The numbers on single solvent dewaxing? not good

[whiterasta]

I PURPOSELY set it a a ridiculously low 1% to prove the point that even at that low concentration one receives an excess of paraffin. The other example that seems to confuse you is a more real world set of numbers. 12% is the average number I have found in doing the work.So it is the number I used as a real world example. 1% is an unrealistic number for SSD but I used it as, as I have shown, it still is in excess of exposure standards. I apologize if that was not clear or if you did not understand my presentation of the issue. As for lab work, well that is the purpose of the paper I am finishing to promote the complete analysis of cannabis from the cannabinoids and terpenes to the waxes and flavinoids. As the wax is a noxious contaminant to a " more pure cannabinoid resin" knowing the content seems important. In addition a lung compromised patient who is recommended "dabs" as a medication should not be exposed to the paraffin. My attempt was to bring this to air for those who are working with patients. I suppose if you are a rec user huffing wax is all good but if you have COPD not so much. So if in that I reach a few folks with this info via a "pot site" it is more than if I had not put it out there.No need for you to work yourself into a tizzy trying to disprove.... what again? that there is or is not more paraffin than I put out in an example calculation?That paraffin is harmless? You dislike the arbitrary but conservative figure I used in an example?
I have demonstrated that long chain aliphatics(waxes) are present with one of the only analysis' done on the lipid fraction and provided the source paper

I have shown , and you have also that even @ a unrealistic 1% residual the NIH limits for paraffin exposure are exceeded

I gave a comparative of flowers and a concentrate using more realistic numbers that show a 5x greater exposure to paraffin from a concentrate as flowers.

I presented this all in a general and relaxed manner as it is a pot site

What people do with what is presented here is entirely their issue.

Peer review will occur when I publish the full report.

I stand by the title of the post SSD does not remove enough of the wax to pass exposure limits as the arbitrary low of 1% is some 40x in excess of NIH standards for exposure.Actual numbers in practice are many times higher than 1% on the shelves of dispensaries.

That is the final purpose of this post to move those who actually care about what is in their concentrates to move away from SSD to dual solvent lyotropic precipitation. Especially for medical use.

As I said I work mostly with Drs and medical professionals and am not part of the "dab life" so my motivation is perhaps different than some of you. And my threshold of tolerance for non-active adulterants is much lower than the industry accepts

 

[jd2]

I PURPOSELY set it a a ridiculously low 1% to prove the point that even at that low concentration one receives an excess of paraffin. The other example that seems to confuse you is a more real world set of numbers. 12% is the average number I have found in doing the work.So it is the number I used as a real world example. 1% is an unrealistic number for SSD but I used it as, as I have shown, it still is in excess of exposure standards. I apologize if that was not clear or if you did not understand my presentation of the issue. As for lab work, well that is the purpose of the paper I am finishing to promote the complete analysis of cannabis from the cannabinoids and terpenes to the waxes and flavinoids. As the wax is a noxious contaminant to a " more pure cannabinoid resin" knowing the content seems important. In addition a lung compromised patient who is recommended "dabs" as a medication should not be exposed to the paraffin. My attempt was to bring this to air for those who are working with patients. I suppose if you are a rec user huffing wax is all good but if you have COPD not so much. So if in that I reach a few folks with this info via a "pot site" it is more than if I had not put it out there.No need for you to work yourself into a tizzy trying to disprove.... what again? that there is or is not more paraffin than I put out in an example calculation?That paraffin is harmless? You dislike the arbitrary but conservative figure I used in an example?
I have demonstrated that long chain aliphatics(waxes) are present with one of the only analysis' done on the lipid fraction and provided the source paper

I have shown , and you have also that even @ a unrealistic 1% residual the NIH limits for paraffin exposure are exceeded

I gave a comparative of flowers and a concentrate using more realistic numbers that show a 5x greater exposure to paraffin from a concentrate as flowers.

I presented this all in a general and relaxed manner as it is a pot site

What people do with what is presented here is entirely their issue.

Peer review will occur when I publish the full report.

I stand by the title of the post SSD does not remove enough of the wax to pass exposure limits as the arbitrary low of 1% is some 40x in excess of NIH standards for exposure.Actual numbers in practice are many times higher than 1% on the shelves of dispensaries.

That is the final purpose of this post to move those who actually care about what is in their concentrates to move away from SSD to dual solvent lyotropic precipitation. Especially for medical use.

As I said I work mostly with Drs and medical professionals and am not part of the "dab life" so my motivation is perhaps different than some of you. And my threshold of tolerance for non-active adulterants is much lower than the industry accepts

If the crux of your presentation is based on the utility of the NIH spec have you considered that it is incomplete? No engineering discipline aside, from perhaps consumer applications, would consider a spec where the tolerance is not explicit and/or set by the measurement apparatus/technique.

That spec is over a decade and half old, with numerous skeptics. It says a lot about the “health”/regulator field to allow this crap to continue. This application is akin to the term “typical” when used to spec components in consumer grade products. It’s user be wary, because there is no implied tolerance.

What is this number 2ug/liter plus or minus 10g, 50g, or 1ng --- you tell me!!!

Another point, for every study you can point to espousing the “less” unhealthy aspect of smoking flowers, there is one pointing out the elephant in the room, long chain hydorcarbons.

I’m waiting with “baited” breath to see your compiled “evidence” that enumerates the risk analysis of consuming 1% paraffin in a concentrate vs gulping an equivalent amount of pah in a big doob or blunt!

I expect quantitive numbers not this hand wavy qualitive bullshit you prefer to throw around.

Think of it in terms of a biological transfer function --- specific and explicit. Yeah right --- what does that mean????

Btw, I think you had a wonderful opportunity to approach this subject with great utility, if you had taken a different path. A topic on the pros and cons of various delivery systems in terms of quantifiable health “risks”, (yeah oxymoron), would have been useful.

Another point, a simple solution to waxes in the solute, why not just consider the vapor temps ---

The irritating part about you is that you know better, unfortunately, it sounds as if you’re in a position to influence other regulatory nitwits with bad science.

 

[whiterasta]

Typical to attack the source information as well as demand information as yet ungenerated. it is a common tactic among "debunkers"
So a ten yr old study is no longer valid? must not prove YOUR point

What is the number 2mg/M3? it is the absolute upper limit of exposure in the workplace for paraffin. there is no plus or minus it is the regulatory absolute.

And yes the long chain hydrocarbons are the issue here. But in that I can in fact produce studies which show the lack of harm from raw plant use. No such studies have been done for concentrates or even a full analysis of them. However the paraffin content is easily determined and exceeds the established exposure limits whether you choose to accept it or not.The difference is the studies have already shown that raw plant material is not harmful. No such evidence is available for concentrates but I have outlined a possible issue due to the paraffin content.So in effect you want what has yet to be determined and basically what I am proposing is a determined quantitative analysis of all concentrates for all constituents.

"I expect quantitive numbers not this hand wavy qualitive bullshit you prefer to throw around."

Who the fuck are you to demand anything your not paying for from me? you can ask but telling me what you "expect" will get you a fuck off. The only people who can "expect" from me are those who have paid for my services not a badgering troll.

You want a quantitative comparison of pulmonary obstruction for equivalent doses of flower and concentrates? Are you going to fund my research? if so I will produce the data. I already have produced the full text of the hazards of paraffin exposure and it was shown to cause a roughly 15% decrease in lung function. Studies are out that show no harm from smoking the plant

"Another point, a simple solution to waxes in the solute, why not just consider the vapor temps --- " LMAO....

I am in a position to influence regulatory policy and this is one reason I posted this. If you think all the dissembling you have tried negates the facts I produced, fine. When concentrates are expected to be more than a raw gum non-polar extract you can then play catch up. Bottom line is arguing to allow a noxious adulterant in a salable product is just idiocy and self serving laziness

 

[whiterasta]

I Have noticed this post has drawn mostly low post, either noobs or sock puppets and a lot of negative semi-attacking posts from them. That is all fine I have been around a very long time and am not phased by trolls. The very idea that one would defend inhaling paraffin when it can easily be removed says all that needs said about those who want to shoot the messenger. Word? you aren't gonna make yer bones off fucking with me.

 

[Permacultuure]

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

Rickys B - i believe that was a yes....

 

[NorCalHawaii]

I Have noticed this post has drawn mostly low post, either noobs or sock puppets and a lot of negative semi-attacking posts from them. That is all fine I have been around a very long time and am not phased by trolls. The very idea that one would defend inhaling paraffin when it can easily be removed says all that needs said about those who want to shoot the messenger. Word? you aren't gonna make yer bones off fucking with me.

Obsessed with how smart you are, and how long you've "been around". Maybe if you came off a bit more likeable people would be nice to and give you all tbe kudos you seem to be seeking. Other than that you are just making up cool stories in a place where we come for guidance in a dangerous and developing field.

 

[jd2]

I Have noticed this post has drawn mostly low post, either noobs or sock puppets and a lot of negative semi-attacking posts from them. That is all fine I have been around a very long time and am not phased by trolls. The very idea that one would defend inhaling paraffin when it can easily be removed says all that needs said about those who want to shoot the messenger. Word? you aren't gonna make yer bones off fucking with me.

Name calling is always a indication of defeat!

But clearly, you are dense as a rock --- maybe too many suppositories stuck up your ass!

You started this thread; the burden of proof is yours.

You clearly don’t understand instrumentation/metrology. Tolerances are there whether you recognize them or not. There is no such thing as a “perfect”, no tolerance measurement.

So even though the spec is listed as absolute, it isn’t, that’s the point!

Read the associated “use” link and see if you can determine the tolerance spec!!! You posted it.

Just in case you haven’t figured it out, nobody is disputing the existence of the paraffin.

What is in dispute is your claim that the damage due to the presence of the wax in concentrates is worse than the damage done by consuming PAH’s in raw material. The only way to resolve this is through exhaustive quantification with numerical data and analysis.

The burden is on you to make your case. Claiming falsely, that there are no studies to indicate that pulmonary harm is done by those hydorcarbons is just a lie.

Your pulmonary problems were more than likely a result of you sucking on doobies for a good portion of your life.

It’s clear now that you just jumped out here prematurely. You’ve got nothing so far. Hopefully there's some food for thought in my words.

Good luck.

Btw, the concept of using vapor temps has already been done. Just think for a second.

 

[jdee]

So there is exactly ONE study out which measures the effects of paraffin fume, the same study which is flawed due to the fact it contained other "noxious adulterants". They came up with the magic number you keep repeating of 2mg/m3. The same number CDC is now repeating. Why do you keep repeating numbers that come from flawed studies? It it because questioning numbers posted on a CDC website defy logic?

Also I quite enjoy how everyone who doesn't accept your claims as gospel is automatically a troll/noob/sock puppet. (An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument).

The scientific method demands scrutiny does it not? why so defensive.

 

[hairetsu]

Anything thats on the market that's regulated regardless if its your doctor prescribed meds or your pack of smokes, you'll notice there is a warning describing the side effects to using said product.

Once and if proper controlled tests are done on paraffin wax containing concentrates there should be warning labels and side effect information due to prolonged or extensive use.

In a regulated recreational world, I doubt paraffins would become a problem with proper warning labels.

In a regulated medicinal world, I'd hope meds wouldn't contain any paraffins if researched presented your hypothesis to be true(that smoking the flowers are healthier since the the antihistamine terpine kinda off sets the paraffins negative effect.). Though i wouldn't see anything wrong with someone taking it as medicine with the knowledge that it's not the best way to intake it as medicine.

I make dabs to smoke for stress really, it's more a recreational relax way of intaking. Making topical oils,vegan capsules, activated oil, is the medicine i'd recommend to any real needy patient.

 

[Rickys bong]

Who the fuck are you to demand anything your not paying for from me? you can ask but telling me what you "expect" will get you a fuck off. The only people who can "expect" from me are those who have paid for my services not a badgering troll.

Geez Jimmy, you need to chill out a bit man. Relax, have a drink, take a suppository or something.

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.

Surely we are all aware of the impending legislation, lots of people are discussing it right?

What exactly are you suggesting that will solve this issue?

 

[whiterasta]

Sock , it's simple remove all the paraffin. Now you can ponder second solvent destearination

 

[dopecook]

Very good info! Thank you very much for sharing.

 

[whiterasta]

So there is exactly ONE study out which measures the effects of paraffin fume, the same study which is flawed due to the fact it contained other "noxious adulterants". They came up with the magic number you keep repeating of 2mg/m3. The same number CDC is now repeating. Why do you keep repeating numbers that come from flawed studies? It it because questioning numbers posted on a CDC website defy logic?

Also I quite enjoy how everyone who doesn't accept your claims as gospel is automatically a troll/noob/sock puppet. (An ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument).

The scientific method demands scrutiny does it not? why so defensive.

It was not an ad hominem attack, it was a recognition the there are posters using sock puppets to reply to this topic. The one who used my name below is an example. I did not name anyone in particular. Just noted the reality that the most vigorous condemnation was coming from low post counts. If I had said "that noob jdee doesn't get it" that is an ad hominem attack. Now Logical fallacy, I may be guilty of,Poor presentation of the data also, but that will be judged by my peers not a "pot site" as it was called.

I do not apologize or back away from the premise I have presented however. Playing games over data validity is irrelevant I did not set the exposure limit for paraffin vapor, it is what it is. I did not invent the paraffin in a concentrate And the broad spectrum of contamination in them by paraffin is as yet unknown since labs as yet are not testing for it but eventually it will come up and when it does guess what number will be used to regulate it? Injecting irrelevant issues such as "what about flowers" are nothing but an
"appeal to consequence of belief" one of the rhetological fallacies you are using. The subject is that SSD does not remove enough wax to pass the aforementioned standard. Not an arbitrary standard , the one used by regulatory agencies who will eventually be looking at these products.

If you ask why I am frustrated. It is because the basic premise is ignored due to the general "appeal to consequence of belief" and simple examples of demonstration of theory were taken out of context to again uphold the "appeal to consequence". You claim scientific method demands scrutiny? you are right, and my OP was a polite inquiry. It was met with a wall of ignorance and a sea of fear expressed as name calling and and derision. As yet I have not met this behavior among my "peers". Indeed when this information was presented to my peers it was and is on the radar of some of the larger testing labs. So as I see this it is really not much more than if I had came on here and said RSA is going to tank some folks the same fucking response would have occurred, shoot the messenger.
And last thing kids before I put this to bed. The burden of proof is not on me. It is on anyone of you who wishes to claim the wax content in their concentrate is safe to sell to the public. At that point see how far all your arguments go. SMH and walk on down the road.

 

[jd2]

It was not an ad hominem attack, it was a recognition the there are posters using sock puppets to reply to this topic. The one who used my name below is an example. I did not name anyone in particular. Just noted the reality that the most vigorous condemnation was coming from low post counts. If I had said "that noob jdee doesn't get it" that is an ad hominem attack. Now Logical fallacy, I may be guilty of,Poor presentation of the data also, but that will be judged by my peers not a "pot site" as it was called.

I do not apologize or back away from the premise I have presented however. Playing games over data validity is irrelevant I did not set the exposure limit for paraffin vapor, it is what it is. I did not invent the paraffin in a concentrate And the broad spectrum of contamination in them by paraffin is as yet unknown since labs as yet are not testing for it but eventually it will come up and when it does guess what number will be used to regulate it? Injecting irrelevant issues such as "what about flowers" are nothing but an
"appeal to consequence of belief" one of the rhetological fallacies you are using. The subject is that SSD does not remove enough wax to pass the aforementioned standard. Not an arbitrary standard , the one used by regulatory agencies who will eventually be looking at these products.

If you ask why I am frustrated. It is because the basic premise is ignored due to the general "appeal to consequence of belief" and simple examples of demonstration of theory were taken out of context to again uphold the "appeal to consequence". You claim scientific method demands scrutiny? you are right, and my OP was a polite inquiry. It was met with a wall of ignorance and a sea of fear expressed as name calling and and derision. As yet I have not met this behavior among my "peers". Indeed when this information was presented to my peers it was and is on the radar of some of the larger testing labs. So as I see this it is really not much more than if I had came on here and said RSA is going to tank some folks the same fucking response would have occurred, shoot the messenger.
And last thing kids before I put this to bed. The burden of proof is not on me. It is on anyone of you who wishes to claim the wax content in their concentrate is safe to sell to the public. At that point see how far all your arguments go. SMH and walk on down the road.

Dude you gotta stop shoving that crap up your ass, it’s interfering with your thought process.

You told people to “get educated on the facts”, yet when people inquired about your assumptions/statements you got testy or initially just ignored the question.

You made the claim about the 1-3% residual. What was asked of you, was how did you arrive at that number.

However, what you cited was not rigorously developed technical data, but rather a link on a pot forum.

I assume you understand, as a standard process prior to regulation that relevancy of the cited toxic threshold of Paraffin will be reviewed.

So the topic was appropriate, and you should have been prepared to discuss it. Again,lack of rigor on your part.

You know damn well that any regulatory changes will incorporate a discussion relative to toxicities in flower consumption.

Your inability or unwillingness to have an honest discussion re the correlation made you look untrustworthy.

Btw, why do you suspect there are “sock puppets”? Are you sure the “ganja” god’s ain’t fucking with you mon???

Ah-ah-haha

Have a good one dude --- enjoy your night.

 

[SpaceshipNelson]

Winterize . . . . . . . .

 

[whiterasta]

Winterize . . . . . . . .

Exactly and thank you. SpaceshipNelson.

 

[jd2]

Exactly and thank you. SpaceshipNelson.

I'll confess, I don't use this process, I think it has some other inherent problems.

I just don't like people spouting off with unsubstantiated claims and Rasta here just galled the shit out of me.

I do winterize.

Good night Rasta

 

[whiterasta]

"
You made the claim about the 1-3% residual. What was asked of you, was how did you arrive at that number.

However, what you cited was not rigorously developed technical data, but rather a link on a pot forum."


I clearly stated it was an arbitrary example of an extreme low ball number. And arguing on the internet is a game I play until I am done dropping realities in the face of denial. I have clearly laid out the salient points I wished to impart now it can be denied and argued about until labs pick up Residual Lipid Fraction as a required analysis of concentrates. It is coming, I gave you the regulatory numbers to expect. Have an excellent evening

"Dude you gotta stop shoving that crap up your ass, it’s interfering with your thought process."
That is some childish stuff you are rolling out son. See how quickly you devolve when you cannot defend your arguments

Just like RSA, RLA is coming. I will post the link to the full body of this work post submission. I always get a bit of a kick when younger folks like you think the only info is on the web, especially regarding cannabis. Books still are relevant resources which do not "link" .

I laid out the salient points which are relevant and this is the most important one
"The burden of proof is not on me. It is on anyone of you who wishes to claim the wax content in their concentrate is safe to sell to the public. At that point see how far all your arguments go."

 

[Rickys bong]

Rasta, The reason you are being less than well received here is not because

my OP was a polite inquiry.

it's because it seems you started this post with an agenda.

You are trying to provide facts to prove that concentrates are hazardous and also with the assertion that somehow there was impending regulation of wax content, plus:

I am in a position to influence regulatory policy...

Let's examine the exposure limit that you have based your arguments on.
You posted this link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0477.html

I have a lot of respect for the CDC and I'm sure this was a well researched limit.

However, allow me to post from the CDC page. They provide measurement methods and the following exposure limit:

NIOSH REL: TWA 2 mg/m3

to spare anyone looking up the acronym, its National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health - Relative Exposure Limit:

Time Weighted Average 2mg/m3

Mr. Rasta, before you "influence any regulatory policy" PLEASE research what Time Weighted average is.

It's NOT for a single lungful, it's for continuous exposure over an eight hour period. Like someone working in a facility making candles.

What is the number 2mg/M3? it is the absolute upper limit of exposure in the workplace for paraffin. there is no plus or minus it is the regulatory absolute.

You are right, just seems to me any good researcher would also look up exactly what the absolute standard they are using actually means.

Please understand I am a professional chemist and have researched this fully. I am fully prepared and submitting a document to the IACM on the subject for peer review.

Oh, Indeed Sir.

I'm sure the IACM will ignore the difference between the amount of paraffin ingested in a single lungful or two vs. the established CDC standard and your paper will be hailed as brilliant and ground breaking.

 

[jd2]

"
You made the claim about the 1-3% residual. What was asked of you, was how did you arrive at that number.

However, what you cited was not rigorously developed technical data, but rather a link on a pot forum."


I clearly stated it was an arbitrary example of an extreme low ball number. And arguing on the internet is a game I play until I am done dropping realities in the face of denial. I have clearly laid out the salient points I wished to impart now it can be denied and argued about until labs pick up Residual Lipid Fraction as a required analysis of concentrates. It is coming, I gave you the regulatory numbers to expect. Have an excellent evening

"Dude you gotta stop shoving that crap up your ass, it’s interfering with your thought process."
That is some childish stuff you are rolling out son. See how quickly you devolve when you cannot defend your arguments

Just like RSA, RLA is coming. I will post the link to the full body of this work post submission. I always get a bit of a kick when younger folks like you think the only info is on the web, especially regarding cannabis. Books still are relevant resources which do not "link" .

I laid out the salient points which are relevant and this is the most important one
"The burden of proof is not on me. It is on anyone of you who wishes to claim the wax content in their concentrate is safe to sell to the public. At that point see how far all your arguments go."

Rasta,

You're making a lot of assumptions about who I am and my background.

Our experience with regulatory institutions are completely different, mine would dictate a much more rigorous approach.

With regards to the appropriateness of winterizing, if you read my posts carefully, you will notice I never made any assertions re your claims one way or the other.

What I did do was press you for rigor in your data to support your claims. So I'm not sure what you mean by "denial"?

I have a technical back ground; I will admit that I'm not use to this "game playing" technique you're describing. But I guess I should have known better, after all I am on a "pot-head" site. I'll consider it a lesson learned.

In my environment, when a technical claim is made, or a new process is described, people take that stuff seriously and provide appropriate analytical supportive material.

When it comes to you're "burden of proof" comment, I have to say, it seems like there's some "time" spatial disconnect stuff going on there --- I like to deal with causal systems.

And yeah, the "ass" crack was pretty childish, but you gotta admit it was funny, (well maybe not to you).

I do appreciate books and hard copy -- the link will be much appreciated.