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

Brock_Fawkin_Samson

Brock_Fawkin_Samson

Active Member
SPLFreak808 said:
If you thought i was swinging at you than you aren't very bright... We aren't testing chemicals on monkeys & mice just for fun genius.
Click to expand...
Swinging at a pitch is what I was going with. No shit different toxins have different toxicity thresholds. (Its kinda the point in measuring) No one is debating one toxins toxicity over another. Of course a 1ppb toxin will be more severe than 30k ppm toxin, but my point is, that's the whole reason there's a difference in threshold values.

I'm not debating one toxin vs another, I'm debating the ability to reach toxicity threshold levels via casually using a product that upon heavy use (2g/day, if translatable) using the current data available is still only .06% (not even a tenth of a percent) of your ADI, or your acceptable daily intake.

Go ahead, compare it to nicotine, but it's not. Just like they aren't mushrooms. If you're going to use studies and data that aren't scientifically translatable to form your opinion on the chemical, then I figured I'd play out your premise and put the risk in perspective, although there is no data and any type of calculation is only speculation (what my entire post was about that you quoted). I simply gave a worst case scenario (that wasn't that bad) to show how (using your logic) you were being hysterical despite that there is zero evidence that combusting will somehow increase toxicity levels, which I've never known to happen (not saying it can't).
 
SPLFreak808

SPLFreak808

Well-Known Member
Brock_Fawkin_Samson said:
Swinging at a pitch is what I was going with. No shit different toxins have different toxicity thresholds. (Its kinda the point in measuring) No one is debating one toxins toxicity over another. Of course a 1ppb toxin will be more severe than 30k ppm toxin, but my point is, that's the whole reason there's a difference in threshold values.

I'm not debating one toxin vs another, I'm debating the ability to reach toxicity threshold levels via casually using a product that upon heavy use (2g/day, if translatable) using the current data available is still only .06% (not even a tenth of a percent) of your ADI, or your acceptable daily intake.

Go ahead, compare it to nicotine, but it's not. Just like they aren't mushrooms. If you're going to use studies and data that aren't scientifically translatable to form your opinion on the chemical, then I figured I'd play out your premise and put the risk in perspective, although there is no data and any type of calculation is only speculation (what my entire post was about that you quoted). I simply gave a worst case scenario (that wasn't that bad) to show how (using your logic) you were being hysterical despite that there is zero evidence that combusting will somehow increase toxicity levels, which I've never known to happen (not saying it can't).
Click to expand...
If you are actually serious about defending this stuff on a forum with many medical growers than go read the link below, Paclobutrazol was tested on rats,dogs,rabbits ect through inhalation,skin & diet exposure with enough negative results for a general conclusion on human exposure.

https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/risk/rcd/paclobut.pdf

Page.3 - this is all i need to know, risking the long term effect is ignorant
The absence of additional data to the contrary, paclobutrazol has the potential to cause similar effects in
humans.

Not sure why the op didn't include that alot of those rats died within a 48hr period of physical exposure.

I'll gladly sit here in a friendly manner and take any research you might have that said paclobutrazol is non-toxic to humans by inhalation or that it can't be found in the stalk or leaves, it's already known to bottleneck terpene production in cannabis which has me dumbfounded why a customer would want that, not not surprised why a grower would use it.
 
Brock_Fawkin_Samson

Brock_Fawkin_Samson

Active Member
SPLFreak808 said:
If you are actually serious about defending this stuff on a forum with many medical growers than go read the link below, Paclobutrazol was tested on rats,dogs,rabbits ect through inhalation,skin & diet exposure with enough negative results for a general conclusion on human exposure.

https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/risk/rcd/paclobut.pdf

Page.3 - this is all i need to know, risking the long term effect is ignorant
The absence of additional data to the contrary, paclobutrazol has the potential to cause similar effects in
humans.

Not sure why the op didn't include that alot of those rats died within a 48hr period of physical exposure.

I'll gladly sit here in a friendly manner and take any research you might have that said paclobutrazol is non-toxic to humans by inhalation or that it can't be found in the stalk or leaves, it's already known to bottleneck terpene production in cannabis which has me dumbfounded why a customer would want that, not not surprised why a grower would use it.
Click to expand...
Pac is less toxic than chlormequat. Thus the difference in acute toxicity thresholds. All my pseudo calculations were utilizing the more toxic of the 2. If I were to talk about Pac instead of chlormequat the numbers only get more absurd.

They may be toxic, but to reach the maximum daily limit where no ill effects have been observed is over 6.6lbs a day for a 200lb guy, or over 178lbs to finally reach acute toxicity levels. That's chlormequat. You'd have to consume much more Pac residue MJ to reach its acute toxicity threshold limit.

No one is debating whether there will be residual left. I've only been obliging your irrational logic to demonstrate even at the tested levels its pretty hysterical to assume its going to have any negative or noticeable effect at the rate that we typically consume.

Furthermore this hysteria is derived from studies that aren't even translatable!
 
Last edited:
T

TheGreatSouthern

Well-Known Member
Boatguy said:
If the pics were just a glimpse of this 190oz harvest, i assume you have a pic of at least one non disaster?
Click to expand...
Nope. Sorry. the whole point was to see if anyone knew what the brown bits were. There's probably 20 grams of bud rot across the whole grow. You'd only whinge about how shitty it looks anyway and tell me to stop poisoning toddlers, the sick and the elderly so I won't go take one for you. And I screwed up the math, it's going to work out to about an 80oz harvest. Don't know how I got 190 in my head, I think I got 190 grams off the first plant or something.
 
T

TheGreatSouthern

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
It is a massive misrepresentation to describe poison as mere garbage.
Click to expand...
It's a bigger misrepresentation to spew fear mongering when there's not a shred of evidence to suggest PGR weed is harmful. Look at Australia for example. Most weed on the black market in Aus at least in the major cities has been PGR for at least 3 years. The Bandidos, Rebels and Comancheros MCs control the whole market and they pretty much mandated PGRs ages ago because it makes them more money, it's everywhere. No reports of anyone getting sick from it. Not even anyone suggesting that some ailment they've got might have come from PGR weed. Nothing.
No amount of evidence is sufficient for some people though, I mean look at the guy in charge in America, he still thinks climate change isn't real.
 
GentleCaveman

GentleCaveman

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
What is the difference between a natural and an unnatural grow environment? Can you quantify how much better soil does than optimal hydro?
Click to expand...
I can't quantify how much better soil does than optimal hydro. I don't think there is units for that to compare in quantities. But I can simplify it.

If growing weed was scratching your ear. Soil would be scratching your ear with your closest hand, and Hydro would be trying to scratch your ear with your pinkie toe while staying balanced on handstand. Effectiveness of the scratch could be the same if you did everything perfectly but nor the efficency or effectiveness could be better.

The way you wanna go with depends on your needs. Do you wanna scratch your ear in most effective and efficent way? Or maybe you don't care about the result, you just wanna over-complicate it so you can feel like you acomplished something at the end?
 
Last edited:
R

Ryante55

Well-Known Member
Brock_Fawkin_Samson said:
Swinging at a pitch is what I was going with. No shit different toxins have different toxicity thresholds. (Its kinda the point in measuring) No one is debating one toxins toxicity over another. Of course a 1ppb toxin will be more severe than 30k ppm toxin, but my point is, that's the whole reason there's a difference in threshold values.

I'm not debating one toxin vs another, I'm debating the ability to reach toxicity threshold levels via casually using a product that upon heavy use (2g/day, if translatable) using the current data available is still only .06% (not even a tenth of a percent) of your ADI, or your acceptable daily intake.

Go ahead, compare it to nicotine, but it's not. Just like they aren't mushrooms. If you're going to use studies and data that aren't scientifically translatable to form your opinion on the chemical, then I figured I'd play out your premise and put the risk in perspective, although there is no data and any type of calculation is only speculation (what my entire post was about that you quoted). I simply gave a worst case scenario (that wasn't that bad) to show how (using your logic) you were being hysterical despite that there is zero evidence that combusting will somehow increase toxicity levels, which I've never known to happen (not saying it can't).
Click to expand...
2g a day is heavy use?!....I may have a problem haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top