crispy leaves late in flower, brown crispy spots on buds at harvest.

[GentleCaveman]

So how are bottled nutrients worse than adding poisons?

I didn't say anything about its being worse or better.

 

[cannabineer]

I didn't say anything about its being worse or better.

Then what does the bolded mean?

~snip~ Thats how I look at hydro growers. Yeah you can grow weed with mixing 88 bottles, guessing what it needs and chasing your tail. But you can just let plant do its thing thats evolved to do for thousands of years. You can't make thousands of years of evolution better with some bottles. If you can't make it better why don't just let it do its thing? Thats what I'm talking about when I say working to fail. I don't care about poison or whatever.

 

[GentleCaveman]

Then what does the bolded mean?

What I ment to say is "why do so much labor for bad weed, before even considering if it's bad for you or not"
Whole post is about organic to hydro comparison.

 

[Brock_Fawkin_Samson]

It is a basic principle of any honest merchant to disclose what additives and processes are in a product offered for sale. You are deliberately withholding this information from your mentioned wholesaler(s), which means your final customers are buying a product they have every reason to believe is ok but isn't. And your wholesalers are not given the info. So I conclude that you have set out to grow and profit from a product that you have intentionally fouled so it'll harm the customers, slowly, painfully but above all deniably. Why do you have such hatred for pot smokers?

What are your expectations of transparency?

I told the guy I grow this for exactly what I understand about PGRs which is this: "They make the bud denser and heavier, they might be harmful but there's no concrete evidence that they are, they are commonly used in agriculture but not on things you smoke and it's possible in theory that when you smoke pot grown with them it might, maybe, be bad for you." And he's like "Yeah, use it."

 

[GentleCaveman]

There is no nutrients that's gonna grow better plants than real food does. Same for pets, there is no pet food that's gonna grow healthier pets than real food. Same for us, people. There is no protein powder, carbohydrate powder or any supplemental food that's gonna grow healthier people than real food does. And this is completely normal, I have no idea what you guys think people are but we are still basically fucking monkeys. We are nowhere near being smart enough to create food that's gonna outperform thousands of years of evolution. Every living thing in world evolved to live in particular conditions. And eating lab-made food is not in to those conditions yet.

 

[Brock_Fawkin_Samson]

What I ment to say is "why do so much labor for bad weed, before even considering if it's bad for you or not"
Whole post is about organic to hydro comparison.

Well thought out and very scientific

There is no nutrients that's gonna grow better plants than real food does. Same for pets, there is no pet food that's gonna grow healthier pets than real food. Same for us, people. There is no protein powder, carbohydrate powder or any supplemental food that's gonna grow healthier people than real food does. And this is completely normal, I have no idea what you guys think people are but we are still basically fucking monkeys. Every living thing in world evolved to live in particular conditions. And eating lab-made food is not in to those conditions yet.

Lol this is gold.

 

[GentleCaveman]

Well thought out and very scientific



This is gold. I had to pause my Paul Harvey 8-track to write this comment. Going out and buying bananas as we speak.

Lol... To each his own..

Peeps need to wake the fuck up. lol

 

[Brock_Fawkin_Samson]

Peeps need to wake the fuck up. lol

Lmao, I fackin love ya brother, I was trolling ya a bit but you're alright, I got no hate lol

 

[GentleCaveman]

Lmao, I fackin love ya brother, I was trolling ya a bit but you're alright, I got no hate lol

I'm not telling people to start living in jungle bum ass naked and yell I love nature.. This is just reality, we can't outperform nature. It's a giant engine that's extremely complicated and we don't even know half of the parts yet. So we are not making it better anytime soon.

kisskiss brother, respect

 

[cannabineer]

What are your expectations of transparency?

The same as the state's. We have regulations regarding what can and cannot be used on Cannabis.

https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/cannabis/cannot_use_pesticide.pdf

California specifically disallows paclobutrazol and chlormequat. While chlormequat isn't on the above list, it is not approved at the Federal level for any produce intended for human or animal consumption. I don't want to smoke that, awarely or not.

 

[cannabineer]

I'm not telling people to start living in jungle bum ass naked and yell I love nature.. This is just reality, we can't outperform nature. It's a giant engine that's extremely complicated and we don't even know half of the parts yet. So we are not making it better anytime soon.

kisskiss brother, respect

What is the difference between a natural and an unnatural grow environment? Can you quantify how much better soil does than optimal hydro?

 

[Brock_Fawkin_Samson]

The same as the state's. We have regulations regarding what can and cannot be used on Cannabis.

https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/cannabis/cannot_use_pesticide.pdf

California specifically disallows paclobutrazol and chlormequat. While chlormequat isn't on the above list, it is not approved at the Federal level for any produce intended for human or animal consumption. I don't want to smoke that, awarely or not.

But the argument you made was about transparency, no? If the client asks for it, as was the case?

The tobacco industry blocked legislation with lobbyist money, the excuse could have been any.

You kinda went at the guy here I thought after he explained he talked with the client and the client asked for it. To me that's pretty transparent.

You are deliberately withholding this information from your mentioned wholesaler(s)... ...And your wholesalers are not given the info...

I told the guy I grow this for exactly what I understand about PGRs... it's possible in theory that when you smoke pot grown with them it might, maybe, be bad for you." And he's like "Yeah, use it."

Idk about either of the chemicals.

 

[cannabineer]

But the argument you made was about transparency, no? If the client asks for it, as was the case?

The tobacco industry blocked legislation with lobbyist money, the excuse could have been any.

You kinda went at the guy here I thought after he explained he talked with the client and the client asked for it. To me that's pretty transparent.




Idk about either of the chemicals.

The bolded strongly suggests to me that you are in error about his informing the wholesaler, let alone the end users.

I didn't ask him if he wants to be poisoned. Maybe I should have just to be sure, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't. I wonder if he asks his customers.
Fortunately for everyone concerned, there is absolutely no hard evidence that residual PGRs in cannabis, when smoked, cause harm.
Quite a bit of paraphrased garbage from a few folks cherry picking the bits from a few not quite relevant studies to support their scaremongering but that's about the extent of it and there's the evidence that some PGRs when burned turn into nitrosamines - but that said if you're worried about nitrosamines in your body forget about the PGR weed and cut your bacon intake down a bit.
Maybe we should cut and paste this thread into a PGR debate thread, it's starting to feel like it's in the wrong place.

 

[Brock_Fawkin_Samson]

The bolded strongly suggests to me that you are in error about his informing the wholesaler, let alone the end users.

Lol

I told the guy I grow this for exactly what I understand about PGRs... it's possible in theory that when you smoke pot grown with them it might, maybe, be bad for you." And he's like "Yeah, use it."

Well this has been fruitful lol

On another note...

What levels are toxic and what are the symptoms? Are we debating something with the same amount of health risk as breathing city air or country methane? Maybe more on the scale of a biggie order of fries a day? Possibly the same health risk as the microwaves produced when using cellphones?

Just link the studies so we can better understand your position. Maybe a phase diagram. Are they water soluble? When oxidized do they display different properties?

 

[cannabineer]

Lol

Well this has been fruitful lol

On another note...

What levels are toxic and what are the symptoms? Are we debating something with the same amount of health risk as breathing city air or country methane? Maybe more on the scale if a biggie order of fries a day? Possibly the same health risk as the microwaves produced when using cellphones?

Just link the studies so we can better understand your position. Maybe a phase diagram.

LOL that is an excellent phalanx of dishonest questions from the Big Tobacco playbook. But this isn't my first rodeo, and I chose not to work for Big Tobacco when given the chance. I ate garden-variety prevaricators like you for breakfast and shat grad students. You're letting the troll side down, son.

 

[Brock_Fawkin_Samson]

LOL that is an excellent phalanx of dishonest questions from the Big Tobacco playbook. But this isn't my first rodeo, and I chose not to work for Big Tobacco when given the chance. I ate garden-variety prevaricators like you for breakfast and shat grad students. You're letting the troll side down, son.

Lol I applaud your extensive vocabulary. Your thesis defense must have been a joy to sit through. I've never been insulted so intellectually lol I do think my method was a valid way to cut to the crux of the issue which is, no data. As someone as learned as yourself I'd think you'd respect data over speculation every time. I'm not debating the possibility of a chemical being toxic or not but this debate has morphed into that, from the original, which encompassed you going after the guy for not disclosing the use of PGRs when it was plain to see you just missed the post where he explained the client asked for it. If the chemicals are toxic then so be it, but you're defending this based on what studies? Are they translatable (remember, you're a post doc)? It seems more plausible to me that you've spent a little too much time in your ivory tower and your only conditioned impulse is to save face because you are used to being right and admitting you were wrong (even with a little thing like a missed post) would "just cripple" your academic ego. I asked legit questions and made legit points. All I got was insults and change of topic. Not impressed so far teach.

 

[cannabineer]

Lol I applaud your extensive vocabulary. Your thesis defense must have been a joy to sit through. I've never been insulted so intellectually lol I do think my method was a valid way to cut to the crux of the issue which is, no data. As someone as learned as yourself I'd think you'd respect data over speculation every time. I'm not debating the possibility of a chemical being toxic or not but this debate has morphed into that, from the original, which encompassed you going after the guy for not disclosing the use of PGRs when it was plain to see you just missed the post where he explained the client asked for it. If the chemicals are toxic then so be it, but you're defending this based on what studies? Are they translatable (remember, you're a post doc)? It seems more plausible to me that you've spent a little too much time in your ivory tower and your only conditioned impulse is to save face because you are used to being right and admitting you were wrong (even with a little thing like a missed post) would "just cripple" your academic ego. I asked legit questions and made legit points. All I got was insults and change of topic. Not impressed so far teach.

Your so-called legit questions are anglerfish. You ask questions of epidemiology that are famously unanswerable. In order to get the data, one would have to do the studies, and someone would have to fund them. This is how Big Tobacco did it, and you're playing from their playbook with near perfect pitch.

Thank you for the rest of the post which is personal insult (if not as elegant as I have come to expect), and that means you care. Just be sure to spell my name right.

 

[Brock_Fawkin_Samson]

The same as the state's. We have regulations regarding what can and cannot be used on Cannabis.

https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/cannabis/cannot_use_pesticide.pdf

California specifically disallows paclobutrazol and chlormequat. While chlormequat isn't on the above list, it is not approved at the Federal level for any produce intended for human or animal consumption. I don't want to smoke that, awarely or not.

Just to run some numbers and get an idea...


200lb guy = ~91kg


91kg × (0.04mg/kg ADI)
=
3.64mg ADI chlormequat


91kg × (0.10mg/kg ADI)
=
9.1mg ADI paclobutrazol

If this guy smokes a gram a day he can't have more than .36% of his product be chlormequat and can't have more than .91% of his product be paclobutrazol or he'd be over his ADI.

I wonder what MJ tests at when these chemicals have been used. Is there test results by chance? The largest remnant of the chemical I found was 1.19mg/kg on mushrooms, but maybe I'm misinterpreting. If the most un-ideal food on here were to actually translate to MJ, that 200lb guy would have to eat/smoke 3+kg a day to hit the chlormequat ADI, correct (3.64mg ÷ 1.19mg/kg ~3.05kg)?


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15385216/

 

[xtsho]

The same as the state's. We have regulations regarding what can and cannot be used on Cannabis.

https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/cannabis/cannot_use_pesticide.pdf

California specifically disallows paclobutrazol and chlormequat. While chlormequat isn't on the above list, it is not approved at the Federal level for any produce intended for human or animal consumption. I don't want to smoke that, awarely or not.

I'm pretty sure that crap is banned here in Oregon as well for legal cannabis.

Regardless, that weed looks nasty. I wouldn't smoke it and if I was a customer I wouldn't buy it.

 

[Brock_Fawkin_Samson]

Your so-called legit questions are anglerfish. You ask questions of epidemiology that are famously unanswerable. In order to get the data, one would have to do the studies, and someone would have to fund them. This is how Big Tobacco did it, and you're playing from their playbook with near perfect pitch.

Thank you for the rest of the post which is personal insult (if not as elegant as I have come to expect), and that means you care. Just be sure to spell my name right.

I say the same to you. In order to defend a speculation one would have to do the studies. I'm being objective, you're being subjective. There is no data, that's the only reality. We can bitch at each other till we're blue in the face but neither stance can be progressed without the data (we both painstakenly know this). To be clear, I'm not saying that's it's not toxic after combusted, I'm saying there's no data to say one way or the other. That's my point. I'm not saying I'm right but I'm not saying anyone's right. I don't think it's sound to berate someone on a speculation when there is no data. And again this is a secondary argument you made up when I asked about how the OP wasn't being transparent.