Industrial Hemp > Hempflax > A €100,000 Reward to Prove Us Wrong!!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

The Challenge

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
americano View Drop Down
Sensi Seedling
Sensi Seedling
Avatar

Joined: 23 November 2005
Location: private island
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 285
  Quote americano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 September 2006 at 21:02
speculation once again. I must say.
I REMAIN
U KYIN SWAN
Back to Top
BC-ML7 View Drop Down
Sensi Seedling
Sensi Seedling
Avatar

Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
  Quote BC-ML7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 September 2006 at 21:08
And another thought... if the plant is used to remove pollutants from the soil, those pollutions build up in the plant and are sooner or later released into the air causing MORE harm to the atmosphere then when they were trapped in the soil.

Just a thought...
Back to Top
Ganja View Drop Down
Sensi Administrator
Sensi Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6796
  Quote Ganja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 September 2006 at 13:39
It's not speculation, though admittedly the infrastructure is (for some odd reason) not in place. Vast ethanol refineries aren't as common as (ahem) vast oil refineries.
But before oil became entrenched as the combustible fuel (originally due to the fact that was dirt cheap because it could be removed from poor countries without paying them much), most farm vehicles ran on ethanol, because farmers could produce it themselves.

Methane and ethanol can be made from biomass - green waste from farming. You've probably heard about the push to increase use of ethanol (made form corn husks and the like) and add it to petrol.
Cannabis produces more biomass per hectare of land than any other farmed crop, so it has the potential to produce large amounts of fuel just from its waste products. If grown specifically for biomass, hemp/cannabis can produce enormous amounts of fuel.

And cannabis is not used for taking toxins and pollutants from soil so much as using up excessive amounts of nutrient and fertiliser that are a byproduct of industrial farming. For instance, nitrogen  build-up that runs into water sources and causes huge outbreaks of toxic blue-green algae
These elements can toxify land and water, so they're pollution in that sense, but they are nutrients that the plants actually use during growing.

As far as 'locking up' substances like CO2, no plant can remove them from the biosphere, as the uptake and decomposition of organic elements is the basis of life on earth. Nothing leaves the system.
The reason that we're probably heading for troubled times is that human industry and agriculture has unbalanced the process by releasing various substances at a higher rate than they can be reabsorbed into the system.

The Greenhouse Effect is not a natural phenomenon
, otherwise it should have  happened at some time in the billions of years since complex life evolved, and would have had a devastating effect on evolution. Instead, it's becoming a danger within the last hundred years - since we have been spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
'Climate change', where the planet has a cyclical rise and fall in temperature, is related to, but not the same thng as the GH effect. GH is the extreme end of climate change, where the planet's thermostat gets 'stuck' in the hot part of the cycle and is unable to return to cooling because heat is trapped within the atmosphere.

Even with less catastrophic climate change, scientists who make the claim that humans are having no influence on the process are on the level of the ones who argued for years that cigarette smoking had not been 'conclusively proven' to cause cancer, addiction and death.

There's a set amount of carbon on the planet, some solid and increasing amounts in the gaseous form of CO2.
Growing huge amounts of greenery - especially super-fast cannabis - takes the carbon from the air. Through photosynthesis the carbon atom is removed from the CO2 molecule and becomes part of the substance of the plants (and thereafter, all carbon-based lifeforms), while the two oxygen atoms are released into the atmosphere.
The carbon doesn't end its journey here, of course, but it also doesn't have be converted straight back to CO2. It depends what happens to the plant. If it's burned, the CO2 is released quickly. If it decomposes, CO2 and methane (another greenhouse gas) are relased more slowly. If the plant matter is processed into somtehing with a long life (paper, cloth, building material) the carbon within it is trapped until that item decomposes or is burnt.

So plants, including cannabis are not a magic solution for reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but aside from reducing the levels of emissions, photosynthesis is about the only solution we have for making any impact.
Cannabis, as an incredibly fast-growing, nutrient and CO2 hungry, supremely useful plant would be a great candidate for growing on unused land. If that land is also sub-agricultural quality, cannabis crops have a good chance of improving it to the point where its useful for agriculture.

Back to Top
BC-ML7 View Drop Down
Sensi Seedling
Sensi Seedling
Avatar

Joined: 14 September 2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
  Quote BC-ML7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 September 2006 at 23:26
Originally posted by Ganja





< The Greenhouse Effect is not a natural phenomenon<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">, otherwise it should have happened at some time in the billions of years since complex life evolved, and would have had a devastating effect on evolution. Instead, it's becoming a danger within the last hundred years - since we have been spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

What are you talking about? It has happened in the billions of years of life on this planet. Almost every mass extinction is due to global warming and green house gasses. Take the dinosaur era; the earth was f**king HOT, due to all the C02 in the atmosphere. And not only was it hot because of the C02 but the plants got huge because of it (so it did effect evolution and imagine growing weed!) So the earth got hotter and hotter with all thec02 and then something happened, the earths became unstable and the weather took a turn for the worst. If you’ve ever seen ‘the day after tomorrow’ you’ve seen the basics of what might have happened.
     Humans have even gone through a natural global warming episode and survived ( the mammoth wasn’t so lucky) But now were going into another one and with all our human pollutants (fossil fuels) the process is just getting sped up.
Back to Top
Ganja View Drop Down
Sensi Administrator
Sensi Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6796
  Quote Ganja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 September 2006 at 17:46
Ahem, I don't think The Day After Tomorrow paints a particularly accurate picture of climate change. Maybe a climatologist will correct me on this, but I don't think so...

You also seem to mixing up the end of an ice age with global warming. It's more that the ice age was a short (on a global timescale) and unusually cold period. The end of the last ice age was not a product of the greenhouse effect but a return to the planet's normal range of temperature.

The beginning of the last ice age and the end of the dinosaur period are seperated by about 65 million years

And not all the mass extinctions were caused by global warming and greenhouse gas.

There's some contention about how hot it was in during the ages of the dinosaurs and whether this was caused by the greenhouse effect, but the Cretaceous-Tertiary (also called the K/T) event 65 million years ago, which destroyed 50% of the species on the earth is still agreed to have been caused by the impact of a comet or an asteroid.

There is evidence that the biggest mass-extinction - the  Permian-Triassic event 250 million years ago (when 90 percent of species in the ocean and 70 percent of species on land disappeared) - was caused by enormous global warming. It was after this event that the dinosaurs began to appear.

Other mass extinctions have been caused by shifts in the way the planet works - climate, sea level, the chemistry of its oceans and atmosphere.

I may have been using the term 'greenhouse effect' more apocalyptically than it's generally applied. It seems to be used to describe general warming of the planet due to increases in CO2.

However, there is a certain point at which the greenhouse effect becomes almost impossible to reverse. If the oceans heat up too much and the majority of microscopic life in the sea is killed off, this will pretty much destroy the planet's ability to process CO2 and generate oxygen. The plants on land do some of this work, but the majority is actually performed by algae in the sea.
And at the sort of temperatures that would kill of most sea life (mid to high 30's in the deep ocean), land plants would be few in number as well.

At this point, it would look pretty grim for all life on earth, and there would be little hope of the planet cooling again for a long time. If the microbes survived, life could conceivably evolve once more, but humans would be long gone.

This may have been what happened in the Permian-Triassic event, and is apparently the state of being on Venus (though that planet is a lot closer to the sun).

So it's true, the extreme form of the greenhouse effect may have happened naturally at least once in the history of the planet and it took a heck of a long time to recover. I think it's pretty clear however, that the current explosion of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not a natural phenomenon.

Whether it leads to the terminal version of the greenhouse effect or a less severe and reversible warming remains to be seen.
Back to Top
positronic View Drop Down
Sensi Advanced Grower
Sensi Advanced Grower
Avatar

Joined: 08 September 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
  Quote positronic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 October 2006 at 00:01
Well we can thank Du Pont Petrochemicals for its aggressive lobbying many moons ago to stop the burgeoning hemp industry in favour of its own synthetics.
 
Incidentally, a volcanic `super eruption,` which there have been many thousands thru history, can release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a few days than man can in 10 years.
 
Combine this with the earth`s orbital eccentricity and axis obliquity/procession and we have a natural recipe for climate change...
 
Bring on global warming - tropical UK/EU = great outdoor growing!!
"Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope" FFF Bros
Back to Top
shane View Drop Down
Sensi Advanced Grower
Sensi Advanced Grower
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
  Quote shane Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 October 2006 at 22:02
with respect Ganja, and I am loathe to argue with someone as educated and informative as yourself but I have read that evolution is very well served by global warming. It concentrates "survival of the fittest".
I think the earths cycles of hot and cold are so organic/chaotic that we can hardly predict the last 100 years of industrialisation are specifically the cause of the state we find ourselves in now.
several hundred years ago, the UK was a far more balmy temperature than now, with masses of vineyards across England benefiting from it. we could hardly have been the cause for climate change then could we?.
anyway I'm getting of topic, apologies :-)
 
Back to Top
Quarzen View Drop Down
Sensi Advanced Grower
Sensi Advanced Grower
Avatar

Joined: 27 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 840
  Quote Quarzen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 January 2007 at 22:49
never thought I would write in this forum.
 
I love cannabis, to say that at first.
 
by scientific news, plants ( every plant ) filters the air and sets fresh air to the atmosphere. ( simple spoken, without using any spells I dont know )
thats ok so long, but now scientists found out that 1/3 of the methan-gas, that destroys the atmosphere 3 times more than the stuff a car blows, is produced by plants.
that means 1/3 of that stuff can be also produced by cannabisfields.
and the growing in big dimensions would cause problems too. the fields that are able for making large spaces of canna cant absorb the water steam out of the atmosphere not as good as a simple forest. the soil is too tight on comercial fields like this. the watersteam (which plays important role in our atmosphere) cant develope right.
 
so the trees are the only plants that can ( mayb Ermm ) save our world, cause they have in forests, climative factors ( the watersteam plays a imprtant role in this case ) that comes together and a simple forest is better for the air and the atmosphere than any plant on a field. check all these facts.   
 
sooo ... I proved you wrong, right ?
 
good smoke ! weed leaf
 
Quarzen
Sensi Seeds: the Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!
Back to Top
Ganja View Drop Down
Sensi Administrator
Sensi Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6796
  Quote Ganja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2007 at 11:19
Wrong.
 
Nice to think that you might have beaten all the scientists in the world though....
Back to Top
Ganja View Drop Down
Sensi Administrator
Sensi Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6796
  Quote Ganja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2007 at 11:56

(to repeat from the thread Q started, which will probably be removed soon)

Not even close.
 
I think you need to research methane a bit more.
 
If that were the case, animal life would have (or, rather would never have) arrived on a planet with an atmosphere entirely composed of methane, as there were only plants here for a billion years or more.
 
Where did you get this info on methane?
 
Plants may produce methane when they decompose, but that''s the only way I can think of. It's not part of their everyday metabolism. They take in CO2 by day and release oxygen. At night, the process is reversed.
 
At one point, the earth's atmosphere was almost entirely composed of CO2, in a concentration that no animal could have dealt with. Technically speaking, plants 'polluted' that atmosphere with the oxygen that is a byproduct of their growing, thus allowing all other air-breathing life to exist.
 
All in all, I think you're missing the point of the challenge...
 
 
(shane, if you're still around, sorry I missed answering you.
The short reply would be that GW might serve evolution and survival of the fittest, but there's a very good chance that 'the fittest' does not include any member of the human race.
To be clear, the planet itself is not in danger, and life on earth will likely continue for another few billion years.
Humanity, on the other hand, and life as we know it may be looking at tough times in the near future...
Back to Top
Quarzen View Drop Down
Sensi Advanced Grower
Sensi Advanced Grower
Avatar

Joined: 27 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 840
  Quote Quarzen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2007 at 16:24

ganja, youre just writing its wrong.

but by these facts its prooved that cannabis is not the plant  " (...) that provides (...) that  the atmosphere on Earth can be restored and pollution reduced. " - through these new facts Wink
 
but I really dont think "hempflax" is "sensi seeds" and you do not have to "scratch" your money together for me ...
 
after all that, I have no ambitions to get my 100,000 € in any case, though it may be not prooved by me also through the scientific.
 
I would say let the hempflax company decide, if they post that challenge, they should also make a statement bout that !
 
good smoke ! weed leaf
 
Quarzen
 
ps. If I had written you past a year it could be bad to eat cinnamon in christmas time, you would have also said its wrong. but the scientific facts actualizes our sight on the world day by day !
Sensi Seeds: the Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!
Back to Top
Ganja View Drop Down
Sensi Administrator
Sensi Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2003
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6796
  Quote Ganja Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2007 at 18:11

Actually, the challenge has existed for many years. It was first proposed in Jack Herer's book The Emperor Wears No Clothes.

 

No-one has yet won the challenge, and I doubt anyone will. Basically, it’s asking you to prove that a sensible, sustainable approach to agriculture is not sensible. It’s meant to highlight the fact that according to data that’s been amassed over centuries, we have much better options for producing many important products, but laws designed to protect the profits of already-rich people and companies are stopping humanity from taking the sensible approach.

 

I'm not just writing 'it's wrong', I'm saying 'use common sense'.

Green plants made the atmosphere that you breathe. There’s no getting around that fact.

 

To assert that since there is now too much methane, the natural systems of the earth which have produced and reabsorbed methane for billions of years are contributing to the problem is senseless. If the natural systems were out of alignment, our species would never have evolved.

 

Also, you should read the rest of the thread, where the various ways that cannabis can reduce pollution are discussed.

 

It's not just a matter of reducing CO2, a couple of major points that you may have missed are:

 

1) That the products made from hemp (paper, textiles etc) require far fewer polluting chemicals in their manufacture. It's a major difference - for instance, it takes 3 or 4 times the volume of chemicals to transform wood into paper than it does to turn hemp into paper. And the chemicals used for hemp paper are much less toxic. This represents a large net reduction in pollution and preserves trees.

 

2) That hemp requires few or no chemical fertilisers for optimum growth, just natural ones like manure. This means that the hemp does not annihilate the land it grows on or pollute local water supplies, as opposed to cotton, tobacco, and many other commercial crops which hemp could replace. This represents a large net reduction in pollution and preserves arable land.

 

3) Hemp improves soil and combats erosion. This could be interpreted as a potential net gain in pollution, as more land could possibly be exploited by commercial agriculture, but that’s outside the terms of the challenge, as we’re talking about the responsible and sane use of hemp. The other side of the coin is that with more arable land, less pressure is placed on the rapidly shrinking amount of arable land that’s currently on the planet, meaning that less intensive and damaging farming methods need to be used to feed people from that land.

 

To be fair, you haven't provided any proof, just referenced a TV documentary you saw recently.

 

If you can point out where the proof you mention is written down, so people following the debate may read it for themselves, That may constitute proof, assuming that you’re correct in your assertions.

 

As it stands, I think you’ll find that methane is only produced by decomposing plants, not living ones.

Back to Top
Quarzen View Drop Down
Sensi Advanced Grower
Sensi Advanced Grower
Avatar

Joined: 27 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 840
  Quote Quarzen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2007 at 18:56
http://www.rki-i.com/doc/METHAN.htm
 
good smoke ! weed leaf
 
Quarzen
 
ps. sorry only in german ! run http://uebersetzer.abacho.de/
 
"Environment : Surprising discovery questions opinions of the science with climatic protection greenhouse earth - also Pfanzen heat a VDI realign, Heidelberg, 27. 1. 06, swe - Plants produce methane and are responsible for 10 % to 30 % of the concentration of this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. The realization is surprising. So far researchers believed that methane develops only under exclusion of oxygen, so in the soil of sumps and rice fields or in fermenting stomachs of Cows.
Now a group found Keppier out of the Heidelberger Max-Planck-Institut around franc for nuclear physics that plants themselves form methane - even in oxygen-rich environment. Kepplers discovery, for the first time reported of the science magazine Nature, is not interesting only for plant researchers. Methane is beside CO2 the secondarymost important greenhouse gas. It contributes considerably to the global heating up. If plants have a so clear influence on the methane content of the atmosphere, climatologics will have to redefine the role of expanded forest surfaces in the course of climatic history for example. And its the vegetable methane evaporation in lab tests proved franc Keppler to colleagues. But they bred individual plants under plexiglass hoods in an artificial atmosphere, which corresponded to natural, oxygen-rich air, but no methane contained. Since the researchers in the air samples from the mini greenhouses found methane nevertheless, it must have been produced by the plants. Particularly since the methane concentration lay the more highly, the grew better the plants.
Thus methane production rose clearly, if the plants were illuminated with sunlight. In which way methane in the plants is formed, is however still unclearly. According to first estimations terrestrial plants form t and 240 millions t methane per year world-wide between 60 millions. That corresponds to global methane production up to 30 %; two thirds come from tropical areas, there develop most biomass. The new realizations supply an explanation for earlier, puzzling findings. Researchers of the University of Heidelberg observed unexpectedly high methane concentrations in the past year by satellite over tropical forests, without being able to clarify their origin. Also the question, why the methane content of the atmosphere rose in the last years clearly more slowly than from climatic researchers expected, can be answered with view of plants as source of methane: Since 1990 the total area of tropical forests shrank by clearing around more than one tenth. Accordingly lower also their contribution failed to the global methane household. The study caused world-wide a controversial echo. People in the media asked the question whether afforestation measures, as they are recognized in Kyoto minutes for the lowering of the CO2-Gehaltes of the atmosphere were still justified. Because by their methane missions the new forests could possibly accelerate the climative Changes.
That Keppler contradicted meanwhile and supplied the suitable calculation: Therefore a forest binds for so much CO2 from the atmosphere that the methane output of the plants could diminish this effect only over up to 4 %. For the climatic consequence research Kepplers is study of great importance. The question arises: As strongly humans affect the methane output of the plants. One seem clear: By the rising CO2-Gehalt the atmosphere and the associated higher temperatures plants grow better. That increases again the methane production of the plants and thus their greenhouse effect. Keppler: "this feedback reaction, which decreases/goes back finally to anthropogene effects, is not so far considered in the climative Model." To the many open questions it belongs also why this discovery succeeded only now. Franc Keppler explains the thing with the persistence of text book pointingnesses: "after the knowledge recognized so far methane was allowed to develop only under exclusion of oxygen. Therefore simply nobody has hang-sees exact."
 
Sensi Seeds: the Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!
Back to Top
farmer mick View Drop Down
Sensi Advanced Grower
Sensi Advanced Grower
Avatar

Joined: 28 June 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1083
  Quote farmer mick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2007 at 21:21
I'm no expert and I have no desire to get involved in this little spat, but as far as I know, the earth needs a certain amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane. They act like a blanket and trap heat in the atmosphere, allowing life to survive.
 
In all likelihood, the level of methane produced by plant life, decomposition, farting, etc is perfectly safe and is one aspect of the extremely complicated ecosystem that makes our planet conducive to life.
 
The problem at the moment is that humans are interrupting this ecosystem by pumping billions of tonnes of extra gases into the atmosphere, effectively thickening the blanket and causing the earth to warm more than it would naturally.
 
Anyone who doubts climate change or who says the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling should watch Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. The graphs he displays show clearly that what's happening at the moment has never happened before in nature... and we are to blame, not the plants that have been thriving on our delicately-balanced little planet since long before the dinosaurs.
Back to Top
Quarzen View Drop Down
Sensi Advanced Grower
Sensi Advanced Grower
Avatar

Joined: 27 April 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 840
  Quote Quarzen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 January 2007 at 22:03
no spat in my opinion, fellas ! Star
 
but have you heard that the output of methan has a big part from cows ?
everyone wants beef, and if it comes to the case that every cow on earth farts - big fireball and the end of the human race !
 
again, about 1/3 of the methan comes from plants, 1/3 from deers, and 1/3 from humans and thats why theres anything wrong on earth.
we had the hottest summer of everytime here, the hottest january since notices of the weather, in about 1800.
its also the point that we have water steam in the atmosphere that sets to the earth and on acres
(acker? I dont know the word for commercial fields ) 
the steam cant get into the soil like in natural places like woods. thats one point why in huge citys the weather is irritated. it gets hot in the citys and the steam cant come into the earth, it rises and there comes big climative changes. rainstorm in taiwan - and its only cloudy 50 km in another town.
 
and tobacco, wheat, plants like these and also cannabis doesnt have the CO2 exchange like trees. only about 1/10 like trees or huge bushes, in thier enviroment.
 
so the point that it may be a big producer for oil, paper and other products like soil is right but an solid olive tree could provide the same or even more !
 
the once holy plant cannbis cant save our climative conditions, this can be done only by the woods and forests.
 
I really hate to post all these arguments, was a stoner idea in the begining.       
 
have all a good smoke, homies ! weed leaf 
 
Quarzen
Sensi Seeds: the Indoor/Greenhouse Collection - amazing strains for indoor or outdoor growing!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down