Thursday, July 29, 2010

Environmentalists: Silver Is Toxic to Fathead Minnows

Or is it only toxic to fathead environmentalists? We'll tell you the story. You decide for yourself...

In spite of being soundly trounced last year when they attempted to force the EPA to regulate products containing silver nanoparticles (including colloidal silver)...

...those looney anti-silver environmentalists are back again this year with a new junk science study they hope will tip the scales in their favor and give the EPA the ammo needed to regulate silver as a “toxic environmental pesticide.”

So you can put this story in your “Here they go again” file.

Once more the radical environmentalist are claiming to have demonstrated that silver is “toxic” to wildlife. And once more we can see the incredible contortions these guys are willing to put themselves through in order to falsely indict silver as an “environmental toxin.”

The Usual Suspects

In this case, a new study conducted by environmental researchers at Purdue University is purported to demonstrate that silver is toxic to fathead minnows and their embryos.

Yes, you read that right: Fathead minnows.

And the usual environmentalist suspects are latching onto the study as “proof” that, for the protection of the environment and of all mankind, products containing silver nanoparticles desperately – yes, desperately -- need to be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

After all, the use of silver nanoparticles in a tremendous variety of commercial products is gaining widespread popularity and acceptance among the general public because of silver’s long-known antimicrobial properties.

And the regulators and their environmentalist lackeys seem to be dead set against allowing that to happen.

The Regulatory Morass

As most readers of this blog are aware, the EPA has been trying to get silver nanoparticles into their regulatory gun sights ever since 2008.

That’s when several radical environmental groups who had been taking huge sums of money from drug company-related foundations petitioned the agency to begin regulating all silver nanoparticle products as “unapproved pesticides.”

They even demanded that all such products be pulled from the market until they could be proven to be “safe for the environment.”

This regulatory grab included the top four brands of colloidal silver.

The environmentalists even put forward the specious argument that since tiny silver particles are toxic to bacteria, their release into the environment could harm “environmentally sensitive microorganisms” in the food chain, thus disrupting the balance of nature and sending the ecology into a tailspin from which it might never recover.


Of course, that argument made them laughingstocks, considering the fact that millions of tons of trace silver exists in nature, and has since the beginning of time – including an estimated two million tons of trace silver in the oceans of the world alone…all without causing even the slightest semblance of an environmental catastrophe.

In fact, in spite of the millions of tons of supposedly “toxic” trace silver contained in the world’s oceans, the sea is literally teeming with wildlife, including uncountable trillions of microscopic living creatures ranging from tiny protozoa and other single-celled microorganisms all the way up the food chain to minnows, shrimp, sardines, larger fish, and even mammals such as porpoises and whales.

In an older blog post, here, I explain why such abundant wildlife can safely co-exist and even thrive with such high levels of trace silver (scroll down to the subhead “Why the Environmentalists Are So Fearful of Silver Nano-Particles”).

Indeed, considering the ubiquitous nature of silver in the global environment, and the innumerable forms of wildlife existing in tandem with it, the case could easily be made that silver, far from being an “environmental toxin” is actually a tremendous benefit to the ecology!

In light of these facts, the EPA and their radical environmentalist cohorts were met with a barrage of criticism and outrage from savvy consumers and industry officials alike who recognized the move to regulate nanosilver as a heavy-handed ploy to take silver-based products off the market.

This of course is a long-desired goal of pharmaceutical industry insiders who see the commercial use of safe, natural antimicrobial silver as a direct threat to their multi-billion dollar annual market in prescription antibiotic drugs.

Message to Fathead Minnows:
“Don’t Use Silver Nanoparticles!”

Of course, the radical environmentalists don’t give up easily.

Even though they lost the battle to have silver-based products regulated into oblivion by the EPA in 2008 and 2009, this year they’ve returned with a new junk science study designed to scare the bejabbers out of the general public and give the EPA additional ammo in its quest to regulate silver.

As mentioned earlier, the new study conducted at Purdue University supposedly demonstrates that silver nanoparticles are highly toxic to fathead minnows, from the embryonic stage to the adult stage – implicating silver as an environmental toxin.

Science Daily, long a mouthpiece for the radical environmentalists who seek to have colloidal silver banned, announced the study results in an article with the following glaring headline:

“Popular Nanoparticle Causes
Toxicity in Fish, Study Shows”

Their ominous-sounding subhead read:

A nanoparticle growing in popularity as a bactericidal agent has been shown to be toxic to fish, according to a Purdue University study.”

Ooooh. Alert the media. Oh wait. They are the media.

The article continues with the bad news:

“Tested on fathead minnows -- an organism often used to test the effects of toxicity on aquatic life -- nanosilver suspended in solution proved toxic and even lethal to the minnows.

“Nanosilver is growing in popularity as a component of many commercial products. It is used to kill bacteria in goods such as odor-control clothing, countertops, cutting boards and detergents.”

(Urgent Warning to All Fathead Minnows: Don’t use nanosilver-infused cutting boards, or dress in clothes infused with silver nanoparticles!)

Finally, the article gets around to the real point of it all:

Currently, there are few regulations for nanosilver's applications in products, but Ron Turco, professor of agronomy and the paper's co-author, said the Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing the situation…

‘Silver has been used in the past as an antimicrobial agent. It's a known toxicant to microorganisms,’ he said. ‘Nanosilver is being considered by the EPA for environmental exposure profiling, much like a pesticide.’”

Setting the Stage

There you have it. The whole point of the study is to give the Environmental Protection Agency the ammunition they need to regulate (read: ban) the sale of nanosilver in consumer products.

The release of this type of study during a period when the EPA is reviewing the use of nanosilver in commercial products is a tactic unworthy of a scientific institution as prestigious as Purdue University.

In fact, this is what’s called an “agenda driven” study. And its release has been timed solely for the purpose of helping radical environmentalists set the stage for future EPA regulatory involvement in the nanosilver industry.

It’s called stacking the deck. And it’s not science. Instead, it’s scientific chicanery. It’s pure, unadulterated deception.

Implications Without Evidence

The implication of the study, of course, is that if silver nanoparticles are toxic to these tiny fathead minnows, then they must be toxic to other life forms, including humans, as well.

And if silver nanoparticles are also toxic to fathead minnow embroyos as the study also contends, then they must be toxic to the embroyos of other life forms, including humans, as well.

Of course, we know from previous research that nanosilver used in moderation isn’t the least bit toxic to animal or human sperm, eggs or reproduction. In fact, as this article demonstrates, nanosilver is used safely by researchers as a “stain” to allow them to watch zebra fish embryo development from conception to birth. And it’s also used as a preservative for swine sperm so it can be used in artificial insemination.

Indeed, the December 1990 peer-reviewed study titled Toxicological Profile for Silver, conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (under the auspices of the Centers for Disease Control) found there were no signs of teratogenic (i.e., birth malformation or other malformation) effects from silver.

Similarly, according to the EPA’s own document #EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0, titled Ionic Silver: Toxicity and Weight of the Evidence, “A developmental study in rats conducted by NTP (National Toxicology Program) did not demonstrate there was any susceptibility of newborn animals to the toxic effects of silver.”

But facts like those won’t stop the radical environmentalists from using junk science to make their case that silver is somehow “toxic” to environmental wildlife.

So let’s briefly discuss this latest study, and see if it has any real merits. First, we’ll take a quick look at the study abstract:

Ecotoxicology. 2010 Jan;19(1):185-95.

The effects of silver nanoparticles on fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) embryos.

Laban G, Nies LF, Turco RF, Bickham JW, SepĂșlveda MS.

Department of Forestry & Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marsteller St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.


Nanoparticles are being used in many commercial applications. We describe the toxicity of two commercial silver (Ag) nanoparticle (NP) products, NanoAmor and Sigma on Pimephales promelas embryos. Embryos were exposed to varying concentrations of either sonicated or stirred NP solutions for 96 h. LC(50) values for NanoAmor and Sigma Ag NPs were 9.4 and 10.6 mg/L for stirred and 1.25 and 1.36 mg/L for sonicated NPs, respectively. Uptake of Ag NPs into the embryos was observed after 24 h using Transmission Electron Microscopy and Ag NPs induced a concentration-dependent increase in larval abnormalities, mostly edema. Dissolved Ag released from Ag NPs was measured using Inductively Coupled-Mass Spectrometry and the effects tested were found to be three times less toxic when compared to Ag nitrate (AgNO(3)). The percentage of dissolved Ag released was inversely proportional to the concentration of Ag NPs with the lowest (0.625 mg/L) and highest (20 mg/L) concentrations tested releasing 3.7 and 0.45% dissolved Ag, respectively and percent release was similar regardless if concentrations were stirred or sonicated. Thus increased toxicity after sonication cannot be solely explained by dissolved Ag. We conclude that both dissolved and particulate forms of Ag elicited toxicity to fish embryos.

As you can see, the study was published in the journal Ecotoxicity, which is an environmental journal covering toxic matters as they relate to the ecology .

After reading the abstract, we see that the researchers tested to see if two different commercial forms of powdered silver nanoparticles would harm fathead minnows, from the embryo stage to the adult stage.

Pretty spiffy stuff, right? And ostensibly a noble purpose.

Weird Science

But wait. Do the study authors go out into a local real-life environment, and test for concentrations of powdered silver nanoparticles in the water? And then capture fathead minnows from that very environment and test them to see if the levels of powdered silver nanoparticles are having any adverse effects on the little critters in real life?

Hmmm. Nope. That’s not what they did at all.

Instead, they took some fathead minnows and put them into artificial, enclosed test tube environments. Then they inundated those artificial, test tube environments with varying levels of powdered silver nanoparticles purchased from commercial sources.

What’s more, into some of these artificial test tube environments they apparently “stirred” the powdered silver nanoparticles, and then allowed them to settle to the bottom.

And into some they “sonicated” the silver, meaning they used ultrasound waves to keep the powdered silver nanoparticles continually agitated so they could not settle to the bottom.

So what did the researchers discover once they inundated the artificial test-tube environments with copious amounts of powdered silver nanoparticles, stirring some and sonicating others?

Well, they discovered that the fathead minnows in the artificial test tube environments that were merely stirred showed certain levels of toxicity. And the fathead minnows in the artificial test tube environments that were sonicated showed even higher levels of toxicity.

Wow. Proof positive that all products containing silver nanoparticles are “environmental toxins” and need to be regulated into oblivion by the EPA, right?

Only in the Mind of Minolta…

What is it that environmental researchers don’t understand about the concept of relevance?

Honestly, I’m not sure I’ll ever understand their mindset.

After all, they don’t seem to approach science from a standpoint of discovering the truth. But instead, from a standpoint of manufacturing the “truth”…which is to say, creating a pre-conceived outcome by manipulating the study parameters until they get the results they’re looking for.

First of all, how many real-life environments are there in which people are dumping copious amounts of powdered silver nanoparticles into them? Mmmm. Let me think. Uhhhhh. None.

And into how many real-life environments are people dumping copious amounts of powdered silver nanoparticles, and then sonicating the environment with ultrasound waves so that the silver particles can never settle?

Once more, the answer is: None.

So…what’s the point of the study?

As George Foss, former general manager of Kayser Nutrition points out:

“The researchers did not even remotely attempt to replicate nature. They did not attempt to evaluate and replicate the amounts of nanosilver the fathead minnows might be exposed to in a real-life environment. The extremely high levels of nanosilver concentration used in the experiment were either a self-fulfilling prophecy at best, or constitute an experiment designed with a foregone conclusion at worst. That’s certainly not the type of science I was ever taught in school.”

Rosalind Volpe, D.PH, director of the Silver Nanoparticle Working Group, agrees. She states:

“As with all the other test tube studies we have seen recently this is a worst case scenario, since sonication does not occur in the natural environment. [In a real-life natural environment] nanoparticles will not only agglomerate, but will also attach to other ligands in the water which will neutralize them. Funds for research would be better used to test nanoparticles in the natural environment where the true behavior of these particles can be observed.”

Dr. Volpe is correct. As I stated in a previous blog post:

“…whenever silver nano-particles leach from products they are embedded in, such as diabetic foot stockings, or computer keyboards, or whatever, they almost immediately begin to bond (in a process called “agglomeration”) with salts, minerals and other substances in their immediate environment, forming larger particle agglomerates. Thus, once released into the environment the tiny silver nano-particles completely lose their nano-scale properties, becoming essentially inert.”

In other words, silver nanoparticles released into the environment essentially become bound silver (i.e., bound to salts, minerals and other substances) rather than free silver, and are at that point basically inert.

Artificial Environment, Artificial Results

In their experiment, the researchers did not account for this. They simply added pure powdered silver nanoparticles into the artificial habitats they had created, until the build-up reached toxic levels.

Had the study been conducted in a real-life environment such as a lake, a stream bed, tide pool, or even a sewage system, those powdered silver nanoparticles would have rapidly agglomerated with other substances and would thereby have completely lost their nanoscale properties. And the results of the study would inevitably have been quite different.

As established in the well-known waste water study of 2003, published in the journal Water Research, “Silver is well known to be strongly passivated by natural environmental complexing agents such as sulfur, chlorides, phosphate and dust.” (1,2.J.Wang, CP.Huang, D.Pirestani, “Interactions of silver with wastewater constituents,” Water Research, 37 (2003) pp4444-4452.)

In other words, for all intents and purposes, a natural environment renders silver essentially inactive as a biocidal agent.

That’s why the world’s oceans can be teaming with wildlife of every sort imaginable -- from the smallest single-celled creatures to the largest mammals -- even while they contain millions of tons of trace silver!

And that’s why environmental researchers routinely refuse to study the effects of silver nanoparticles in nature, but instead, do irrelevant laboratory test tube studies in which the various factors of the study can be artificially manipulated to create the desired outcomes.

As Dr. Volpe points out in a recent letter to Dr. Stephen Bradbury, acting director of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs:

“…many of the calls for regulation of nanosilver cite in vitro (e.g. test tube) data obtained in idealized fluid conditions generally at extremely high dose concentrations – i.e. far away from real-life use conditions.

This is particularly true for silver, where under real environmental conditions silver has repeatedly been shown, including by EPA’s own scientists, to be deactivated and rendered benign by ubiquitous environmental agents such as sulfur, dust, and organic matter.

…In vivo [e.g. live environment] tests that adequately take into account conditions of real-life use provide a more appropriate context for assessing the real-life risk profile of nanosilver.”

In short, creating an artificial environment and manipulating the levels of silver and other factors until the pre-determined results are achieved is no way to determine silver’s effect on the environment.

But that’s exactly what the radical environmentalists are doing in order to give the EPA the ammunition needed in order to justify the regulation of silver nanoparticles (including colloidal silver products) as “toxic environmental pesticides.”

The Environmentalist Game Plan

This new study will now inevitably be touted, along with all of the other largely discredited studies that continue to be heralded by radical environmentalists (like this one), as proof positive that silver nanoparticles are “dangerous to the environment.”

The environmentalists know that all they need to do is create the illusion that the “preponderance of scientific evidence” demonstrates toxicity for silver -- even if they have to fudge this “preponderance of scientific evidence” in order to do so – and the EPA will fall into line and begin to hyper-regulate commercial products containing nanosilver.

You’re watching it happen with your own eyes. And remember, you read about it here, first.

Soon, I predict, the EPA will announce that they’ve been taking another “good, hard look” at the evidence for silver’s potential environmental toxicity, and have found that all products containing silver nanoparticles – including colloidal silver -- need to be either banned or regulated as “toxic environmental pesticides.”

It’s All About Control

For nearly a decade another federal agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), tried to regulate colloidal silver products into oblivion, only to discover there were no grounds whatsoever for doing so.

Try as they might, they could not find any significant harm from these products.

The FDA finally settled for banning information on colloidal silver’s unique antimicrobial benefits in all product labeling and in advertising,

In their infamous “Final Ruling” of June 1999 the FDA claimed that because no FDA-approved over-the-counter drug studies had been conducted on colloidal silver products, they must be considered “unsafe and ineffective” for use as an antimicrobial agent, and could therefore not be labeled or advertised as being safe or effective.

In one fell swoop they wiped out over 2,000 years of history in which silver has successfully, safely and very effectively been used as an immune-boosting, infection-fighting antimicrobial agent.

Now the radical environmental groups want the EPA to do the same thing, but from a different angle and with much greater bureaucratic stringency. They want to the EPA to re-categorize products containing tiny silver particles as “toxic environmental pesticides” and to so strictly regulate their use so as to make it too costly for commercial enterprises to use silver in their products.

In other words, while the FDA says silver is “ineffective” as an antimicrobial agent, the radical environmentalists want the EPA to say it is far too effective, in fact, so darned effective it needs to be hyper-regulated in order to “protect” environmentally sensitive microbes, “fathead minnows” and yes, even the public at large.

The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife…

Own the Means of NanoSilver Production

…Which is all the more reason to own the means of nanosilver production by obtaining a Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator from The Silver Edge.

When you own the means of nanosilver production, you can make all of the high-quality, nanosilver you want – in its most potent ionic form -- any time you want, in the comfort and privacy of your own home. And you can do so for about 36 cents a quart!

Most importantly of all, there’s not a danged thing the bureaucrats can do about it. Once you own the machine, you’ll never again be without nano-scale colloidal silver. And you’ll never again have to pay those exorbitant health food store or online prices for bottles of commercially produced colloidal silver, either!

Indeed, your very first one-quart batch of high-quality micro-particle colloidal silver pays for the entire cost of the machine. And from that point forward its like getting your colloidal silver for free. Every new one-quart batch costs you literally only pennies to make.

Discover what thousands of users of the Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generators already know about these phenomenal little machines that give you the freedom to make your own health care choices from a natural perspective – a freedom the bureaucrats are all too anxious to take away from you.

The time will come when even colloidal silver generators will no longer be legal to purchase. The laws governing electrical devices that produce colloidal silver are already on the books. And all the EPA has to do is start widening and enforcing them.

That’s all the more reason to act quickly and decisively while these phenomenal little units are still available.

You can learn more about the Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator here

Helpful Links:

EPA Panel Still Looking at Ways to Regulate NanoSilver Products (Including Colloidal Silver)…

Radical environmentalists claim nanosilver is a “new invention” with “unique attributes” that are potentially toxic to the environment. They claim it needs to be taken off the market until it can be further studied in relation its effects on the environment, and that if allowed to be sold commercially, it should be heavily regulated by the EPA as a “toxic environmental pesticide.”

But is nanosilver really a “new invention”? Does it have “unique attributes” that are potentially toxic to the environment? Or are these claims simply exaggerated junk science attempts by neo-Luddite environmentalists to have this potentially life-saving substance re-categorized as an environmental toxin and regulated into oblivion?

As most readers of the Colloidal Silver Secrets blog are aware, there’s now a lot going on behind the scenes at the EPA in regards to the potential regulation of products containing silver nanoparticles -- including colloidal silver.

After the debacle last year in which a handful of radical environmental groups were soundly trounced in their efforts to force the EPA to pull nanosilver products off the market and begin to regulate them as “toxic environmental pesticides,” the EPA then established a Nanosilver Scientific Advisory Panel to further study the issues raised by the environmentalists, and come up with regulatory proposals in line with current science.

This new EPA Panel then held a meeting in Arlington, VA on November 3-5, 2009 to get the ball rolling. (You can see the transcript of that meeting -- apparently with some omissions --here.)

Does Nanosilver Meet the Criteria for More Stringent Regulation?

Fortunately, representatives of the Silver Institute’s newly formed Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG) attended the meeting. And in a presentation given by SNWG’s Dr. Murray J. Height, it was correctly emphasized that nanosilver simply does not meet the EPA’s two main criteria for a commercial product thought to be in need of more stringent regulation, which is to say, it is not a new invention and it does not have characteristically unique functional attributes.

Indeed, as Dr. Height pointed out to Panel attendees, nanosilver products have now been registered with federal agencies for over six decades, and have been manufactured for over 100 years. In fact, the first nanosilver product to be federally registered -- Silver Algaedyn, a product designed to control algae buildup in swimming pools – was registered under the FIFRA Act in 1954…a full 16 years before the official establishment of the EPA!

In other words, some federally registered commercial products containing silver nanoparticles actually pre-date the establishment of EPA itself.

So, contrary to the shrill cries of the radical environmentalists who have labeled nanosilver as a “new invention,” and have been pushing EPA to re-categorize nanosilver as an “environmental toxin” and regulate it into oblivion, the truth is that nanosilver is not “new” by any stretch of the imagination. It has a long history of use in registered commercial products going back well over 60 years, with no significant environmental repercussions whatsoever in all of that time. And therefore it does not meet the first and most important criteria for the consideration of additional regulatory oversight.

What’s more, SNWG representatives pointed out that all registered products containing silver nanoparticles – whether historical products or newly introduced -- work basically the same way: They release silver ions in order to inactivate potentially harmful microbes. As emphasized by the SNWG’s Dr. Rosalind Volpe in a recent letter to the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel:

Antimicrobial functionality is achieved via release of silver ions (Ag+) – a mechanism entirely identical to all EPA-registered silver products including silver salts, silver glasses and silver zeolites. The functionality of nanosilver is NOT unique.”

In short, nanosilver does not meet the second major criteria of a nanomaterial in need of additional study and regulation. It is not characteristically unique in its function. Silver nanoparticles work the same way today as they did 100 years ago. And once again, unlike many other EPA registered products, their well-known documented function has not caused any significant environmental repercussions in all of these years.

Clearly, the ridiculously wild claims of the radical environmentalist groups who have been working to force the EPA to re-categorize nanosilver as a potentially dangerous “environmental toxin” over the past two years are completely bogus.

Old Tactics that Didn’t Work the First Time Around

By claiming products containing nanosilver are “new” and “unique” the radical environmentalists behind the push to have the EPA regulate (read: ban) nanosilver products are attempting to circumvent the stumbling block the FDA originally came up against during their decade-long attempts to ban colloidal silver products in the 1990’s.

You see, the FDA was stopped cold by two facts: First, the FDA could not deny the fact that colloidal silver products had been widely commercially available since the substance was first produced in the late 1800’s. There was nothing new or original about them. And secondly, the FDA could not deny the fact that the overall historical safety record of colloidal silver over that 12 decade period had been far more admirable than, say, most federally regulated prescription drugs.

Faced with those hard facts, the FDA finally relented in 1999 and allowed colloidal silver to stay on the market, albeit with a few restrictions on its labeling and advertising.

We can only hope the EPA will exercise the same common sense the FDA was forced to exercise in 1999, and not add any additional regulatory burden on nanosilver-based products. Acting otherwise would be flying in the face of the known facts: Nanosilver has a long history of safe, environmentally friendly commercial usage, and its characteristic attributes are the same today as they were over 100 years ago.

The radical environmentalists are simply crying wolf, when there is no wolf in sight. According to some published sources, their entire campaign is agenda driven, and that’s why there is not the slightest semblance of rationality or balance to it.

Get the Facts

You can view a PDF copy of the Silver Nanotechnology Working Group’s excellent presentation in defense of nanosilver products to the FDA Nanosilver Scientific Advisory Panel here.

And here you can view a copy of the very informative follow-up letter from Dr. Rosalind Volpe of the Silver Nanotechnology Working Group to the EPA Acting Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs Dr. Stephen Bradbury.

Will These Irrefutable Facts Stop the Radical Environmentalists?

Don’t expect these simple, irrefutable facts to stop the radical environmentalists from actively pursuing their drive to have the EPA re-categorize nanosilver as a “toxic environmental pesticide.”

After all, they’ve been factually challenged on this issue from the start.

Even now, the radical environmentalists are capitalizing on the release of a new study from fellow environmentalists at Purdue University who have determined that – gasp! – if you overdose flathead minnows on high concentrations of commercially produced powdered silver nanoparticles in an artificial test tube laboratory environment, they will show signs of toxicity. (See this post for more information.)

The lengths these environmentalists will go to in order to have nanosilver regulated into oblivion as an “environmental toxin” are apparently boundless – including conducting agenda-driven studies that throw all principles of honest science and scholarship out the window.

That’s what makes the radical environmentalists so dangerous. They don’t care how they achieve their goals. The ends apparently justify the means.

One Final Thought…

Keep in mind that for all intents and purposes, nanosilver is colloidal silver.

That’s precisely why the radical environmentalist groups included the top four brands of colloidal silver in their original 2008/2009 petition to have the EPA pull all nanosilver products off the market.

Therefore it is critical that the colloidal silver community come together with the nanosilver industry on this issue and help support efforts to educate the EPA about the historical environmental safety of nanosilver products and their long history of usage.

One simple way of doing so is to support the great work of the Silver Institute and their newly formed Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG).

Helpful Links: