Aimless Ryan
Came to read about grinders; fucked combustion
I think it's very obvious when combustion happens unexpectedly, even though I had never vaped until about five months ago (July 2015).
Do most of you "vape" at a temperature that combusts?
- Thread starter tie
- Start date
I think it's very obvious when combustion happens unexpectedly, even though I had never vaped until about five months ago (July 2015).
Scott A
Well-Known Member
Im going to have to go with a big NO on this one.
Aimless Ryan
Came to read about grinders; fucked combustion
I do think it would be interesting, though, to accidentally combust with a different type of vape than the Aromed, because I can see everything that happens inside the Aromed, from start to finish (excluding the inside the herb holder, at least with my current mod). Since I can see it coming, I'm sure I experience it differently than if I couldn't see it coming.
HellsWindStaff
Dharma Initiate
I'd hope you never smoked....if it's a "big no" and you disagree that its a "pretty harmless ordeal" that makes it sound like its a pretty harmful ordeal. Which, realistically, isn't the case.
Studies show that smoking marijuana is not as bad for you as smoking cigarettes or other things. Just by the chemicals involved in the plants.
Studies also show that vaporizing is a much healthier and safer alternative to smoking. That smoking, is just never going to be "good" for you.
But, the bad effects of smoking. Are because of exposure. In the big scheme of things, I'm not going to immediately get cancer by lighting up one bowl. Or have all that many adverse effects.
Now, maybe if you're older and now you can't take a hit, and if you were to take that hit you'd have an array of lung problems and coughing fits..... I see lots of vaporists here who seem to prefer lower temps and can't take huge draws....lots of them cite the smoking is what caused the decrease in their health/lung health. But, they're older, and were smoking for a long while. The root cause, was/is still extended exposure to smoke, not just "smoke" period.
If your lungs are so messed up that you think an offchance combustion is NOT a "pretty harmless ordeal" I reckon that the vapes are probably not the greatest thing for your lungs either, obviously would be much better than smoking, but if health is the primary concern period, you should just stick with topicals and edibles. Not saying that vaporizing is unhealthy, just that if your medical problems were bad enough that you couldn't even risk the chance of combustion, that inhaling anything hot would probably not be the greatest thing for you.
The site is fuckcombustion, lets kick this nasty and unhealthy habit! Not fearcombustion because it's a big harmful ordeal. Not trying to pick on you, your comment just seemed a little extreme is all
Maybe I was just hung up on word choice and took it wrong. But, "big NO" in regards to combustion being "pretty harmless ordeal" just seems extreme IMOIn regards to knowing when you combust, I'm usually filling up a water tool as like a third lung...I most always see it before I taste it. The whiteish opaque vapor starts churning and turning yellowy and thick. When I see that, I stop hitting it, clear it out, taste the smoke, and get to work cleaning!
Scott A
Well-Known Member
Just because its not as bad as smoking a cigarette doesnt mean it isnt bad for you.I'd hope you never smoked....if it's a "big no" and you disagree that its a "pretty harmless ordeal" that makes it sound like its a pretty harmful ordeal. Which, realistically, isn't the case.
Studies show that smoking marijuana is not as bad for you as smoking cigarettes or other things. Just by the chemicals involved in the plants.
Studies also show that vaporizing is a much healthier and safer alternative to smoking. That smoking, is just never going to be "good" for you.
But, the bad effects of smoking. Are because of exposure. In the big scheme of things, I'm not going to immediately get cancer by lighting up one bowl. Or have all that many adverse effects.
Now, maybe if you're older and now you can't take a hit, and if you were to take that hit you'd have an array of lung problems and coughing fits..... I see lots of vaporists here who seem to prefer lower temps and can't take huge draws....lots of them cite the smoking is what caused the decrease in their health/lung health. But, they're older, and were smoking for a long while. The root cause, was/is still extended exposure to smoke, not just "smoke" period.
If your lungs are so messed up that you think an offchance combustion is NOT a "pretty harmless ordeal" I reckon that the vapes are probably not the greatest thing for your lungs either, obviously would be much better than smoking, but if health is the primary concern period, you should just stick with topicals and edibles. Not saying that vaporizing is unhealthy, just that if your medical problems were bad enough that you couldn't even risk the chance of combustion, that inhaling anything hot would probably not be the greatest thing for you.
The site is fuckcombustion, lets kick this nasty and unhealthy habit! Not fearcombustion because it's a big harmful ordeal. Not trying to pick on you, your comment just seemed a little extreme is all
In regards to knowing when you combust, I'm usually filling up a water tool as like a third lung...I most always see it before I taste it. The whiteish opaque vapor starts churning and turning yellowy and thick. When I see that, I stop hitting it, clear it out, taste the smoke, and get to work cleaning!
Im 22 so definitely not "older" and certainly dont have any medical conditions... still doesnt make smoking anything a "pretty harmless ordeal".
I said it was a big NO because your comment couldnt by any further from the truth. In no way is smoking anything going to a pretty harmless ordeal.
howie105
Well-Known Member
Its all that personal assessment and tolerance of risk. So people can have differing positions and both can be right, for themselves.
kellya86
Herb gardener...
I suppose anything in relative moderation is harmless as long as the dose is low enough not to affect the body too much,
Cigarettes do contain cyanide for instance,
Although smoking crack once may be relatively harmless...
Unless that once lead too addiction and death, then I would call that one crack hit harmfull...
Cigarettes do contain cyanide for instance,
Although smoking crack once may be relatively harmless...
Unless that once lead too addiction and death, then I would call that one crack hit harmfull...
All relative of course, but yet to see the science of people dying from long term marijuana smoke. Or any serious side effects for that matter, while it may be inhaling harmful toxins I don't see it as risky behaviour. As we inhale harmful things daily. Most things are "bad" for you in some way.
herbivore21
Well-Known Member
Man I don't mean to pick on your personally, I enjoy our interactions here and have nothing but good will towards you
However, and this is a common issue; I see a lot of people saying things recently such as 'I am yet to see the science on x'.
Now the question here is do you even actually read scientific journals? Most people do not, ever! Do you pay the up to $30 per article to be allowed to even access this literature if you yourself aren't a scientist or college student?
If not, then of course, you haven't seen any science on your given topic. This is because you haven't been looking though, rather than because there is no literature there!
Again, I don't mean to pick on you brother, it is not that I expect everyone will read the scholarly literature - but please don't make appeals to it if you aren't familiar with it and can't cite specific articles. Avoid arguments from absence of data on a given topic, which only allow for a conclusive 'I don't know' argument.
The problem with all of the appeals to scientific literature being thrown about is that it creates a boy who cried wolf effect, where people start thinking science is not credible because someone said something false and claimed scientific research backs it up. This hurts the credibility of science more broadly in the community.
Thermal degradation byproducts of cellulose and other compounds in cannabis are unsafe to inhale. We know this from research into smouldering combustion of wood and various other plant fibres. There is evidence to suggest that there are other active compounds in cannabis that will counteract some of the carcinogenic effects of these degradation/oxidation byproducts. It is not yet clear the extent to which the risk is both created by degradation byproducts and mitigated by the active compounds. We should not reach simple conclusions about this complex question yet, the data isn't there.
It is unclear and very difficult to get reliable data on the harms of cannabis smoking in people, since we are often relying on self-report from research subjects and asking people to tell us about shit that will incriminate them and that they might be inclined to misrepresent. People routinely lie to researchers about cannabis use, especially in the US (where most of the research has been done - also remember research outside of the US may have confounding factors like the mixing of tobacco with cannabis) where you may lose your medical cover if your insurer knows you use it. They also routinely just tell researchers what they think the researchers want to hear, this phenomenon is well known and studied in the psychological literature.
I am not saying combusting cannabis will necessarily kill you, it might not in many or even most cases - but if scientists don't yet have the whole picture, we should not overstate our argument by using the absence of evidence (or the absence of your having yet read the evidence) to argue that something is NOT dangerous when actually on the evidence we have, we can reasonably infer that it is likely to be dangerous to some extent.
I take nothing away from your broader point that it is for each person to decide which risks they are comfortable taking, but remember also that the cumulative effects of inhaling harmful things (especially directly without much accompanying oxygen!) are also a consideration. You can over time inhale enough nasty shit to cause problems in the longer term. This means that the 'we inhale harmful things daily' argument doesn't hold water. Yes, we do inhale harmful things in our day to day lives. Yes we should minimize this as much as possible to stop any accumulating damage from the build up of too many harmful things inhaled into our systems over time.
Still, my main and overriding forget-everything-else-I-said-here point is as a scientist, I beseech you all: Can we please not make appeals to science that we haven't read?
Again, I do not mean to pick on you here Tommy, this is a widespread thing that happens around these parts, I only said anything now though lol
Also I'm not saying we should provide a reference list with every post lol - just that we would benefit from being more transparent in how we express ourselves (without compromising one's personal privacy/security obviously!) and actually being sure that we have read this in a credible scientific publication (ie: something that you would find on www.scholar.google.com or other scholarly databases from peer reviewed articles rather than just a normal google search, which could bring up any grade A bullshit). If you can cite the source you read from memory in the post, that is just gravy!
Otherwise, let's just avoid appealing to science if we aren't actually familiar with it. No shame in that either
Sorry if this seems like a hobby horse guys, but as a scientist myself, I can say that this is a very real issue in many scientific disciplines right now.
Wholly understand what you are say, no I am not one for deep scientific research however for my few passions mj included I Enjoy reading studies and journals although I have never paid, probably never will unless someone knows of something on this topic of great interest that needs to be purchased.
Also you are right in that while I do use google scholar at times I certainly find normal Google much easier most of the time and big peer reviewed articles can be so overwhelming.
Normal Google searches obviously not being the most trust worthy source of info.
I have obviously not seen everything on the topic and never will, no where near it for that matter. I am yet to find anything that suggest the smoking on MJ regularly will cause noticeable ill effect to the user. If you know of anything if interest I'd genuinely to see it, as just looking for what you want to read can be the most difficult and overwhelming part at times.
"Pretty harmless ordeal" also doesn't make much sense as its all relative when compared to what, just a hard concept to articulate. Guess what I'm trying to say is, I have yet to come across (again if it's out there someone please share with me) something that suggest with good authority that smoking MJ can be pin pointed as serious factor in premature human death or serious illness. Guess what I'm trying to say is, we know its not healthy to breath in city air, yet if someone was to fall sick it would be hard to pinpoint this one life style factor as the reason why vs someone who smokes a pack a day and develops lung cancer.
But yes sinnce realistically I wouldn't know half of half the science that half the science knows on the matter. So I'll refraim from the word in future haha.
Also you are right in that while I do use google scholar at times I certainly find normal Google much easier most of the time and big peer reviewed articles can be so overwhelming.
Normal Google searches obviously not being the most trust worthy source of info.
I have obviously not seen everything on the topic and never will, no where near it for that matter. I am yet to find anything that suggest the smoking on MJ regularly will cause noticeable ill effect to the user. If you know of anything if interest I'd genuinely to see it, as just looking for what you want to read can be the most difficult and overwhelming part at times.
"Pretty harmless ordeal" also doesn't make much sense as its all relative when compared to what, just a hard concept to articulate. Guess what I'm trying to say is, I have yet to come across (again if it's out there someone please share with me) something that suggest with good authority that smoking MJ can be pin pointed as serious factor in premature human death or serious illness. Guess what I'm trying to say is, we know its not healthy to breath in city air, yet if someone was to fall sick it would be hard to pinpoint this one life style factor as the reason why vs someone who smokes a pack a day and develops lung cancer.
But yes sinnce realistically I wouldn't know half of half the science that half the science knows on the matter. So I'll refraim from the word in future haha.
Last edited:
Chill Dude
Well-Known Member
No drug is totally benign. While its debatable if smoking cannabis alone(without tobacco) could lead to cancer. Some studies have found that people who smoke cannabis alone are at no greater cancer risk than the population as a whole. Perhaps the cancer fighting compounds offset the cancer causing elements in combusted marijuana. Of course you can get cancer from long term heavy cannabis smoke inhalation, but it certainly isn't likely as it is with cigarette smoking.
Personally, I'm more worried about the REAL possibility of COPD from long term combusting of cannabis and to a lesser extent even extremely heavy long term vaping. COPD has been associated with long term heavy marijuana smoking even those who have never smoked cigarettes or mixed tobacco with their MJ. I have a friend who at 56 years of age was diagnosed with COPD and even has to carry oxygen with him sometimes. This person Has never smoked cigarettes or been exposed to any significant environmental pollutants, but he did heavily smoke cannabis for close to 40 years.. So is cannabis totally harmless? Of course not, and to think otherwise is somewhat naive IMO...
Personally, I'm more worried about the REAL possibility of COPD from long term combusting of cannabis and to a lesser extent even extremely heavy long term vaping. COPD has been associated with long term heavy marijuana smoking even those who have never smoked cigarettes or mixed tobacco with their MJ. I have a friend who at 56 years of age was diagnosed with COPD and even has to carry oxygen with him sometimes. This person Has never smoked cigarettes or been exposed to any significant environmental pollutants, but he did heavily smoke cannabis for close to 40 years.. So is cannabis totally harmless? Of course not, and to think otherwise is somewhat naive IMO...
herbivore21
Well-Known Member
@Tommy10
Understand you completely and can also say that as a trained scientist scholarly research articles can be overwhelming still (and I hate the obfuscatory language that is found in a lot of it, which definitely doesn't help this matter). Can definitely relate to what you are saying there and that is why we have to study for the best part of a decade to become researchers who can understand and work with this data/literature (even then it remains dense stuff to engage with sometimes!).
Sadly, the same problem that prevents you from being able to read peer reviewed research is the same problem that stops me from being able to share anything in the subscription-only literature (which is the vast majority of the research out there sadly) here. I can share links to abstracts though, which I have in previous threads. These are brief summaries of research articles but are often dense with disciplinary lingo and generally require an education in the field to understand and/or closer reading of the full (paid) article.
Moreover, the scholarly literature is not yet settled on the specific dangers of smouldering combustion of cannabis. We can reasonably extrapolate though from well established research on smouldering combustion of similar fuels also containing cellulose, lignin and polysaccharides (such as this study http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es00008a025 ) highlight the presence of byproducts such as Vinyl Acetate and 2-furaldehyde (both suspected carcinogens known to be byproducts of the lignin and polysaccharides found in cannabis and many other plants).
As this study reveals, these are found at harmful levels from single controlled desktop sized fires during experimentation, let alone when we repeatedly and deliberately combust flowers and inhale ALL of the results. This study does not account for the compounds in cannabis that may mitigate these carcinogens of course, and this is where the big 'I don't know' begins
We have good reason to suggest that combusting and inhaling cannabis will result in a dangerous intake of carcinogens. We do not know how much of this is offset by the active components in cannabis plants. Hope this clears up this side of things.
Thanks for not taking offence too man, I was really hesitant to even comment because I really don't want to seem like I'm calling you out/having a go! Cheers for being a great interlocutor!
Understand you completely and can also say that as a trained scientist scholarly research articles can be overwhelming still (and I hate the obfuscatory language that is found in a lot of it, which definitely doesn't help this matter). Can definitely relate to what you are saying there and that is why we have to study for the best part of a decade to become researchers who can understand and work with this data/literature (even then it remains dense stuff to engage with sometimes!).
Sadly, the same problem that prevents you from being able to read peer reviewed research is the same problem that stops me from being able to share anything in the subscription-only literature (which is the vast majority of the research out there sadly) here. I can share links to abstracts though, which I have in previous threads. These are brief summaries of research articles but are often dense with disciplinary lingo and generally require an education in the field to understand and/or closer reading of the full (paid) article.
Moreover, the scholarly literature is not yet settled on the specific dangers of smouldering combustion of cannabis. We can reasonably extrapolate though from well established research on smouldering combustion of similar fuels also containing cellulose, lignin and polysaccharides (such as this study http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es00008a025 ) highlight the presence of byproducts such as Vinyl Acetate and 2-furaldehyde (both suspected carcinogens known to be byproducts of the lignin and polysaccharides found in cannabis and many other plants).
As this study reveals, these are found at harmful levels from single controlled desktop sized fires during experimentation, let alone when we repeatedly and deliberately combust flowers and inhale ALL of the results. This study does not account for the compounds in cannabis that may mitigate these carcinogens of course, and this is where the big 'I don't know' begins
We have good reason to suggest that combusting and inhaling cannabis will result in a dangerous intake of carcinogens. We do not know how much of this is offset by the active components in cannabis plants. Hope this clears up this side of things.
Thanks for not taking offence too man, I was really hesitant to even comment because I really don't want to seem like I'm calling you out/having a go! Cheers for being a great interlocutor!
Interesting antedotale evidence. One thing I have noticed is there is not enough research that focuses on vaping vs combustion or at least acknowledges the difference.
I guess vaping hasn't been around long enough to compare at great lengths like smoking.
http://m.cmaj.ca/content/180/8/814.short
"We have good reason to suggest that combusting and inhaling cannabis will result in a dangerous intake of carcinogens. We do not know how much of this is OFFSET BY THE ACTIVE COMPANANTS IN CANNABIS PLANTS. Hope this clears up this side of things."
That is such an interesting concept and not something I have heard before. MJ releasing dangerous carcinogens that could potentially be offset by the positives. I always looked at it as any combustion must surely release something "dangerous" (being relative of course) just that the levels are so minor that personal MJ use would never total to much compared to just undertaking daily life, which is I guess what I mean by "pretty harmless ordeal"
I guess vaping hasn't been around long enough to compare at great lengths like smoking.
http://m.cmaj.ca/content/180/8/814.short
"We have good reason to suggest that combusting and inhaling cannabis will result in a dangerous intake of carcinogens. We do not know how much of this is OFFSET BY THE ACTIVE COMPANANTS IN CANNABIS PLANTS. Hope this clears up this side of things."
That is such an interesting concept and not something I have heard before. MJ releasing dangerous carcinogens that could potentially be offset by the positives. I always looked at it as any combustion must surely release something "dangerous" (being relative of course) just that the levels are so minor that personal MJ use would never total to much compared to just undertaking daily life, which is I guess what I mean by "pretty harmless ordeal"
Last edited:
herbivore21
Well-Known Member
Definitely a problem too man, also we get the problem that all vapes are not created equally. We really need rigorously controlled, methodologically sound scientific research on as many of the flower vapes out there as possible before we'll start to get a clearer and more comprehensive picture on this one.
Poostuff
Please delete
I agree. Even non smokers can develop COPD so it's definitely a concern for vapers of either herb or ecig type.
Edit I don't know who's arguing what here anymore but herbivore is a fucking know it all hey tommy
Last edited:
kellya86
Herb gardener...
Iv been doing alot of research lately into how the lungs and respiratory system deals with particular matter and foreign bodies in the air we breath, are bodies do an amazing job of filtering the shit....
Studies on coal miners show relativly small amounts of deposits in their lungs compared to what they have inhaled in their lifetime...
I will link to the scholarly articles I'm a currently reading, later when I'm not at work...
herbivore21
Well-Known Member
Talking about stuff that is absorbed and not filtered, known carcinogens that are absorbed and can hitch a ride.
kellya86
Herb gardener...
I understand that, but particles are particles and everything is made of them.. even carcinogens..
So the body must be capable of filtering an amount of these ultra fine particles, otherwise accumulating particles of pollution and other toxins would kill us before too long.
So the body must be capable of filtering an amount of these ultra fine particles, otherwise accumulating particles of pollution and other toxins would kill us before too long.