• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

New evidence for cancerogenic metabolites from JWH-018

Status
Not open for further replies.
how does that work? vaporising the material still makes finely divided particles that enter the lungs and according to your theory would hoover radon daughter products out of the plasterboard walls. It is not as if vaporising these kind of things results in inhalation of vapour, instead it is merely a way of making very finely divided droplets very similar to smoke..
The difference could be argued along the lines that vaporising leads to less decomposition products than smoking because of the lower and more precise temperature control.

Some day someone will look at the pyrolysis products of JWH 018. Pyrolysis of naphthyl ketones is a standard way of synthesizing some very unpleasant polycyclic aromatic compounds,, many of which are potently carcinogenic.

It is very unfortunate the fuckers made the stuff illegal making research so much more difficult.

Until then the jury is out.

even if your vaporizing unit would use the room air as replacement aerosol the attachment rate of radon progenies to an aerosol increases with the median size and the standard deviation of the aerosol distribution

jwh-018 aerosol + room air (dust) has smaller particle size distribution and concentration of particles compared to smoking plant material that's infused with jwh-018. You are comparing apples and oranges

but why would your vaporizer use room air as replacement aerosol anyway?


clara:

the problem is:
1.) smoke particles carrying radon progenies go to your lungs while inhaling and lodging them self there. This decay process will last very long and accumulation of the longer halflife progenies is a sure way to get lung cancer. Many cancers that are blamed on tobacco alone are actually due to synergistic effect with radon and its progenies.

2.)
When it crosses the lung membrane the progeny may also be transported to other parts of the body creating other interesting problems that might popup as other medical conditions and not just cancer





edit: in no way im down playing the importance of carsinogenic metabolites but we have to remember to put this stuff in some kind of context when theres so little data we have to assume the worst case which is in context to other factors seems very minor when used in moderation and with proper method
 
Last edited:
edit: in no way im down playing the importance of carsinogenic metabolites but we have to remember to put this stuff in some kind of context when theres so little data we have to assume the worst case which is in context to other factors seems very minor when used in moderation and with proper method

Yeah, well, the rats were plenty happy to grow tumours when they were fed pronethalol.

Paint rats with coal tar, rats grow tumours.

The truth is this: no one knows. We don't have the data.
 
It's hard to tell, since you don't really know what you're getting when you combust your material.

Tobacco smoke generally has about 60mcg of benzene and 30ng of BaP per cigarette. JWH-018 smoke, at a 5mg dose, contains about 1.9mg of naphthalene.

The main mechanism by which straight naphthalene is carcinogenic is similar to benzene where the 1,2-Dihydroxy compound is first formed followed by the transformation to the 1,2-Dione compound, which then covalently bonds to DNA. This is largely dependent on the compound being a substrate for a number of CYP ***s and aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase.

So the dangerous parts of the metabolism in rats boils down to diohydroxylation of either the arene group on the indole or the naphthalene -- both of which were shown in the study. Both of these can likely covalently bond with DNA. On comparison by weight there's a lot more compared to say, benzene in cigarettes, but the reality is we won't know until a bunch of toxicity studies are conducted. The worst part is that carcinogenicity is insidious: you may be fine now, but 10 or 20 years down the road you might develop lung cancer.


No, because the doctors won't be able to see where metabolized molecules of JWH-*** are binding to their patients DNA irreversibly.

Thank you for the informative post.


"The worst part is that carcinogenicity is insidious: you may be fine now, but 10 or 20 years down the road you might develop lung cancer."

^ Would you still agree with the time frame given if I told you I was 19 years old?8)

Or is there insufficient data to even make that call?

And how much consumption are we talking here anyway? (in reference to the time frame) I bought some of this stuff used it Saturday night and most of the day Sunday. Till I read this thread:|
 
Thank you for the informative post.


"The worst part is that carcinogenicity is insidious: you may be fine now, but 10 or 20 years down the road you might develop lung cancer."

^ Would you still agree with the time frame given if I told you I was 19 years old?8)

Or is there insufficient data to even make that call?

And how much consumption are we talking here anyway? (in reference to the time frame) I bought some of this stuff used it Saturday night and most of the day Sunday. Till I read this thread:|

well now it is 19 years 364 days and counting.... :|

the stats are something like everyone here has a 1 in 3 chance of developing some form of cancer in their lifetime. Smoke lots of JWH and it might be 1 in 2.99 or it might not make any difference at all or it might make it evens . there really isn't any data. The prudent thing is to take JWH in moderation.
 
Kken so what you are saying is that the radon is trapped inside 'particles' that is in smoke, and carried to the lungs? Radon has a short half-life regardless if it is trapped inside something or not. I do not know all the daughter products of radon but can only assume the will have a even faster decay than the parent and are more unstable. Not tring to be an ass, I am just having a hard time understanding why the decay would increase?
 
Rn-222 > Po-218 > Pb-214 > Bi-214 > Po-214 and the Po-214 half-life is 163.7µs the decay is shorter and shorter for each child. some of the isotopes might release more energy than their parent but the decay is quicker. We might be talking about two completely different things?
 
Last edited:
Rn-222 > Po-218 > Pb-214 > Bi-214 > Po-214 and the Po-214 half-life is 163.7µs the decay is shorter and shorter for each child. some of the isotopes might release more energy than their parent but the decay is quicker. We might be talking about two completely different things?

The decay of radon is essentially independent of all external factors.

The theory is that radon itself is an inert gas and is not absorbed or retained, the daughter products however are. I really don't know whether this is that important, for example in areas where the water is heavily contaminated with radon the standard thing to do is to bubble air through the water and store it for a day or two, which removes the undecayed radon and gives the immediate decay products time to decay. Lead 210 seems to be the daughter that accumalates and even though it is a bone seeker it is a fairly long half life beta emitter, and therefore much less dangerous atom for atom than say the similar bone seeker polonium 210.

in general short half life radioisotopes are more damaging atom for atom than long half life isotopes, simply because they have higher specific activity. it also depends on which particles the decay produces.
Alpha particle sources are clearly the most destructive if they get inside you, because each big alpha particle carries a lot of energy and it can transfer it to the stuff it passes through so causes a lot more damage, but of course it does minimal damage if it outside the body because it will not penetrate the dead layers of skin.
If it is eaten or inhaled a short half life alpha source is mg for mg probably the most dangerous. The order of biological damage is alpha, neutrons, beta, gamma.


Radiological protection officers do this stuff full time for a living. They seem to to multiplication of various factors, half life, absorption and distribution, type of decay.

the whole field is very complex because there is not a linear relationship between absorbed dose and damage, there also doesn't seem to be a minimum dose which doesn't cause increased cancer etc. Quite a few data points are from Uranium miners or atom bomb survivors where the dose is not really known. As far as I can see there is not a safe dose of ionizing radiation, any exposure whether from natural or other sources increases the risks.
In the jargon cancer is a stochastic effect.

I have the nagging suspicion that the smoking radon cancer theory originated from big tobacco and is intended to deflect attention from the known chemical carcinogens in tobacco smoke, and we have fallen for it.
 
Radiological protection officers do this stuff full time for a living. They seem to to multiplication of various factors, half life, absorption and distribution, type of decay.

Yes I know :)

All I'm saying is that NOTHING can change radon's decay and that subsequent children decay is shorter than the parent. Now ... I'm not saying that the products created by this decay are not harmful, I'm saying that the radiation from it will not last more than 4 days (at most) including that radiation from the children.
 
I have the nagging suspicion that the smoking radon cancer theory originated from big tobacco and is intended to deflect attention from the known chemical carcinogens in tobacco smoke, and we have fallen for it.

Its a scientifically proven fact, of course you can disagree in methods etc.. Where i live radon&smokers are 7% of all smoke propagated cancers. Why would big tobacco try to mask this if 93% of other smokers eventually get cancer anyways? doesnt make any sense at all in this day and age. It made SOME sense when people found out that tobbaco contains the radon decay products 210Pb 210Po so when you smoke it you get dose of these every time and that added with radon exposures of course increases cancer. This lobbying failed for obvious reasons

This subject is really too large to debate on such forum as BL. None of us are qualified to provide real answers. We can hypothesize of course.

Risk factors for lung cancer: a case-control study in Hong Kong women.

Chiu YL, Wang XR, Qiu H, Yu IT.

School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 4/F, School of Public Health, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China.

To identify etiological connections of lung cancer in Chinese women in Hong Kong, who are among the highest in lung cancer incidence and mortality, we conducted a case-control study, in which 279 female lung cancer cases and 322 controls were selected and frequency matched. A variety of information, including dietary habits, occupational history, smoking, domestic environmental exposures, and family history of cancer was collected, and their associations with lung cancer were analyzed with logistic analysis approach. In addition to positive associations with exposures to cooking emissions and to radon at home, smoking and family cancer history, we observed that increasing consumption of meat was linked to a higher risk, whereas consumptions of vegetables had a strong protective effect against lung cancer. Moderate consumption of coffee appeared to be beneficial against the disease. Those never employed and domestic helpers were at a higher risk. The results indicated that environmental exposures, risky personal behaviors, or lifestyle, as well as family cancer aggregation are among important contributors to the high incidence of lung cancer in Hong Kong females.


when evidence of damage sits on a shaky floor. JWH-018 could POSSIBLY be carcinogenic. Extensive list of modifiable risk factors has long long long ago been identified. And i am well a sure most of you do not reduce these other risk. this thread started to look like 'I WIN. I WAS RIGHT. YOU GONNA DIE TO CANCER HAHA' like post from the start :) (no offence)

But like you said its very complex. Small amount of radon in your room has been shown to reduce cancer levels (if not inhaled via smoke/dust/other particles).
 
Yes I know :)

All I'm saying is that NOTHING can change radon's decay and that subsequent children decay is shorter than the parent. Now ... I'm not saying that the products created by this decay are not harmful, I'm saying that the radiation from it will not last more than 4 days (at most) including that radiation from the children.

apart from lead 210 which has 20 or so year half life and accumulates in uranium miners.
 
I
when evidence of damage sits on a shaky floor. JWH-018 could POSSIBLY be carcinogenic. Extensive list of modifiable risk factors has long long long ago been identified. And i am well a sure most of you do not reduce these other risk. this thread started to look like 'I WIN. I WAS RIGHT. YOU GONNA DIE TO CANCER HAHA' like post from the start :) (no offence)

But like you said its very complex. Small amount of radon in your room has been shown to reduce cancer levels (if not inhaled via smoke/dust/other particles).

Agreed a very complex subject, compounded by the problems of epidemiology, it is very hard if not impossible to use epidemiology to say something is 'caused' by something, rather the best one can hope for is something is statistically (significantly) associated with something. the joys of confounding factors, etc etc. I tend only to read meta analysis of epidemiological studies hoping that overall real trends will show themselves and the stronger signal will drown out the noise from flawed individual studies or methodology.

Maybe I am pedantic but I take issue with anyone who cites an epidemiological study and says then it proves something in the scientific sense, for many reasons perhaps the biggest being the lack of reproducibility of the study. however I have no problem with saying epidemiological studies strongly suggest something.

Now if the ethics people would fuck off for 50 years we could run controlled studies on all sorts of possible cancer risks, pipe radon into peoples houses and make them smoke. Rather than relying on peoples plasterboard walls and tobacco advertising.

sorry for going way off topic.

Back to JWH 018, it may be a cancer risk, it might not.
If it is a cancer risk then it is pretty certain that it will be dose /exposure related, the more times you roll the dice and all that. Hence the harm reduction advice to moderate consumption.

I say that as someone who assayed 018 and a few others several years ago, working up to active doses with each.

Been there, seen it, done it and feel no need to revisit them especially as they are now illegal.

I don't need to justify their safety to myself or anyone else, because even if you manage to convince yourself what you are doing is safe it doesn't necessarily follow that it is. Trying to twist the limited available evidence one way or another is wrong, and smacks of denial.

Spin the barrel pull the trigger,

I just like to know there are less than 6 bullets in there, better still none. which means you have to look at what is known and make a judgement.
 
Last edited:
At least for now we can say that the JWH's are not ultra-carcinogens...
 
At least for now we can say that the JWH's are not ultra-carcinogens...
can we even say that? benzidine is a super carcinogen but doesn't show the characteristic bladder cancers for 5-10 years post exposure
 
Altough I don't know how long it would go if you were smoking Benzidin 8o
 
Agreed a very complex subject, compounded by the problems of epidemiology, it is very hard if not impossible to use epidemiology to say something is 'caused' by something, rather the best one can hope for is something is statistically (significantly) associated with something. the joys of confounding factors, etc etc. I tend only to read meta analysis of epidemiological studies hoping that overall real trends will show themselves and the stronger signal will drown out the noise from flawed individual studies or methodology.

Maybe I am pedantic but I take issue with anyone who cites an epidemiological study and says then it proves something in the scientific sense, for many reasons perhaps the biggest being the lack of reproducibility of the study. however I have no problem with saying epidemiological studies strongly suggest something.

Now if the ethics people would fuck off for 50 years we could run controlled studies on all sorts of possible cancer risks, pipe radon into peoples houses and make them smoke. Rather than relying on peoples plasterboard walls and tobacco advertising.

sorry for going way off topic.

Back to JWH 018, it may be a cancer risk, it might not.
If it is a cancer risk then it is pretty certain that it will be dose /exposure related, the more times you roll the dice and all that. Hence the harm reduction advice to moderate consumption.

I say that as someone who assayed 018 and a few others several years ago, working up to active doses with each.

Been there, seen it, done it and feel no need to revisit them especially as they are now illegal.

I don't need to justify their safety to myself or anyone else, because even if you manage to convince yourself what you are doing is safe it doesn't necessarily follow that it is. Trying to twist the limited available evidence one way or another is wrong, and smacks of denial.

Spin the barrel pull the trigger,

I just like to know there are less than 6 bullets in there, better still none. which means you have to look at what is known and make a judgement.


Thread writing style is basically straight from some anti-drug place. Topic name leads to believe for more than it is, trying to umbrella term the text with topic leaving very negative result if read by joe-nobody + someone is trying to clear his 'internet name' hence skewed starting point.

This make it even easier for dumb legislators to ban _ALL_ substances used recreationally due to POSSIBLE risks as prooven by this study, IN OTHER COUNTRIES not just USA (who no one cares about at this point in time :p).


I dont really care if they ban JWH-018 as i dont use it anymore either that much. But the fact studies such as this (that dont hold any real ground) influence the banning of multitude of 'legal' highs some that are definetly not carsinogenic or even acts on different receptors. I definitely care. Too bad you dont

What happens when all your precious chemicals are in the higest class ? Slows down research
 
I have some really severe health issues going on right now caused by JWH-018 (pure material, not from "online vendors").

Pure you say? I'm highly sceptical.
What was the colour of your material?
How was the purity determined?

I'm just curious, but the answers to the above questions would be quite interesting to know.

Peace! - Murphy
 
Last edited:
Thread writing style is basically straight from some anti-drug place. Topic name leads to believe for more than it is, trying to umbrella term the text with topic leaving very negative result if read by joe-nobody + someone is trying to clear his 'internet name' hence skewed starting point.
This make it even easier for dumb legislators to ban _ALL_ substances used recreationally due to POSSIBLE risks as prooven by this study, IN OTHER COUNTRIES not just USA (who no one cares about at this point in time :p).

Stop dodging the issue. This has nothing to do with whether substances become prohibited or not.
Are you suggesting that open discussion of potential downsides of RC type substances should not be allowed on the grounds that legislators might use it as the basis for scheduling those substances?
That is a naive and ridiculous position. The Authorities do not ban stuff because it might be harmful. They ban stuff when people are fucking stupid and bring the substances to their attention. It is easiest at that point for the authorities just to ban the substances citing abuse or whatever.

If we follow your position to its logical conclusion the recent bromodragonfly 2-cbfly incident should not have been discussed? many more people would have died as a result. great harm reduction move.

I dont really care if they ban JWH-018 as i dont use it anymore either that much. But the fact studies such as this (that dont hold any real ground) influence the banning of multitude of 'legal' highs some that are definetly not carsinogenic or even acts on different receptors. I definitely care. Too bad you dont
What happens when all your precious chemicals are in the higest class ? Slows down research

Find one post where I have ever advocated prohibition, so do NOT put words in my mouth.

Just in case you haven't noticed I am very careful with what I write. I choose my words carefully and I can usually logically justify any position I take. I am pro-legalisation and anti stupidity. the current situation is insane and illogical, but idiotic vendors and idiotic users are making it near to impossible to convince anyone who actually matters that legalization won't result in an even worse situation. It is likely that legalization will improve the situation, but the mephedrone example is not helpful.

If people cannot play sensibly with their toys then the authorities will take those toys and lock them away. What else do you expect.?
People are being really dumb with cathinones and other legal highs, so unsurprisingly they are are going to be banned.You need to realize this thread, neither its content or tone has anything to do with it.people are being really dumb with cathinones and other legal highs, so unsuprisingly they are are going to be banned.
 
Pure you say? I'm highly sceptical.
What was the colour of your material?
How was the purity determined?

I'm just curious, but the answers to the above questions would be quite interesting to know.

Peace! - Murphy

Apparently some of the recent light yellow and also the white material is of a high purity 99%
how ironic that they finally sorted out most of the purity issues just before the stuff was banned in a load of countries.
8)
 
Thread writing style is basically straight from some anti-drug place.[2] Topic name leads to believe for more than it is[3], trying to umbrella term the text with topic leaving very negative result if read by joe-nobody [4] + someone is trying to clear his 'internet name' hence skewed starting point.[1]

This make it even easier for dumb legislators to ban _ALL_ substances used recreationally due to POSSIBLE risks as prooven by this study, IN OTHER COUNTRIES not just USA (who no one cares about at this point in time :p). [5]


I dont really care if they ban JWH-018 as i dont use it anymore either that much. But the fact studies such as this (that dont hold any real ground)[6] influence the banning of multitude of 'legal' highs some that are definetly not carsinogenic or even acts on different receptors. I definitely care. Too bad you dont

What happens when all your precious chemicals are in the higest class ? Slows down research

[1] It ws me who started this thread, so I will start with this comment: What the heck do you mean with "skewed starting point" and "trying to clear his 'internet name'"? I really take this personal. The starting point was absolutely clear: I am collecting every evidence pro and contra the presumable benignity of the JWH-compounds, in particular 015, 018 and 073, as these are the most prevalent ones. This thread served one special purpose (well, until the totally pointless discussion about radioisotopes came up): To inform as much JWH-consumers as possible that the suggested but until then not yet proved theory of carcinogenic metabolites of JWH-018 was shwon for the first time.

[2] WTF? Thread writing style is straight from a harm-reduction point of view, nothing else. Read it again!

[3] In blatant contrary to >90% of all threads at Bluelight, I choose the title of the topics that I open with care and thought. And with the chosen title I deliberately decided to provide a clear preview of what this thread was supposed to inform about. The opening post says it all, I quote myself:
MurphyClox said:
Studies on the metabolism of JWH-018 and of a homologue of CP 47,497, pharmacologically active ingredients
of different misused incense (“Spice”) using GC-MS and LC-MSn techniques


...The highest signals could be observed for the hydroxylated N-dealkyl metabolites. Hydroxylation took place in the side chain and in both aromatic systems, the naphthalene and the indol part...
Which part from the title did promise more than was presented later? :\

[4] If the over-all effect of this thread, read by 'Joe-Nobody', is that people better leave these compounds alone because they are uncertain about the benignity any more - FINE! That was exactly what I was aiming at. I have no commercial interest nor any scientific one for these compounds, but I consider it as my responsibility to inform about possible hazards. "Possible" I said, yes, just "possible", in other related threads I called it same way, too. Never "certain"! At no point did I try to hide that any evidence presented yet does not allow for conclusive remarks a lá "JWH-018 causes cancer" resp. "JWH-018 is safe to use - go ahead".

[5] Oh I can assure you that legislators around the world give a fuck what little Murphy writes in a drug-geek forum.

[6] Oh yes, Sir, this study does hold its ground, without any doubt. The authors did nothinh else than looking for metabolites in rats, incl. the structural verification of those. Nothing else. And they succeeded quite well IMO. It's up to anybody here to interpret this data on his own.


- Murphy



Edit: I didn't see that Vecktor already responded twice while I was writing my last post. What I wrote was absolutely not influenced by his last statements but merely my own voice.
 
Last edited:
this thread is not anti drug and i found the title accurately led to me to expect what i found

this is a website with a lot of people using various drugs, and if a person cannot read negative information about a drug they are consuming then they shouldn't be doing the drug. i drink and take a wide range of stimulants and psychedlics and have an interest in reading anything negative or positive about the drugs i take. it makes sense to be informed about drugs. the only times i have found it difficult to read negative information was when i was taking a particular drug to excess (being addicted).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top