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: