Best way to clean pipes

greasemonkeymann

greasemonkeymann

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Do you have a link to any of the science behind that?
It is my impression that not all combustion creates carcinogens. Car exhaust (catalyzed) is not carcinogenic. It is emphatically a combustion product.
So, unless you can find a credible (peer-reviewed or summarizing properly referenced studies) link confirming your broad statement, I will keep my current opinion.
Click to expand...
just do a lil research man
and the blanket statement of a car's exhaust not creating carcinogens is reaaaally not accurate. Not even close.
anytime you accelerate, or decelerate you create a LOT of carnicogens.
it's my area of profession, trust me.
or not.
just do the research on it.
if you truly think that burning, and ingesting a tar that's already been burned once over, isn't carcinogenic??
well, then i think that's just being selectively obtuse.
But it makes no difference to me.
Go ask an oncologist.
 
greasemonkeymann

greasemonkeymann

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Do you have a link to any of the science behind that?
It is my impression that not all combustion creates carcinogens. Car exhaust (catalyzed) is not carcinogenic. It is emphatically a combustion product.
So, unless you can find a credible (peer-reviewed or summarizing properly referenced studies) link confirming your broad statement, I will keep my current opinion.
Click to expand...
since i'm bored i made it easy for you
next time research before

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20051017/pot-smoke-less-carcinogenic-than-tobacco

another

http://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/availability-hazard-identification-materials-marijuana-smoke

a copy and paste, from http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer

Cannabis smoke contains many of the same cancer causing substances (carcinogens) as tobacco - at least 50 of them. In addition, cannabis is often mixed with tobacco when smoked.

One of these carcinogens is benzyprene. Benzyprene is in the tar of both tobacco and cannabis cigarettes. We know that benzyprene causes cancer. It alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. We know that 3 out of 4 lung cancers (75%) occur in people who have faulty p53 genes. The p53 gene is also linked to many other cancers.


Read more at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer#bQM7FZb4QCIRvWrh.99

from Wikipedia copy and paste

It was found in 2007 that while tobacco and cannabis smoke are quite similar, cannabis smoke contained higher amounts of ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and nitrogen oxides, but lower levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).[non-primary source needed][25] This study found that directly inhaled cannabis smoke contained as much as 20 times as much ammonia and 5 times as much hydrogen cyanide as tobacco smoke and compared the properties of both mainstream and sidestream (smoke emitted from a smouldering 'joint' or 'cone') smoke.[non-primary source needed][25] Mainstream cannabis smoke was found to contain higher concentrations of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than sidestream tobacco smoke.[non-primary source needed][25] However, other studies have found much lower disparities in ammonia and hydrogen cyanide between cannabis and tobacco, and that some other constituents (such as polonium-210, lead, arsenic, nicotine, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines) are either lower or non-existent in cannabis smoke.[26][27]

Cannabis smoke contains thousands of organic and inorganic chemical compounds. This tar is chemically similar to that found in tobacco smoke or cigars.[28] Over fifty known carcinogens have been identified in cannabis smoke.[29] These include nitrosamines, reactive aldehydes, and polycylic hydrocarbons, including benz[a]pyrene.[30] Marijuana smoke was listed as a cancer agent in California in 2009
 
Last edited:
greasemonkeymann

greasemonkeymann

Well-Known Member
curious2garden said:
You did nothing wrong, this is one of our inside jokes. It's from the Big Bang Theory actually.
Click to expand...
ah i gotcha..
never could get into that show.. i have a weird thing with studio-audience laughter.. not sure why it drives me crazy but it does..
and i was just tryin to look after you guys, resin isn't good for ya..
i didn't want it to seem like i was on a high-horse, like i said, I've smoked resin more times than i could count (especially as a broke-ass teenager)
 
Bbcchance

Bbcchance

Well-Known Member
greasemonkeymann said:
ah i gotcha..
never could get into that show.. i have a weird thing with studio-audience laughter.. not sure why it drives me crazy but it does..
and i was just tryin to look after you guys, resin isn't good for ya..
i didn't want it to seem like i was on a high-horse, like i said, I've smoked resin more times than i could count (especially as a broke-ass teenager)
Click to expand...
I always hated friends for the same reason, loudest canned laughter ever!!!
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Greasemonkeymann, there is a basic principle of medicine called dose-response. The presence of a carcinogen is uninteresting; most of our analytical techniques are so sensitive we can track the major carcinogens in seawater. However I am not about to recommend giving up surfing or fish for dinner.The question isn't "is it there?" but "how much of it is there?" Without numbers, there is no argument.

That is why I asked you for links to articles that address the issue directly. Presence of a compound does not simply correlate with dangers from that compound. I believe that this is the key problem with your argument.
The relation between thermal chemistry and carcinogenesis is not simple. The epidemiology of cancer is not simple. Beyond "don't smoke asbestos-filtered Camels stripped naked in the Florida sun" there are very few reliable rules of thumb regarding how, when and how often cancer strikes people. So I'd be careful about adopting a simple but incomplete tenet that can so easily reduce to an article of faith.
 
P

pabloesqobar

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Greasemonkeymann, there is a basic principle of medicine called dose-response. The presence of a carcinogen is uninteresting; most of our analytical techniques are so sensitive we can track the major carcinogens in seawater. However I am not about to recommend giving up surfing or fish for dinner.The question isn't "is it there?" but "how much of it is there?" Without numbers, there is no argument.

That is why I asked you for links to articles that address the issue directly. Presence of a compound does not simply correlate with dangers from that compound. I believe that this is the key problem with your argument.
The relation between thermal chemistry and carcinogenesis is not simple. The epidemiology of cancer is not simple. Beyond "don't smoke asbestos-filtered Camels stripped naked in the Florida sun" there are very few reliable rules of thumb regarding how, when and how often cancer strikes people. So I'd be careful about adopting a simple but incomplete tenet that can so easily reduce to an article of faith.
Click to expand...
Took me 2 minutes to find the definitive answer to the resin conundrum:

http://finshaggy.blogspot.com/2012/05/should-you-smoke-resin.html?m=1
 
greasemonkeymann

greasemonkeymann

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Greasemonkeymann, there is a basic principle of medicine called dose-response. The presence of a carcinogen is uninteresting; most of our analytical techniques are so sensitive we can track the major carcinogens in seawater. However I am not about to recommend giving up surfing or fish for dinner.The question isn't "is it there?" but "how much of it is there?" Without numbers, there is no argument.

That is why I asked you for links to articles that address the issue directly. Presence of a compound does not simply correlate with dangers from that compound. I believe that this is the key problem with your argument.
The relation between thermal chemistry and carcinogenesis is not simple. The epidemiology of cancer is not simple. Beyond "don't smoke asbestos-filtered Camels stripped naked in the Florida sun" there are very few reliable rules of thumb regarding how, when and how often cancer strikes people. So I'd be careful about adopting a simple but incomplete tenet that can so easily reduce to an article of faith.
Click to expand...
well, under that premise, I simply disagree.
I think when it comes to cancer, it's better to err on the side of caution, no?
since humans don't really know what exactly causes cancer, it's safe to assume that exposing ones-self to free-radicals, carcinogens and such is to be discouraged.
if you think there is a "safe" amount of carnicongens well then that's a different argument. Obviously that's your decision.
I just prefer to limit the amount of those types of things.
everybody, and everything is getting cancers.
I presented many links backing my philosophy/statement.
if you want to smoke resin, go right ahead.

I mean if i'm right and resin can cause cancer, then why risk it?
to just get high with the shitty taste of resin?
Ok my friend, that's your call.
not everyone that smokes cigarettes gets cancer, not every worker exposed to asbestos gets cancer, but does that mean that those compounds aren't dangerous?
for yrs, lawyers and doctors have argued over it.
I've seen people and animals die from cancer, and it's not pretty, simply not worth the risk for me.


hell even doctors thought cigarettes were harmless juuuuuust a lil while ago....
cig ad.jpg
 
Last edited:
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
greasemonkeymann said:
well, under that premise, I simply disagree.
I think when it comes to cancer, it's better to err on the side of caution, no?
since humans don't really know what exactly causes cancer, it's safe to assume that exposing ones-self to free-radicals, carcinogens and such is to be discouraged.
if you think there is a "safe" amount of carnicongens well then that's a different argument. Obviously that's your decision.
I just prefer to limit the amount of those types of things.
everybody, and everything is getting cancers.
I presented many links backing my philosophy/statement.
if you want to smoke resin, go right ahead.

I mean if i'm right and resin can cause cancer, then why risk it?
to just get high with the shitty taste of resin?
Ok my friend, that's your call.
not everyone that smokes cigarettes gets cancer, not every worker exposed to asbestos gets cancer, but does that mean that those compounds aren't dangerous?
for yrs, lawyers and doctors have argued over it.
I've seen people and animals die from cancer, and it's not pretty, simply not worth the risk for me.


hell even doctors thought cigarettes were harmless juuuuuust a lil while ago....
View attachment 3814028
Click to expand...
In my first year at college, I sat in on a course whose big question centered on the epidemiology of cancer. Is there a threshold of dosage below which a carcinogen becomes innocuous? We spent months discussing how hard it was to answer the question. The biostatistics were shot through with inextricable systematic errors.

So I am very hesitant to make a statistical argument regarding cancer even with the highest-quality data. I won't substitute an incompletely reasoned through risk analysis for it; one that is ultimately rooted in a visceral aversion supported by general principles whose utility here I reject.

So, on general grounds of rational hygiene ... until resin is shown to be a problem, I won't assume it is ... and I certainly won't use the argument as a switch with which to berate those who do not share my inclination.
 
Last edited:
greasemonkeymann

greasemonkeymann

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
In my first year at colege, I sat in on a course whose big question centered on the epidemiology of cancer. Is there a threshold of dosage below which a carcinogen becomes innocuous? We spent months discussing how hard it was to answer the question. The biostatistics were shot through with inextricable systematic errors.

So I am very hesitant to make a statistical argument regarding cancer even with the highest-quality data. I won't substitute an incompletely reasoned through risk analysis for it; one that is ultimately rooted in a visceral aversion supported by general principles whose utility here I reject.

So, on general grounds of rational hygiene ... until resin is shown to be a problem, I won't assume it is ... and I certainly won't use the argument as a switch with which to berate those who do not share my inclination.
Click to expand...
it's all good man, for me it's reaaaally simple.
risk vs rewards
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
greasemonkeymann said:
it's all good man, for me it's reaaaally simple.
risk vs rewards
Click to expand...
Dang, misspelled "college"

Me too. Quantifying reward isn't hard. However I prefer to have a way to quantify the risk also. I have a superstitious streak. That means that I have an inclination to like some facts more than others, based on aesthetic/emotional reasons rather than objective ones. That is one way we humans form unfounded but arresting belief structures. I have to be on the lookout so I don't start another emotion-based opinion; my mind is lousy with them already.
 
greasemonkeymann

greasemonkeymann

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Dang, misspelled "college"

Me too. Quantifying reward isn't hard. However I prefer to have a way to quantify the risk also. I have a superstitious streak. That means that I have an inclination to like some facts more than others, based on aesthetic/emotional reasons rather than objective ones. That is one way we humans form unfounded but arresting belief structures. I have to be on the lookout so I don't start another emotion-based opinion; my mind is lousy with them already.
Click to expand...
ohhh I freely admit my (ir)rational fear of cancer.
in fact I think I started with that when I first posted..
I've lost a lot of loved ones from cancer.. and it's probably my biggest fear
but if your eyes have seen what mine have, you may see why..
hell I don't drink bottled water, canned foods (bpa), processed foods (colon cancer and intestinal maladies)..
I could go on and on..
yet EVERYTHING in my industry is labeled to cause cancer on lab animals.
I do see your point, in fact I understand it as well

my primary point was somebody has GOT to hook up dear ole @curious2garden
She needs some greenage to smoke
 
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
greasemonkeymann said:
ohhh I freely admit my (ir)rational fear of cancer.
in fact I think I started with that when I first posted..
I've lost a lot of loved ones from cancer.. and it's probably my biggest fear
but if your eyes have seen what mine have, you may see why..
hell I don't drink bottled water, canned foods (bpa), processed foods (colon cancer and intestinal maladies)..
I could go on and on..
yet EVERYTHING in my industry is labeled to cause cancer on lab animals.
I do see your point, in fact I understand it as well

my primary point was somebody has GOT to hook up dear ole @curious2garden
She needs some greenage to smoke
Click to expand...
Me? LOL that's very sweet of you but I'm actually a grower with sort of an embarrassment of riches so to speak :D I'd happily pass a bunch off to Hooka if she were close.

Hookabelly said:
LOL I am NOT joking. Look, I just smoke dope, I hadn't smoked in like 15 years, then picked it back up once I got a prescript. for it. So A LOT had changed since the days of smoking buds of unknown origins for recreation. It was a serious question. I thought the use of acetone in @cannabineer's post was for cleaning only, and what's wrong with smoking the resin? We used to scrape it off of our pipes. Didn't know it was a bad thing. Sorry guys.:oops:
Click to expand...
 
greasemonkeymann

greasemonkeymann

Well-Known Member
curious2garden said:
Me? LOL that's very sweet of you but I'm actually a grower with sort of an embarrassment of riches so to speak :D I'd happily pass a bunch off to Hooka if she were close.
Click to expand...
oh fuck me...
I swear I have some fuck-tarded way of mixing up the ladies on this site..
siiigh...
and i'm stone sober too, so I have no excuse.
past the aforementioned fuck-tardedness
ok, so that'd be, uhem...
@Hookabelly
somebody hook a sistah up

annnd an "embarrassment of riches" eh?
1653742_10152568135726959_1632553573_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top