no tar? so what temp? really...?

[nucleo]

Ok so we have probably all read that at 185C or 365F, a study has been published claiming this is the safezone limit until you start getting carnicogens, right?

But i mean... if you are still getting tar (even if they are reduced compared to smoking), there's still tar entering the lungs. Therefore even if vaporizing is a safe smoking alternative, what is really the safe temperature to use it on? Is there such a thing?

I mean, i don't know about you guys but i'd really like to know at what temperature you don't get any tar... And i mean if it's impossible to vape up weed to at least get THC without getting any tar, then it simply means the safest method of vaping is actually just vaping pure thc. And for that, you would have to separate the thc from the bud, which isn't practical or ideal.

So back to the temperatures.... do you guys think that it's possible to simply vape without getting tar and getting high at the same time?

To me it looks like everyone that bought a vaporizer is just relying on the fact that they can use it without congesting their lungs as much. But the way i see it, if a non-smoker has black lungs and switchs to a vaporizer, i'm pretty certain that he or she would want nothing hindering their recovery process. Everyone should know that all that smoke that is sitting on people's lungs won't go away if more shit goes and sits on top of it.

Come on guys... we are talking about tar here!

 

[Seek]

I've never ever tasted or seen any tar with my vapes. There can be some not-good components at very high temps. But at least if you don't go over 200 they're really neglible. It is uncomparable with smoke at temps below 200. If you go higher, significant ammount of benzene and other shit begin forming. IMO still much less than in a smoke. And as you are going higher, it is becoming more smoke-like. Below 185 i think there aren't any concerns even for the most OCD people (if the temp is real).

If a person has black lungs and start vaping high-temp, even if there is some bad stuff, its so little there that lungs keep on regenerating. That "new layer of shit" contains almost nothing more than cannabinoids. One smoke puff could give you much more shit in you lungs than several vapor sessions.

 

[vape4life]

+1 There is no tar, maybe slight resin/oil but like seek said, you can't even compare the two.

 

[max]

Quite a few people have reported clean lungs via x-ray, with no sign of being a smoker, after switching to vapor for a while. I've been vaping for years with no issues, after no longer being able to tolerate smoke anymore. If zero tar isn't obtainable with vapor, and that's a deal breaker for you, do what you gotta do. As for me, I'm perfectly happy with how my lungs have reacted to the presence of vapor and lack of smoke.

There is no tar

And that statement is based on 'can't see or taste it?' I can't see germs either but I still acknowledge their existence.

 

[vape4life]

^^^^^^^ +1

6 years from me, with smoking bongs i'd have a chronic cough all the time. I've had recent lung xrays too and everything is normal. And in fact, my lung capacity is much higher than average (i do maintain a healthy fitness lifestyle though).

 

[vape4life]

And that statement is based on 'can't see or taste it?' I can't see germs either but I still acknowledge their existence.

You're right there may be SOME, but IMO it's so insignificant that it warrants its non-extistence lol

I just assumed that you needed to "combust" in order to produce smoke in order to produce tar.

 

[vorrange]

Ok so we have probably all read that at 185C or 365F, a study has been published claiming this is the safezone limit until you start getting carnicogens, right?

At 140C you start getting THC compounds, at 185C there is still no tar, close to 200C you get residual concentrations of 4 compounds that are not to healthy.

If you combust you get hundreds of compounds in concentrations that are nowhere near residual, so i think it is still a LOT better to vape than to combust.

If you are worried about the 4 compounds, better not vape at all, and escape from the cities. The CO in the air and the second hand smoke gives you much more carcinogens than vaping.

 

[notmyrealUSERname]

Nucleo:

"And i mean if it's impossible to vape up weed to at least get THC without getting any tar, then it simply means the safest method of vaping is actually just vaping pure thc. And for that, you would have to separate the thc from the bud, which isn't practical or ideal."

There might notbe an ideal or practical way to separate thc, but it can be done, intact there are several methods on how to achieve this. Look into dry ice sift hash aka kief, bho, qwiso, and even cooking with butter or oil will help concentrate the thc.


As far as tar in your lungs, I think if your only vaping, then your lungs can clean out whatever new tar may be introduced to your lungs by vaping faster than u can put the tar in. So, your lungs are still able to continue to clean themselves of the old smoking tar.

 

[nucleo]

Ok but why are some people saying there is no tar at 185, when i'm certain there was a report out there stating that at that temperature there are still amounts of carbon monoxide and tar. They didn't really explain how much because they said the results of those weren't "quantified".

 

[Bon Dog]

if u are so worried just make edibles or green dragon (but i doubt u would want to damage your liver if ur worried about a small amount of tar) =p

 

[vorrange]

Nucleo, don't you understand that worrying about tar content when vaporizing is like don't riding a bike because of the cars exaust fumes.. it just doesn't make sense.

Otherwise, you should be a monk and banish all alcohol, sugars and other modern world vicious habits.

 

[nucleo]

The liver can regenerate itself. The lungs cannot. In fact, if there was scientific evidence that proves black lungs can become pink again after quitting smoke or after exposure to any kind of black residue after a long period of time then i would like to see it. I mean surely, volcano users who start to see their bag yellowing after a while or the casual smoker who sees it happening in their filters after only 1 cig or joint knows that over a period of time whether it's short or long, it still happens inside our lungs. So my theory was simply based on whether it's a question of eliminating the tar when vaporizing: will we be getting any thc at this point? I doubt the lungs would yellow the way they do if the vapor is actually invisible.

 

[max]

The tar that's referred to in smoking- cigs or whatever, isn't the black gooey stuff they use in building roads, it's just total particulate matter, even if the particulates are very tiny). And smoking in itself, even long term cig smoking, doesn't turn your lungs black. Black lungs are due to inhaling large amounts of pollution (as in working with asbestos, etc. without wearing breathing protection), and/or cancer.

 

[vorrange]

So my theory was simply based on whether it's a question of eliminating the tar when vaporizing: will we be getting any thc at this point? I doubt the lungs would yellow the way they do if the vapor is actually invisible.

There IS scientific evidence that states that you can get copious amounts of THC with almost no tar. I don't understand what you keep not understanding about that.

You don't eliminate the tar, but the process of vaporizing does not form as much tar as combusting. And when i say "not as much", i say scientifically speaking there are residual amounts that are afterwards discarded by the body processes and don't exist in an harmfull concentration.

Vaporizing as issues, Tar is not one of them.

About regenerating lungs and whatnot, there is scientific evidence that the cilia of the lungs do regenerate and they help the lungs clean themselves.

 

[Seek]

The liver can regenerate itself. The lungs cannot.

Only neurons don't regenerate. Lungs slowly, but do. I've read some reports here, that after converting to vapor, lungs got healthy after long time. If a person inhaled less smoke overall before he stopped, his lungs will recover faster and more completely.

I mean surely, volcano users who start to see their bag yellowing after a while or the casual smoker who sees it happening in their filters after only 1 cig or joint knows that over a period of time whether it's short or long, it still happens inside our lungs. So my theory was simply based on whether it's a question of eliminating the tar when vaporizing: will we be getting any thc at this point? I doubt the lungs would yellow the way they do if the vapor is actually invisible.

es, it happens, but again, lungs are not bags or pipes. These inanimate object lack any regeneration. And that yellow layer in vape part is mostly (if not 100%) cannabinoids. If you want to feel the effect, you simply need to inhale psychoactive matter. And that yellow layer is that matter you want to get in your lungs unless you don't want to get high. Sure its not what they like, but imo it is still X-times better that smoke toxins and tars. And cannabinoids have regenerating properties so probably they can help lungs regenerate. Also that resin is natural and I think lungs will proccess most of it instead of leaving layer of it on them.

 

[vape4life]

just found this from marijuana.com

The tar in cigarettes WILL eventually cause in a HEAVY smoker (3 pack a day) "black lung" similar to the folks who work in coal mines (as defined by the world reknowned physician and scientist Dr. Irving Selikoff (dc'd), Mt. Sinai Hospital -- Public Health Division who made bot the asbestosis cancer link and the cigarette tar cancer link)

The difference is the TAR in cigaretes is not the same as the RESIN in cannabis. And the body can dissolve and remove ythose resins, as opposed to the build up of tars in the lungs. Also cannabis has cancer fighting properties as well as immuno-stimulating properties that tobacco does not contain.

Smoke is an irritant however and WILL cause your body to increase mucous production. YOur best defense to that is to keep the secretions as thin as possible. Drink WATER all the time...carry a bottle of mineral water (and refill it at the water fountain ) But Sip Sip Sip. Will you cough up phlegm in the morning? Probably...learn to spit it out...check to see if there are spots of black ash...adjust your smoking accordingly.

The bottom line is, smoking cannabis (as opposed to drinking, inhaling vapour, using a tincture, or eating) will cause smoke and smoke is an irritant your body will try to expell and protect against.

If you choose to smoke cannabis, you are choosing to have this side effect. If in your mind that is a fair trade off, then that is your choice.

Toke responsibly,



As a "heavy smoker" (3+ doobs a day)

 

[djonkoman]

es, it happens, but again, lungs are not bags or pipes. These inanimate object lack any regeneration. And that yellow layer in vape part is mostly (if not 100%) cannabinoids. If you want to feel the effect, you simply need to inhale psychoactive matter. And that yellow layer is that matter you want to get in your lungs unless you don't want to get high. Sure its not what they like, but imo it is still X-times better that smoke toxins and tars. And cannabinoids have regenerating properties so probably they can help lungs regenerate. Also that resin is natural and I think lungs will proccess most of it instead of leaving layer of it on them.

as a testiment of this, last week I gave the glass stem of my UD a quick scrape, there were small particulates and resin(vaperesin) on it.
I vaped this vaperesin in my VG, and it was just like vaping a nice hash, but not with much taste. not a bad taste ether, just barely any taste. but the effect was very nice, and in strength it was at least as strong as common hash.

 

[pakalolo]

Tar in this context is a by-product of combustion. Since vapour does not involve combustion, you do the math.

Vapour does contain particulate matter. Thicker vapour (think clouds) contains more particulates. Particulates irritate the throat and lungs (hence the silly "cough to get off" myth). This is a major factor in why I prefer lower temperatures.

 

[max]

Tar in this context is a by-product of combustion. Since vapour does not involve combustion, you do the math.

This NORML study does not agree on tar emissions.

"The vaporizer produced THC at a temperature of 185° C. (365° F.) while completely eliminating three measured toxins - benzene, a known carcinogen, plus toluene and naphthalene. Carbon monoxide and smoke tars were both qualitatively reduced by the vaporizer, but additional testing is needed to quantify the extent of the decrease."
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy1.html

 

[pakalolo]

This NORML study does not agree on tar emissions.


"The vaporizer produced THC at a temperature of 185° C. (365° F.) while completely eliminating three measured toxins - benzene, a known carcinogen, plus toluene and naphthalene. Carbon monoxide and smoke tars were both qualitatively reduced by the vaporizer, but additional testing is needed to quantify the extent of the decrease."
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy1.html

Geez max, I've never seen that before! (I wish.)

Allow me to be pedantic: that is not a study, that is a press release about a study by Dale Gieringer titled Cannabis "Vaporization": A Promising Strategy for Smoke Inhalation Reduction, which you can find on the Cannibinoid Medicines site. If I had a nickel for every time someone dragged out that press release in a discussion like this, I could afford my own Volcano. I should have re-read Gieringer before I posted because his definition is normal in smoking studies and I should have remembered that, especially since I go on to refer to particulates in vapour.

When I said "in this context" I was referring to the normal chemical definition of tar, which defines it as a by-product of destructive distillation of certain carbons. Gieringer uses a broader definition of tar, which extends to include all particulate matter and not just the combustion by-products. Note that by his definition, THC and cannabinoids are counted as tars, which is why I was attempting (and failing) to make a distinction.

I am not a fan of this study. For one thing, it is the source of the infamous statement, "Significant amounts of benzene, toluene and naphthalene were observed above 200°C..." without quantifying the amounts or describing how they were derived. ("Tests indicate...") This observation has never been supported by Gieringer or any other study I can find. I also take issue with his casual use of the word "significant", which has a precise meaning in scientific papers and should refer to a probability value, here not presented.

Gieringer admits that his methods produced wildly varying results, sometimes in direct conflict with the observations of experienced users. For example, he found that there was no clear correlation between potency and THC delivered. He found that waterpipes delivered more tars and carbon monoxide than unfiltered cigarettes. Etc. Given the apparent lack of consistent reproducible results, until someone reproduces his findings and documents them somewhat better, I take his findings with a large grain of salt.

 

[WatTyler]

When I said "in this context" I was referring to the normal chemical definition of tar, which defines it as a by-product of destructive distillation of certain carbons. Gieringer uses a broader definition of tar, which extends to include all particulate matter and not just the combustion by-products. Note that by his definition, THC and cannabinoids are counted as tars, which is why I was attempting (and failing) to make a distinction.

It's pretty tricky when we're comparing to "tar" as is present in smoke, as in the OP. In that context the definition is the same as Gieringers, rather than the chemical definition, and it might seem more appropriate to keep such a definition if we're comparing smoke to vapor. Otherwise the actual tar content of smoke would be much, much less than it's given and accepted "tar" content.

I am not a fan of this study. For one thing, it is the source of the infamous statement, "Significant amounts of benzene, toluene and naphthalene were observed above 200°C..." without quantifying the amounts or describing how they were derived. ("Tests indicate...") This observation has never been supported by Gieringer or any other study I can find. I also take issue with his casual use of the word "significant", which has a precise meaning in scientific papers and should refer to a probability value, here not presented.

Do you know if anyone has asked him about this Pakalolo? I'd doubt there's any intention to mislead, and the data may be available on request. Especially for Vaporpedia

 

[pakalolo]

It's pretty tricky when we're comparing to "tar" as is present in smoke, as in the OP. In that context the definition is the same as Gieringers, rather than the chemical definition, and it might seem more appropriate to keep such a definition if we're comparing smoke to vapor. Otherwise the actual tar content of smoke would be much, much less than it's given and accepted "tar" content.

I agree, that's why I noted that his definition is the one normally used in smoking studies.

Do you know if anyone has asked him about this Pakalolo? I'd doubt there's any intention to mislead, and the data may be available on request. Especially for Vaporpedia

I don't know if he's been asked. Even though Dr. Gieringer is a prominent advocate for marijuana and is on the board of directors for NORML, I don't believe he was trying to be deceptive. I do think using the word "significant" the way he did was sloppy, however.

The problem with that statement about benzene, toluene and naphthalene at 200°C is that Gieringer was one of the authors of the only other study I've seen that touches on this point, and it contradicts this. The study is Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds (Gieringer, D., St. Laurent, J., and Goodrich, S. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, Vol. 4(1) 2004). It states, "A striking result in both analyses was a lack of significant quantities of pyrolytic-induced analytes in the vapor." Benzene, toluene and naphthalene are pyrolytic-induced analytes. Note that they don't say there were no analytes, but they use the same word (significant) to describe their absence that Gieringer used to describe their presence in the earlier study.

Here again (and throughout that study) the word "significant" is used casually without qualification. I'm sensitive to this for a reason. The first time I wrote a paper for presentation to a symposium, I happened to use that word in a similar manner. My mentor (who has been author or co-author of over a hundred papers) jumped on it and drilled into me the specific meaning "significant" has in a scientific paper. The gist of it is that you never use that word unless you are discussing probabilities and can provide a p value. Gieringer (and here his co-authors also) don't seem to be aware of this.

 

[WatTyler]

OTOH it could be that the authors are well aware of the use of statistical significance and do have data to back up these assertions, it's just not presented? It would be a glaring error, especially if these papers have been peer reviewed- that process exists to stop such mistakes.

I'm not really clear how it can refer to a quantity without going back to my textbooks though. It does seem subjective.

Could it be taken as the results showing benzene in the first test were significant (ie enough that it was unlikely to be chance), whereas in the second study the pyrolytic-induced analytes were measured, but not sufficiently and predictably enough to suggest that it was not down to chance?

 

[pakalolo]

It could be any of that or something else. The unresolved ambiguity is a large part of why I remain skeptical. They do refer in the second paper to an unpublished report to California NORML.

Both papers appeared in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, which ceased publication in 2004. JCT was published by Haworth Press, Binghamton, New York, and edited by Ethan Russo. It had all the trappings of a peer-reviewed journal and I have no reason to believe it wasn't. I agree that peer review is supposed to catch this sort of thing, but I have seen peer review fail a few times.

 

[cybervapor]

I mean surely, volcano users who start to see their bag yellowing after a while or the casual smoker who sees it happening in their filters after only 1 cig or joint knows that over a period of time whether it's short or long, it still happens inside our lungs. I doubt the lungs would yellow the way they do if the vapor is actually invisible.

The yellowing bag effect that Volcano (and other bag users) see is not tar. The yellowing is caused by accumulation of the resin (the "goo" in marijuana trichomes - cannibinoids, etc...) that has been vaporized. This stuff is soluble in alcohol or oil. In a bag (or a vapor whip or vapor pipe) it accumulates.

However, in your lungs, your natural secretions dissolve the resin down to constituents (cannabinoids - THC, CBD, CBN, etc, and terpenes). This is "digested" by your body. It doesn't accumulate in your lungs like it does in an inert bag.

If you ever look at "honey oil" that's extracted by CO2, it's the same stuff. 99% pure. It's completely digestible. It doesn't accumulate in the human lung (or stomach for that matter). Hope this helps alleviate your concern.