More
importantly, is there a beneficial role for silver nanoparticles in the
environment? And if researchers find a
way to eliminate silver nanoparticles from the environment, will there be
unintended consequences that will over time negatively impact millions of
people?
Hi,
Steve Barwick here, for www.TheSilverEdge.com...
I
recently read several news stories about a young Canadian student named Adam
Noble who earlier this year won top honors at an international science fair in
Pittsburgh with his project, “Euglena:
The Solution to Nanosilver Pollution.”
According
to this news
article,
the young man has demonstrated how to use a particular microorganism called Euglena to help detect nanosilver in the
water in wastewater treatment plants, and eradicate it by using the microbe as
a “filter” before the water is released back into rivers, lakes, streams and
community water supply systems.
Apparently,
the nanosilver can then be collected from the microbes through a chemical
process. And over time the silver can be sold for enough money to help pay for
the costs of the water treatment.
Very
fascinating…and I must congratulate the young man on his scientific acumen and entrepreneurial
spirit!
But Since When Is Nanosilver a “Pollutant”?
My
question, however, is this: Since when
is nanosilver considered to be a "pollutant"?
Only
20 years ago, during the time when silver halide was used heavily in the
film-making and film-processing industries, an estimated 10 times more silver was making its way into wastewater treatment
plants than today.
But
photographic film is hardly used at all now, ever since the advent of digital
photography in the early 1990’s. And as
a result, according to the latest estimates, the levels of silver in wastewater
have been reduced dramatically, in some cases by as much as 90%.
Yet
back in the late 1980’s when levels of silver in wastewater had reached an
historic peak before plummeting, there were no shrill cries over silver
"pollution" and no attempts to curtail the levels of silver in
wastewater plants by banning the use of silver in the photography and
film-making industries.
So
why today, when so little silver is
making its way into the environment compared to two decades ago, are we hearing
the constant hysterical cries of the environmentalists who say we must ban the
use of antimicrobial silver in all consumer products, or face an ecological
Armageddon?
Blame It On
the Rain?
After
all, the environment itself -- including the land, oceans, rivers, lakes and
streams -- are already literally awash in millions
of tons of nanosilver in the form of trace mineral silver that's always there
naturally. And yet no environmental catastrophe has ever
ensued from this decided abundance of nanosilver in nature.
What's
more, it's only recently been discovered that Mother Nature routinely makes her
own silver nanoparticles, and has been doing so for millennia. Indeed, she’s apparently the world's most
prolific producer of silver nanoparticles.
(See "Is Mother Earth Making Her Own
Colloidal Silver").
Does Nature Use Silver Nanoparticles
To Help
Control Infectious Microbes?
So,
here’s another question: What if silver
nanoparticles are one of nature's many ways of controlling the spread of infectious microorganisms on this earth?
Indeed,
far from being a “pollutant,” what if nanosilver is, in fact, absolutely necessary to the ecology, lest insects, animals
and human beings alike become awash in infectious microorganisms and disease?
And
what if science projects like this young man's -- which assume nanosilver is a "pollutant" and makes no attempt
to distinguish between levels of man-made nanosilver in the environment, and natural
levels of nanosilver -- ultimately lead to the ability to eliminate silver
nanoparticles from local, regional and national water sources?
What
then? Would we be safe from so-called "nanosilver
pollution"? Or would we then be
more exposed to infectious microorganisms than at any time in our history?
Law of
Unintended Consequences
These
are the kinds of questions I like to ask, before assuming anything.
The
law of unintended consequences states that even the most well-intentioned actions
always have consequences that are
unanticipated. And this law comes into
play most often when people assume
something to be true that isn’t, and then base their work around that erroneous
assumption.
If
nanosilver is assumed to be a “toxic pollutant,” rather than a necessary environmental
protectant, what would be the unintended consequences of eliminating it?
Today,
radical anti-silver environmentalist who are said to be taking millions of dollars in contributions from charitable foundations
set up by Big Pharma are working to eliminate the use of silver nanoparticles in
consumer products.
By
doing so, they prevent consumers from being able to purchase products that help
stop the spread of infectious microorganisms and disease around the home and
office.
And
of course, they do so under the banner of “saving the environment” from an “ecological catastrophe” they claim will undoubtedly ensue
if the use of antimicrobial silver in consumer products is not soon banned
altogether.
But
as I’ve pointed out many times in past articles, for some 120 years now nanosilver
has been used widely in commercial applications – including swimming pools,
spas, water fountains, water filters, commercial disinfectants, cleaning agents
and much more with
literally zero negative effects on the environment.
So
why has there been no environmental catastrophe in over 120 years, in spite of
this widespread use of man-made nanosilver?
It’s
because over time nanosilver is widely known to fall to the bottom of aquatic
bodies and waterways, where it’s incorporated into sediments and bound with
organic material such as sulphur, at which point it’s essentially neutralized,
losing its supposed “toxic” nano-scale properties.
In
other words, nature, which makes its own silver nanoparticles, also has its own way of protecting us
from any excess buildup of nanosilver!
So
while some of the silver that man takes from the environment, modifies into
nanosilver and utilizes in consumer products ends up back in the environment
over time, it still poses little or no harm to the ecology.
More
Important Questions…
Therefore,
I have to ask again: Is it realistic to
label nanosilver as a dangerous “toxic pollutant,” as the radical anti-silver environmentalists
do?
Or
is that merely a red herring being used by the environmentalists and their
benefactors in Big Pharma to eliminate the availability of consumer products
that protect us from the indiscriminate spread of infectious
microorganisms?
Another
question: Are innovative science
projects like the one discussed above necessary
to help prevent a potential future environmental catastrophe?
Or
are they merely exercises in environmental self-aggrandizement being carried
out by well-intentioned environmentalist-oriented youngsters operating under
the preconceived but misguided and biased notion that nanosilver is an
inherently evil “pollutant”?
Unfortunately,
young environmentalists today have been trained to work solely from the
assumption that silver is a "toxic pollutant" with no value
whatsoever to the environment and its ecology.
They
don’t question this assumption. They don’t even ask for the evidence – even
though it’s an assumption that would place Mother Nature as one of the world's
top environmental polluters, since she is indeed the world's most prolific producer of silver nanoparticles.
The
bottom line is this: Maybe nature has a good
REASON for producing silver
nanoparticles. Maybe labeling nanosilver
as a "pollutant" and working to eradicate it from our environment altogether
is going to cause more problems than it fixes.
And
what if that's the whole plan,
anyway?
Well,
as conspiratorial as that may sound, it’ certainly something to chew on as we
watch the environmentalists continue to rail against a supposed “threat” that’s
not caused any harm in 120 years.
I’ll
write on this topic again in the near future.
But please let me remind you that when you own the means of colloidal
silver production, there’s nothing
the environmentalists and their bureaucratic counterparts can do to stop you
from enjoying access to safe, natural antimicrobial silver and all of its
infection-fighting benefits.
So
learn more about making your own colloidal
silver
by clicking the link. In the meantime, I remain…
Yours
for the safe, sane and responsible
use of colloidal silver,
Steve
Barwick, author
The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual
The Ultimate Colloidal Silver Manual
Helpful
Links:
Important Note and
Disclaimer: The contents of this Ezine have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Information conveyed herein is from sources deemed to be accurate and
reliable, but no guarantee can be made in regards to the accuracy and
reliability thereof. The author, Steve
Barwick, is a natural health journalist with over 30 years of experience
writing professionally about natural health topics. He is not
a doctor. Therefore, nothing stated in
this Ezine should be construed as prescriptive in nature, nor is any part of
this Ezine meant to be considered a substitute for professional medical
advice. Nothing reported herein is
intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The author is simply reporting in
journalistic fashion what he has learned during the past 17 years of
journalistic research into colloidal silver and its usage. Therefore, the information and data presented
should be considered for informational purposes only, and approached with
caution. Readers should verify for
themselves, and to their own satisfaction, from other knowledgeable sources
such as their doctor, the accuracy and reliability of all reports, ideas,
conclusions, comments and opinions stated herein. All important health care decisions should be
made under the guidance and direction of a legitimate, knowledgeable and
experienced health care professional.
Readers are solely responsible for their choices. The author and publisher disclaim responsibility
or liability for any loss or hardship that may be incurred as a result of the
use or application of any information included in this Ezine.
Copyright
2012 | Life & Health Research Group, LLC | PO Box 1239 | Peoria AZ
85380-1239 | All rights reserved
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment