BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
no, i give them stalks and fan leaves that i do need......that, i wouldn't even think about giving any of it to them....i would just burn it
crispy leaves late in flower, brown crispy spots on buds at harvest.
- Thread starter TheGreatSouthern
- Start date
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
smokin that bammer lol ya buddy, wrapped in foil, the good ol days lol
Tasted like shit but got you where you needed to go
Last edited:
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
Must be herbivores, thought you were talking about passing your dog the joint lol
Boatguy
Well-Known Member
You still havent produced any reason why those products need to be used. Is it really that advantageous? Is there a good argument for their use?First of all there is no data. So we don't know if the chemicals act as toxins or not. If they did, and if they had anywhere close to the same effect as the ingested studies, we see just how absurd the amount of material needing to be consumed to reach toxicity threshold really is.
I've run the numbers and with the worst case scenario that I've seen documented (mushrooms) you'd have to injest about 90% of your body weight before you hit acute toxicity levels. With the best case scenario its over 26× your body weight! When people are this concerned with that level of toxicity it makes me question how else they live. Do they apply that same rigidity to every harmful substance and scenario they experience? I doubt not. I think it's more plausible there's a superfluous fear being over represented. And if we take into account that there is no data we can further reveal our hysteria. If you allow the fact that eating 90% of your body weight of something is toxic, if you let that fact rule whether or not you use a product, you probably shouldn't use any products ever. I'm sure if I ate 178lbs of pizza it'd be toxic, but that doesn't stop me from eating a few slices.
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
I don't think we were debating necessities, rather personal techniques and procedures.
Is there an argument against their use? We are bound by the same reality that there is no data. So as you say, show me why I need, I will say, show me why I can't?
I don't even use em. Didn't know what they were till today. But its the logic that I'm defending.
BudmanTX
Well-Known Member
think the word "Death" comes to mind....
Boatguy
Well-Known Member
I see some here using pool shock in their hydro. I would rather smoke the hydro without the super shock. I dont need evidence.
Good luck with whatever point you are trying to make
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
Not really at all. No data. The data that is around says, finally, at 90% to 2,650% of your body weight you'll reach acute toxicity threshold. If you're worried about these levels of toxicity, you really can't eat anything.
ADI is 3.3% -100% of your bodyweight. That's per day. If you weigh 200lbs, that's an acceptable daily intake of 6.6lbs - 200lbs. I might use 2g a day if I'm lucky so I personally wouldn't be worried, but that's me.
2g ÷ 6.6lbs = .0006 or .06% of my acceptable daily intake.
Last edited:
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
Tell me where you're lost and I'll help you through.
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
Here's the residual chemical found in certain produce in units of mg/kg.
Here's where I got the .04mg/kg of bodyweight to find personal ADI. As well as personal acute toxicity threshold.
Mushrooms had the highest residual at 1.19mg chemical per 1kg produce. So that's where I got my "worst case scenario" from.
If the chemical was used in MJ cultivation, and if the most toxic produce could be a good representation as what to expect in terms of the residue chemical still in the MJ at harvest then we can find a therotecical ADI (even though there is no data and this is all just speculation) for MJ.
200lb guy equals about 91kg.
91kg × (.04mg/kg bodyweight ADI)
=
3.64mg ADI
3.64mg ÷ 1.19mg/kg
=
3.05kg ~6.6lbs
I used this same process when figuring for the less toxic examples, thus the range from 90% - 2,650%.
How I got 90%...
200 ÷ 2.2 = 91kg
91kg × 1.06 = 96.46mg
96.46mg ÷ 1.19mg/kg = 81kg
81kg × 2.2 = 178lbs
178 ÷ 200 = .89 or 89%
Here's where I got the .04mg/kg of bodyweight to find personal ADI. As well as personal acute toxicity threshold.
Mushrooms had the highest residual at 1.19mg chemical per 1kg produce. So that's where I got my "worst case scenario" from.
If the chemical was used in MJ cultivation, and if the most toxic produce could be a good representation as what to expect in terms of the residue chemical still in the MJ at harvest then we can find a therotecical ADI (even though there is no data and this is all just speculation) for MJ.
200lb guy equals about 91kg.
91kg × (.04mg/kg bodyweight ADI)
=
3.64mg ADI
3.64mg ÷ 1.19mg/kg
=
3.05kg ~6.6lbs
I used this same process when figuring for the less toxic examples, thus the range from 90% - 2,650%.
How I got 90%...
200 ÷ 2.2 = 91kg
91kg × 1.06 = 96.46mg
96.46mg ÷ 1.19mg/kg = 81kg
81kg × 2.2 = 178lbs
178 ÷ 200 = .89 or 89%
Last edited:
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
That entire example and calculation is irrelevant and only to help show the reality of the situation that you folks have allowed yourselves to become entwined.
You think it's bad because of studies that aren't translatable. So I'm entertaining that premise with some logic to help put the risk into perspective. My reasons won't offer true discovery but I have to speak your language. The fact that you think they are bad chemicals based on studies that aren't translatable already nullifies any logical debate. So I went down the rabbit hole with ya even though I know I'm not proving anything or supporting the reality. Which is we don't know. So to have a strong opinion one way or the other is pretty unintelligent.
That's all I've been trying to say. We don't know, so because we don't know, what good is telling someone yes they should or no they shouldn't?
You think it's bad because of studies that aren't translatable. So I'm entertaining that premise with some logic to help put the risk into perspective. My reasons won't offer true discovery but I have to speak your language. The fact that you think they are bad chemicals based on studies that aren't translatable already nullifies any logical debate. So I went down the rabbit hole with ya even though I know I'm not proving anything or supporting the reality. Which is we don't know. So to have a strong opinion one way or the other is pretty unintelligent.
That's all I've been trying to say. We don't know, so because we don't know, what good is telling someone yes they should or no they shouldn't?
Last edited:
TheGreatSouthern
Well-Known Member
Yeah it's unbelievable what a world class douche bag someone can turn into with the anonymity afforded by a screen, a keyboard and a dark room. I grew the same strain for seven years with mostly organic nutes. If I wasn't stinking like weed I was stinking like fish. I run PGRs one time at the request of one buyer, ask a question about the odd looking buds and all of a sudden I'm, what was it? A bottom feeding something or other.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
To the bolded: That is pernicious illogic. It specifically discredits legitimate caution. The effect of these substances upon combustion/inhalation is not known. Thus it is reasonable to allow that there might be a real concern. This is not tantamount to your insinuated statement that these are bad chemicals. We do not know. What is your dog in this hunt, that you must work so hard to bias the discussion?
He must be a shill for big tobacco, after all he does boast about being in his dotage. This was their exact argument. I know of zero products that when ingested are poisons but when combusted and inhaled are safe.
He is a classic troll. He tried to start shit with gentlecaveman and when he couldn't he started this specious argument.
Hopefully he smokes what he's recommending to others. I've seen far too many people on ventilators from mycological infections who subsequently died from them, much less inhalation poisons.
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
Where is your fear coming from? If I'm biasing the discussion so is everyone else. You berated the OP for not disclosing what was in his product to the consumer, which he did, and I called you out on. You then proceeded to change the debate to a question of toxicity based on zero studies. Who's biasing what?
Last edited:
TheGreatSouthern
Well-Known Member
Out of everything you've said today brother, that's the one thing you got right. We can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that residual PBZ in cannabis is safe but we cannot say what happens to the fraction of that PBZ that gets burned. It might be harmful and it might be in concentrations high enough to actually do harm. Nobody seems to know any more than that.
I knew you'd be back.
SPLFreak808
Well-Known Member
Be careful with logic like that..First of all there is no data. So we don't know if the chemicals act as toxins or not. If they did, and if they had anywhere close to the same effect as the ingested studies, we see just how absurd the amount of material needing to be consumed to reach toxicity threshold really is.
I've run the numbers and with the worst case scenario that I've seen documented (mushrooms) you'd have to injest about 90% of your body weight before you hit acute toxicity levels. With the best case scenario its over 26× your body weight! When people are this concerned with that level of toxicity it makes me question how else they live. Do they apply that same rigidity to every harmful substance and scenario they experience? I doubt not. I think it's more plausible there's a superfluous fear being over represented. And if we take into account that there is no data we can further reveal our hysteria. If you allow the fact that eating 90% of your body weight of something is toxic, if you let that fact rule whether or not you use a product, you probably shouldn't use any products ever. I'm sure if I ate 178lbs of pizza it'd be toxic, but that doesn't stop me from eating a few slices.
Nicotine is potentially fatal at 60mg, we already know that daily ingestion/inhalation of .0001mg will contribute to long term negative health effects regardless of staying under toxicity levels.
There is a very big difference between substances that are poisonous at 1 ppb vs poisonous substances at 30,000 ppm
Boatguy
Well-Known Member
His products problems were pretty obvious. Did you see the pics?
Brock_Fawkin_Samson
Active Member
Lol
How many do you know that get more toxic when combusted? Are you eating 178lbs of weed in a day?
Last edited: