well i think those two vapes - volcano and blue meanie - represent convection vs conduction vaporizers. even though there is some conduction going on any time the bud is sitting on a metal screen or anything that can get heat saturated.
Vaporization Health Research - Real Facts
- Thread starter 32paths
- Start date
Hanibal Lectin
Well-Known Member
good info.
jogging downtown is probably way worse than vaping....eating the chemical food like substances that many people eat is definitely worse
jogging downtown is probably way worse than vaping....eating the chemical food like substances that many people eat is definitely worse
i'm impressed ... those are some smart cops!
Fail,
Looking through past research it is quite obvious that Cannabis, whether combusted or Vaporized will release Ammonia, regardless of the source. The real question is how much is considered average. I dont think the police would take the time to saturate the samples with such precise amounts of Ammonia, in the hopes of tainting some study. If they really wanted to make an impact, they would have added a much more dangerous, "newsworthy" compound.
Looking through past research it is quite obvious that Cannabis, whether combusted or Vaporized will release Ammonia, regardless of the source. The real question is how much is considered average. I dont think the police would take the time to saturate the samples with such precise amounts of Ammonia, in the hopes of tainting some study. If they really wanted to make an impact, they would have added a much more dangerous, "newsworthy" compound.
fail
Well-Known Member
The aim of this study was to evaluate the vaporization process, but it didn't do exactly that. Instead, we now see a study the evaluates sample A vs sample B. This allows for the study to be interpreted. You refer to the sample A as the study result. But if you refer to the sample B, then the result is completely different and dosen't have any issues with ammonia.32paths said:
Fail,
You're absolutely right in the sense that the study is open to interpretation and there are questions that still need to be answered. However, since we do not have a "standardized" strain of Cannabis which can be controlled for, the researchers were simply aiming to test the results between two samples which can be encountered at any time. I think the important part to consider here, is that using a proper Vaporizer, you can be exposed to as little as 3 ppm of Ammonia or as much as 70 ppm (possibly even more) depending on the strain. My assumption is that we dont all consume pure 3% NIDA cannabis & are more likely to get something closer to their "street level" sample. Either way & more importantly, we should be aware of the risks and look for ways to mitigate it.
You're absolutely right in the sense that the study is open to interpretation and there are questions that still need to be answered. However, since we do not have a "standardized" strain of Cannabis which can be controlled for, the researchers were simply aiming to test the results between two samples which can be encountered at any time. I think the important part to consider here, is that using a proper Vaporizer, you can be exposed to as little as 3 ppm of Ammonia or as much as 70 ppm (possibly even more) depending on the strain. My assumption is that we dont all consume pure 3% NIDA cannabis & are more likely to get something closer to their "street level" sample. Either way & more importantly, we should be aware of the risks and look for ways to mitigate it.
Konrad_Zuse
New Member
Great article. A lot of people have been saying flaws in this research, so where exactly was this done and by whom? It's in England where the bud is way different. We would have to test our own materials, there are thousands of strains out there, and we would have to test them individually with each method of smoke, j, l, pipe, bong, vape, etc. To test this 100% you would have to test every single type of way to get thc, including food and such. Each individual thing would probably give different readings, because they are saying smoking and vaping are different, so wouldn't the different pieces also give different amounts? This is what I have come to, correct me if I'm wrong. Cigs give the most smoke, because it's a piece of paper with the w/e you're smoking. pipes are less because they have screens and are usually glass or w/e so it's just the item you're smoking. Bongs are better because most have filtering systems, then comes vapes which are the healthiest then. So each piece would have to give different amounts, and each bong is different, so are each pipes, and the same with each vape. Sorry for the rambling but yeah they would have to test everything 
.
.
hereatlast
Well-Known Member
I would think that the main point of research shouldn't be point of delivery but what is being delivered, maybe I was confused by your post Konrad? Nonetheless I would think that the smoke being delivered through different devices is fairly similar (of course a joint or blunt would include a significant amount of extraneous material) though they would differ most in stream-off and efficiency.
I continually doubt that whats being used in cannabis research is high-grade material but it seems I'm definitely wrong in this case; although 3% THC isn't that high is it? I thought I remembered (but very possible that I'm dreaming) reading about THC percentages in the double digits for high-grade
I continually doubt that whats being used in cannabis research is high-grade material but it seems I'm definitely wrong in this case; although 3% THC isn't that high is it? I thought I remembered (but very possible that I'm dreaming) reading about THC percentages in the double digits for high-grade
What a great topic !! THX !!
In france we had a few guys who died out of it.... and made the news.
I also saw, some weed cut with flour, sugar, sand, and something that makes the hash dense as a cigar's hashes when you smoke it
Believe it or not, it is the truth.Durden said:
In france we had a few guys who died out of it.... and made the news.
I also saw, some weed cut with flour, sugar, sand, and something that makes the hash dense as a cigar's hashes when you smoke it
Konrad_Zuse
New Member
I don't know the numbers, as there are many different percents, but so far what it seems like to me, and makes sense, is that you get the least thc from a joint, and the most from a vape. Correct me if I'm wrong but the order seems j/l, pipe, bong, vape, in that order from least to most. Now they are saying here that a joint gives off 10ppm when inhaled, but 250mm from the combustion point at the end of the joint, and something around 50-70ppm for a vape. If this is correct, and with what I said earlier, each piece would then, in theory, give off a different reading? In this case each piece would give off a different reading, as I said before. The main measure would be on the amount of tar and crap you're getting in your system, each piece is different and has different filtering methods, if none at all. They would also need to test this out in individual strains. It's also a possibility that each strain gives off a different amount of these chemicals, so in reality, there is a ton more of research to do.hereatlast said:
jaque mate
Well-Known Member
thanks to all for this intelligent and useful discussion.
i personally seek the objective truth regarding weed, not just what i want to hear.
regarding the ill health effects of ammonia, here is a useful article entitled, "Is inhaled ammonia a neurotoxin?"
http://expertpc.org/gasifier/kilburnammoniatoxic.pdf
if this link doesn't work, you can go to the page i found it on, a random informational site about gasification, and scroll down.
http://expertpc.org/gasifier/
the bottom line according to this article is, yes, ammonia nearing 200 ppm inhaled by people in an accidental chemical spill is indeed toxic
i personally seek the objective truth regarding weed, not just what i want to hear.
regarding the ill health effects of ammonia, here is a useful article entitled, "Is inhaled ammonia a neurotoxin?"
http://expertpc.org/gasifier/kilburnammoniatoxic.pdf
if this link doesn't work, you can go to the page i found it on, a random informational site about gasification, and scroll down.
http://expertpc.org/gasifier/
the bottom line according to this article is, yes, ammonia nearing 200 ppm inhaled by people in an accidental chemical spill is indeed toxic
jaque mate
Well-Known Member
another thought regarding the UK study which used the blue meanie and the volcano.
the working theory in the article seems to be that the closed system of these vaporizers inhibits the release of the ammonia in the "secondary" stream of smoke, or what comes out the non-smoking end of a pipe or joint. therefore, the ammonia gets trapped in with the vapor.
in whip type vaporizers that aren't as much of a closed system letting more ambient air in to the vapor path, or in heat gun vaporizing, as in vriptech, perhaps there is a path for release of ammonia? we definitely need further studies, with a greater variety of vapes, strains, and temperatures.
the working theory in the article seems to be that the closed system of these vaporizers inhibits the release of the ammonia in the "secondary" stream of smoke, or what comes out the non-smoking end of a pipe or joint. therefore, the ammonia gets trapped in with the vapor.
in whip type vaporizers that aren't as much of a closed system letting more ambient air in to the vapor path, or in heat gun vaporizing, as in vriptech, perhaps there is a path for release of ammonia? we definitely need further studies, with a greater variety of vapes, strains, and temperatures.
whosgottheherb
Well-Known Member
Well, I feel safe using my bong. But I think the cops may have contaminated the weed... as said before.
EitherOr
Well-Known Member
Interesting!
Rather than contamination, I too find it more likely that the 'street' cannabis showed higher levels of Ammonia because of the use of Nitrogen rich fertilizers in commercial growing operations.
Even in non-commercial growing Nitrogen deficiency is a common problem. I don't think its just cheap fertilizers either, some of the most popular cannabis fertilizer producers use Ammonium Nitrate as their source of Nitrogen.
As for why the NIDA sample did not show increase levels, I think perhaps its because of where and the way it was grown.
According to Wikipedia in regards to the University of Mississippi Cannabis Project:
"The school grows U.S. government cannabis. The National Institute on Drug Abuse [2] (NIDA) contracts to the university the production of cannabis for the use in the few approved research studies on the plant as well as for distribution to the seven surviving medical cannabis patients grandfathered into the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program (established in 1978 and canceled in 1991)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Mississippi
I think it highly unlikely these researchers are using some of these advanced cannabis oriented commercial growing fertilizers. To me at least, its plausible that the lower levels of Ammonia are due to the way the cannabis was grown and perhaps the lack of commercial growth additives or fertilizers containing Ammonium Nitrate used by the contract growing facility.
Edit to clarify as to why I think it unlikely the facility uses commercial growing additives and supplements. For one I think it a fair line of reasoning to think that the rise in potency and quality of cannabis is directly related to the advances in growing techniques and additives/fertilizers. Also it seems to be a recurring point of contention that the cannabis grown for Government study and use is of low quality and potency. The general idea of how the cannabis is grown is that after planting, its growth heavily documented and studied, and allowed to proceed 'naturally'.
As an example a quick internet search regarding the government cannabis quality yielded these links:
http://cms.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/issue85/article3485.html?Issue=85
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/Journal-2009/federal-cannabis-monopoly
Rather than contamination, I too find it more likely that the 'street' cannabis showed higher levels of Ammonia because of the use of Nitrogen rich fertilizers in commercial growing operations.
Even in non-commercial growing Nitrogen deficiency is a common problem. I don't think its just cheap fertilizers either, some of the most popular cannabis fertilizer producers use Ammonium Nitrate as their source of Nitrogen.
As for why the NIDA sample did not show increase levels, I think perhaps its because of where and the way it was grown.
According to Wikipedia in regards to the University of Mississippi Cannabis Project:
"The school grows U.S. government cannabis. The National Institute on Drug Abuse [2] (NIDA) contracts to the university the production of cannabis for the use in the few approved research studies on the plant as well as for distribution to the seven surviving medical cannabis patients grandfathered into the Compassionate Investigational New Drug program (established in 1978 and canceled in 1991)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Mississippi
I think it highly unlikely these researchers are using some of these advanced cannabis oriented commercial growing fertilizers. To me at least, its plausible that the lower levels of Ammonia are due to the way the cannabis was grown and perhaps the lack of commercial growth additives or fertilizers containing Ammonium Nitrate used by the contract growing facility.
Edit to clarify as to why I think it unlikely the facility uses commercial growing additives and supplements. For one I think it a fair line of reasoning to think that the rise in potency and quality of cannabis is directly related to the advances in growing techniques and additives/fertilizers. Also it seems to be a recurring point of contention that the cannabis grown for Government study and use is of low quality and potency. The general idea of how the cannabis is grown is that after planting, its growth heavily documented and studied, and allowed to proceed 'naturally'.
As an example a quick internet search regarding the government cannabis quality yielded these links:
http://cms.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/issue85/article3485.html?Issue=85
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/Journal-2009/federal-cannabis-monopoly
any new knowledge on the ammonia issue?
it seams that those levels are harmless acording to this: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/7664417.html
also the ppm in our lungs will be lower, since the vapor is mixed with air. ok, not on baloon devices, but on most vapors.
it seams that those levels are harmless acording to this: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/7664417.html
also the ppm in our lungs will be lower, since the vapor is mixed with air. ok, not on baloon devices, but on most vapors.
TboneToker
Well-Known Member
grokit
well-worn member
Bag blowers have air intakes; I don't think it's possible to have vapor in a vacuum.
herbivore21
Well-Known Member
Sadly, I don't have the time to go over all of the posts in this thread and review the comments completely. However:
Let's begin by highlighting in plain English that the difference between observed ammonia levels from combustion vs the vaporizers used were chalked up by the researchers themselves to the fact that a large portion of the smoke from a joint is just cooking off into the air and not inhaled by the user, whereas from a vaporizer you tend to get all of the vapor into you. That could account for the entire observed difference! So if you are worried about additional ammonia, just let some of your vapor waft into the air instead of inhaling it
One thing I will say is that the ammonia issue may or may not be related to the state of the flowers being used. The problem with flowers is that they are organic (as in not synthetic) produce, just like any other organic produce item - this shit spoils over time. One thing we all know is that in the early stages of bud rot, the cannabis starts to smell wretchedly of ammonia. Is it perhaps possible that the studies we have seen used flowers that were of a shitty quality?
Especially given that the Bloor et al. 2008 study uses 'cannabis leaf' seized by the UK home office. For a start, this is UK, black market cannabis - this is not high quality US cannabis, the UK is a very cold, dank, wet place where we might expect problems with mold and rot to be commonplace - especially with indeterminate amounts of time spent in sealed containers for storage by the UK Home Office - who I am damned near certain are not cannabis storage experts! If it is indeed leaf and not flower, then the chances that the material has spoiled in storage are even greater than if they were flowers themselves!
Consider this:
"Samples of cannabis leaf available to users, ‘street cannabis’, were held under a UK Home Office licence and supplied from material seized by the local police force. Five samples were selected randomly from recent seizures from cannabis users and were stored in sealed plastic enclosures to minimize the loss of moisture. Five samples of standard 3% cultivated cannabis supplied under an import licence from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, USA) were also used. Samples for use in apparatus 1 and apparatus 2 (see below) were prepared by finely chopping and mixing the plant material, each sample weighed 200 mg."
First, there is no specific indication of what constituted a 'recent' seizure. As we all know, cannabis that has been improperly dried, when stored in a sealed plastic container in a cold wet part of the world - is going to rot and get moldy very quickly (I wouldn't leave flowers in conditions like this for days, let alone weeks/months!). I do not believe we are at the stage yet where many scholarly researchers appreciate these points. Obviously, NIDA samples are infamous for shitty quality for different reasons. Note that in the 2008 study at table 2, much, much less ammonia was found from the NIDA samples than the UK samples. This could be explained by what I have suggested about the UK climate/storage.
Also the 'blue meanie' vape is one of those metal cup conduction vapes and has a set temp of 250c (482f!!!!!) that is not adjustable. This is way fucking hotter (especially at the contact sites of the flower being vaped) than vaporizing flower in a volcano at 200c (392f). The results for the blue meanie should be ignored for the most part, since which vaporist who knows anything about vaporizers available today uses a vape that functions like that?
Unfortunately I've spent more time on this than I had already, but we all need to remember that scholars are not across all of the relevant considerations for proper lab procedures where experiments with cannabis are concerned. This is because of the problems I mention here but many others as well. We need to also understand that most of the reasons for these limitations of lab procedure are outside of these researcher's control. For example, they just can't do research with material other than what the authorities in the country they are in will give them
Let's begin by highlighting in plain English that the difference between observed ammonia levels from combustion vs the vaporizers used were chalked up by the researchers themselves to the fact that a large portion of the smoke from a joint is just cooking off into the air and not inhaled by the user, whereas from a vaporizer you tend to get all of the vapor into you. That could account for the entire observed difference! So if you are worried about additional ammonia, just let some of your vapor waft into the air instead of inhaling it
One thing I will say is that the ammonia issue may or may not be related to the state of the flowers being used. The problem with flowers is that they are organic (as in not synthetic) produce, just like any other organic produce item - this shit spoils over time. One thing we all know is that in the early stages of bud rot, the cannabis starts to smell wretchedly of ammonia. Is it perhaps possible that the studies we have seen used flowers that were of a shitty quality?
Especially given that the Bloor et al. 2008 study uses 'cannabis leaf' seized by the UK home office. For a start, this is UK, black market cannabis - this is not high quality US cannabis, the UK is a very cold, dank, wet place where we might expect problems with mold and rot to be commonplace - especially with indeterminate amounts of time spent in sealed containers for storage by the UK Home Office - who I am damned near certain are not cannabis storage experts! If it is indeed leaf and not flower, then the chances that the material has spoiled in storage are even greater than if they were flowers themselves!
Consider this:
"Samples of cannabis leaf available to users, ‘street cannabis’, were held under a UK Home Office licence and supplied from material seized by the local police force. Five samples were selected randomly from recent seizures from cannabis users and were stored in sealed plastic enclosures to minimize the loss of moisture. Five samples of standard 3% cultivated cannabis supplied under an import licence from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, USA) were also used. Samples for use in apparatus 1 and apparatus 2 (see below) were prepared by finely chopping and mixing the plant material, each sample weighed 200 mg."
First, there is no specific indication of what constituted a 'recent' seizure. As we all know, cannabis that has been improperly dried, when stored in a sealed plastic container in a cold wet part of the world - is going to rot and get moldy very quickly (I wouldn't leave flowers in conditions like this for days, let alone weeks/months!). I do not believe we are at the stage yet where many scholarly researchers appreciate these points. Obviously, NIDA samples are infamous for shitty quality for different reasons. Note that in the 2008 study at table 2, much, much less ammonia was found from the NIDA samples than the UK samples. This could be explained by what I have suggested about the UK climate/storage.
Also the 'blue meanie' vape is one of those metal cup conduction vapes and has a set temp of 250c (482f!!!!!) that is not adjustable. This is way fucking hotter (especially at the contact sites of the flower being vaped) than vaporizing flower in a volcano at 200c (392f). The results for the blue meanie should be ignored for the most part, since which vaporist who knows anything about vaporizers available today uses a vape that functions like that?
Unfortunately I've spent more time on this than I had already, but we all need to remember that scholars are not across all of the relevant considerations for proper lab procedures where experiments with cannabis are concerned. This is because of the problems I mention here but many others as well. We need to also understand that most of the reasons for these limitations of lab procedure are outside of these researcher's control. For example, they just can't do research with material other than what the authorities in the country they are in will give them
chris 71
Well-Known Member
look below
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/a...-a-filter-help-remove-them.20291/#post-903939
little experiment i did with a aquarium test kit . you can see there is indeed ammonia levels . even from what should be considered very clean cannabis . although it would be considered a very small amount i think ..
http://fuckcombustion.com/threads/a...-a-filter-help-remove-them.20291/#post-903939
little experiment i did with a aquarium test kit . you can see there is indeed ammonia levels . even from what should be considered very clean cannabis . although it would be considered a very small amount i think ..
herbivore21
Well-Known Member
That test indicates lower levels of ammonia than the NIDA sample (and insanely lower ammonia levels than the UK sourced cannabis), which already had levels below permissible exposure levels according to OSHA standards. This might even support my claim that the unsafe ammonia levels in the UK sample vs your own as well as the NIDA sample are due to the cannabis itself having spoiled/started to spoil...
However:
I'd not be relying on a water ammonia level test for testing cannabis. I would especially not accept the levels of ammonia found in your rig water as any kind of clear reflection on the cannabis itself - was there ammonia in the water already for example? With respect man, your method is very problematic! No clear conclusions can be drawn from it.
If you're getting between 1-4ppm of ammonia, you don't have much to worry about my friend
chris 71
Well-Known Member
That test indicates lower levels of ammonia than the NIDA sample (and insanely lower ammonia levels than the UK sourced cannabis), which already had levels below permissible exposure levels according to OSHA standards. This supports my claim that the unsafe ammonia levels in the UK sample vs your own as well as the NIDA sample are due to the cannabis itself having spoiled/started to spoil.
Moreover, I'd not be relying on a water ammonia level test for testing cannabis.
If you're getting between 1-4ppm of ammonia, you don't have much to worry about my friend
dont forget though , that was only the amount that was scrubbed from the vapor by the water . it doesnt really tell how much ammonia was in the vapor ,that wasnt scrubbed out .
dont get me wrong im not really worried about it but it does apear to be there . it would be nice for some more testing and studies on vapor in general which im sure we will see hopefully more of soon
herbivore21
Well-Known Member
lol I must have noticed you were looking at the bubbler water just as you replied to me brother (see the edit to my above post) - point taken thoughdont forget though , that was only the amount that was scrubbed from the vapor by the water . it doesnt really tell how much ammonia was in the vapor ,that wasnt scrubbed out .
dont get me wrong im not really worried about it but it does apear to be there . it would be nice for some more testing and studies on vapor in general which im sure we will see hopefully more of soon
I think we need to see federal legalization in countries with prominent research output before we're gonna see research that reflects real-world usage scenarios.