For my unprofessional eyes it looks pretty scientific.
"The NORML-MAPS study tested a device called the M1 Volatizer, an aromatherapy vaporizer
developed by Alternative Delivery Systems, Inc. It consisted of an electric heating element in a chamber that radiates heat downwards over a sample of marijuana sitting in a standard pipe or “bong” bowl. Output from the vaporizer was analyzed and compared to smoke produced by combusting the sample with a flame."
No mention of experimental apparatus at all beyond a vape that was used as part of the setup but hardly the only important component, no mention of how temperature was measured, no mention of how the vapour was extracted from the vape and how it was analysed (GLC, MS, IR or UV spectroscopy,... etc) and gives no actual fractions (so THC was given off, how much? A microgram? A milligram? (etc etc)). Have you considered how they collect all the vapour? This is very important yet neglected here, in fact they imply the weed is open to the atmosphere talking about wisps of vapour coming off. Have they analysed what was actually in the weed sample and how much of each component (effects what's produced and how much). No mention of the gas used to pipe into the device to pressurise and force out the vapour into some capture apparatus such as a solid CO2 + ethanol cooled condenser.
I won't even mention those photos lacking both grey-scale and size scaling, pretty useless apart from showing very roughly what avb looks like (but saying nothing about the experiment) - oops! I gone an mentioned it, sorry!
All these things and more will effect the results - big time.
And worse...
"Although the study was not designed to detect the highly carcinogenic tars known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are thought to be a leading culprit in smoking-related cancers, there was good reason to believe that they were suppressed, since they normally form at much higher temperatures of combustion."
"Good reason..."? "Thought to be..."! That's about as unscientific as I could think of! And where are all the references to all the knowledge and facts they've assumed? Any real scientific paper published in a respectable journal will quote the papers from where all facts used by them came from (while also giving credit for using other peoples work), not just make an unsupported claim, the whole point is someone else has to be able to fully reproduce the whole experiment and get exactly the same results, without
all the details that's impossible.
General chemistry note:
Chemical reaction that synthesis benzene not require oxygen.
That doesn't relate to my comment about their suggested cause of those cyclic aromatics as being from combustion, in fact the only thing I said about oxygen is that actual pyrolysis must exclude all oxygen - I even hinted the cause of the creation of those toxins could be other than combustion, but never said that required oxygen, it's the combustion that requires oxygen.
High temp dabbing will also produce those cyclic compounds and yet not a trace of combustible cellulose in sight!
You want some more?
"The vaporizer produced THC at a temperature of 185° C. (365° F.) while completely eliminating three measured toxins – benzene, a known carcinogen ..."
There's no elimination going on here at all, and if there was there should be all the details as to what's happening to those toxins that causing them to be eliminated - of course the real situation is that the terpenoids (the terpenes and cannabinoids) can be broken down themselves through excessive heat (no oxygen required) to form unstable 2 and 3 carbon chain molecules which as they cool down reform into many different compounds. The cyclics like benzene and other six membered rings are one of the more stable configurations and hence benzene tends to be the most common product (remember what I said about them specifying no fractions or percentages etc?).
I could probably bore everyone even more but if you can argue just those points above, then I'll admit I was wrong and be happy to have learnt something (if I
am wrong).
Educate me?
www.canorml.org
