getting rid of toxins at 202 C (395 F)

[nucleo]

Hi guys, i have a very important question and i'm sure someone here can give me a definite answer!

We all know around 202 C, benzene, toluene and naphthalene show "significantly" in vapor when using mj.
This is based on studies circulating around the internet.

Now all i want to know is if this is the case, do we still get them at 230 C if we have vaped around 202 to begin with? Or is it possible to vape them out of the weed at that temperature? Has anyone ever tried this?

Cause if this is the case, whoever is scared to go over 185 or 195 C, usualy just saves for cooking or throws the rest out. However, if it's possible to vape at or going up to 185 for THC then sitting at 202 or maybe a bit higher to vape out the toxins, you wouldn't be losing any THC already vaped, and you will still be able to vape out the THCV, CBC or whatever needs a temperature higher than 210+ without the toxins.

1)Vape THC >185 (inhale)
2)Vape at 202-205 (don't inhale)
3)Vape at 230 (inhale).

Or will i still be getting more toxins as the vap temperature goes higher? Can't #2 be used as a method to "cleanse" the weed of toxins so we can make the most of it without having to worry about health hazzards?

 

[HeMe Bebop]

Think about where the toxins would go. I am assuming that you are saying that there is no air flow during the time in which your vaporizer is heating up. The MJ is not getting vaporized until you are inhaling with most vaporizers I know, unless you mean you are puffing out the toxins .

I have not actually heard of this being an issue and it does not make a lot of sense to me that this would be true. I would like to hear from someone more experienced than myself on this topic though.

 

[wowthisisrandom]

Even if you were able to vape out the benzene as you go higher and higher other toxins besides benzene start to come out. Besides, like HeMe Bebop said most vaporizers will not vaporize until you inhale through them.

 

[WatTyler]

Plus I think the key point is that specific chemicals don't begin to vaporize at one specific temperature. Rather vaporization happens across a spectrum of temperature, via evaporation, boiling, and then sublimation, albeit with particular key threshold values for each type of vaporization. And, except in the case of sublimation at high temperatures, vaporization is actually quite a slow process due to the physical (more so than the chemical) nature of what we're trying to do- think of drying out a wet rag in a very hot air stream. And then a rag that's wetted with lots of different substances, not just water but also, for sake of example, more volatile alcohol. How can you boil/sublimate (vaporize) one chemical away at a specific temperature and not include others via one of the other vaporization pathways? Because of this IMO it is not possible to separate the components through temp selection alone, beyond the broad brush approach of accepting higher temps means a higher concentration of a broader range of compounds.

But I'm no chemist, so others will know better than I and can speak more authoritatively.

 

[willieR]

We all know around 202 C, benzene, toluene and naphthalene show "significantly" in vapor when using mj.
This is based on studies circulating around the internet.

This is based on a single, solitary NORML study done in 2001. That's the only place I've ever seen that discussion. I also believe it is highly suspect. Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporizer_(cannabis) Here they detail some studies that are openly contradicting the 2001 NORML study. This article points to several studies that all concluded no harmful substances were produced during vaporization.

I have not made is a career research project, but the wiki article has several significant studies referenced. I have looked and asked, but have yet to find hard data that shows the release of toxins pre-combustion. If anyone knows of such data I'd love to have a link. Thanks

 

[pakalolo]

I'm with willieR here. I've done the same research and reached the same conclusion. Also, WatTyler summed it up nicely. Vaporization does not magically occur at a precise temperature. Thinking that it does means you've fallen into what I call the Star Trek binary fallacy: deadly radiation means you've got X minutes to live, but at X-1 everyone is still fully healthy and functioning normally. It doesn't work like that.

 

[willieR]

the Star Trek binary fallacy: deadly radiation means you've got X minutes to live, but at X-1 everyone is still fully healthy and functioning normally.

That's as funny as it is true. Also, I myself was re-directed from this erroneous thought process (toxins released pre-combustion) by Paka in another FC thread.

I also thought WatTyler's explanation was on the money. Actually, vaporization is likely best characterized as a curve. There are temps where vaporization in increased or optimal, but technically vaporization may start as soon as you're above absolute zero.

 

[Hippie Dickie]

but technically vaporization may start as soon as you're above absolute zero.

but only provided the vaporizable material (inside the trichome cellular container) is exposed to sufficient temperature. so it seems to me that the vaporization process has to start with melting/opening the trichome.

 

[willieR]

Well, true. If we're discussing the vaporization of a material, I guess we have to assume the material in question is not enclosed in a test tube or trichome. Otherwise, once molecular movement starts (above absolute zero) it would seem there would be some trace amount of vaporization starting.

 

[Engy]

but technically vaporization may start as soon as you're above absolute zero.

Statistical mechanics says this is absolutely true. However, at such low temperatures, the probability of single THC molecules acquiring enough energy to leave their neighbors and become airborne is exceedingly low.

 

[nucleo]

Bleh i can't believe that so many people are vaping and so many companies have now manufactured high up products all based on a 2001 study.

Someone somwhere knows something and they are keeping it from appearing online.

I mean surely the whole point of a vaporizer is to turn smoking into something less harmful, and by doing so surely they have tested it's extensiveness when it comes down to competing with all the other manufacturers. I mean surely in this 21st century were everything is about competition and money in the business world, surely from all the profit they have made, someone somewhere have invested that money into research to make their product superior in every way compared to all the other products.

I mean isn't this the world we live in? Isn't it the same with cars, or electronics, services, jobs? So why is it for the 10 years there's only 1 study confirming the very reason why a person would use purchase a vaporizer. I mean this is breakthrough science right? Or are some people gonna lose millions or billions if everyone overnight just switched to vaping?

 

[willieR]

Statistical mechanics says this is absolutely true. However, at such low temperatures, the probability of single THC molecules acquiring enough energy to leave their neighbors and become airborne is exceedingly low.

Completely agree. I would also speculate (opinion here) that the curve that would technically exist probably has a hefty spike at a certain temp (assuming pressure is a constant) and so our rough vaporization temps are still a useful metric.

nucleo, I wouldn't for a moment think any vape manufacturer spent big bucks to test anything at all. The market feels vaporization is a good thing, and they simply need to apply a bit of marketing to cater to that market. No vape manufacturer really needs to prove vape is better than smoke to appeal to a person that already feels vape = healthy. The perception that vape is healthier becomes an industry default, and they get about the business of simply marketing their features and benefits relative to their price.

 

[nucleo]

I know that vapor is better than smoke but, when comparing unfiltered joints to vaporizing. In my case, for the unfiltered joint, it would be small and thin just enough to get someone high, the tokes would be normal and wouldn't hold my breathe in either due to toxins reaching the deeper areas of my lungs, which can result in secondary lung cancer.

With vaporizing now, the toke will be longer due to the smoke density difference, therefore i would also hold it for longer, meaning i'm exposing more of my lungs to the vapor than if i was smoking, in which case if toxins can't be verified or quatified and there is no accurate reading on the difference of toxins and tars mesured at 200 C and 230 C compared to an unfiltered joint, then wouldn't it also be something people should question for the sake of using a vaporizer.

I know that after smoking a joint, your lungs feel all that nasty stuff sitting on them, which is why you wouldn't smoke 1 joint after another. However with the vaporizer, if the amount of carnicogens (benzene, ect...)and tars which appear in the temperature range for vaping are just as or if not more harmful because of the need to hold, toke deeper and longer then vaporizing itself in the spectrum range of toxins being released would be bad.

I mean if there was a comparison on tar levels and toxins and not for thc/cbd, ect... one would be able to make a decision and asses whether it's worth taking such big and long hits from a health safety point of view.

 

[willieR]

It's not that there's NO data. See that link in one of my posts above. There's definately data to support vape vs. smoke. My point was that after that, it's unlikely that a vape manufacturer would spend their own funds to further any research. Volcano commissioned a gas chromatography study that's all over the web, but it was primarily looking at cannabinoid levels at different temps. I recall, anyways.

 

[max]

This article points to several studies that all concluded no harmful substances were produced during vaporization.

So various beneficial/positive compounds are released at different temps, but no toxins are released until combustion occurs? Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

"In 2007 a study by University of California, San Francisco published in the Journal of the American Academy of Neurology[4] examined the efficacy of a vaporizer that heats cannabis to a temperature between 180 C (356 F) and 200 C (392 F) degrees and found:
Using CO as an indicator, there was virtually no exposure to harmful combustion products using the vaporizing device."

The temp range mentioned above ends at 200 C. The '01 study says that "significant" amounts of benzene start at 200 C. There's still a lot of temp range available between 200 and combustion. "Harmful combustion products" is also a little vague.

Has the amount of benzene released from cannabis, even at combustion, been accurately measured? Does it approach the level (1.8 mg/day) that the average cig smoker gets?

Here's another interesting bit- "Most inhaled benzene is not metabolized. Inhaled benzene is primarily expelled unchanged through exhalation."

And of the most common exposure methods, through inhalation, how much do we get through car exhaust, wood smoke, 2nd hand tobacco smoke, etc., vs. herb smoke. And since significant benzene levels have been measured in vapors from gasoline, glues, paints, furniture wax, detergents, etc., at room temps, why would there be zero emissions from heated cannabis, until combustion? And I hope that no one who smokes cigs is worried about toxins from vaping. That would fit in the old expression 'penny wise and pound foolish'.

i can't believe that so many people are vaping and so many companies have now manufactured high up products all based on a 2001 study.

There's no evidence that even a single company has designed a vape based on that study. If the numbers didn't make sense in real world experience, they wouldn't be used. For variable temp models, the vapor range is self evident. For fixed temp models, the basis may be the high itself, or combined with the temp effect on the throat and lungs, and even the color of the ABV could be a factor. High temp vapor, even cooled with distance and/or water, is more harsh than low temp, and it certainly makes sense to me that nobody is going to fix a temp in the high range if a lower, less harsh, temp can be effective.

Someone somwhere knows something and they are keeping it from appearing online

Sorry, but I can't conceive how such a conspiracy could feasibly happen, or who would be involved. It takes time and money to come up with concrete info, and there has to be a big payoff involved for someone with bias.

My personal opinion is that the concern over high temp emissions of toxins are overblown. I like to pay attention to what my body is trying to tell me (as I should have when I started smoking cigs at 15 and suffered from coughing and dizziness), and it told me years ago that I'd better quit smoking, first the cigs, then 10 yrs. later, cannabis. I've been vaping only for years now, and not just at a low, fixed temp, although my lungs are happier with the less harsh, lower temp range. Vapor, IMO, is much kinder to the body, vs. smoke, and the safest way to consume, aside from more expensive edibles. Until there's much better evidence on temps available (and that may be a long time), you either go with vapor, at whatever temp you choose, or play it super safe and just breathe air. And how's the air where you live/and or work anyway?

 

[willieR]

Max, check out that link in my earlier post, as well as the references within that article. The majority of the research shows a distinct lack of these problematic compounds prior to combustion. The only study I have ever seen that states otherwise was that NORML 2001 study.

I haven't made a real study of this, and certainly haven't done any of the research testing myself, but there are more studies that show safety than hazard.

EDIT:
Max: I had not heard about Benzene being largely exhaled. That is interesting. Might you recall where you picked that up? Thanks

 

[HeMe Bebop]

Ok just to clear this up: RESEARCH IS NOT FREE. The cost often reaches BILLIONS of dollars in order to have data that is considered accurate by the scientific community. If companies could do research to determine how safe a vaporizer is for a cheap price they would, but the problem is, research is not anywhere close to being free. The reason why volcano can spend money on research is because that is part of what you are paying for with the 700 bucks you spend.

If you want there to be accurate research on vaporizing done, expect the vaporizers you buy to cost around the same price as a volcano, otherwise there are limited ways to get the money for research. We don't live in a fantasy land where people only do things out of the goodness of their hearts, money makes the world go round in America.

 

[willieR]

The relatively straightforward test that Volcano paid for I would guess cost no more than a few thousand. Simple gas chromatography (i believe that's what was done). Some companies have such a device in-house. When you study blood levels, etc which require human subjects, the cost would escalate sharply, I'd imagine.

 

[Tuck]

The other problem, at least in the US, is that marijuana research is for the most part illegal.

 

[willieR]

Making me sick... That's so true. I just receieved an e-mail from the MPP regarding the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011. Maybe this time it will stick

 

[pngwyn]

Can someone explain this in laymans terms? Does this mean vaping is hazardous? I always thought it was pretty harmless T.T

 

[willieR]

Vaping is much better than smoking

 

[pngwyn]

But this topic is about vaping releasing potentially cancerous toxins from MJ right? Or am I misunderstood?

And only at specific temps? o.O

 

[pakalolo]

But this topic is about vaping releasing potentially cancerous toxins from MJ right? Or am I misunderstood?

And only at specific temps? o.O

Stay calm, good citizen. There is no need for alarm. Return to your home and await further instructions.

Let's be clear. You are ingesting potentially cancerous toxins every day. You can't avoid it. (Well you can, but never breathing again is considered too extreme by most people.)

The worry is whether you're getting enough of a particular toxin to cross some threshold where cancer is a lot more likely or even inevitable. Applied to the subject at hand, what you want to know is whether the toxins released through vaping pushes you across that line.

It's true that no one has studied vaporizing to determine how much it increases your cancer risk. They have, however, studied smoking marijuana to see if it causes cancer, and those studies have (afaik) uniformly concluded that it does not.

So now we're forced to conclude that in order for vaporizing marijuana to increase your cancer risk, the process must introduce something that isn't present when marijuana is combusted. I, for one, do not believe that there is such a thing.

max: Excellent and well-thought out post. There's a lot I'd like to say, but I'll just pick out one thing for now. That word "significant" is supposed to be used with great care in scientific papers. It's a statistically loaded term. I've been co-author to a few papers, and whenever something is called "significant" it must be supported with data and a calculation to show that the result exceeds the probability of chance occurrence.

I've read that study, and while it does say "significant amounts of benzene, toluene, and naphthalene were observed above 200 C", nowhere does it quantify this. From this single, unsupported, and perhaps more important unverified reference, all the controversy over vaporization toxins has sprung forth.

It boils my onions, let me tell you.

 

[nucleo]

Great answers and many good posts! Great energy in the classroom today! Lots of positive feedback too! Seems like we are onto something here..

Aside from the fact someone mentioned it costs billions for this kind of accurate research, is there any other cheaper way of getting answers rather than saying we need a full blown study that probably won't happen for years to come?

1 test to check toxin/tar levels at 185/202/230 C.