Bong vs Vaporizer

[VapedG13]

As quoted before

Bubbling the smoke through water serves to cool down the smoke, which is typically very hot, and to trap some of the heavier and more water-soluble particulate matter, keeping it from entering the smokers lungs.

Most smokers believe that bongs are healthier than other smoking devices; however, a 2000 NORML-MAPS study found that waterpipes filter out more psychoactive THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect.

[SolarToker]

I vaporize using my bong and the sunshine outside. Best of both worlds.
:hippy:

[Revanche21]

water catches all the ashes and spent weed thats why it turns black

water DOES NOT filter or eliminate toxins or tars ... Decent digitally controlled vaporizers do



These toxins are known to be in MJ smoke

Water DOES capture toxins

Water has an effect of binding to things (Polar Binding)

THC is not water soluble hence filtering through water removes some (but not all) toxins while (most but not 100%) THC is available to smoke

[StickyfingahZ]

I had a vapolution vaporizer and that was some goooood highs!

[VapedG13]

Water DOES capture toxins

Water has an effect of binding to things (Polar Binding)

THC is not water soluble hence filtering through water removes some (but not all) toxins while (most but not 100%) THC is available to smoke

water will not remove benzin or all tar from smoke....there has only been 1 study about this

The study was carried out by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in 2000. The experiment entailed duplicating the act of a smoker using a variety of marijuana intake devices, including bongs, joints, pipes, and vaporizers. Using suction to draw smoke from marijuana through these various devices, the resultant smoke was analyzed in order to discern its chemical composition.

The study discovered that bongs actually performed less effectively than the other devices at removing harmful tar components from the marijuana smoke. Oddly enough, unfiltered joints actually fared best in the trials in terms of allowing the lowest amount of harmful tars and other substances from reaching the experiment's hypothetical lungs. However, it should also be noted that MPAS examined another study that was done concerning filtered marijuana smoke and filtered tobacco smoke. It was found that macrophages (white blood cells that engulf foreign bacteria) were less effective when subjected to unfiltered smoke from either substance in the lungs. Thus, although more harmful tars might reach the lungs via filtered marijuana smoke through a bong, the user could possibly be more at risk for a respiratory infection if they smoke unfiltered joints or out of pipes.

This trade-off of pros and cons leads to a rather baffling quandary with respect to the alleged superiority of bongs over other smoking devices. What is clear is that some of the heavier particulates in smoke remain behind in bong water when a bong is used. This is apparent because bong water would not appear brownish and smell bad if nothing was being deposited in it as smoke travels through the water. What is unclear is what exactly is being left behind in the water. Some cannabinols are trapped in the bong without reaching the lungs and are deposited on the surface of the water and the sides of the bong since the chemicals are not water soluble. But along with those cannabinols are clear traces of other, rather nasty looking tar-like chemicals.

Bongs are effective in varying degrees at removing these particulates depending on their structure and size. Generally, the farther the smoke has to travel through the water before it enters the smoker's lungs means that more bad stuff can potentially be removed. Furthermore, if a bong's stem terminates in an attachment that aids in dispersion of the smoke through the water, the filtration process will also benefit. The smaller the bubbles are that pass through the water, the more surface area the smoke is exposed to the water as it travels upward. Thus, millimeter-sized bubbles will serve to filter smoke more than centimeter-sized bubbles.

So, should bongs be considered the healthiest devices for smoking marijuana? Obviously this cannot be fully answered at this point since more research must be completed to either support or refute the claims of the NORML-MAPS study. At present, the effectiveness of bongs to filter out harmful substances must remain largely in the realm of conjecture. But, at least they cool the smoke down.

[VapedG13]

here are the exact findings of this study

Joints and Waterpipes

Surprisingly, the unfiltered joint outperformed all devices except the vaporizers, with a ratio of about 1 part cannabinoids to 13 parts tar. This disturbingly poor ratio may be explained by the low potency of the NIDA-supplied marijuana used in the study, which was around 2.3%.

Disappointingly, waterpipes performed uniformly worse than the unfiltered joint. The least bad waterpipe, the bong, produced 30% more tar per cannabinoids than the unfiltered joint. Ironically, the pipe with the electric mixer scored by far the worst of any device. This suggests that water filtration is actually counterproductive, apparently because water tends to absorb THC more readily than noxious tars. Like the waterpipes, the cigarette filter also performed worse than the unfiltered joint, by about 30%. Researchers speculate this is because cannabinoids are exceptionally sticky and adhere to other solids. Hence, any filtration system that picks up particulates is likely also to screen out cannabinoids

The study results are obviously discomforting to waterpipe enthusiasts, many of whom prefer the cooler, milder smoke they produce, and have naturally assumed it is also more healthful. Unfortunately, however, the study indicates that waterpipes may actually be counterproductive in increasing consumption of carcinogenic tars.

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.

MAPS and California NORML are planning to undertake a second phase of the waterpipe study for the purpose of analyzing the gaseous phase of marijuana smoke.

In the meantime, the easiest way for most smokers to avoid harmful smoke toxins may be simply to smoke stronger marijuana. This strategy is apt to be more effective than any smoke filtration device. By simply replacing the low, 2.3% potency NIDA marijuana used in this study with high-quality 12%-sinsemilla, smokers could presumably reduce their tar intake by a factor of five while still achieving the same effect. Further improvements could be had by using pure THC or hash oil, which has been tested at potencies of 60%.

The notion that high-potency marijuana is less harmful directly contradicts official government propaganda, which maintains that marijuana has become more dangerous since the '60s due to increased potency. This claim appears to rest less on scientific evidence than on the desire to frighten the public. A careful analysis of government data by Dr. John Morgan has shown that the supposed increase in potency has been greatly exaggerated [American Marijuana Potency: Data Versus Conventional Wisdom, NORML Reports (1994)]. In any case, however, there is no good reason to presume that higher potency marijuana is more harmful, given the potential respiratory benefits of reduced smoke consumption. The hazards of excessive potency are purported to be an increased risk of acute overdose and greater susceptibility to dependency. However, both problems can be avoided if users adjust their dosage to potency. For most users, such hazards may well be outweighed by the benefits of reduced smoke consumption.

Research in Australia

The Australian government is currently conducting another study that may cast further light on the effects of potency variations. The study is designed to determine baseline THC, tar, and carbon monoxide levels from marijuana and marijuana-tobacco mixtures smoked through joints and waterpipes. The samples being tested come from police seizures in six different Australian states. Researchers say that they have observed "incredible" variations in tar and THC potency among different samples. Their report is expected shortly.

THC Transfer Rate

The MAPS-NORML study provides new information on the efficiency of different devices in delivering THC from marijuana to the user. Previous studies have shown that 60% - 80% of the THC burned in joints or waterpipes is lost in slipstream smoke, adhesion to the pipestem and bowl, pyrolysis, etc. [Mario Perez-Reyes, Marijuana Smoking: Factors that Influence the Bioavailability of Tetrahydrocannabinol, in C. Nora Chiang and Richard Hawks, ed., Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA Research Monograph 99, 1990]. The percentage of total THC delivered to the user is called the THC transfer rate. The unfiltered joint scored surprisingly well in smoking efficiency, coming in second place with a transfer rate close to 20%. The portable waterpipe did slightly better, and the bong slightly worse. The other devices did notably worse. The vaporizers and electric waterpipe did especially poorly, with transfer rates less than one-third that of the top three devices. Thus, heavy smokers could literally be blowing most of their stash away with bad pipes.

Note:
Contrary to the initial version of this article, which erroneously stated that THC vaporizes at 155º C, the Merck Manual lists the vaporization point of THC as 200º in vacuum. The vaporization point at normal atmospheric pressure appears to be unknown, but is thought to be in the range 250-400º.

[doodd06]

i gotta say i like using both. My personal preference is using an ice bong but i wont protest using a vap

[cvbaseballplaya]

i like to take the hose from the vapo and hook it to the bong

[VapedG13]

Well you could always get the best of both worlds and use your bong as a vape

VRIPTECH has the $50 VCB (Vaporization Chamber Bowl) for bongs....add a heat gun or their heat wand and your set

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToAgDpbA29c[/YOUTUBE]

[thevines2]

smoke blunts errrrday