-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
W
whiterasta
So your low range is still several hundred times the amount allowed (OP link 2mg/M3 is allowed) this is 2mg/1000L so you prove my point with your own math. If avg lung cap is only 6L and you inhale 3mg...do the math. I have links on the general lack of health issues with smoked cannabis herb and also can outline the chemistry of the difference between a NP extract and whole plant constituents. My short answer on the difference is that in plant material is there are polar terpenes that are potent anti-histamines and expectorants that are not taken up in a non-polar extraction ( the azulenes are one example) and the wax concentration and physical state changes drastically in a solvent extract. As I stated originally the 1% number is my low ball number for the best SSD product and in general is higher.
W
whiterasta
Well prune brain if you want to make it personal. Have you done the math on your question to know the answer yourself? I though not. So let me help you, say you have a yield of 100g resin and it is 12% wax that equals 12 grams of wax. if you have a 100g of flowers at say 20% potency you have 20grams of extract times the same 12 % =2.4g of wax in that 100g of flower or 2.4% wax. A .1 hit of herb is 2.4mg. A .1 of the extract = 12mg. or 5x the wax per hit.The very fact you compare flowers to a solvent extract shows an extreme ignorance of chemistry and thus you are irrelevant. I posted the math for others to understand the difference. So you can call me chicken little but it only makes you a dumbass as I have math and science backing up every damn thing here.
W
whiterasta
and so i just realized i misread L as ml.. =p I'm done.
It strikes home when you realize the number limit is 2mg/1000liters and the average lung capacity is 6liters ,given the breakdown of an average dose in an extremely clean product When even the lowest wax content from an SSD exceeds the NIH limit for wax vapor exposure, perhaps addressing this is in order? Or not. There are always folks who will say "I been doing it for yrs and am fine" LOL heard a lot of cig smokers say the same who need to drag a tank now. How many yrs can someone saturate their lungs in waxy lipids and be "fine"? I guess we will find out. But given they bothered to set a very strict limit on exposure in the real world We might should look at that and take it into account as we head to actual regulation
99.9% dry-sieved trich-heads is what we want B-) if it's to be smoked or vaped.
Could personally feel that wax coating from just butane extraction, it feels like the lungs and all clogs up for an extended period of time from just one dab. I'd rather smoke herb/bud/flower than any BHO or such. But eating it is ofc the most comfortable for the airways.
Could personally feel that wax coating from just butane extraction, it feels like the lungs and all clogs up for an extended period of time from just one dab. I'd rather smoke herb/bud/flower than any BHO or such. But eating it is ofc the most comfortable for the airways.
I won't argue that I'd love to see some controlled studies done on this.
I don't know your degree or background, though it sounds like you've got a good hypothesis.
I'd still argue if smoking the plant vs a dab is healthier overall.
Though maybe this could be a contributing factor to lung failure on people prone to collapsed lungs via excessive dabs?
Anyway cheers.
W
whiterasta
I have a master's degree in organic chemistry and have been in cannabis for 40 yrs. I am the former medical forum mod on OG, CW and CC and have an extensive background in cannabis medicine. I am a member of the IACM, AACM and SCC as a contributing member. My credentials in cannabis medicine are extensive. As are my chops in cannabis chemistry. But I do not ask you to just believe me. I expect folks to check out the information I present, it speaks to my ability far more eloquently than my resume`
NorCalHawaii
Member
You know tobacco, cigarettes, and cigars are unhealthy to the 500,000th degree (approx how many die a year) , and the industry is regulated. And taxed. Heavily.
NorCalHawaii
Member
how many dabs make their way through bongs and percs and bubbblers and how much wax is removed? How much of that water vapor is inhaled and causing limpdick pneumonia or whatever. How many more factors can there be? It can be unhealthy. I think we got that...before. Thanks.
This is jiber-jabber and you know it ... either put up some links or better yet some of your own work for review.
[/QUOTE]As I stated originally the 1% number is my low ball number for the best SSD product and in general is higher.[/QUOTE]
More fucking nonsense --- just put up some numbers based on molar quantities.
Show your fucking work!!!
An interested student wants to know!
Are you selling a better product by chance?
W
whiterasta
"This is jiber-jabber and you know it ... either put up some links or better yet some of your own work for review."
I have provided links to the basis of my point.Here is an old paper on CBD I wrote prior to some newer info. as well as some "jibber jabber" azulenes from cannabis that are extremely potent anti-histamines in the pic
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48353224/CBD-or-β-caryophylline-who-does-the-real-work
I do not expect you to understand this either
Here is a thread which gives some numbers on residual waxes I suggest reading all 12 pages as I did, you will see how generous I was being with a 1% residual as an example.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=275357
"More fucking nonsense --- just put up some numbers based on molar quantities."
I gave you the calculations in mg's as well as the basic components found. Convert it yourself I am not a hoop jumping pony.
"Show your fucking work!!!"
I gave you all the calculations you need to become informed.with links to the science. At this point you are just having a child's fit that the information does not jive with your present perception
"An interested student wants to know!"
I am only being polite to you as a one time courtesy. As a 9 post noob maybe you should prove to me you are educated enough to understand a thing I am saying since you are coming at me so strong. You are not my peer I do not need your review.
At this point you need to show you read and understand the salient points which are that:
paraffinic waxes exist in cannabis.
That strict regulatory limits are placed on exposure to paraffin vapor.
That a non-polar extract has an amount of paraffin that exceeds the regulatory limit.
That SSD does not reduce this to an acceptable level.
And lastly, if you choose to come at me in an attacking manner you will be ignored from here out
I have provided links to the basis of my point.Here is an old paper on CBD I wrote prior to some newer info. as well as some "jibber jabber" azulenes from cannabis that are extremely potent anti-histamines in the pic
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48353224/CBD-or-β-caryophylline-who-does-the-real-work
I do not expect you to understand this either
Here is a thread which gives some numbers on residual waxes I suggest reading all 12 pages as I did, you will see how generous I was being with a 1% residual as an example.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=275357
"More fucking nonsense --- just put up some numbers based on molar quantities."
I gave you the calculations in mg's as well as the basic components found. Convert it yourself I am not a hoop jumping pony.
"Show your fucking work!!!"
I gave you all the calculations you need to become informed.with links to the science. At this point you are just having a child's fit that the information does not jive with your present perception
"An interested student wants to know!"
I am only being polite to you as a one time courtesy. As a 9 post noob maybe you should prove to me you are educated enough to understand a thing I am saying since you are coming at me so strong. You are not my peer I do not need your review.
At this point you need to show you read and understand the salient points which are that:
paraffinic waxes exist in cannabis.
That strict regulatory limits are placed on exposure to paraffin vapor.
That a non-polar extract has an amount of paraffin that exceeds the regulatory limit.
That SSD does not reduce this to an acceptable level.
And lastly, if you choose to come at me in an attacking manner you will be ignored from here out
Attachments
W
whiterasta
I am consistently amazed at the lack of reading comprehension shown so far. I have said I do not sell concentrates for vaporization and that my interest is in solving an issue before it is latched onto by regulatory agencies and handled that way. My company makes infused delivery systems from patches to suppositories and is largely associated with the local medical community not the "dab" culture.
Wrong tree to bark up
"This is jiber-jabber and you know it ... either put up some links or better yet some of your own work for review."
I have provided links to the basis of my point.Here is an old paper on CBD I wrote prior to some newer info. as well as some "jibber jabber" azulenes from cannabis that are extremely potent anti-histamines in the pic
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48353224/CBD-or-β-caryophylline-who-does-the-real-work
I do not expect you to understand this either
Here is a thread which gives some numbers on residual waxes I suggest reading all 12 pages as I did, you will see how generous I was being with a 1% residual as an example.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=275357
"More fucking nonsense --- just put up some numbers based on molar quantities."
I gave you the calculations in mg's as well as the basic components found. Convert it yourself I am not a hoop jumping pony.
"Show your fucking work!!!"
I gave you all the calculations you need to become informed.with links to the science. At this point you are just having a child's fit that the information does not jive with your present perception
"An interested student wants to know!"
I am only being polite to you as a one time courtesy. As a 9 post noob maybe you should prove to me you are educated enough to understand a thing I am saying since you are coming at me so strong. You are not my peer I do not need your review.
At this point you need to show you read and understand the salient points which are that:
paraffinic waxes exist in cannabis.
That strict regulatory limits are placed on exposure to paraffin vapor.
That a non-polar extract has an amount of paraffin that exceeds the regulatory limit.
That SSD does not reduce this to an acceptable level.
And lastly, if you choose to come at me in an attacking manner you will be ignored from here out
Listen buddy you’re the one making the claims ---- in fact if you truly are submitting a paper for science review I’d expect more data either empirical or analytical other than something off a “pot” site.
I do believe you’ve severally under estimated the wax content. If this discussion continues I’ll tell you why.
Having said that, you’ve made the claims --- the burden is on you to prove your case.
I’m not shifting through those threads. You either have the data/analysis or you don’t.
The big fly in the ointment is that when challenging a process you have to demonstrate that current art is worse than prior.
Just rambling about a disputed industrial bench mark isn’t going to cut it.
Btw, I gave you the perfect opportunity to apply your analysis to a hypothetical situation. You failed to use it … why?
Quit whinning --- people don't generally do that during technical disputes in technical environments. Believe me I've been involved in many.
Prove your case --- I want to see how you arrived at the 1% number and what the variables are.
I don't give a damn about the density number you keep citing.
And for what it's worth, I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings ---
Well, indeed Sir and we are in complete awe of your superior knowledge. But may I humbly ask for a clarification on a few points? I would like to know where you get the data that single solvent dewaxing can at best have 1-3% residual "waxes"? I'd really like to see a mass spec analysis on de-waxed extract to back this up.
Anyone have a sample analysis from some of the products the shops and dispensaries are selling?
Then I really get confused by your statement in post #25.
But... I... I thought your OP was talking about SSD extract with a residual of 1-3%?
Shouldn't you be using that for reference to the amount of "wax" consumed when comparing to flowers?
You then go on to state 0.1g of the extract = 12mg. wax (you omitted the units)
Please forgive my horrible reading comprehension, but shouldn't we be using the 1-3% figure rather than 12%?
So if a 0.1g hit of herb has 2.4mg of waxes then wouldn't a 0.1g hit of extract have between 1mg and 3mg?
Or roughly the SAME amount of wax?
Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but a person who would inhale 0.1g of flowers to get a buzz surely would inhale a fraction (say 1/10 to 1/4 max) of extract to get the same effect. Even if a person took a 25mg hit of extract in comparison to a 0.1g hit of herb then wouldn't they be getting less wax from extract?
(25mg hit of extract * 3% = 0.75mg) of wax from a hit of de-waxed concentrate vs. the 2.4mg from straight up herb.
My math, your data. forgive me. If someone smokes a equal amount of herb vs. an equal amount of de-waxed extract they get roughly the same amount of wax. But in reality nobody who normally smokes 0.1g of weed is then going to dab 0.1g at a time, they will do a fraction of that.
Using your very clear statements I get much less wax from SSD concentrate.
I still don't see what you are trying to ascertain. Is there impending regulatory oversight on a recreational drug that's being smoked? Seriously?
Regulatory oversight on suppositories I can see, but not on recreational drugs.
Who has been asking for this? Or even theorizing it may come about in the future?
humbly yours.
RB
NorCalHawaii
Member
Not red itchy EYES?!!!! Noooooooo! I never knew this about concentrates. I'll get a tweet out asap. #redeyedwaxguy
W
whiterasta
I see your a selective quote guy. The rest of the article says a lot more and gives concentrations
"Work around molten paraffin is reported to be uncomfortable and
nauseating as is the use of paraffin sprays in printing shops. Concentrations of
paraffin fume of 0.6 to 1.0 mg/m3 were found mildly disagreeable by workers in
one plant, but in other plants, no complaints or discomfort were recorded at
levels up to 2 mg/m3 (ACG91).
A possible association has been observed between a decrease in lung
function (forced expiratory volume in one second, FEV1) and occupational
exposure to waxes, estimated by job exposure matrices. In women, FEV1 was
reported to be significantly decreased with the level of exposure, but no
information is given on the actual exposure levels (LeM95).
The effects of using ski waxes, containing mostly paraffins but also, in some
cases, silicone compounds and, in one case, polytetrafluoroethylene have been
examined in 5 male professional waxers (40-50-year old; 2 smokers; 3
non-smokers) after waxing for 2-3 hours. The components were stated to
vaporise on heating and to condense rapidly on cooling in air to smoke
consisting of particles less than 1 μm in diameter. Exposure levels ranged from
0.62-2.36 and from 0.18-1.60 mg/m3, when determined by personal sampling
and stationary measurements, respectively. These total dust concentrations,
consisting of C17 to C40 straight aliphatic hydrocarbons, were found to correlate
with the intensity of ski waxing. The main findings were an increase in
complaints including itching eyes, rhinitis, coughing, and breathlessness and a
decrease in lung function as indicated by an average decrease of 15% of the
diffusion capacity. This decrease occurred immediately after waxing, varied
between 10 and 25%, and tended to increase upon repeated exposure. There was
some recovery after a night’s break. It was found both in smokers and in
non-smokers, and therefore attributed to ski waxing rather than to smoking.
From results from blood samples taken one to 2 days after waxing, there were
no indications of systemically toxic effects, including inflammation and
064-6
The 1% number is arbitrary and purposely extremely low to demonstrate amount by which "a dab" exceeds the industrial limits for exposure. Actual numbers are higher as dissolving a SSD extract in EtOH and freezing will prove.
