Safe Concentrates 101 - ALPHA EDITION

[herbivore21]

So I thought I would give out some advice on safety in selection of your concentrates here. Unfortunately, I can only document it as I remember it and as my increasingly busy schedule allows. Still, I don't want this to slow down the IMHO super important conversation on safety with concentrates that needs to be had, so will release sections as I go.

Please note that this thread is not for advise on making oils - we have loads of them! This is for advise on determining whether an oil is safe to dab!

Mods - I'm not sure if maybe there is a way we can make this first post editable in perpetuity so that I can update it as I write more, or if you guys could just do the edits for me and I'll just make new posts in here with new sections?

For now, I thought I'd start with some basics on consistencies and how to spot residual solvent in your oils.


Safe Concentrates 101:

Foreword: As you may know, I do not endorse the consumption of concentrates which contain any inactive material where possible, and especially that contains residual solvent, contaminants, adulterants, bacteria, mold/mold spores etc. If you do not mind dabbing stuff which has these things in them, that is your call, not mine. Still, please don't derail the thread with posts about how you don’t care to check for these things! This thread is for those who want to ensure they are dabbing the safest extracts possible.

Please do chime in if there is some safety advise you have to add. Remember, compiling a comprehensive concentrates safety/basics thread is gonna be an epic undertaking. Together we can do it

The basics:

Consistencies:

Absolute Shatter – This is the glassy/stronger than glassy form that anyone who wants as close to pure cannabinoids as possible should seek out as the easiest to determine to be safe for dabbing (reasons to be explored subsequently*). Absolute shatter has been dewaxed, will vary in colour based on strain but should always be very translucent when held up to a light in a small enough piece.

Wax – Wax is not just a blanket word to describe anything which is not solid. A lot of people call something wax to cover up the fact that it has unpurged solvent and is in fact just unpurged shatter/sap depending on the state of decarb. Wax is stuff with an earwax/candlewax consistency only! Be careful here for reasons pointed out below.

Sap – Sap generally will reflect wax, fat and/or the state of decarb of a given sample of extract. This is a tree-sap type consistency which will snap when pulled unless thoroughly decarbed, in which case it may not snap.

Budder – an extract which was whipped during purge to speed up heat purge, however, added heat/friction from whipping will contribute to further decarb. I do not advise the use of budder from dispensaries, as I have seen truckloads of ‘budder’ sold swimming in residual solvents.

Crumble/Honeycomb – I have not yet done enough experimentation with these consistencies to be confident in characterizing them fully here. However look up pictures to get an idea. I will say that these consistencies can be great when made right and I am sure there are plenty of crumbles/honeycombs that I could condone as safe for use.

Decarbed runny oil/nectar – Not to be confused with non decarbed oils which are just runny because of residual solvent, these are runnier in consistency than their peers (although not fully liquid!) because of the state of decarb of the predominate cannabinoids (presence of THC and CBD; as opposed to the carboxilic acids THCA and CBDA - also predominate ingredients in a well made, decarbed extract).

1. Solvent-extracted concentrates
Residual Solvent:
I have long explained that despite the US Pharmacopeia’s classification of most of the solvents used in extraction as class 3, which is safe for human consumption – the consumption in mind here was oral consumption of this chemical, not inhalation of its thermal degradation byproducts. I will not go through the reasons residual solvents are unsafe, however this is a good first stage of working out whether your oil is good to dab.

Residual solvent is glaringly obvious to the trained eye before even dabbing, generally speaking – unless it is left in very small amounts. Let’s go over some methods to discover this stuff lurking in our meds.

* Let’s begin by my first port of call to test whether you have residual solvent in your oil. The oil slick test. You may have in the past encountered extracts which themselves stick slick to your oil slick mats/pads. They are difficult, if not impossible to completely remove from the oil slick surface, like hair gel just spreading all over it instead of coming off on your dabber. If your oil does this, it is swimming in residual solvent. Don’t dab it.

* Bubbles, if you see bubbles don’t dab it – it is likely swimming in solvent. After very recent experiments, I am adamant that such concentrates should be avoided. Yes, it is potentially possible due to other factors to have some bubbles in a concentrate which are not from residual solvent, but it is very difficult to distinguish these and I don’t encourage trying to discern between bubbles when there is evidently better material available. Beautiful colorful rainbow looking bubbles are definitely gonna be residual solvent, get right away from that stuff!

* Smell/taste of solvent – yes, solvent smell/taste is an obvious way to tell you have solvent in your dab. If there is ISO in your oil, you’re gonna smell/taste it. If there is n-butane, you shouldn’t really taste much - or anything at all! If there is ethanol, the taste may not even be unpleasant to many – but you should not be dabbing it. Remember, somewhat safe to drink (in moderation!) is not the same as safe to heat and inhale!

* Sparks/flashes/shooting smoke off your nail are also a surefire (pun intended) way to tell you are dabbing solvent.

I’ll edit with any other ways to tell that you’ve got solvent going on if I remember anymore favourites Feel free to suggest any ways you might know of. Of course, where possible, only buy concentrates which have been tested for residual solvents and are free of, not just at ‘pass’ levels for any such solvent.


TO BE CONTINUED......

 

[DieHard]

This is LONG overdue! This is the kind of info we need to be spreading, not videos of some stoner doing a 14g dab. This is how we further our cause. Excellent work @herbivore21.

For Thread continuity: In the field there is always the flame test. Roll up a small worm of concentrate and hit it with a lighter. If it does anything other than just melt: Beware!

 

[hishighness]

Residual Solvent:
I have long explained that despite the US Pharmacopeia’s classification of most of the solvents used in extraction as class 3, which is safe for human consumption – the consumption in mind here was oral consumption of this chemical, not inhalation of its thermal degradation byproducts. I will not go through the reasons residual solvents are unsafe, however this is a good first stage of working out whether your oil is good to dab.

Can you please explain this further? I'd say it's important we discuss exactly how dangerous n-butane is before we start saying you need to throw all your not-spectacular oil in the trash. I was under the same impression as you at first but the more I look all I find is that it's pretty much benign at the levels you would experience dabbing:

"Exposure to 10,000 ppm for 10 min may lead to drowsiness but does not appear to cause systemic effects"
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0068.pdf
So inhaling waaaaayyyyyy more than you would ever possibly dab won't do anything to you (I think stuff at the cups had like 500-1000 ppm so still way less and you only inhale it for a second anyway)

"Occupational exposure of 53 male refinery workers for an average of 11 years to n-butane (concentration varied from 0.0004 mg/l to 0.0178 mg/l) did not cause any clinical symptoms in the workers"
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/a?dbs+hsdb:@term+@DOCNO+944
These are pretty low levels of butane but even so it's constantly over 10+ years with no harm done

The above studies do say a 16 year old girl who inhaled butane everyday for a year got hallucinations and some other bad shit but I think for that to happen to a dabber they would need to smoke grams of oil that's more butane than THC every single day.

Personally I only like dabbing fire wax but that's because it tastes nicer/hits easier. If I didn't have access to I would most certainly smoke whatever shit I could get my hands on. Obviously well made oil is "safer" but I think the above evidence puts to rest people who imply smoking taney oil once is going to give you like schizophrenia or AIDS or something

Edit: And having said all that this is a great guide for if you are inexperienced and want to know what to look for in wax but I don't think you should say tell people in non-medical states "oh you need to throw that out it's not good to smoke" when it's almost certainly fine and they just dropped $40/g. Higher quality wax is better than poorly made wax for many reasons, there's no need to make up additional ones

 

[DieHard]

Who said anything about throwing anything out??!
Winterize that shit. Filter the crap out of it. Purge the solvent properly. THEN Dab away.
For heavens sake don't throw it away!

 

[herbivore21]

Who said anything about throwing anything out??!
Winterize that shit. Filter the crap out of it. Purge the solvent properly. THEN Dab away.
For heavens sake don't throw it away!

Exactly!!! My man Diehard knows what's up

@hishighness I understand you have a genuine question, but I've answered it a bajillion times on FC and am not gonna go through it in much detail in this thread, especially because I explained in the foreword that this thread is for those who do not want to inhale residual solvents.

You have cited studies looking at incidental exposure to butane in a workplace breathing in atmospheric contaminants. This is different from directly inhaling butane and the inevitable thermal degradation byproducts created by heating the tane in your dab in varying volumes repeatedly over the course of using your tane-filled stash.

The acute/cumulative effects of inhaling hydrocarbon directly include vomiting, a feeling of drunkenness, headaches and other potential brain damage and other complications due to the simple fact that butane displaces oxygen in the lungs - it is an asphyxiant.

Remember again when we do a large dab, we are inhaling way more than the masses of residual solvent sold in some oils (which if you dab more frequently, or large amounts, can be present in SIGNIFICANT CONCENTRATIONS in material I have seen - enough for a cumulative daily dose way higher than the exposure levels in the study you cited!).

We are also inhaling all the other gases created from heating that dab. Including our beloved vapor. This is not going to help the lack of oxygen in the airways situation (more other stuff in your lungs = less oxygen as a general rule) and resultant lack of adenosine triphosphate transport required to sustain your entire body. We don't wanna top up the already large amount of foreign gases with breath in when dabbing with hydrocarbons which by their very nature displace oxygen more than the other stuff already filling your airways during your dab.

Again, let me clarify however:

I WILL ENTER INTO NO FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEMS WITH INHALING HYDROCARBONS AND THEIR BYPRODUCTS. THIS IS A THREAD FOR THOSE WHO WANT THE SAFEST POSSIBLE DABS. PLEASE SEE OTHER THREADS FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

Sorry for the caps brother, I mean nothing but respect but I really do need to be clear though that I don't have time to answer off-topic questions.

Hope this post helps to give an idea of the problems with even the least harmful of hydrocarbon solvents though

Cheers

 

[OldOyler]

Hi,

I do love your stuff @herbivore21 !

This is SO *not* meant in an argumentative way, just wanted to make a quiet note for anyone looking at the thread like myself.

"Concentrates" are not only used for inhalation. I use mine sublingually as my primary method. Not saying that I am not concerned about impurities, etc. Just saying that I think us sublingual guys and gals get missed a bit during concentrate discussions. (I might have of course missed the "spirit" in your post, I read it several times - it was awesome! Just that sublingual also uses the bloodstream to cross the blood/brain barrier, it's just already decarbed).

And of course not saying that I don't care *at all* what is in my finished RSO. But when taken sublingually or ingested, Rick Simpson had some opinions as to the "medium" of the oral route counteracting any few impurities left. But he was only speaking of ingestion/oral/sublingual, of course - even sublingual use means *some* ends up via digestion and hence the liver, etc.

So I really just wanted to bring it up for clarification (and not to be a "language context lawyer" or something, honestly) - I *am* going to be looking at this thread because I *do* vape my oil mixed 1:1 with EJ from my Kanger EMOW Mega, and although that is a "low-end" method of concentrate inhalation, I hadn't considered how different impurities should carry a different "weight" in my consideration of inhalation vs sublingual. I was so excited to have an easy way to vape what I already had that I hadn't considered that the "change in medium" should change how I should look at the residual solvents, etc. now. So I am absolutely following this thread in your original context, promise. :-)

So again, my apologies - I am SUCH a big fan of yours I almost didn't post. But you were one of the first ones to make me feel "equal" here on FC.com, so I figured I would post a respectful "Yeah, but what about..." reply.

Hoping you have peace and all good things today @herbivore21 !!!

 

[herbivore21]

Hi,

I do love your stuff @herbivore21 !

This is SO *not* meant in an argumentative way, just wanted to make a quiet note for anyone looking at the thread like myself.

"Concentrates" are not only used for inhalation. I use mine sublingually as my primary method. Not saying that I am not concerned about impurities, etc. Just saying that I think us sublingual guys and gals get missed a bit during concentrate discussions. (I might have of course missed the "spirit" in your post, I read it several times - it was awesome! Just that sublingual also uses the bloodstream to cross the blood/brain barrier, it's just already decarbed).

And of course not saying that I don't care *at all* what is in my finished RSO. But when taken sublingually or ingested, Rick Simpson had some opinions as to the "medium" of the oral route counteracting any few impurities left. But he was only speaking of ingestion/oral/sublingual, of course - even sublingual use means *some* ends up via digestion and hence the liver, etc.

So I really just wanted to bring it up for clarification (and not to be a "language context lawyer" or something, honestly) - I *am* going to be looking at this thread because I *do* vape my oil mixed 1:1 with EJ from my Kanger EMOW Mega, and although that is a "low-end" method of concentrate inhalation, I hadn't considered how different impurities should carry a different "weight" in my consideration of inhalation vs sublingual. I was so excited to have an easy way to vape what I already had that I hadn't considered that the "change in medium" should change how I should look at the residual solvents, etc. now. So I am absolutely following this thread in your original context, promise. :-)

So again, my apologies - I am SUCH a big fan of yours I almost didn't post. But you were one of the first ones to make me feel "equal" here on FC.com, so I figured I would post a respectful "Yeah, but what about..." reply.

Hoping you have peace and all good things today @herbivore21 !!!

Not at all! I would love to open this up to include safety information for other concentrates used in different ways! All safety information with concentrates is right at home here as far as I'm concerned

Also your post is absolutely in the spirit of what I intended with this thread - it's all about the least harm for the most medical and even recreational benefit in those cases. I am approaching this from a medical perspective but if some of this can help recreational users do less harm without harming their buzz - all the better for them and the people around them! Anything that is net benefit to people's health is a good thing to put one's (screen) name to

 

[OldOyler]

Not at all! I would love to open this up to include safety information for other concentrates used in different ways! All safety information with concentrates is right at home here as far as I'm concerned

Also your post is absolutely in the spirit of what I intended with this thread - it's all about the least harm for the most medical and even recreational benefit in those cases. I am approaching this from a medical perspective but if some of this can help recreational users do less harm without harming their buzz - all the better for them and the people around them! Anything that is net benefit to people's health is a good thing to put one's (screen) name to

Thanks @herbivore21 . I will absolutely try to put some stuff together to "add", although I honestly think you already have shown more knowledge of it - this stuff all applies!

I will say this - I think ethanol (general term) gets a bad wrap. For instance, 4 things can actually kill aspergillus *spores* (not just the live mold) - alcohol concentrated at over 70%, phenols, hypochlorites, and aldehydes.

Alcohol is the only thing on that list I would want. Ick to the rest.

Anyway, that mold-killing was why I chose it over using butane-ish stuff, for instance. (Plus I was much more comfortable, I was worried about going boom).

I mention it because I had originally gotten that info from the skunk pharm folks, so I'll go with *their* scientific merits rather than mine - as in, this wasn't some great find on MY part. :-)

So, I am wondering for discussion purposes if we could bring that into consideration for your solvent-extract section, for instance? Like maybe, it is possible that is is actually *awesome* for safety AT FIRST, then needs to be looked at later and fully removed? (If that makes sense).

:-)

Peace!

 

[2clicker]

For Thread continuity: In the field there is always the flame test. Roll up a small worm of concentrate and hit it with a lighter. If it does anything other than just melt: Beware!

another version of this test can be done with foil. place a small piece of errl on some foil and heat from below. look for anything but clean melting.

Thanks @herbivore21Alcohol is the only thing on that list I would want. Ick to the rest.

agreed. its unfortunate that not everyone can get ethanol suitable for extraction reasonably priced or even at all.

LOVE this thread.

 

[OldOyler]

another version of this test can be done with foil. place a small piece of errl on some foil and heat from below. look for anything but clean melting.



agreed. its unfortunate that not everyone can get ethanol suitable for extraction reasonably priced or even at all.

LOVE this thread.

@2clicker you are absolutely right - I do forget how expensive it can be, and lack of access.

As far as the expense, I had thought about it as well when I was first heeing and hawing over what to use.

I guess I considered that 750ml of Everclear 191 is about 30 bucks. I use about 250ml per 2 zips, so the 750ml bottle allows me to process 6 (I can actually do 8 no problem if doing a large batch) zips total. So I use an ongoing $30 in extra "equipment and supplies" (if that makes sense?) to create 16-20gr finished oil. (The only other equipment is a fondue pot, which does run around $50, but allows me to do both a boiling water bath OR a hotter oil bath in one unit, so I like it, and was obviously a one-time investment in my consideration at the time).

So I guess you would have to compare that to whatever equipment and supplies are for another method. I don't know what hexane-ish stuff costs, or an ISO setup.

Some folks have been looking at that "KleenExtract" (don't know the price, or its safety - honestly, with so many people using that now, you may want to address it specifically in this safety section as well @herbivore21 ? But so NOT trying to be Mr. Bossy. :-)), as well as high-proof Polish vodka. NOT promoting the safety here, just addressing some possible alternatives that people MIGHT be able to use if it was determined that there was some safety *benefit* to using it at *some* point during the creation of concentrates, and then we all might want to think about covering those safety pros/cons as well.

But of course, you were SO right (and I had a "D'oh" moment as soon as I read your post 2clicker!) that there are many people that don't have access to high-proof alcohol *at all*.

Now that being said - if were are considering that any ethanol-extraction might need (if we were shooting for absolute purity, not saying people *should* or *should not* shoot for it - I absolutely believe each person has to decide for themselves, that being said, of course this thread was created for those who are at least considering the further purification of their end product) to have impurity/safety concerns addressed at some point later in the process (like during a good purge) anyway, then I think that there is usually Everclear 151 available in most States/Commonwealths, and has been used to great success. (I think @Enchantre mentioned using it.)

As always 2clicker, thanks for helping me out. Need to keep my mind open, open, OPEN!

:-)

Lots of peace to you!

 

[2clicker]

@2clicker you are absolutely right - I do forget how expensive it can be, and lack of access.

As far as the expense, I had thought about it as well when I was first heeing and hawing over what to use.

I guess I considered that 750ml of Everclear 191 is about 30 bucks. I use about 250ml per 2 zips, so the 750ml bottle allows me to process 6 (I can actually do 8 no problem if doing a large batch) zips total. So I use an ongoing $30 in extra "equipment and supplies" (if that makes sense?) to create 16-20gr finished oil. (The only other equipment is a fondue pot, which does run around $50, but allows me to do both a boiling water bath OR a hotter oil bath in one unit, so I like it, and was obviously a one-time investment in my consideration at the time).

So I guess you would have to compare that to whatever equipment and supplies are for another method. I don't know what hexane-ish stuff costs, or an ISO setup.

Some folks have been looking at that "KleenExtract" (don't know the price, or its safety - honestly, with so many people using that now, you may want to address it specifically in this safety section as well @herbivore21 ? But so NOT trying to be Mr. Bossy. :-)), as well as high-proof Polish vodka. NOT promoting the safety here, just addressing some possible alternatives that people MIGHT be able to use if it was determined that there was some safety *benefit* to using it at *some* point during the creation of concentrates, and then we all might want to think about covering those safety pros/cons as well.

But of course, you were SO right (and I had a "D'oh" moment as soon as I read your post 2clicker!) that there are many people that don't have access to high-proof alcohol *at all*.

Now that being said - if were are considering that any ethanol-extraction might need (if we were shooting for absolute purity, not saying people *should* or *should not* shoot for it - I absolutely believe each person has to decide for themselves, that being said, of course this thread was created for those who are at least considering the further purification of their end product) to have impurity/safety concerns addressed at some point later in the process (like during a good purge) anyway, then I think that there is usually Everclear 151 available in most States/Commonwealths, and has been used to great success. (I think @Enchantre mentioned using it.)

As always 2clicker, thanks for helping me out. Need to keep my mind open, open, OPEN!

:-)

Lots of peace to you!

hey i replied to this in our supurb QWET thread (thanks herbi!) in an effort not to derail this one. that reply can be found HERE.

I look forward to continuing this!



now back to this topic... @herbivore21 when you say things like "sap" do you mean an under purged shatter? do you mean that any oil consistency that is still sort of "wet" is a no go? i ask because there are a lot of oil products for sale that come in syringes. what is up with that stuff?

i have access to some such consistency right now that comes in a syringe and have tasted it. its amber/clear and comes out like a squeezable jelly. it tastes ok. kind of earthy. does not have any solvent flavor that i can detect. it is EXTREMELY potent and had me sweating (but i was hitting it hard).

thoughts?

 

[Bouldorado]

Thanks @herbivore21 .
I will say this - I think ethanol (general term) gets a bad wrap. For instance, 4 things can actually kill aspergillus *spores* (not just the live mold) - alcohol concentrated at over 70%, phenols, hypochlorites, and aldehydes.

Alcohol is the only thing on that list I would want. Ick to the rest.

I just read this thread on ICmag which would disagree with that. The consensus is that Aspergillis cannot be safely removed/killed with practical methods.

There is no visual indicator of mold in BHO, so that is an excellent reason to have a trusted source for your concentrates.

@herbivore21 I know you said you don't want to discuss hydrocarbons, but can you post/PM a source/chemical reaction equation for informational purposes. My brief googling found this article, which seems to dispute your claims. Would love to read more on the topic though.

 

[OldOyler]

I just read this thread on ICmag which would disagree with that. The consensus is that Aspergillis cannot be safely removed/killed with practical methods.

There is no visual indicator of mold in BHO, so that is an excellent reason to have a trusted source for your concentrates.
.

@Bouldorado ,

Great thread, great post!

I (very, very respectfully) disagree though. Here are a couple of links that are, granted, simply science ones. Honestly *no* offense intended - these are all opinions from folks (now GrayWolf is huge, so that gave me pause) on whether it works.

I mean first, here is another thread on there swearing (it appears) that the *heat* from the RSO method kills it https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=88959. With great confidence, I might add.

So I personally have seen *so* many folks *absolutely* sure one way or another, I just IMO'ed towards the latter. And it can *certainly* be just me seeing a "cause and effect" that isn't there for myself (hey, in that other thread I just mentioned they think it's the heat in the RSO preparation and I think it's the alcohol AND the heat...!), but I did the best that I could to confirm it - I *have* had dried flower tested (came back in the usual minute amounts of various common molds, including aspergillus) and the same resulting oils that were made during the original bud's abscence that were later sent to the lab came back zero-point-zero-zero percent (Using my simple, old RSO method).

So, just wanted to "not be a shrinking violet" on this, only because I see (not possess, just think I *see*) at least a couple of science-ey things that aren't unsubstantiated opinions from a thread (actual tested material, some sciene-ey links about alcohol and molds), etc. (And hey - that sounded pissy on my part - it isn't in how I *mean* to say it!)

Just saying that they made the statement on that on that thread ("Nope, alcohol won't kill aspergillus"), but with no links or actual quoted science in the threads. I am not saying someone in particular isn't right there - it's just that we have to have a common method of determining things, and someone on a thread saying "It just don't work. I know it don't." isn't anything more than an opinion on a science-ey thing without any sciene-ey backup is all.

Did I mention - SO not a fighter/arguer/hey-I-disagree-er ?!

So if I cause any bad feelings, it was *so* not intended - just didn't want to discount the possibility (only, only, only) that alcohol might help somewhat in the process somewhere.

My own "IMO" is that it *does* kill aspergillus spores.

Here are a few science-ey links. SO not a "slam dunk" on "alcohol will kill aspergillus in weed", just about it in general:

http://www.wikihow.com/Kill-Aspergillus-Niger

and honestly, this was the "slam dunk" for me (just IMO, but it convinced me):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02280.x/pdf

Here's a quote from their (really science-ey-make-OldOylers-head-hurt) article:

"Increasing the temperature of many microbial biocides enhances their potency by two- to three-fold for every 10C increase in temperature, until thermal destruction of the microbe occurs (Kostenbauder 1991). We observed that subinhibitory concentrations of ethanol became inhibitory when heated, at temperatures lower than those that would cause thermal destruction of the spores in water alone. Complete inhibition of all fungal spores in our work occurred after exposure to 30% (v/v) ethanol at 40C"

They were talking about (also in that article) these spores (they are in the link I sent, just for a quick summary here):

"In preliminary experiments, we found that immersion of grapes in heated diluted ethanol solutions effectively controlled grey mould on grapes inoculated with B. cinerea (unpublished data). However, the relationship between ethanol concentration and temperature on the mortality of spores of fungi that are common postharvest pathogens, namely R. stolonifer, A. niger, B. cinerea and A. alternata has not been quantified yet. The objectives of this study were to quantify the toxicity of combinations of solution temperature and ethanol concentration to spores of B. cinerea, A. alternata, A. niger and R. stolonifer, and to prepare statistical models that predict the inhibition of each fungus."

Peace, good things, and good feelings to you @Bouldorado !

 

[herbivore21]

@herbivore21 I know you said you don't want to discuss hydrocarbons, but can you post/PM a source/chemical reaction equation for informational purposes. My brief googling found this article, which seems to dispute your claims. Would love to read more on the topic though.

Hey brother, sorry but really don't have time right now to go into the details of the dangers of direct inhalation of hydrocarbons and/or their thermal degradation byproducts. I will say that the study you cited looks at pyrolysis at temps above 600c, which is way hotter than anyone should ever be dabbing any kind of concentrate.

To give an idea to you Americans who don't speak celsius, I never dab on my quartz banger at temps higher than 360c

I'll be back with more responses over the next few days - my schedule has gotten out of control lol

 

[Bouldorado]

@OldOyler

No worries. There are not many things posted online that personally offend me. It's great to hear dissenting opinions. That's what forums are meant for after all. Those articles you linked seem to have a legitimate backing but regardless, if I find mold on my flowers (or learned I bought tainted concentrates) I would dump it. Not worth even the slightest health risk IMO.

 

[OldOyler]

@Bouldorado ,

Well, hate to do it again, but... (and I did skip editing for mellowness, honestly only because you said you were pretty thick-skinned, so if I offend it was from speed of typing and lack of editing)

So, I need to say:

Two non-sequiturs. I'm sorry, man. And this is probably the only thing I will say that is mildly offensive - I expect more from a BIG Gun like yourself. As Machiavelli said, "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles".

First non-sequitur:

"...If I find mold on my flowers... - this is a safety thread, and has to have science behind it. You can win a side of a discussion by getting a lot of head-nodding and "Amens" on this. But...

Found it *how*? Testing, or do you mean visual (yeah, then if you can SEE it you have a HUGE problem, and I TOO am throwing that bud away).? If it is just a visual inspection you are using, then I don't think that's enough for a safety thread.

The method described at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02280.x/pdf not only tests the starting material (we *all* have mold spores in our weed, we can close our eyes and click our heels, but it *is* so), but they also actually looked to see if the spores were actually alive by culturing any remaining spores. Holy moley, pretty science-ey.

Believing in their existence in a batch of weed by going with "not seeing them" would be horribly irresponsible for us to teach others.

The main article I posted is from the wine-making industry. I am not saying we use their stuff in place of our own. But we don't have alot.

I am just saying that we need scientific proofs on a thread about safety.

Second non-sequitur- "...or learned I bought tainted concentrates...". You blew right past proving (i.e. - what this thread is actually *for*) or even enumerating what you mean by "tainted". You used a scary word to *infer* that if there were A.Niger spores in a concentrate, it would be "tainted". Please enumerate with science. Is it viscerally unappetizing - absolutely. I am only bringing notice to the logic error here - attempting to win the argument (field of logic word, not saying we're arguing) quickly (how it appears to me, just sayin') by trying to make it an existing "fact" that if dead and inactivated spores were in your concentrates they are tainted. Sounds real good. Where is your science? And what is the threshold of "tainted" - zero inactive spores? Then stay inside, active ones are out *there*. If one accepted the statement as fact, then no one should EVER vape flower - because that flower is "tainted". Because even if we can't see them, we have various molds and such in nature and they *are* on your weed. If you want to say vaping would kill inactive spores (which it will NOT) then please present some science - what temps, etc. and what you base your belief in those temps to be, etc. Science, not evoking a visceral reaction in others in order to make something "fact" or appeal to a "common knowledge".

One last thing, you said you felt it "seemed to have legitimate backing" - that's the kind of thing I am talking about. Did you read it thoroughly? Did you understand it? It was a massive, expensive study that was *heavily* peer-reviewed (the peers in this case being other scientists) since 2003. And there are dozens more like it, all using varying amounts of heat, water, and ethanol to kill molds. Wine grapes have been studied extensively for so very many years, and their scientists have gotten a BIG head start on ours. Of course this is primarily due to the e legality, since research was allowed.

Their testing was *way* exact.

"Complete inhibition of all fungal spores in our work occurred after exposure to 30% (v/v) ethanol at 40C" is their conclusion - and that was for a 30 second wash ( because that's how long the very expensive existing washers in that industry ran their wash, so they were working in *tight* constraints"). These folks get ONE shot a year to save their precioussss.

Your post (not you, the spirit of the post) reminded me of the old Quizno's commercial with a guy still wearing a set of thorns because he is afraid of the new invention called "pants". That's cool - but on a thread about safety, which requires the best scientific methodology that we can bring, I can't just not respond to unsubstantiated claims. And I am saying it *did* look to me that you simply wanted to reach a conclusion *and have others agree with that conclusion*, and did so by trying to make unproven, gut-level statements appear as "conventional wisdom". And hey, I am not saying for some evil purposes (you aren't developing sharks with friggin' lasers on their head, are you...?), I mean it seemed like you wanted to close your mind, prove your point without proving it, and then (the only, only, only reason I am saying something) have *others* believe it is already "proven".

I am always, always, always okay with each person having their own opinion - but on an open discussion where people will listen to a guy like you, I have to say something. I know you don't owe me squat - you certainly did not owe me a read of what I posted, or the science links I put in there, etc. But your word carries big weight on FC, @Bouldorado .

I am still terrified to this very *post* to mess with folks with as big of a rep on a forum as yourself. But like I said at the beginning, it is "not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles" and I think you are being very sloppy, and leading others into that sloppiness as well (I saw some likes - glad they are there, I am just talking about the communal thing - I will bet some minds were closed to even looking at any science about it now *because of what you said, and because you are a heavy hitter on FC*).

I am saying that IMO Big Guns (such as yourself) have a responsibility to double-check stuff *when they are teaching communally, and have a rep that will be listened to*. I have seen loads of your other posts, and don't see you blowing by stuff in the back-and-forth on those. You usually bring the Big Guns of proof, I'm just sayin' - I know it will never be popular to look at some stuff, but we should, and it's Big Guns like yourself that can bring a lot of attention to doing it well. And I know that *I* am a nobody here - I do bring some experience, and I offer it freely to FC even if it is seen as carrying less weight, but not much more.

And I pray earnestly for all good things, peace, and happiness for you @Bouldorado !

Sigh. Now, I had better dust off the lid to my old bomb shelter... I'm a lover not a fighter...

 

[herbivore21]

I don't have time to read this all thoroughly, but I will stop by to say we need to remember in science that we don't 'prove' claims, we support our claims with evidence, which must be fallible to satisfy scientific standards. Remember that science relies on the hypothetico-deductive method - that is, you come up with a hypothesis, then try relentlessly to refute it. If you can't refute it, it is supported - not proven! You may still find a way to refute it yet

 

[OldOyler]

I don't have time to read this all thoroughly, but I will stop by to say we need to remember in science that we don't 'prove' claims, we support our claims with evidence, which must be fallible to satisfy scientific standards. Remember that science relies on the hypothetico-deductive method - that is, you come up with a hypothesis, then try relentlessly to refute it. If you can't refute it, it is supported - not proven! You may still find a way to refute it yet

I absolutely agree of course.

I promise I am really only trying to keep our methodology clear - I love to be incorrect, because then I know I am incorrect.

It was no peeing contest intended, even though I re-read my post and it sure *does* look pissy. Sorry. Couldn't figure out quite how to say it differently and yet strongly.

I guess i am feeling a bit like a guy attending a science convention in dark-ages Rome telling people "This astronomer guy has done a lot of science work and says the earth is round and the universe doesn't actually revolve around a stationary Earth - let me tell you what he is thinking" and am met with "Dude, are you kidding me? Walk outside. Watch the sky - it reliably and *clearly* revolves around us. Walk a thousand miles and you went across hills, mountains, and valleys but it is *obviously* flat. I'm sure that astronomer guy is okay, but we should use our gut sense first." How good is the rest of the science convention going to be?

If someone wants to believe something, that's cool. But we are all speaking our beliefs *in a communal thread where people will be affected by our methodology and conclusions*.

I believe that we need to look closely at the possibility that the wine industry did an experiment *for* us by accident, and found that a combination of reasonable heat and ethanol kills active mold, and destroys almost all remaining mold spores, and *completely inactivates the rest* - that is *huge* if correct. Because the remaining spores as we know are dangerous because (as the literature I posted addresses) if they are still active they can germinate, thus releasing the dreaded aflatoxins that are so harmful. They showed complete inactivation of any remaining spores. You are more likely at that point to get A. niger from the air you carry your finished concentrate *through* to get it to your rig.

This could be big for safety, and I just want us to be able to discuss it.

Sigh, I am worried about causing bad feelings, chaos, and a de-railing of the thread even as I am attempting to stay very closely on topic.

Please - my heartfelt apologies to anyone to whom I have bumped off your peace today. Peace is an important starting place. I am trying to be peaceful, but involved and even at almost a half century of life, I haven't mastered it.

Good, good things to everyone.

 

[DieHard]

@Bouldorado ,

Well, hate to do it again, but... (and I did skip editing for mellowness, honestly only because you said you were pretty thick-skinned, so if I offend it was from speed of typing and lack of editing)

So, I need to say:

Two non-sequiturs. I'm sorry, man. And this is probably the only thing I will say that is mildly offensive - I expect more from a BIG Gun like yourself. As Machiavelli said, "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles".

First non-sequitur:

"...If I find mold on my flowers... - this is a safety thread, and has to have science behind it. You can win a side of a discussion by getting a lot of head-nodding and "Amens" on this. But...

Found it *how*? Testing, or do you mean visual (yeah, then if you can SEE it you have a HUGE problem, and I TOO am throwing that bud away).? If it is just a visual inspection you are using, then I don't think that's enough for a safety thread.

The method described at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02280.x/pdf not only tests the starting material (we *all* have mold spores in our weed, we can close our eyes and click our heels, but it *is* so), but they also actually looked to see if the spores were actually alive by culturing any remaining spores. Holy moley, pretty science-ey.

Believing in their existence in a batch of weed by going with "not seeing them" would be horribly irresponsible for us to teach others.

The main article I posted is from the wine-making industry. I am not saying we use their stuff in place of our own. But we don't have alot.

I am just saying that we need scientific proofs on a thread about safety.

Second non-sequitur- "...or learned I bought tainted concentrates...". You blew right past proving (i.e. - what this thread is actually *for*) or even enumerating what you mean by "tainted". You used a scary word to *infer* that if there were A.Niger spores in a concentrate, it would be "tainted". Please enumerate with science. Is it viscerally unappetizing - absolutely. I am only bringing notice to the logic error here - attempting to win the argument (field of logic word, not saying we're arguing) quickly (how it appears to me, just sayin') by trying to make it an existing "fact" that if dead and inactivated spores were in your concentrates they are tainted. Sounds real good. Where is your science? And what is the threshold of "tainted" - zero inactive spores? Then stay inside, active ones are out *there*. If one accepted the statement as fact, then no one should EVER vape flower - because that flower is "tainted". Because even if we can't see them, we have various molds and such in nature and they *are* on your weed. If you want to say vaping would kill inactive spores (which it will NOT) then please present some science - what temps, etc. and what you base your belief in those temps to be, etc. Science, not evoking a visceral reaction in others in order to make something "fact" or appeal to a "common knowledge".

One last thing, you said you felt it "seemed to have legitimate backing" - that's the kind of thing I am talking about. Did you read it thoroughly? Did you understand it? It was a massive, expensive study that was *heavily* peer-reviewed (the peers in this case being other scientists) since 2003. And there are dozens more like it, all using varying amounts of heat, water, and ethanol to kill molds. Wine grapes have been studied extensively for so very many years, and their scientists have gotten a BIG head start on ours. Of course this is primarily due to the e legality, since research was allowed.

Their testing was *way* exact.

"Complete inhibition of all fungal spores in our work occurred after exposure to 30% (v/v) ethanol at 40C" is their conclusion - and that was for a 30 second wash ( because that's how long the very expensive existing washers in that industry ran their wash, so they were working in *tight* constraints"). These folks get ONE shot a year to save their precioussss.

Your post (not you, the spirit of the post) reminded me of the old Quizno's commercial with a guy still wearing a set of thorns because he is afraid of the new invention called "pants". That's cool - but on a thread about safety, which requires the best scientific methodology that we can bring, I can't just not respond to unsubstantiated claims. And I am saying it *did* look to me that you simply wanted to reach a conclusion *and have others agree with that conclusion*, and did so by trying to make unproven, gut-level statements appear as "conventional wisdom". And hey, I am not saying for some evil purposes (you aren't developing sharks with friggin' lasers on their head, are you...?), I mean it seemed like you wanted to close your mind, prove your point without proving it, and then (the only, only, only reason I am saying something) have *others* believe it is already "proven".

I am always, always, always okay with each person having their own opinion - but on an open discussion where people will listen to a guy like you, I have to say something. I know you don't owe me squat - you certainly did not owe me a read of what I posted, or the science links I put in there, etc. But your word carries big weight on FC, @Bouldorado .

I am still terrified to this very *post* to mess with folks with as big of a rep on a forum as yourself. But like I said at the beginning, it is "not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles" and I think you are being very sloppy, and leading others into that sloppiness as well (I saw some likes - glad they are there, I am just talking about the communal thing - I will bet some minds were closed to even looking at any science about it now *because of what you said, and because you are a heavy hitter on FC*).

I am saying that IMO Big Guns (such as yourself) have a responsibility to double-check stuff *when they are teaching communally, and have a rep that will be listened to*. I have seen loads of your other posts, and don't see you blowing by stuff in the back-and-forth on those. You usually bring the Big Guns of proof, I'm just sayin' - I know it will never be popular to look at some stuff, but we should, and it's Big Guns like yourself that can bring a lot of attention to doing it well. And I know that *I* am a nobody here - I do bring some experience, and I offer it freely to FC even if it is seen as carrying less weight, but not much more.

And I pray earnestly for all good things, peace, and happiness for you @Bouldorado !

Sigh. Now, I had better dust off the lid to my old bomb shelter... I'm a lover not a fighter...

IMO this belonged in a PM. This is over texting an already word-heavy thread. Who is gonna read past this petty crap, to get to the real info. Let's not mire the good info in the mud of opinion and speculation.

AFIK the only sure way to be sure to have sterile concentrates is through extensive filtration that most of us do not have access to, NOR the experience to operate it safely.
I'm pretty sure there's only one of us that's experiencing that level of sterility.

 

[OldOyler]

IMO this belonged in a PM. This is over texting an already word-heavy thread. Who is gonna read past this petty crap, to get to the real info. Let's not mire the good info in the mud of opinion and speculation.

AFIK the only sure way to be sure to have sterile concentrates is through extensive filtration that most of us do not have access to, NOR the experience to operate it safely.
I'm pretty sure there's only one of us that's experiencing that level of sterility.

Wordiness, yeah. I am awful about it. Didn't know you were supposed (or even could) PM people.

Okay, I will not attempt to counter AFIK and IMO with science links any more.

Here's the "real info", pulled out of the midst of what wasn't liked, use it as one wills:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02280.x/pdf

Reached the following conclusion:

"Complete inhibition of all fungal spores in our work occurred after exposure to 30% (v/v) ethanol at 40C". They killed the spores, the live mold, and aflatoxins (since they are even smaller than spores - down to 0.1 microns).

I really thought I *was* giving an answer for those of use who don't have high-end equipment. Sorry for being profusely wordy.

Sigh. Too rough for me.



Peace!

 

[DieHard]

Wordiness, yeah. I am awful about it. Didn't know you were supposed (or even could) PM people.

Okay, I will not attempt to counter AFIK and IMO with science links any more.

Here's the "real info", pulled out of the midst of what wasn't liked, use it as one wills:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02280.x/pdf

Reached the following conclusion:

"Complete inhibition of all fungal spores in our work occurred after exposure to 30% (v/v) ethanol at 40C". They killed the spores, the live mold, and aflatoxins (since they are even smaller than spores - down to 0.1 microns).

I really thought I *was* giving an answer for those of use who don't have high-end equipment. Sorry for being profusely wordy.

Sigh. Too rough for me.



Peace!

All good in the hood. PM by clicking avatar then "start a conversation".

All science is definitely welcome here. Even if it is counterpoint to an established member. Science trumps all.

 

[OldOyler]

All good in the hood. PM by clicking avatar then "start a conversation".

All science is definitely welcome here. Even if it is counterpoint to an established member. Science trumps all.

And your toned-down response to MY huffy post is appreciated. It let me chill enough to realize that I have GOT to tighten up my posts. Less poo-pooing and more straightforward stuff.

And getting ready to use that PM function - properly I hope.

Thanks, and peace.

 

[Bouldorado]

@OldOyler I'm not well-read on the topic, I merely wanted to bring some other opinions to the table and it was not my intention to start a debate. However I'm with @herbivore21 on your writing style; it needs to be much more concise if you want others to read and respond to it. Make a point and support it, no need for small talk and flattery.

From what I gained from your post, you took objection to how I would quantify mold. Since I, like many others, lack access to a lab, it is practically impossible to empirically verify the safety of the cannabis product in question. Thus if the possibility arose that my cannabis posed a serious health concern (perhaps through physical symptoms of other users), the only way to guarantee safety with 100% certainty is to discard the product. This would be a pure judgement call, intended to err on the side caution.

 

[OldOyler]

@OldOyler I'm not well-read on the topic, I merely wanted to bring some other opinions to the table and it was not my intention to start a debate. However I'm with @herbivore21 on your writing style; it needs to be much more concise if you want others to read and respond to it. Make a point and support it, no need for small talk and flattery.

From what I gained from your post, you took objection to how I would quantify mold. Since I, like many others, lack access to a lab, it is practically impossible to empirically verify the safety of the cannabis product in question. Thus if the possibility arose that my cannabis posed a serious health concern (perhaps through physical symptoms of other users), the only way to guarantee safety with 100% certainty is to discard the product. This would be a pure judgement call, intended to err on the side caution.

A resounding "yes" to my tightening up my posts and getting to the point. I created a small cluster fluge.

I believe that an ethanol/heat combination should *be looked at* by us folks in the cannabis community to actually *increase* the safety of the final product, or added to an existing micron-screen setup if heat (and obviously ethanol) is okay in the process before filtering to inactivate any spores so that they don't release toxins before being screened out. (Those toxins are even smaller - 0.1 microns).

Thanks Bouldorado.

Peace!

 

[spoutti]

Is this where you share your alcohol purge tech @herbivore21