MAPS: Water Pipe/Vaporizer Study Revisited

[Jon Frederick <smiile@xxxxxxxx>]

Ever since I first read the results of the MAPS/California-NORML water
pipe/vaporizer study (see
 http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v06n3/06359mj1.html
), indicating that water filtration actually enhances the percentage of
harmful components of smoke compared to a standard marijuana cigarette,
I have felt a nagging suspicion that important questions have been left
unanswered by the study.

The first and most obvious problem I have is striking inconsistency of
this study's findings with the "anecdotal" evidence that suggested this
research in the first place. That is, there is a huge market for water
pipes. Although psychedelic research has historically been criticized for
inadequate objective measurements, this seems to be a case where the
phenomenological evidence should be telling us something. Water-filtered
smoke tastes better, and feels less harsh on the throat and lungs. Can
50,000,000 satisfied customers be wrong? 

I would like to propose some alternative interpretations of this study,
along with some speculations about the chemistry of water, cannabinoids,
tar, and combustion, and suggest that safer methods of inhalation might
still be available, in spite of what this study suggested.

My first intuition is that MAPS' water pipe/vaporizer study failed to
measure at least one important harmful component of smoke: free radicals. 
I am not an expert in the chemistry of combustion, but my intuition tells
me that burning a substance is a relatively violent event, and would lead
to a spectrum of molecular species with unstable electron structure. (Do
we have any chemists who can inform or correct me on this point?) In a
manner of speaking, free radicals are molecules that are still on fire,
and effectively ignite other molecules in our tissues and cells, which
ignite other molecules and spread the destruction further. Could it be
that milder taste and feeling of water-filtered smoke has to do with a
reduction in the amount of unstable, high-energy components in smoke?
Perhaps, then, the less noxious feeling of water-filtered smoke does
indicate a decreased toxicity. 

A review of the study (at the web address above) also suggested to me that
the study of water as a solvent for harmful components of smoke was
incomplete. (In fact, the report by Dale Gieringer noted that the effects
of filtration & vaporization on harmful gasses such as hydrogen cyanide
and volatile phenols were not measured. "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].") However, one
important factor which remains to be studied is the rate of saturation of
water a function of number of inhalations. Again, a chemist might better
answer this question: wouldn't cannabinoids show a nonlinear absorption
curve, reaching saturation rather quickly compared to many toxins in the
smoke whose absorption curves might be more linear at first because they
are more water soluable? It seems likely that there is a "window of
optimum filtration" or a time course differential in the relative density
of cannabinoids in the smoke, that reachs a maximum at some number of hits
on the pipe. 

As the prototypical polar solvent, we would expect components of smoke to
reach saturation in water in the reverse rank order of their polarity.  I
understand cannabinoids are nonpolar molecules, but-- somebody tell me--
what is their water solubility relative to tars, phenols, & free radicals? 
The idea that their solubility in water might be different suggests
another approach to filtration: enhancing these solubility differences by
manipulating the filtration medium. It occurs to me that adding an
antioxidant such as vitamin C or grape seed extract to the bong water
might be good way to neutralize free radicals. What about the effects of
osmolarity, acid/base, detergents, or temperature on the relative
solubility of tars?  How about building an optimal filtration solvent that
strongly & selectively excludes cannabinoids? Perhaps MAPS could make a
killing patenting & marketing our exclusive hi-tech Smoke Scrubbin' Bong
Juice.

Jon Frederick, M.S.


------------------
MAPS-Forum@xxxxxxxx, a member service of the Multidisciplinary Association
for Psychedelic Studies (to become a member, see www.maps.org/memsub.html).
To [un]subscribe, email the message text,
[un]subscribe maps-forum youraddress to majordomo@xxxxxxxx