Marijuana smokers face rapid lung destruction?

[Guest]

From the radioactivity point-of-view, it seems nothing can beat simple organics.

I'm sure PBP (and others like it) has higher levels of radioactivity than the true, simple organic methods too.

It makes perfect sense that tobacco-related cancer has increased since the introduction of non-organic fertilizers.

Looks like I might be going back to chicken shit and bone and blood meals. I know there's a perfect happy-medium to be found with organic soil mixes indoors. It has to be a light mix, but perfectly blended to be depleted by harvest. Tricky, but definitely possible, and worth it... radioactively speaking. hehehe

I have never really liked this from the standpoint of science...

At least if they were comparing some fairly complete organics might be listed...

Or at least sources for NPK and micros....

ONe of the main reasons for high levels of lung cancer in tobacco smokers is because of the use of calcium phosphates....

Calcium phosphates have super high levels of radioactivity...
osmocote uses the stuff and others use a blend of calcium phosphate and other types....

Never smoke anything with calcium phosphate in it....

Description/History:
The American Computer Scientists Association has discovered that ALL Tobacco grown in cheap "Calcium Phosphate Based Fertilizers" (CPFs), which were adopted for Tobacco fertilization in use since the late-1940's, contain sufficient radioactive Polonium 210 isotope in them to be the agent responsible for the nearly 100% tumor (benign and malignant) rate found among almost all smokers, leading to the vast majority of Smoking-related Lung Cancer that occurs in later life. The rise of Smoker's Lung Cancer in the 50's, 60's and after mirrors the usage of CPFs by the Tobacco Farmers.

A glitch in the human bio-physiology allows Nicotine in Cigarettes to promote these cancers by blocking "apoptosis" and "apopto-genesis": that normally removes damaged tissue, replacing it, but in the Lungs of Cigarette Smokers and Passive Smoke victims it is inhibited by Nicotine. Over 1.5 million people die every year of cigarette smoking related Lung Cancer globally, 150,000 IN AMERICA ALONE. Lung Cancer is a slow, painfully traumatic disease that results in death.

To HALT the progression of Lung Cancer from smoking, the Tobacco Farmers and Tobacco Industry must REPLACE CPFs and use only Safe Fertilizers in growing Tobacco, and CLEAN up the polluted lands of the Growers...

====================


This confidential Philip Morris (PM) memorandum from 1980 reveals that PM knew that smoke from their cigarettes contained radioactive lead and polonium, and that it was derived from the uranium in the calcium phosphate fertilizers that were regularly used on tobacco-growing soils. As the writer of this memo states most straightforwardly,
"210-Pb [radioactive lead] and 210-Po [radioactive polonium] are present in tobacco and smoke...."
They also knew that switching to another fertilizer could probably help the situation. Here's what they had to say about that:
"..using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point...."


All fertilizers should be checked to make sure they do not contain calcium phosphate....

By the way the use of osmocote outside on cannabis is quite common......

I would be willing to bet any money that the 2 highest chem ferts both contain calcium phosphate...

and why no listing for GH stuff???

 

[boroboro]

According to the abstract Journies was so kind to post:

They picked 10 people who were pot smokers AND had lung trouble. What kind of sample is that? Of course all the pot smokers have lung problems, THAT'S WHO YOU PICKED!

Man, that really tweaked a nerve with me. One of my pet peeves is people who confuse or overstate cause and effect relationships. I admit I only read the abstract, but where does that conclusion come from? How about:

"The incidence of bulbous lung disease among the pot smokers was much higher than among the tobacco smokers who presented with similar symptoms. From this we conclude that, if pot smokers develop lung disease, it is more likely to be bulbous lung disease than cancer or emphysema, the diseases most common among the tobacco smokers"

 

[Guest]

I actually just got the entire study, a PDF of it from the author. I won't be able to spread it because it's confidential and the only reason I got it is for an academic research project. =/ and I won't even risk so far as to detail what is inside of it, although I want to, but cannot, since this must be kept confidential and not copied or spread.

And to tell you the truth I am not willing to even post the reply I got from the author, because that was on an .edu account, for a school related issue...can't be riskin that!

All I gotta say is it's a lot more measured out and controlled than you think.

 

[Guest]

I agree. Not only is it "not too impressive" as you state, But completely
inadequate to gain any "SCIENTIFIC" understanding of the effects. 10
people? Did they smoke hash? Leaf? bong resin?
I have to point out that although "peer reviewed" in journals medicine itself is a "practice", so they let you know whence they came right there.

My first question would be; does a Respitory MD stand to benefit from stating MJ causes disease x, y, or z. The answer would be yes.
Is there a connection? If it smells like shit you don't need to lick your shoe.

I get 'bonchitis' also , and am suffering from "Eminent Death Syndrome"
so, if it's the weed that takes me out in the end. At least I'll be with loved ones!

Yeeeeah. Sure.

 

[RED145]

Wow,Hot Topic.So what's the consensus?Am I gonna die?Are we all dieing?Dammit..no matter how ya look at it,we are born dieing.

 

[Harry Gypsna]

I actually just got the entire study, a PDF of it from the author. I won't be able to spread it because it's confidential and the only reason I got it is for an academic research project. =/ and I won't even risk so far as to detail what is inside of it, although I want to, but cannot, since this must be kept confidential and not copied or spread.

And to tell you the truth I am not willing to even post the reply I got from the author, because that was on an .edu account, for a school related issue...can't be riskin that!

All I gotta say is it's a lot more measured out and controlled than you think.

if u not gonna tell us and spread it, why mention it at all.......

 

[Guest]

Good question! But I did want to say it's a little more controlled than the people are making it out to be, for example, method of smoking and amount of smoking were determined for each user, etc

I was told by the author however that the users were not known to be polydrug users but it cannot be assured, but then again, it can never truly be assured.

 

[Stone]

While the language of study does seem to be very evasive regarding just how the subjects came to be included, It does seem that they were admitted (at least into treatment) BECAUSE they were experiencing these symptoms. And further, no matter how randomly choosen, 10 subjects is nowhere near enough to draw these kind of general conclusions regarding a population as large and diverse as marijuana smokers...
This is exactly the type of hot button, 'I told you so' study that will bankroll these scientists futures with some lobby that stands to make untold billions by duplicating these results in an even more mainstream peer-reviewed journal.
While I, and I don't think anyone here, is of the idea that cannabis has absolutely no ill effects. A fact that I think should be considered, is that humans have been cultivating and using this crop arguably longer than any other. With every other 'vice' that has endured similar usage, (alcohol,opium, coca, etc.) the negative aspects have become extremely apparent. And while verified by modern science, it certainly didn't take science to point them out to us. It's a shame that a substance that has stood the test of time, with it's biggest blemish being it used as a pawn to enact racist laws, is still listed in the company of the 'scourges of man'.
I hope that serious scientific testing be allowed to continue unbiased, but I'm afraid economic reasons will be next hurdle blocking free access.

 

[Guest]

Bologne, don your tinfoil hat!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

ALL this study proves is that intentionally and repeatedly inhaling particulate matter deeply into your lungs and holding it there for an extended period of time, can cause bullous lung disease.
It also seems to indicate that cannabis smoke in particular prevents bullous lung disease from causing abnormal lung function.

The Lesson We Should Learn From The Study:
Don't take such big hits and don't hold them so long. Problem solved.

 

[Guest]

ALL It also seems to indicate that cannabis smoke in particular prevents bullous lung disease from causing abnormal lung function.

Where's that said?

 

[Guest]

Not to mention, this study mentions MJ smokers smoke *more* smoke than cig smokers as well.

 

[D Rock]

bullshit!
I know people who have smoked some 30 years and dont have a single health issue from marijuana.

 

[Guest]

Yeah I bet they're healthy! =/

 

[Crazy Composer]

journies, do you work for the government? Anti-marijuana alliance or something?

If you knew enough old-time pot smokers, you'd know there's very little to worry about... no matter what the white coats in the lab are saying. Remember, white coats also made the atomic bomb and oxycontin. Trust your eyes... MY eyes tell me that smoking pot responsibly is FUN, and helpful, and therapeutic, and can be done for an entire, healthy lifetime, no matter what the biased white coats are saying -- again, and again, and again.

If you have health problems regarding pot smoking, perhaps you need better weed to smoke.

 

[EatCannabisRaw]

The thing is if you smoke you need to give your time to detox from the smoke. So if someone has a good lifestyle. If they don't stuff themselves with food all the time... if they give their bodies some light exercise...drink enough fluids... if they give their GI system a break the body will then use its energy to start detoxing stuff, specially the lungs.

I know. I've been following the warriordiet, and during the day you undereat. So my body has been using the resources during the day to clean my lungs out...since I'll start getting phlegm stuff up. If your constantly eating and taxing your system you may never start cleaning your lungs. Its important to have this time.

So thats why I think people like Fulla Nayak, or Jeanne Calment, both lived so long and both smoked. I bet you they probably didn't eat a lot. Europeans (well at least traditionally) don't eat so much as we do. They eat smaller portion sizes. Americans eat more in bulk but chew/digest less...pretty wasteful.

Point being if you smoke then don't smoke AND eat munchies like its your birthright. Try cutting down on your food intake. Drink more water or tea. And you may find your lungs are better off just from that.

 

[Guest]

Where's the scientific backing that says not eating iin the day cleans your lungs out faster?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Where's that said?

Ummmm... in the article you posted.... You did read it carefully?

He added, "Marijuana is inhaled as extremely hot fumes to the peak inspiration and held for as long as possible before slow exhalation. This predisposes to greater damage to the lungs and makes marijuana smokers are more prone to bullous disease as compared to cigarette smokers."

It is the breathing manoeuvres of marijuana smokers that serve to increase the concentration and pulmonary deposition of inhaled particulate matter – resulting in greater and more rapid lung destruction.

Says clearly that it is how the canabis is smoked which causes the problem, and NEVER states anywhere that the specific chemical properties of the smoke have anything to do with the disease.

So... Take smaller hits and don't hold them as long...

And here it stated that the doctor was clearly struck by the fact that the disease caused no abnormal function in half of the cannabis smokers. Which leads to a possible conclusion that the cannabinoids prevented the impaired function normally caused br the disease.

"What is outstanding about this study is the relatively young ages of the lung disease patients, as well as the lack of abnormality on chest X-rays and lung functions in nearly half of the patients we tested."

LMAO @ alarmists...

 

[Guest]

Where does vaping fit into all of this? Have there been any studies on marijuana users who purely vape? Is vaping considered 100% safe as far as physical lung damage? I haven't vaped, but I did stop smoking out of concern for what it was doing to my lungs. Is vaping safe? Or is eating the only way to avoid lung damamge? I do remember reading somewhere(perhaps here) that the only concern with vaping was small plant particles that were allowed to escape. Was this remedied with the filters attached to newer models?

 

[Guest]

Eating is the only way to go, there have been vape studies by maps, and norml, i recall 85% of "bad stuff" is kept away by using vapes. Something that like. Vapes still can make you cough and irritate your throat/lungs but no where near as much as smokin