Poonman, no worries- I had heard the quote before, so interpreted it with a pinch of salt. I'll vape a wand for you too now!
Silver420surfer; I'm not so keen on your tone towards others in this thread. I couldn't give a flying fuck if you find this topic, or a sensible pragmatic, fact and evidence based approach to it 'offensive' or not. The way you spoke towards others was also quite offensive, as is the way you present your poorly substantiated, excessively fearful opinion as fact.
Maybe you didn't notice that I hadn't included any of the any of the insect content in my figures- because it wasn't relevant. I simply mentioned it once at the end as an interesting aside- not quite the 'murmurings' you suggest. But you don't seem to care too much for points of fact.
Whether something is KNOWINGLY consumed or not doesn't actually have any bearing on the actual risk involved. So no need to SHOUT THE WORD every utterance. It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to any ASSESSMENT of RISK. I KNOW you consume some trace of RODENT on a fairly REGULAR basis. Whether
you KNOW that or not doesn't affect the issue in the slightest.
The number of hantavirus cases is not relevant? OK, that's so ridiculous in this context that I'm not even going to elaborate further. You need a lesson in virology.
To compare this situation with Chinese vapes is also ridiculous- what knowledge or research do we have? What regulators? We have very little, and so we operate mostly on a precautionary basis with our vapes. We don't really understand the full risks of many materials. We know lots more about food product hygiene and safety, have a government regulator and apply a pragmatic precautionary level with a fair understanding of the risks involved- and bear in mind that it's set for the protection of the weakest in our society- for a healthy individual threshold levels for 'safe' exposure might well be far higher in some instances.
And also bear in mind that we're talking about natural pest damage here- the opposite of nasty chemicals which may bio-accumulate. I would far rather accept a controlled level of pest damage in my food production than excessive use of pesticides- which would be the route to seeking zero damage. And sometimes this is actually the cheapest solution, used in the cheaper brands. I would be interested to know if organic produce actually contained on average slightly higher levels of pest evidence (poo, fur, urine, body parts)- certainly in some environments organic farms have much greater difficulties with production- it stands to reason that this could be reflected somewhat in the final product.
So on the one hand we have the FDA saying that a certain quantity of evidence of rodent activity in a product is only really an aesthetic issue (I think this sounds dubious, but it must be substantiated by a degree of evidence- if people were getting rodent related sickness from lightly affected produce then they would be forced to act- this isn't like chemicals where the issues arise years down the line). On the other we have Silver420surfer, armed with 'enough sense' (who are you to imply anyone else on here is a fool? big man) and a tiny bit of knowledge of how hantavirus maybe spreads, implying it's likely to give you hantavirus and kill you. I think we should add at this point that it is only
suspected that the virus spreads through contact with affected products/items. Actually a majority of cases have been via airborne transmission in infested areas. But what do the facts matter, eh? Let us focus on fears
This also shows some confusion- after critisizing the 'hypothetical' nature of others responses, your own is an emotional response based mostly upon theory and fear and not backed up with very much empirical support. The threat of death/hantavirus is
not significant, despite your wish to portray otherwise. If you'd rather not do anything with lightly contaminated bud that's fine- I'm sure there are a great many of us on here that would have reservations, and I myself would be disposing of the affected portion. But the real life risk doesn't warrant the response that you gave, nor your tearing shreds off the OP's initial query or others attempts to contribute-"I would rather not use it and prefer to eliminate every possibility of any illness risk in my life, however minor", or simply offering an opinion that remained
respectful to other posters, would have been a far more appropriate response
I have no desire to start another thread on the topic, but I have every bit as much right to tell the OP in this one that I believe there to be minimal risk involved in further using his stash somehow as you do to remark otherwise. So please go check yourself. You have no right to be butt hurt. At least I can substantiate my position with more than fear.
I'm tired of mouse shit now.
mod note: You're smart enough to disagree on the topic and even comment on someone's language and demeanor, without being disrespectful yourself. Please do so in the future.
I should probably refrain from posting when baked. 