Has the Solution to “Nanosilver Pollution” Been Discovered?
Young environmentalists are now being trained to work from the standpoint that nanosilver is a “toxic pollutant” that must be detected in the environment, and ultimately eliminated. But is that true? Or is it an unproven assumption?
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,
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