Go Back   Marijuana.com > Paraphernalia Place > Water Pipes
Register FAQ Gaming VB Image Host Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-08-2003, 07:12 PM   #1
Redline
Jr. Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 220
Grams: 347.70
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Redline has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default bongs not as safe as we thought?

http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html

i suggest everyone read this. i really don't know where to start.

-it suggestest that water filters out THC and other psychoactive chemicals.

-suggests that joints are the most efficient means of smoking (due to THC transfer)

i was under the impression (and still am) that THC was non-polor and therefore couldn't dissolve into water (polor), this is what gives me the hardest time on this report. so what gives? any comment? thought?

p.s. educated comments only please, (unless a qualitative fact or finding) refrain from: dumb responses... thank you *this message has been writen to help keep the topic ON TOPIC, i mean no ill-will towards anyone, all educated responses welcomed*
__________________
i smoke like the exhaust on a doge viper henessey -styles P.

-=EVERYONE NEEDS TO GO TO THE METHODS OF USE FORUMS AND SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE.=-

tobacco kills
Redline is offline Award Redline Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Old 10-08-2003, 07:40 PM   #2
hauptmann
Seasoned Activist
 
hauptmann's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,344
Grams: 2,243.15
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
hauptmann can see the Karmic Tunnel of Life
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Even though thc is not water soluable,that does not mean the water cannot act as a filter. Some particulate matter ends up in the water where otherwise it would be in your lungs. Thus robbing your lungs of whatever thc and other cannabanoids that were in that matter.

Yes it does decrease particulate matter thus decreasing the thc content. However,bongs and other water pipes are made to cool the smoke and make it easier on the lungs, thus increasing the amount of smoke taken in one hit. And I find that bongs are the most efficient way of getting stoned. Try and take a bong hit off your joint!().

Anyways this information has been presented earlier and is accessable through the almighty Erowid.org. Where I presume you may have gotten the link?
__________________
Marijuana.com Community Posting Guidelines

This is my dance song...
hauptmann is offline Award hauptmann Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2003, 07:51 PM   #3
CheebaMonkey
Member
 
CheebaMonkey's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,888
Grams: 19,941.70
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
CheebaMonkey has much to be proud ofCheebaMonkey has much to be proud of
Thanks: 5
Thanked 27 Times in 19 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Nothing is completely insoluble in water. However, so very little could dissolve in it that for our purposes it can be considered insoluble.

The solubility of THC in water is about 1-2 µg (Source). So it's extremely insoluble in water.

One idea why is that THC is quite sticky and may get stuck to other smoke particles which can get filtered out, and thus so does the THC.

I still wouldn't say that bongs aren't healthy. Did you read this part?
Quote:
Nonetheless, it is still premature to judge that waterpipes are actually unhealthful, since they may filter out other, non-solid smoke toxins occurring in the gas phase of the smoke, which was not analyzed in the study. Noxious gases known to occur in marijuana smoke include hydrogen cyanide, which incapacitates the lung's defensive cilia; volatile phenols, which contribute to the harshness of the taste; aldehydes, which promote cancer; and carbon monoxide, a known risk factor in heart disease. Previous studies indicate that water filtration may be quite effective in absorbing some of these [Nicholas Cozzi, Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review, MAPS Newsletter, Vol. IV #2, 1993]. If so, waterpipes might still turn out to have net health benefits.
You can read Nicholas Cozzi's article here.

He writes:
Quote:
Recently, Dr. Gary Huber at the University of Texas and colleagues from Harvard's School of Public Health conducted a cellular toxicity study of marijuana and tobacco smoke.8 This research group showed that passing marijuana or tobacco smoke through water, or even exposing the smoke to a wetted surface of about 48 square inches, effectively removed substances (acrolein and acetaldehyde) which are toxic to alveolar macrophages. Alveolar macrophages are one of the major defense cells of the lung and are an important component of the immune system. When the macrophages were exposed to smoke that was not water filtered, there was a marked impairment of their capacity to kill bacteria. When the smoke was water-filtered, however, there was no reduction in the bactericidal ability of the macrophages, suggesting that marijuana smoke that has been passed through sufficient water will have less impact on the immune system than marijuana smoke that has not been water-filtered. This intriguing finding would be of particular importance when treating patients with the AIDS wasting syndrome.

The laboratory results discussed above parallel what is known from studying human tobacco-smoking populations. Thus, there is substantial epidemiological evidence that among tobacco smokers, those who smoke through a water pipe have a much lower incidence of carcinoma than those who smoke cigarettes or smoke a "regular" pipe or cigars.
Since tobacco and cannabis smoke are quite similar, it would make sense that since smoking tobacco out of a water pipe reduces the risk of cancer, the same could be applied to cannabis.

And please Redline don't write stuff out like you did in your last sentence. There is no definitive answer as to why the bongs did what they did. Also, people can voice out their opinions if they wish to.
CheebaMonkey is offline Award CheebaMonkey Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2003, 08:50 PM   #4
Redline
Jr. Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 220
Grams: 347.70
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Redline has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by CheebaMonkey

And please Redline don't write stuff out like you did in your last sentence. There is no definitive answer as to why the bongs did what they did. Also, people can voice out their opinions if they wish to.
i wanted this thread to stay as technicaly accurate as possible. just a factual thread, there is no harm in that. also, i just asked the poeple not to put opinions in this thread. keeping it factual and bias free. i asked nicely...

i got to thinking about the THC particals themselves, so do they have a static charge on them or are they neutral? i can see how the accual particles themselves can get "stuck" to the water if so. this would also explain why it would stick to the many surfaces of the apparatus. i.e. a bong as alot more surface area than a regular joint does.

ALSO, what about amount burned? we all know that poeple who smoke from bongs smoke until all the matter is completely used up (turns white) whereas joints do not. it burns till blackend then is discarded. so i would deduce that per mass the bong would get more chemicals than the joint. causing an increased amount of chemicals to register with the test. can anyone discard/validate this?
Redline is offline Award Redline Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2003, 09:00 PM   #5
hauptmann
Seasoned Activist
 
hauptmann's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,344
Grams: 2,243.15
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
hauptmann can see the Karmic Tunnel of Life
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Redline

ALSO, what about amount burned? we all know that poeple who smoke from bongs smoke until all the matter is completely used up (turns white) whereas joints do not. it burns till blackend then is discarded. so i would deduce that per mass the bong would get more chemicals than the joint. causing an increased amount of chemicals to register with the test. can anyone discard/validate this?
People don't pack the same amount of weed into a bong as they do in a joint.

Also keep in mind when your smoking a joint your also inhaling all that burned paper.
hauptmann is offline Award hauptmann Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Old 10-08-2003, 09:16 PM   #6
CheebaMonkey
Member
 
CheebaMonkey's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,888
Grams: 19,941.70
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
CheebaMonkey has much to be proud ofCheebaMonkey has much to be proud of
Thanks: 5
Thanked 27 Times in 19 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

Yes, but like I said, there is no definitive answer as to what explains the bongs behavior. So even though THC may be sticky, it isn't completely proven that because of that, it explains why bongs were less efficient. It's an opinion to what explains the bong's behavior, and will remain an opinion until it's proven as a fact.

Scientists come up with opinions, and they call them a hypothesis. If people write out their opinions about the topic, you may get an idea of where to start looking for info. If you say don't post you opinion in here, you're only going to make it harder to find the answers.
CheebaMonkey is offline Award CheebaMonkey Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2003, 10:16 PM   #7
Redline
Jr. Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 220
Grams: 347.70
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Redline has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

after the experiment is done and the results are in, it stops being opinion and becomes fact. lay off that. i want to get a good technical discussion going here and all your doing is whining about opinions. your first post was awsome, keep it coming. maybe one of us can shed some light or get us thinking criticly about what hasn't been considerd. so please just let the thread be and keep it ON TOPIC. i want facts, proven facts. i think your confusing qualitative facts with opinion. inwhich case i will revise my first post, to reslove the issue.

i want to try and figure out these reults and apply them to our lifestyle.

hauptmann: the trials conducted were with the same amount of cannabis in each. in order to keep the controls the same and variables to a minimum. this wasn't just a bunch of people messing around.
Redline is offline Award Redline Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2003, 11:55 PM   #8
CheebaMonkey
Member
 
CheebaMonkey's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,888
Grams: 19,941.70
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
CheebaMonkey has much to be proud ofCheebaMonkey has much to be proud of
Thanks: 5
Thanked 27 Times in 19 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

after the experiment is done and the results are in, it stops being opinion and becomes fact. lay off that.

No, not at all. For a theory to be accepted as fact, multiple studies have to come to the same conclusion. If a study finds in favor of the theory, support for it increases. When enough studies have been done to support the claim, it becomes accepted as a fact. Or, better yet, it has to be replicable.

all your doing is whining about opinions.

Again, no. I'm trying to show you that opinions are useful. It's how scientists go about in doing their research. They form an opinion (or an educated guess), and test it out. Sometimes some opinions can be aided by facts such as THC is sticky. Other times it's a wild guess that doesn't have any facts to back it up.

i want facts, proven facts.

And you're not going to find any that clearly explain what happened with the bongs because no studies have been done examining why did the bongs perform poorly. Hence, why they can only be at best considered theories, educated guesses, or opinions.

You're missing the point that opinions are useful, because they can guide you in a direction to look for info. For example, IMO I think this because of that. You write out whatever you want to about the bongs.

Everyone here at CheapTalk has the privilege of posting what they want about the topic as long as it's a beneficial post. It's bad that I had to derail this thread like this, but it was necessary.
CheebaMonkey is offline Award CheebaMonkey Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 01:48 AM   #9
teufelfisch
Seasoned Activist
 
teufelfisch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,416
Grams: 1,978.40
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
teufelfisch has begun their Karma Journey
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default

This topic has been discussed before.

According to the study you linked, joints allow more THC to enter your lungs compared to the amount of tar. The key thing here is the other substances in smoke. You get everything in your lungs, not just the tar and THC.

Everything Cheeba said is accurate. Hell, anything Cheeba says is accurate. Bongs filter out a little THC, but they also filter out particulate matter and polar substances like acetaldehyde (see Red's post on health value of seeds). It makes sense they don't filter out more tar, because tar is composed of a bunch of nonpolar substances. If it's more important to you that you get every microgram of THC, smoke a joint. If you're more concerned about the other stuff you may be inhaling, smoke a bong.

Of course, a lot of this is my informed opinion, which, I gather, you don't want. This is coming from my knowledge of chemistry and good old common sense.

This was just one study, done by MAPS and NORML. NORML can't even keep the information on their website accurate. Also, they only used 5g of weed, and didn't test for anything other than tar and THC. Lots of room for error, if you ask me.
teufelfisch is offline Award teufelfisch Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2003, 02:02 AM   #10
CheebaMonkey
Member
 
CheebaMonkey's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,888
Grams: 19,941.70
Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
CheebaMonkey has much to be proud ofCheebaMonkey has much to be proud of
Thanks: 5
Thanked 27 Times in 19 Posts

Stock Portfolio
Total Value: 0.000
Gain/Loss: 0.000%
Default About acetaldehyde

Huber, G. L., First, M. W., & Grubner, O. (1991). Marijuana and tobacco smoke gas-phase cytotoxins. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 40(3), 629-636.

On page 633 they write:

Thus a physiologically wetted surface, comparable to only 5 percent or less of the human airway or less than 0.05% of the gas-exchanging surface of the entire lung was capable of complete detoxification of highly water-soluble gas-phase cytotoxins, including acrolein and acetaldehyde.

It was actually 93-100 % for acrolein and 64-72 % for acetaldehyde. But I figure if you exposed it to enough water, you could filter out practically all of the acetaldehyde.

They also write on the same page (and cite their source):

Stale marijuana or tobacco smoke, held for several seconds prior to its introduction into the in vitro bioassay, rapidly loses all of its cytotoxic properties.

You can read the abstract of that study here.
CheebaMonkey is offline Award CheebaMonkey Grams  
Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Marijuana.com Sponsor
Advertisement
 
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:56 AM.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53