometers) while colloidal particles are defined as 1 nm to 1,000 nm and a solution (ions) is defined as particles less then 1 nm in diameter. An ion or atom of silver is about 1/4 nm diameter! One nm being a billionth of a meter or 1/1,000th of a micron (millionth of a meter)! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` The real issue is defining what it is we make and use; being consistent with that definition/description/name; and communicating it to others. As you can see from at the definitions above an ion of silver is, according to one site, .28 nanometers, and the other, 1/4 nanometer. This appears to indicate "particles" considerably smaller than a nono-meter. Further the prefix nano indicates 1 billionth thus a nanometer is one billionth of a meter. My math isn't good enough to be able to calculate and express what that number would be or if it puts it into yet another category, perhaps sub-nanometer. Once again, however, to me, this still misses the important point here, and, for me at least, that is that we are talking about: medicinal silver and not physics in general or even physics at all beyond the very most sophisticated of discussions on the topic. So let's look at some of the other issues involved. One important one for me is that there is at least one company who uses some form of "Nanosilver" as a brand name. The one I found this morning is actually called "Nano-Silver". There are a number of other sites using some form of nanosilver to describe products ranging from silver citrate to colloidal silver to electrically isolated silver. So once again, it seems that we are inviting ambiguity with the use of nanosilver. Even you said that "I make EIS that is approximately 90-95% nanosilver and 5-10% colloidal." So which is a more accurate and easy to understand name/descriptor for what you are making? I say it is EIS as it includes both colloidal and what you are calling "nanosilver" in its definition. It also doesn't try to indicate an unproven quantity in a product made by someone else. As for particles: an ion of silver goes into solution in the distilled water rather than being suspended as a particle. This is something which is repeated over and over on numerous sites on the subject. So where is the particle of silver in an ionic silver solution? Actually I think the above is again relatively nit picking and obfuscating the issue. EIS does not claim the product to be either ionic or colloidal. Rather it indicates a method of extracting silver into a liquid, preferably distilled water. Trying to specify the qualities of a product made by someone else oyer which you have no control is, I think, asking for dissention and creating misunderstandings. As for calling the end product ionic silver: This *may* be somewhat misleading or confusing to some because of the reasons you have pointed out. That is, that there is more than one meaning for the terms ion and ionic. That doesn't mean that the "one atom minus one electron" meaning for an ion is invalid. It simply means that there other equally valid meanings for the term. In addition the products we virtually all make are a combination of ionic silver is solution and colloidal silver particles in suspension. I think the fact that there can be ions of compounds such as silver citrate or silver chloride is a non issue and clouds the real issue with diverting arguments. And how is the term "nanosilver" going to obviate that? To my mind the term "nanosilver" is equally ambiguous. It may or may not be ionic, it may or may not be a silver compound, etc. As for the subject of argyria, you say, "So silver-nitrate is ionic, yet it causes argyria." Silver nitrate is, or at least may also be, nanosilver-nitrate. You also say, "Colloidal silver CAN produce argyria, as demonstrated by Stan Jacobs." Actually Stan Jacobs was not taking genuine colloidal silver he was taking a home made, electrically isolated silver product, which, because it was improperly made contained silver compounds, which caused the argyria. From my understanding of the term "nanosilver" based purely on your definition of nanosilver here. The substance Stan Jacobs ingested would be included in that category -nanosilver. You also said, "When I am asked about argyria by new initiates, I discuss the difference between large and small particles, between colloidal silver and nanosilver." When I'm asked a similar question I point out, that there has never been a documented case of argyria resulting from properly made EIS. The issue is far broader and more complex than simply whether or not the product is colloidal or "nanosilver". A poorly made home-made product may well cause argyria. However we must instruct on the proper methods and assume that the people are using the proper methods. No matter what we call it, if it is poorly made there is the very real possibility of causing argyria. So, I for one, am not convinced by your argument for the use of the term "nanosilver" at this point. I still much prefer the term EIS (electrically isolated silver). However I may yet be convinced. I'm looking forward to input from others. -- LTR Registered Linux user #280295 it...@kvremcwb.com
