2.
http://vaporizer-info.com/en/medical-applications
And yes I know that its not vapor/tar ratio in the studies but cannabinoid/tar ratio which my point still stands why the tar if their is no combustion?
Useful reference. A quick read finds (emphasis mine):
"In 2007 the University of California, San Fransisco, published the results of their investigation in the Official Journal of the American Academy of Neurology. It said that "Using CO as an indicator,
there was virtually no exposure to harmful combustion products using the vaporizing device. Since it replicates smoking's efficiency at producing the desired THC effect using smaller amounts of the active ingredient as opposed to pill forms, this device has great potential for improving the therapeutic utility of THC."
We don't have to have combustion (chemically combining oxygen to make water and CO2) to get hot enough to produce nasty stuff, it's just the most popular way to do it. If, OTOH, we're careful with temperatures we can use physics to evaporate off the molecules we want intact while heating them high enough will start chemical changes (breaking bonds with enough energy from heat) making new stuff......like tar.
I don't believe good vaporizers, run properly, have to make tars and other nasty stuff chemically.
You can do it, but you can also avoid it which is, I think, the idea?
Are you saying that because these vaporizers are old it means that the experiment is flawed?
Again just looking at all the info.. I still vape by the way.
I'm not sure what he's trying to say, but I say the idea of that experiment was to show it was possible to reduce it. We want to reduced it to zero if possible, a different question?
OF
. 
