Sr. Verde's: Concentrate Corner

productbig_170_0_1329745985cx_good_pill_to_swallow.jpg
 
Matt Rize said:
No, this CA law, also known as the meth lab law, is applied to bho extraction, successfully, in court.

Section 11379.6(a) states: "Except as otherwise provided by law, every person who compounds, converts, produces, derives, processes, or prepares, either directly or indirectly by chemical extraction or independently by means of chemical synthesis, any controlled substance - shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or seven years and by a fine up to $50,000"

The clubs sell bho because they want $ and 'tane is all the rage right now. Smart dispensaries, like PIM, do not sell butane extracts because that is technically illegal. 99% of dispensaries do not label their BHO as a butane extract for legal reasons.

My experiences with the two big dispensaries in the county involve being told specifically to never say the word butane, and to lie to the press about how BHO is made, calling it an ice water hash for the reporter.

The good people at Tamisium won't ship their extractors to CA because of this law. They also won't do public demos in the state because of this law.
Click to expand...

Tamisium will sell to any place in the world but due to the fact that we operate out of the state of texas and cross state lines when we ship out the systems, we avoid selling to anyone that implies that they will be using the extractor to create a federally controlled substance. Anyone that drinks while driving or smokes pot can still be a herbalist and extractor. I dont see any reason why we cant sell to you just because you smoke pot or live in a state where it is legal or even run a store that sells concentrates. But I cant cross the line for guys that specifically state they will be using our extractor to create a substance that has legal consequences that are right up there with cocaine and heroine in our home state of Texas not to mention the federal laws. Who is to say that person is not a DEA agent trying to get us to implicate ourselves in a felony act of facilitating a felony if that is a mystery law we are not aware of. Makes since.
As far as I am concerned I do not equate the use of a extraction apparatus that does or does not use butane as a criminal act. If that were the case, every food flavoring, fragrance of commercially produced edible oil created with butane would be a felony. If you read the law about butane closely you will see that the use of butane in a CLANDESTINE lab is a felony when that lab produces a illegal product. Is a concentrate illegal? Is this a clandestine lab? Is butane illegal? If I lived in california and had the money I not hestiate to set a precidence case. Since California does not have a laboratory permitting process there is essentially not going to be a lab with a permit. So every lab can be considered CLANDESTINE. Who determines if that lab is permitted to run or not is going to be the county it operates in. I think factors like location, safety and the type products being manufactured are the focus. Schools, apartments are obvious off limits. Illegal drugs by state law are out.
In Texas where we operate our lab, we have a permit and are therefore not clandestine. To have a lab we have to account for our materials, solvent and glassware. In the event that something is missing from our inventory we must be able to account for it. The reasoning for this is because the narcotics dept wants to know that a piece of equipment is not being utilized in a unsafe place or that it is not being use to make an illegal drug. We also have to have a consent to inspect form on file with the Dept of Public Safety which allows them to come unannounced for a routine inspection of our files and facility. This is typical for any lab that can or wants to produce products that may be consumed or used by the public, especially if that lab could be used to produce illegal drugs. I look at it as a way they created for us to operate versus telling us we cant. I appreciate that extra effort. I am sure the same goes for cars being built that will be driven in public or airplanes or any other public safety interest. It is not always about hindering a person from operating.
The proble with california is that there is not set process for inspection or operation of a lab. Call to get a permit and you will see the education level of the officials that are not in place to set up labs. The answer I got when calling california to open a lab was, " you want a permit to open a meth lab, I dont think we have one of those "
To allow just anyone to have a lab with flammable solvents or toxic solvents like the many found in labs, would be asking for trouble. Now all the sudden you have these cowboys out there with minimal education running fairly complex and relatively dangerous processes in the wrong places. A lab can be dangerous and should be controlled. On the other hand, in a state that has no controls I dont see why any safe lab that produces legal products with a safe apparatus in a safe location could not use butane to do so. As a matter of fact I would say there are literally hundreds of them in operation now producing biofuel, essential oils and countless types of consumables.
 
You also may be interested in this swiss study that was started due to the concerns of the use of butane as a propellant for spray cooking oils and other consumable aerosols that use butane as a propellant.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out26_en.pdf


EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL XXIV
CONSUMER POLICY AND CONSUMER HEALTH PROTECTION
Directorate B - Scientific opinions on health matters

Unit B3 - Management of scientific committees II

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON FOOD

SCF/CS/ADD/MsAd/178 final
29/03/99

Opinion on
propane, butane and iso-butane as propellant gases
for vegetable oil-based aerosol cooking sprays and water-based emulsion
cooking sprays

(expressed on 24 March 1999)

Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Bruxelles/Wetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium - Office: B 232 6/37.
Telephone: direct line (+32-2)295 81 10/ 296 59 48/ 296 48 70, switchboard 299.11.11. Fax: (+32 2) 299 48 91.
Telex: COMEU B 21877. Telegraphic address: COMEUR Brussels.

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/scf/index_en.html

2

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON FOOD
SCF/CS/ADD/MsAd/178 Final
Opinion on
propane, butane and iso-butane as propellant gases
for vegetable oil-based aerosol cooking sprays and water-based emulsion cooking sprays

(expressed on 24 March 1999)

Terms of Reference

To advise the Commission on the safety in use of propane, butane and iso-butane as
hydrocarbon propellant gases for vegetable oil-based aerosol cooking sprays and for waterbased
emulsion cooking sprays.

Background

When baking items such as cakes, biscuits etc., or when frying other food products that are
likely to stick to the utensils, a fat film is required between the pan and the food products to
achieve the necessary release of the food when the process is completed. Such a fat film can be
applied by spraying an aerosol of food release oils or emulsions. A propellant gas is necessary
to force the release liquid through the nozzle of the dispenser. To obtain an appropriate
coverage of the frying or baking utensil a substantial pressure is required.
On the basis of Directive 95/2/EC.
1 the only acceptable gases to be used in connection with

foodstuffs are carbon dioxide, argon, helium, nitrogen, nitrogen dioxide and oxygen. However
none of these gases can produce the necessary pressure in the spray to obtain an homogeneous
distribution of the fat film on the utensil. Butane, isobutane and propane are technological
alternative hydrocarbon propellant gases. Chemical specification data of these propellants were
provided to the Committee.
2

Under the provisions contained in Directive 89/107/EEC
3, the United Kingdom and Sweden

approved a temporary national authorisation for the use of these gases for use in cooking
sprays.

Safety assessment

The Committee has not considered propane, butane and isobutane as propellants but they have
been evaluated in the context of their use as extraction solvents for which the SCF agreed an
acceptable residue level per substance of
1mg /kg in food consumed.4

The Committee was provided with residue data of the propellants after use in cooking
representative foods. The data show that total hydrocarbons are present in the prepared foods
in amounts
below 0.1 mg residual hydrocarbon/kg cooked food. In most cases the amounts are

substantially less than 0.1 mg/kg food. It is also shown that propane is present in lower
concentrations in both the propellant blends and in the cooked foods compared with the two
other hydrocarbons.
3

Effect of Time and Temperature on Propellant Residues

The hydrocarbon propellants used are, at all ambient indoor temperatures and at normal
atmospheric pressure, in the gaseous state. The least volatile of the group, n-butane, has a
boiling point of –0.5°C at 20°C ; The others boil at significantly lower temperatures.
Accordingly also the hydrocarbons that are dissolved in fat or oil at ambient temperatures are
present in the vapour state.
In the containers (aerosol dispensers) the propellants are present in the liquid state but when
the content of the container is discharged, the released hydrocarbon propellant mostly
vapourizes into the atmosphere leaving only a small amount dissolved in the cooking spray
concentrate which is deposited on the surface of the cooking utensil.
The residual levels of hydrocarbon propellants in the water-based sprays would be expected to
be less than those in the oil-based products because of the their low solubility in water. This is
confirmed by the analytical data on the levels of residues detected in the cooked food models.
Since the solubility of the hydrocarbon propellant gases in the concentrate decreases with
temperature the propellants are expelled from the cooking spray during heating. In most cases
temperatures of 200 to 220°C are reached. The limit of solubility of the propellants in the spray
concentrate at these temperatures is reached in the time it normally takes to prepare the fried
or baked foods and thus the propellant residues are reduced to a very low level during the time
of preparation of the foods. In addition during frying or baking, the food and cooking spray
concentrate are mixed and a portion of any residual hydrocarbon propellant will be transferred
to the food. This will dilute the hydrocarbon to a concentration much less than its limit of
solubility in the concentrate. No reaction of the hydrocarbon propellant gases with food
components at cooking temperatures is to be expected.

Safety in use

The Committee was provided with information on flammability and wishes to draw attention to
the fact that the oil-based aerosols may carry some risk of flammability.
5,6

Conclusion

In view of the low residue level of propellant gases the SCF has no toxicological concerns
about the use of water-based emulsion sprays and oil-based aerosol sprays for baking and
frying purposes, which contain propane, butane or iso-butane.

References

1. European Union. European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC on food additives
other than colours and sweeteners, February 20, 1995. Official Journal L061, 18.03.1995.
2. Specifications on iso-butane, propane, butane, provided by MAFF, Joint Food Safety and
Standards Group, Additives and Novel Foods Division, London, U.K.
4
3. Council Directive 89/107/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
concerning food additives authorized for use in foodstuffs intended for human consumption.
December 21, 1998. Official Journal L 040, 11.02.1989.
4. Commission of the European Communities. Second report on Extraction Solvents. Reports
of the Scientific Committee for Food, Twenty-ninth Series. (OPOCE, Luxembourg, 1992,
Cat. N° EUR 14482).
5. Flammability of water-based aerosol cooking oils. Report by the « Laboratory of the
Governement Chemist, » Teddington, U.K., January 24,1997
6. Safety examination of water-based aerosol cooking sprays, Report by the « Health & Safety
Executive », London, UK, February 2, 1997
 
Take it for what it's worth, but my last tutorial went well. Shit almost hit the fan w the dude who owns the pad over where I got picked up and dropped off. I had like 3 tanks a 20lbs tank, 5lbs, and my baby research vessel which all my work has been done on. Well dude wasn't happy, so they typed in legal marijuana extractions in Ca.on google. It brought my video up and somewhat diffused the situation. They knew I talked a big talk, but when google comes through for you, it makes things kind of worth it. :)
 
I have been using pure trichnones, the powder that u use to make bubble bag hash, 150 gms of this yielded 34 grams erl, never seen it come out the tube so dark though wondering y, I used 2 oz. pure bud an got 10 grams very clear stuffbut the bubble bag powder is still a better yield but very dark, in the dish, thin layer can be seen through light as golden clear, but not as clear as bud will post pics later.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Matt Rize View Post No, this CA law, also known as the meth lab law, is applied to bho extraction, successfully, in court. Section 11379.6(a) states: "Except as otherwise provided by law, every person who compounds, converts, produces, derives, processes, or prepares, either directly or indirectly by chemical extraction or independently by means of chemical synthesis, any controlled substance - shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or seven years and by a fine up to $50,000" The clubs sell bho because they want $ and 'tane is all the rage right now. Smart dispensaries, like PIM, do not sell butane extracts because that is technically illegal. 99% of dispensaries do not label their BHO as a butane extract for legal reasons. My experiences with the two big dispensaries in the county involve being told specifically to never say the word butane, and to lie to the press about how BHO is made, calling it an ice water hash for the reporter." Now to answer the statement made, CO2 extracts are able to be obtained at dispensaries due to several reasons. First the law is not clear on chemicals. It falls under a food grade extraction since CO2 is considered a direct food ingredient by the F.D.A. and is in all aspects a supercritical fluid extraction using carbon dioxide is fit for human consumption when dealing w edibles. Cinnamon, clove, garlic, etc. is some foods used and since the solvent leaves no toxic residue or inflict the taste, it is a high standard extraction most method widely accepted(unless your reading this thread). I couldn't stress the importance of going green, would have on the green you extract from, and almost open your senses to bho and how easy it is to notice it from a concentrate derived using CO2. Maybe someone will try the methods I outlined here before, then report there findings. After the first confirmations will arise the pioneers, then the trend setters, followed by the late bloomers and baby boomers. When you going to catch up on this centuries way to extract? The shit's so old, it's new. Other factors include it's non-flammable, doesn't increase in the greenhouse gas...only utilizes the co2 already made from other industrial processes as a bi-product. Leaves no chemical residue, non-toxic, non-flammable, and when used w a matrix such as mmj, the qualifications for being medical aren't to far from this point. It's why I employ stainless steel extractors. It doesn't participate in any reaction for any reason. Carbonic Acid is a mutha even for being a weak acid will dissolve metals into the extract if any other material is used. Heavy metals are toxic, so if you dont use stainless steel vessels for scfe the odds are you will deposit them into the oil. Not a problem if vaped. However your problems only start arising after ingesting this over the coarse of time as to cure cancer w oral administration. Smoking isn't considered since there will be an introduction of toxins to the system in the forms of carbon monoxide, PAH's, and benzine are all present when you smoke, thus disqualifying it as a potential route of administration for medical purpose. It gets a bit deep, but we are scratching some surfaces now.
 
fuck i fucked up a batch of jack herror its black as fuck i used vector in the black can i always used mega 7 x blue can its alway turned to cookie britle but one time with alien og same shit supper syrupy from the start and black??? what am i doing wrong their is lil to no heat blow dryer low and from a distance???
 
is thier a way to restable ize ??? i tryed running it back threw the big mouth glass tube but it turned fucken rock hard like a fucken pice of concreat i ran a few cans and the syrump just exploded out of the tube ruining the wax i put it in a mason jar drilled the tip 3 hole and the middle hole ran a few cans of 7 x and it turned to liquid the other two holes were for ex ess amount of presure to relieve... the butain liquied melted the rock most of it and i took the lid of and put a coffie filter and strained it out the liquid... but i also grabed my trim this was for a friend and know im trying to use my shit to make up for the shit that blew out and all the tackie shit all over the place trien to stable lize this shit man i hate crappy shit like this makes me work for no fucken reason HELLLLPPPPPP!!!!!! I guess thier is no point of return!! once you passed the point of no return!!! good thing it was only a few few grams of concentrate
 
heres my outlook, people feed molasses to fraud consumers w bulk and a sticky end product. That could have a negative effect on the extraction. There could be a contaminant such as sugar itself, perhaps a pixy stick from trick or treaters dropped in the trim bag? If you used vector or ronsonol those are your best bet as isobutane spanks n-butane everyday all day. There are times where an extremely rich oil just doesn't lighten no matter what you got up your sleeve. It's not particulates just tinted dark even black @ times. What really matters to me are the taste and high share first priorities leaving smoothness for third and color is of the least importance in my eyes. So if it taste good, hit good, feel good, butter face. That's about right IMO orders of priority.
 
oilmkr420 said:
heres my outlook, people feed molasses to fraud consumers w bulk and a sticky end product. That could have a negative effect on the extraction. There could be a contaminant such as sugar itself, perhaps a pixy stick from trick or treaters dropped in the trim bag? If you used vector or ronsonol those are your best bet as isobutane spanks n-butane everyday all day. There are times where an extremely rich oil just doesn't lighten no matter what you got up your sleeve. It's not particulates just tinted dark even black @ times. What really matters to me are the taste and high share first priorities leaving smoothness for third and color is of the least importance in my eyes. So if it taste good, hit good, feel good, butter face. That's about right IMO orders of priority.
Click to expand...
so let me get this straight... your "opinion" is that growers who actually understand the soil food web and feed their plants accordingly allowing for very healthy plants... are "frauding" consumers by growing a better product? Thats some logic you got.
 
OG Blue Dream. 6.2g run. 1.1g return. 19% Yield. 14 fl.oz 91% Iso. 9 Washes Total. Bike pump/Extraction Tube Method Frozen Materials (24+ hrs) Water bath evap.
1000292op.jpg
1000293k.jpg
1000294y.jpg
1000295z.jpg
1000296qz.jpg
1000299m.jpg
1000300s.jpg
1000301w.jpg
1000303.jpg
1000305q.jpg
This was the last washes combined (7,8,9)
1000308i.jpg
(Sorry for being a pic whore)
 
pic whores are cool 'round here . here's some chitowns sk bubba hash I made yesterda (wet) 73µ(this is a standard dinner plate, I think its like 12 inches wide) nothing but 73µ and 90µ*ice wax on this plate!closer:will post pics when it's dry!
 
oilmkr420 said:
heres my outlook, people feed molasses to fraud consumers w bulk and a sticky end product. That could have a negative effect on the extraction. There could be a contaminant such as sugar itself, perhaps a pixy stick from trick or treaters dropped in the trim bag? If you used vector or ronsonol those are your best bet as isobutane spanks n-butane everyday all day. There are times where an extremely rich oil just doesn't lighten no matter what you got up your sleeve. It's not particulates just tinted dark even black @ times. What really matters to me are the taste and high share first priorities leaving smoothness for third and color is of the least importance in my eyes. So if it taste good, hit good, feel good, butter face. That's about right IMO orders of priority.
Click to expand...
ROFLMFAO! bulk sticky end product, because of molasses? you must be fuckin dumb. molasses isnt what make my bud sticky and FAT! what makes my bud sticky and fat is all the nutes it gets from that great microbial life bring able to tear up that organic material with the added energy obtained from the sugars. sugars/starches dont make your bud sweeter or stickier or any direct effect on the plant really. not to mention how many other fertilizers/products contain the same or slightly different starches and sugars. lunacy, Pure lunacy!
 
so no mater what the some times the oil comes out black my thery is that this shit was still a lil moist.. im not shure i dont do this shit all the time but he wanted to learn and i put hot water under the pyrex and as soon as it hit the py it was coming out black before the actual pyrex know my budie is not a nube at all as a matter of fact i was getting bud from him in the mid 90s his own grown so buy no way was his product nasty i just not shure what happend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top