[This post ended up being a little bit lengthier than I originally planned for. Apologies. Just pretend I kept hammering the "post" button every couple of minutes instead of saving the space by placing everything into the one message.]
I miss my cast iron cookware. Had enough to use that exclusively if I wanted, and a couple pieces were older than I am.
I think the process does produce
some heat, but not to any significant...
degree.
Lots of people use them. Glass is, for all intents and purposes, nonreactive.
Possible disadvantage (if only in theory) being that more trichomes might stick to the inside of the bag than the inside of the glass, or that the amount would be comparable but it'd be somewhat more difficult to remove (and then use) them? I think I'm going to keep using the same three jars for "immediate-access storage" until the insides are like 60-grit sandpaper, lol, and then "rinse" them out. Waste not, want not, and all that.
Another possible disadvantage is that I can handle a jar without disturbing the contents overmuch. Bags, less so.
That's a good way to word it. I would, perhaps, not disagree with your statement
. Throw it into the same category as pollutants. Might not be a clear and direct quantifiable thing - but the species sure does seem to have been much more...
robust before all of that became a factor (the reason that life expectancies have (generally) increased is not an
internal one) .
<SHRUGS> If I shoot you in the head, you'll fall over, I'll make a mess of the wall behind you unless I use my .22 in which case I'll merely turn your brain to puree due to the slug not having enough energy remaining to make an exit hole and, therefore, just bouncing around in there a few times... And all observers will be able to immediately and with no doubt whatsoever, state that getting shot in the head is most harmful. (
NOTE: I wouldn't dream of shooting you in the head!)
On the other hand, if I do a thing a few times per month, and it takes 25 years' worth of doing this thing to cause a detectable problem - and I am, of course, doing countless other things over the course of those 25 years, sucking in pollutants as a matter of course, maybe smoking a cigarette "or two," et cetera... It becomes exponentially more difficult to then point to one specific thing/practice and say, "THIS thing caused harm."
Doesn't it?
Dad died of (lung/bone/lymph/etc.) cancer. It'd be easy to point to smoking multiple packs of Kool cigarettes for 50 years as being what killed him. But the asbestos, that would have played a part, I'd think. Eating fish - that the government said was <COUGH>probably safe<COUGH> to eat <COUGH>once or twice a month<COUGH> from our local river, would that have been an additive factor? The various chemicals/substances he would have encountered in his work (he built things including large plants/factories - but he also occasionally modified same or partially/fully demolished them after they'd been in operation for years, too) probably were. There was another one, an entity that poisoned the local water supply for decades - I'd put that into the "definite" category.
How can we look at a scenario like that and decide this thing was n% causative, this other thing was d% causative, et cetera? And how can we know that other factors
weren't factors?
It's kind of like hurting when I get up each morning. I can point to that head-on collision. The time I wrecked my ten-speed bicycle as a teenager at some speed greater than 60 MPH. Slamming my right knee into a relatively small tree (but it sure wasn't a sapling, lol) when doing jumps at the bottom of a huge hill hard enough that, when I could think about something besides the pain, I realized I'd
broken the tree. Those were significant,
immediate injuries to the ol' system. But remove those and I'd still wake up hurting every morning. Presumably somewhat less, but... Because those were by far not the only things I've managed to smash into - or through - with my body to date.
We can poison all the mice, rats, and fruit flies that we like, but that's still not going to be exactly the same as consuming the same substances in much reduced concentrations - but over a
much greater period of time. IMHO. And real life... isn't a sterile lab. Those rodents (/etc.) are probably living pretty clean lives, aside from what the scientists are putting into/on them. Us?
Much less so.
THAT isn't a conspiracy theory, lol; that's simple common sense caution. A conspiracy theory would be... IDK. Okay, here's one off the top of my head: The pharmaceutical companies' ability to push opiates/etc. is not what it once was (or at least that's the government's and concerned citizens' goal). Speculating that one or more of them have now begun making clandestine contacts with the "underworld" and are selling their pills/etc. in wholesale lots out of the back of unmarked trucks to a few major dealers in order to make up for the shortfall... Yeah, I think that'd qualify as a conspiracy theory
.
Different situation altogether (and I do not feel even the slightest urge to add "IMHO" here). That was politically motivated, statements that cannabis actually qualifies for inclusion as a Schedule I Narcotic are patently false, a substance must meet
all three requirements for said inclusion and cannabis meets NONE of them - and the evidence of this was available
at the time of its scheduling.
IDK if this is still the case, but it wasn't that many years ago that I read that almost every man, woman, and child in the US had "scientifically detectable" levels of DDT in their systems - and DDT was basically banned in my country something like 46 years ago.
Yeah, you picked a pretty good example of a thing that doesn't really appear to be harmful until years after the harm starts evincing.
Rest assured, you are not. For one thing, you admit to the
possibility of being wrong, lol. Zealots are
absolutely certain of a thing.
I've used those Arizona Ice Tea jugs for water jugs because the lids are decent, they've got good handles... And, FFS, a
drink came in them. Sensible, right?
Maybe.
I somehow managed to stick one in a closet, in a room used for storage and partially filled with boxes of family stuff that's Mom's but she's never decided what to do with. And I have the storage space, at least technically (although I'd love to toss all of it out the nearest window so I'd have room to
assemble the grow tent that Sue gave me[/RANT, lol]). So I hadn't been in that closet in five, maybe ten years.
I had reason to, though, last week, whereupon I found the bottle. I have every reason to believe it's "just water" inside. I previously lived in an old house in the country with really sketchy well water, so I'd use those jugs to bring water in and then dump them into a larger container.
The water had a BROWNISH tint to it!
Again, it had been in there a long time. But it was just municipal water - and I'd have noticed if it wasn't transparent when I filled the jug, because I am a bit paranoid about things.
And, again, this wasn't a motor oil jug - it came with
tea in it.
I never was much of a wine drinker (unless you count the tanker-loads worth of Boone's Farm that I consumed as a teenager, or consider all the Mad Dog 20/20 Orange Jubilee that I was guzzling at the same time to have qualifed as wine, I suppose...), having found it wasn't nearly flammable enough for me, lol. So maybe this is just a "~TS~ kind of thought." But have you ever found yourself wanting to say, "No thanks, I've brought something less addictive, less harmful, more helpful, and far more enjoyable," and then whip out a joint/bowl/bong/etc. and fire it up? Or, IDK, since it's a restaurant setting, maybe hauling out a special dessert (brownies? something suitably stronger?) and saying the same thing?
If you find yourself with a sativa that just isn't quite there, yet... No, never mind. I might be in the midst of a grow at that time. Then again, if you happen to come via my neck of the woods, lol...
You won't exactly be on a major cannabis transport corridor, regardless of the route you take. Unless you t-bone a cop, manage to leave your keys in the vehicle and wander off, or your truck ends up
reeking, you'll be fine. Use sensible packing methods. You don't even need to do the "put the lid on the jar and melt wax around the lid" hyper-paranoid thing - you have a vacuum-sealer
.
Trying to transport
plants is a little more involved. But that's doable, too. (I typed "plants," not "TREES"
.)
Oops. One of these days, I'll learn to read to the end of the post before beginning my reply. Maybe.
Ya know... If you're worried about getting your cargo searched, people are probably significantly less likely to pack random food items for a 1,000-mile move than they'd be to pack regular household items, clothing, et cetera. I'm just saying. Especially
previously opened food items. This isn't a move across town, where you end up making several trips, the first couple being concerned with something simple to eat during the transition and something to sleep on. This is a one-shot.
A few(???
) vacuum-sealed bags, rolled up into a comforter, quilt, et cetera, and bagged (in those heavy transparent plastic bags that things like that often come in, if at all possible) might be wiser, IMHO. Not that I've ever transported cannabis across multiple state lines or anything <WINK> .
Yes. No, wait, that's not right...
YES! Much better
.
That strain is a
classic SCROG candidate. And not one of those half-@ssed "I started out intending to do a SCROG, but the screen ended up just being a support, instead" grows. That girl deserves the full-boat SCROG, with the screen as low as you can reasonably position it and still guarantee that you'll be able to access every hole from underneath when your growth gets crazy and you end up weaving, repositioning, rinse/lather/repeating, encouraging your plant to reach the screen ASAP and start branching (NOT by cutting bits off of the plant, but by continually keeping all your tips at the same level), curtailing all undergrowth... and ending up with a screen that's completely (or nearly so) full without it getting to the point that you end up just letting parts go (which kind of sh!tcans the setup, as those would just become the plant's primaries) . And ending up with a canopy that absorbs enough of your light that you need an additional light to do your under-screen maintenance.
I picture a plane of buds, not really solid enough to walk on, of course - but looking almost as if it is. The kind of grow where, when harvest day arrives, you have to call Tead to help with the initial steps - because you'll have to end up just sawing off the trunk under the screen, then the two of you disconnecting the thing from the walls and, together, carrying the screen/buds as a unit to your table for the actual harvest work.
Oh, Sue, it's a such beautiful thing when it's done correctly. Not to mention, you'd probably need... more jars
. Keep the light levels HIGH (your type of lighting should work great). I find myself wanting to suggest that you use a piece of poultry netting (aka "chicken wire") even though you have something else already. I guess I just did, huh? It comes in both 1" and 2" hole sizes, is sold in a variety of widths, pretty much any length you want from a foot (assuming you can find a real hardware store) to 300', and is strong yet really easy to work with.
I'd also recommend doing this as a single-plant grow, not cutting your vegetative period too short, and doing this as a DWC with a 20- to 25-gallon reservoir.
You'll seriously have to reschedule a bunch of stuff on harvest day, because you'll have a rather noteworthy yield. At least that's my prediction. Been there, done that. And you've already had good results with soil and passive hydroponics grows - why not add another method to your toolkit. I sincerely think you'd find yourself impressed. Ask
Chuck Lucas @Rifleman what he thinks of my idea.
Two difficulties with true, real sativas: Long internodal length and the difficulty of getting as much of the light-energy to as much of the plant as possible when it wants to grow TALL and training never quite gets 100% of things at more or less the same level. Internodal length isn't a factor when you end up with 276 decent-sized buds, all packed as close together as they reasonably can be. And, with a true SCROG grow, you set the light(s) at a distance from the screen that is close enough that you're blasting that screen with as much light as the plant can take and all the greenery is at the same level (immediately underneath the screen, with only a wee tiny bit of tip growth sticking up from each hole (basically, the minimum it takes to actually keep the tip you stick in a given hole... where you've placed it that day) . You don't even need to raise your lights (in fact, that's detrimental) until after you've switched to flowering, the first part of the stretch has allowed you to finish filling your screen, and you are, therefore, allowing the remainder of the stretch to provide vertical growth of your buds/tips. Then you raise it a bit at a time, keeping the same "close as you can without causing harm" light-to-plant distance until the stretch finishes up, at which point vertical growth stops and things are filling in from then to harvest - so you can, again, stop worrying about having to adjust your light.
Yeah... I'm a fan. Not just because it's an enjoyable method for growing cannabis, but also because, well... What's the whole point of growing cannabis, again, lol? (The harvest!
)
Oh, and when you're basically growing in
water... It kind of makes things more difficult for those pests that either go to ground regularly or deposit their eggs in it.
Hey, you're not planning to throw that guitar instruction book away, are you?
That Royal Gorilla looks
shiny
.
I'm actually not opposed to the concept. The problem, IMHO, is in determining a "safe limit" for a substance that tends to affect different people differently.
I rarely drive these days, but I used to do so A LOT, and there were several periods when my yearly mileage approached that of the proverbial traveling salesman. It wasn't until recent years that I wasn't constantly growing cannabis. And I was pretty bad about treating the jars as if they were bottomless - and as if they contained air, lol, that I needed to inhale constantly in order to survive.
I'd guess that the amount of driving, to date, that I've done
without having been as high as I could be... was probably pretty close to 1% (or less) . Admittedly, I occasionally ended up at a destination other than the one I'd originally planed to - but I didn't have "issues." Ironically, I've totaled several vehicles - all but one during those 1% times (and that other one was due to a deer jumping into my windshield when I was moving at a pretty good clip).
My thought is that, if nothing else, the law of averages would have seen me having at least one major malfunction when high, if I'd truly been "over my personal limit."
But I've encountered people who were disasters after sharing a bowl. I mean walking into walls because they misjudged the width/placement of doorways kind of disasters. My buddy, the one that visited you with me? He's been getting there since before he was on the Nimitz in the '80s. Several years ago, he got a job at a municipal wastewater treatment plant. First night he was to be there by himself, he invited me to hang out ("You can bring something to smoke.
If you want to.") since I had a working knowledge of things such as pH, total dissolved solids,
math, etc. Within an hour he'd basically managed to halt the entire operation of the plant, LMFAO. Panic mode ensued. Turned out it was a good idea to invite me, because I also have some concept of how pumps work, hydrodynamics, and the sense to say, "Hey, man, I think that 60' tall 12" diameter line that you're loosening the bottom of is still full of sewage."
Some would say that he wouldn't have had that particular Great Adventure if I hadn't showed up with a bag of fun. I like to think the event prepared him to deal with
unforeseen events. And, to be honest, he told me he was a lot less nervous after he managed to get things restarted that night. But, anyway, that was one night he wouldn't have been safe/reliable driving a riding lawnmower. And I couldn't tell you how many times his visits got extended by hours because he felt that it wouldn't have been safe for him to drive.
It's... Cannabis isn't exactly like alcohol in that regard. I don't care who you are, I can give you enough liquor that you won't be able to crawl to your vehicle, to say nothing of driving it (and a lesser amount would so impair the person that he/she would still be a danger, and arriving at the destination would be more a matter of luck than skill). With cannabis, OtOH, it's much less a sure thing. It really does vary from person to person, based on experience and - for all I know - something in our brains.
Devices like that... Dual-purpose devices. Partly intended to ensure the guilty get arrested but not the innocent - but also partly intended to make things easier for LEO. I have concerns that the latter will end up being more the focus (in practical terms, at least) . I'm a fan of LEO testing suspects; checking balance, et cetera. Unfortunately, that kind of thing can end up being somewhat subjective.
It really is a slippery slope. I kind of believe that the difficulty in being able to categorically determine whether or not a person is competent to drive might have been a contributing factor to why the struggle to legalize cannabis even after it started being treated as a mainstream(?) product. I might be wrong, though.
I've always liked
Geodon whoops, I mean Geolite
/ Hydroton / "expanded clay balls" . But I need to think about getting more, and a ten-liter bag isn't cost effective, and the 50-liter one is going to cost to ship. I'll have to read up on that stuff. Thanks for the mention of it.
I've cleaned my media. RPITA, but...
One of the advantages of DWC is one can use a really small amount of media. I used big reservoirs - but only enough Geolite (clay balls) to fill a Solo cup, lol, which would be the initial container until the roots grew through the many holes I put in the cups, down into the reservoir. By harvest time, the cups were destroyed and the media was mostly embedded in the root mass with the odd ball loose in the reservoir. The media was only really used to help initially support the plant. When you've got a huge root mass and it's a SCROG grow, well, you don't much need any other support than the screen and the tub/tote.
So I mostly ended up throwing away my media, one (largish) cup at a time. I dumped a bit into the outdoor gardens, but I couldn't really see where it was doing much to benefit them.
This is not an insignificant factor. Figuring this issue out - and somehow getting it right - would actually be helpful.
I wouldn't disagree. But it depends on several factors, IMHO. Not least of which being... Sativa or indica, lol?
There are scientific instruments that can detect the presence of something that is as low as a few parts per
trillion, IIRC. With that being the case, it's not so amazing that we can detect the presence of a relative few molecules in someone's exhaled breath. The resolution - and the miniaturization of such an accurate device to hand-held size... Definitely interesting. In terms of technology, though, this kind of thing really is just evolutionary - not revolutionary.
And many things once thought safe have turned out to be pretty bad
... I appreciated most of that. 
