Al I respect your knowledge probably more than I do anyone else on this forum, however I have seen and smoked the results of UVB treated marijuana and disagree with you here.
Have you smoked some grown in the same batch which were UVB exposed and some which was not?
Keep in mind that I have a background in economics and statistics so empirical data appeals to my logical mind as well, but when one sees and smokes the results it is hard to ignore. I do not know how to measure THC content level or I would try to do this test myself.
Failing having any double-blind, peer-reviewed data, of course I was postulating based upon what we DO know for sure. You need a gas chromatograph or a mass spectrometer to do such measurements, so you won't be doing any THC assays in your basement.
This is probably the closest we have to a half way descent study on the matter
Yes, that is a well written bit that references far and wide. It's a very good bit, thanks very much for that. I've saved that to the local drive for future reference, good stuff. However, the writer (reasonably) does not make any broad or certain conclusions, rather sets up a framework for further investigation, which is useful in and of itself but unfortunately doesn't set anything in stone for testing. He notes some very curious inconsistencies (i.e. seeds from "Mexican" which were later grown in the US displayed cannabinoid content that was not present in the source buds) and there's a few holes in the methodology, which are somewhat unavoidable due to the black market nature of cannabis.
Why can't plants have a natural defense mechanism as well?
I'm quite sure that's a possibility. However, the writer of the bit you reference also suggests that the reasons the plant may be making resin & THC may have to do with defences against browsing animals and insects as much as UV exposure.
I am pretty much sold on that higher levels of THC can be excreted given the proper amount of UVB lights to fill out an area.
I'm sorry to hear that. I don't think there's anything conclusive enough to be convincing in the paper you've cited. The writer does make some reasoned conclusions but doesn't really nail anything down. it's a good start, though.
At this point, I am just unsure if drying buds with it will lead to a positive or a negative outcome-because it may no longer have access to that chemical process.
I think you're on the right track with that line of thought.
Given what I know about the process and being reminded through your last statement I could see wherein drying with UVB light or any light could be detrimental to its' THC content.
I think your notion that (if anything) UVB may have some effect on the plant while growing may have some merit, though in what degree, I'm not sure. Once harvested and bioligical processes are halted, I don't think you can do anything that's going to increase potency, rather only hasten the breakdown of d9-THC into non-psychoactive isomers.
Thanks again very much for the link to that paper. As said, while I don't think it makes any replicatable conclusions that I would put into practise, it certainly is a good investigation of the scientific possibilities.
