Silicone bumps dry yield 28%

[BongFu]

Weird you have made two absurd claims on this thread while contributing nothing to the thread beyond disruption. Could you please post your scientific evidence that smoking cannabis causes no harm to the lungs and throats of cannabis smokers. Could you also post your supporting scientific evidence that silica amendments pose a threat to cannabis users? Not so hard Weird but it seems with you, you like to make completely unqualified statements and then when called on them try to sidetrack things to take attention off the fact you have no idea what you are talking about. Now could you please stay on topic or depart this thread. Oh and it's PhD, Ph.D. or DPhil..... not PHd.

 

[BongFu]

Since we are talking about silica, and microbiology was brought up..
what do you guys think of Silica solubilizing bacteria products. I found one that you brew like a compost tea and add to the nutrient solution.

You'd actually be better off with soil borne fungi - they (certain species) are more efficient at breaking down lignin than bacteria.

Actually a microbio paper on it here https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/92/3/fiw011/2470097

Also an important read on using rice husks in soil and substrate amendments for silica is


Silicon in Ornamental Crops: Detection, Delivery, and Function

 

[MrBungle]

Isn't most of the agricultural silica we use today a byproduct of the steel industry? I wonder if they are the ones who are pushing these studies to sell more of their waste..

I used to run 90 ppm of Silica in my nutrient solution back in the day.... I stopped doing the raw salts about a year and a half ago.. and don't notice a difference in the plants without the SiO2

 

[BongFu]

Isn't most of the agricultural silica we use today a byproduct of the steel industry? I wonder if they are the ones who are pushing these studies to sell more of their waste..

I used to run 90 ppm of Silica in my nutrient solution back in the day.... I stopped doing the raw salts about a year and a half ago.. and don't notice a difference in the plants without the SiO2

Quick answer to your question re steel industry is no. Potassium silicate is typically produced by reacting silica with potassium hydroxide.

Thanks for your anecdotal feedback on silica BTW - I actually run controls + tissue test etc and develop products for agricultural purposes. I've found completely the opposite to you. Maybe you were doing something wrong but either way I tend to lean towards research findings being correct (or thereabouts subject to further studies always) than anecdotal info posted on a stoner forum by someone with a pseudonym. Oh and I mean that in the nicest way but you can perhaps see my point.... I.e. who is more credible?

 

[flylowgethigh]

You'd actually be better off with soil borne fungi - they (certain species) are more efficient at breaking down lignin than bacteria.

Actually a microbio paper on it here https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/92/3/fiw011/2470097

Also an important read on using rice husks in soil and substrate amendments for silica is


Silicon in Ornamental Crops: Detection, Delivery, and Function

That is a dead link on the ornamentals

 

[BongFu]

That is a dead link on the ornamentals

It's not a link. It is the name of the paper. Google it and yeah shall find.

 

[Weird]

Weird you have made two absurd claims on this thread while contributing nothing to the thread beyond disruption. Could you please post your scientific evidence that smoking cannabis causes no harm to the lungs and throats of cannabis smokers.

I never made that claim you did after I posted a study showing the fate of combusted silicates. As contextual continuity would have it you are now on the hook for proving an increase in silicate content has no impact.

Your inability to parse emotion from data is causing the disruption. I simply was illustrating that more silicate may not be pure benefit. However that effects you on a personal level is completely on you. Adult emotional wherewithal is required for simple data exchanges.

Could you also post your supporting scientific evidence that silica amendments pose a threat to cannabis users?

I did. Silicate combustion is not discriminate upon anything but combustion and inhalation.

Not so hard Weird but it seems with you, you like to make completely unqualified statements and then when called on them try to sidetrack things to take attention off the fact you have no idea what you are talking about. Now could you please stay on topic or depart this thread. Oh and it's PhD, Ph.D. or DPhil..... not PHd.

Are you blueberry's dad?

 

[BongFu]

Weird, post your supporting references please. I was going to respond with an educational response but I can see no point. Also please stay on topic. I've pointed out to you that the trichomes of cannabis are largely made up of silica and based on your claim that silica harms tobacco smokers I pointed out that if that were the case (and certainly it could be but it is part of a much broader picture; for example, smoked tobacco contains over 4000 chemicals and 70 of them are known human carcinogens) cannabis by its very nature/biology/chemistry harms cannabis smokers. You then went on a rant that smoking cannabis did not harm cannabis smokers - albeit could not find a single supporting peer reviewed academic paper that supported this more than ludicrous claim. Further, this claim is undermined by your first claim that silica harms tobacco smokers and given the trichomes of cannabis are largely silica you would then have us believe somehow cannabis doesn't harm cannabis smokers even though the trichomes are loaded in silica while the same chemical element, according to you, is responsible for harming tobacco smokers. How could that be?..... Bottom line is your argument is self contradictory. How are we going so far?

"Are you blueberry's dad?" No I am the janitor.

 

[MrBungle]

BongFu you basically discredited everything you said by dismissing my comments as made by someone with a pseudonym on a stoner forum.. What is your name, and where are you typing? Do some more homework on your silicate sources https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928342001800161

 

[BongFu]

BongFu you basically discredited everything you said by dismissing my comments as made by someone with a pseudonym on a stoner forum.. What is your name, and where are you typing? Do some more homework on your silicate sources https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...28342001800161

1) Silicon in used in a vast array of industries - you are cherry picking. To add to your link re industries that use silicon https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/24618, https://www.electronicproducts.com/4...n-technology/#,

2) the largest Potassium Silicate producer in the world is PQ Corp. They supply about 90% of the Liquid Potassium Silicate that is used for Ag purposes. See my above point on how it is produced. Also more and more now they are using Rice hull to make silica through various treatments - plenty of patents online you can view.

3) Regarding your attempt to say "BongFu you basically discredited everything you said " - no champ I have actually said very little without it being fully substantiated by the science. You on the other hand have said nothing that is supported by science. For example, this thread started based on scientific research but a few have quickly tried to derail it.

Welcome to the show. Hell, you even have a clown as your avatar.


Okay guys, as per usual another thread overrun by the clowns. I have better things to do with my time. Out.

 

[Weird]

Weird, post your supporting references please. I was going to respond with an educational response but I can see no point.

read up Johhny

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4858188/

Electron Microscopic Analysis of Silicate and Calcium Particles in Cigarette Smoke Tar

Silica, aluminum silicates, and calcium compounds were previously reported on the surfaces of tobacco leaves (11). Phytolithic silica was observed in the interiors of tobacco leaves (11). This study of inorganic particulate in the machine generated mainstream smoke of filtered cigarettes demonstrated that silica, aluminum silicates, and calcium compounds are the major inorganic particulate phase constituents in the smoke available for inhalation by the smoker. Silicon-containing TPM agglomerates at the mouth end of a cigarette filter and aluminum silicates, silica, and calcium-containing particles embedded in the carbonaceous TPM tar were observed for all brands examined. The brands included in the study were a random selection of commercially available cigarettes from different manufacturers and are not intended to make comparisons between brands. Particle sizes ranged from significantly less than 100 nm to several μm. Though we presented data on particles that were less than 100 nm, it is possible that even smaller particles passed unrecovered through the 0.05 or 0.1 μm pore size filters when the TPM organic matrix in which they were embedded was partially dissolved and filtered. In addition, we observed potassium sulfate, magnesium, chloride, and other constituents in the TPM. This agrees well with Langer et al., who reported that the mineral content in cigarette smoke consists principally of potassium chloride, potassium sulfate, potassium carbonate, calcium carbonate, and “quartz” (silica, 21).

Our results agree with Brody and Craighead’s suggestion that silica and aluminum silicates contribute substantially to the particulate matter in mainstream cigarette smoke, based on the widespread observation of these substances in pulmonary macrophages from the lungs of smokers (20). They and others reported large numbers of bronchiolar, alveolar, and interstitial pigmented macrophages with “smokers’ inclusions” consisting of aluminum silicate (20,22,23), for which they could find no source other than cigarette smoke. Heckman and Lehman also reported aluminum and silicon-containing inclusions in lung cells of rats after chronic exposure to tobacco smoke (24).The silica and aluminum silicate particles that we observed were found in the size ranges that Brody and Craighead described in smokers’ lungs.

Associations between the presence of aluminum and silicon compounds in the lungs as a consequence of smoking and pulmonary disease with carcinogenic outcome have been reported. Indeed, silicon compounds in various forms including silica, kaolinite (an aluminum silicate), and others have been found associated with adenocarcinomas and bronchoalveolar carcinomas (25). Terzakis reported silicon as the prominent element in particulate associated with peripherally located lung carcinomas with scar (scar carcinoma, a consequence of tissue inflammation or tumor necrosis followed by collagen formation) (25).

The presence of aluminum and silicon-containing particulate from cigarette smoke in pulmonary tissue has also been associated with fibrotic diseases such as Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (26). Aluminum silicates accumulated in the brown pigmented “smokers’ macrophages” that are characteristic of Respiratory Bronchiolitis-Interstitial Lung Disease (RB-ILD) (27), a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) observed in the majority of smokers after smoking for seven to seventy-five pack years (20,28). Though there is also strong evidence for the involvement of cadmium in the development of obstructive lung disease (29), the widely cited work of Girod and King presented strong evidence that COPD resulting from smoking, and specifically that RB-ILD as a precursor lesion to emphysema, is a “dust-induced” disease where aluminum silicates such as kaolinite are described as the dust (30). Indeed, aluminum silicates have been shown to induce fibrotic obstructive lung disease in rats (31), and are known to cause fibrotic and pneumoconiotic disease in humans (32). Both aluminum salt and silica particles have been shown to independently activate the NALP3 inflammasome and induce synthesis of proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-1β, and NALP3-independent prostaglandin E2 (33). The presence of inflammation-inducing aluminum silicates (4,34) as principal constituents of pulmonary macrophage cytoplasmic inclusions has been described as strong evidence that aluminum silicates and silica may be principal etiologic agents in cigarette smoke for COPD (30,34). Smokers constitute the majority of cases of the otherwise rare pulmonary Langerhans’ cell hystiocytosis interstitial lung disease. The lysosomes of smoker’s macrophages that are associated with Langerhans’ hystiocytosis cells (dendritic cells) are described as containing numerous needle-like inclusions of aluminum silicate (35). Therefore, it is possible that multiple components of cigarette smoke, including cadmium and silica (carcinogens), and aluminum silicates or other silicates may be agents involved in tumorigenesis (25) and in the progression of chronic inflammation from which fibrotic, obstructive, and interstitial pulmonary disease result (25,27,30–35) as a consequence of cigarette smoking.

Conclusions

SEM-EDS was used to characterize common inorganic components of mainstream cigarette smoke particulate. Silica and aluminum silicates were prevalent in the carbonaceous matrix of TPM. Calcium compounds were also observed, though less frequently than silicates. Previous work showed that these inorganic particles were common on both the surfaces and interiors of tobacco leaves, apparently the source of these particles in cigarette smoke.
Silica and aluminum silicates have been understudied due to analytical interferences when the bulk TPM matrix was analyzed using ICP-MS. However, use of electron microscopic analyses to complement ICP-MS analyses of TPM can add information regarding commonly observed substances found in pulmonary macrophage inclusions and in pulmonary tissues of smokers. Our direct investigation into the nature of such silica and silicate particles in TPM from mainstream cigarette smoke may help in further investigations of cigarette smoke toxicity and the etiology of cancer and obstructive diseases that are consequences of tobacco smoking.

 

[Weird]

Imagine being so hot for yield that you don't mind making a plant poisonous the way big tobacco did

smh

 

[BongFu]

It sounds like you are a very confused guy Weird. Your moral dilemma should be you are selling buds packed full of Si as smokeable product. That would make you as evil as big tobacco... yes? Or perhaps a guy with a serious case of cognitive dissonance - i.e. full of shit. You do of course realise that silica as ortho Si is widely available in soils because silica makes up 28% of the earths crust and thus if you are growing in soil you are feeding Si in the exact same form as an inorganically grown plant receives it. The only reason they need to use silica as an additive (or substrate amendment) in hydroponics is because unlike soils silica isn't present in hydroponics unless it is applied.

Re cannabis trichomes and Si

X-ray microanalysis reveals that hairs from any part of the plant possess silica (Si02 • nH 20).

Silica is distributed more or less uniformly all over the surface of the trichome (Fig. 8-13). Deposition of calcium as CaC03 is confined to the enlarged basal portions of the cystolith hairs (Fig. 14-17). The cystoliths are very prominent in hairs on the adaxial leaf surfaces. Some, but not all the hairs from the stem, petiole, and abaxial leaf surfaces also show cystoliths of CaC03 • Because no particular concentration of any element is to be found on the warty protuberances of the trichomes, the protuberances are perhaps due to local depositions of cellulose, cutin or other wall materials.

Remains of marihuana ash reveal the existence of both kinds of hairs as recognizable and distinct entities (Fig. 14-16). The cystoliths of CaCOa often separate out as balls. X-ray mapping of the ash further confirms the siliceous nature of the hairs and the presence of Ca in the cystoliths (Fig. 16-18). Some Ca is probably distributed throughout the inner cavity of the hairs. But the enormous quantities of silica found on the cell walls of the hairs mask the small quantities of Ca.

Source = TRICHOMES OF CANNABIS SATIVA L. (CANNABACEAE)

 

[Weird]

That isn't even a counter argument.

a counter argument would establish that there is no difference between natural occurring levels of silicates and increased levels of silicates. Educating the reading audience would require an intimate knowledge regarding the fate of silicates in the lungs and the compound dangers with other ambient levels of agricultural contaminants from lacking cultivation techniques. A complete refutation based in experiential competence would prove that these yields cannot be replicated without additional silicates. This would require comparatives as well as testing. You can't substantiate any of those positions.

The post was for simple consideration, your obsessive desire to defend it underlines unacceptable inadequacies and a seriously flawed personality. More so you are fighting to draw attention to the deficit in your understanding.

 

[BongFu]

No Weird, no cognitive dissonance on my part. You try to derail hydroponic threads with your brand of organic Flat Earther gong beating far too often. What it boils down to though is you have no credible data but latch onto a premise which is far too often flawed and flog it to death. In fact, your arguments can actually sound good if one forgets the premise is flawed, meaning the whole argument is built on dubious foundations. So what. you are saying, given whether silica is supplied in organic or inorganic forms it is only taken up by the plant as ortho Si, is cannabis should ideally be grown without any silica in soils yes? So let's not grow soil cannabis because soil is loaded with silica and instead lets grow hydroponics only without addition of silica? There's a bright idea mate. Let's do that.

Now bottom line, I do not have the data to show whether through addition of silica in a hydroponic substrate more silica accumulates in the tissue than would occur in soil. Nor do you have that data and if you do I would love to see it. However, I do have a chunk of data from hydroponically grown crops with and without silica amendments. BTW, in all instances less Si accumulates in the bud than leaf tissue and you rarely see more than 3,500 mg/kg (typically lower). So you may have 2,500 mg/kg Si in the leaf tissue and something like 1500 to 1600 mg/kg in the bud tissue. Now if you like Weird run off down to your lab and run an analysis for Si on soil grown cannabis and let's compare the data otherwise you are just flogging your agenda without a single piece of scientific evidence to support it. There's the offer mate - show us the science. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. Hell , you may even be right but it requires science (i.e. lab analysis) to demonstrate this.

 

[BongFu]

Oh BTW Weird still waiting for you to support your claims that smoked cannabis doesn't harm the airway and lungs of cannabis smokers. Where is the research to support your claim or are you back peddling from it or simply refusing to support it with any credible data?

 

[flylowgethigh]

The sticky oils are proof enough. They condense on bongs, pipes, and inside your lungs. It's hard to beat the versatility of a doob, but I can feel it after smoking one. Worse with a RAW tube. Dry vaping to target mostly the terps has the opposite effect on me, so I save some cano whip hits for last.

Edit: OT and I've said this already, vaping the terps off flower has the effect of cleaning my lungs and removing the heavy feeling I get from a joint. I also think it has other benefits. All in moderation of course.

 

[BongFu]

The sticky oils are proof enough. They condense on bongs, pipes, and inside your lungs. It's hard to beat the versatility of a doob, but I can feel it after smoking one. Worse with a RAW tube. Dry vaping to target mostly the terps has the opposite effect on me, so I save some cano whip hits for last.

It's well known that cannabis is harmful to the airway and lungs - demonstrated in multitudes of studies, although Weird denies it while not producing a single shred of scientific evidence to support this dubious and ridiculous claim. Again, if you forget his premise is flawed one could almost get sucked into the rest of his dribble. Bottom line, if you don't want to risk lung damage from using cannabis do not smoke it. There are far healthier ways of getting cannabinoids into your system.

 

[f-e]

Now could you please stay on topic or depart this thread. Oh and it's PhD, Ph.D. or DPhil..... not PHd.

This is my thread, and his input is welcome. I have said no more school yard shit. Others have blocked you or called you out. A moderator has spoke. Temporary post bans are not possible with this forum software. It's all or nothing. If you like having access to the members areas, I suggest you stop chasing Weird like he rejected you, and this insulting people on mass.


That really was far too diplomatic.







I would like to think that all the other funk in cannabis smoke, might see the silicone inhaled in a more manageable form. In reality, it's wishful thinking. Both plants suck it up and just store it for us to burn.

From a 'growing your own' prospective, a yield 28% larger, that brings 16% more oil, is bud that's 11% weaker. We are adding silicon to get weaker weed that's less healthy. Reported to taste bad and cause mild substrate problems.

28% is also a commercial wet-dream. Without regulation, many won't be able to resist sticking it in. This is bad news for consumers who smoke it. Some particulate based testing needs doing. To set realistic thresholds. Based on what's always in weed, which is the allowable amount. Verse what can be squeezed in, which is not necessary.

 

[Switcher56]

It's well known that cannabis is harmful to the airway and lungs - demonstrated in multitudes of studies, although Weird denies it while not producing a single shred of scientific evidence to support this dubious and ridiculous claim. Again, if you forget his premise is flawed one could almost get sucked into the rest of his dribble. Bottom line, if you don't want to risk lung damage from using cannabis do not smoke it. There are far healthier ways of getting cannabinoids into your system.

Chemical Farming & The Loss of Human Health - Dr. Zach Bush

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw16LPVnNco

Therefore, if you don't believe this guy because it is posted on the tube, what makes your references any more valuable/factual?!