Internal Journal: Future's Pesticide Remediation Tek

repeatedly posting links to a website that poorly implemented certainly does nothing to strengthen @DrJosh’s claims or sell his wares.

One link might have. many, without a decent website to back them, reads as spam.

I agree that one would have to be fairly ill-informed to pay a third party for that web presence. It does read as “built in-house”.

which will tend to color how the other things being built in-house are perceived…

1 Like

@DrJosh I will, however, offer you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to prove your claims if you are willing to work on contingency. Keep in mind, I routinely work with material that has >100x legal (CA) contamination on a wide range of pesticides.

I’m in norcal, hmu.

1 Like

Boy did we get attacked on this.

We will post the last lab test that showed the numbers. We treated California material and the material was contaminated by pesticides that California is concerned with. I believe the list is 300 but I could be wrong

we have done runs from a few grams up to multi kg lots.

The method is new and as far as we can tell nobody has thought of this method. we have looked at various sites-blogs etc and the pesticide removal methods are all about the same ideas.; column, salt, etc maybe some vinegar

we have been looking for a partner to start processing “contaminated” material to turn it into usable material.
the method is scalabale to process 100’s of kgs per day

2 Likes

@DrJosh are you willing to work on contingency? I have more than enough material available to make it interesting for you

1 Like

we are down in san diego. what sort of terms?

If you can’t prove your claims, you don’t get paid a dime. Will that work?

Your claims are quite suspect at this point, but I’m certainly no chemist and my suspicions could very well be wrong and unfounded. For some reason, the first thought that comes to mind is some sort of fraud. Some way some shape, I just can’t quite put my finger on it.

That said and considering our distance, I’m not sure how I feel about dropping off a considerable amount of material for you to work on without a guarantee that it will be returned, and I am also concerned that if I submit a relatively small amount of material to prove your claims on, that there may be some Shenanigans such as a different clean sample being returned than I submitted

What, if anything, can you do to alleviate these concerns? Is this level of paranoia beyond reasonable?

4 Likes

Attacked? You stated removal of ALL pesticides.
which is an outrageous claim. made without support of any kind.

what exactly were you expecting?

Now you’re stating the list tested for contained 300 pesticides. That’s a start.

Did you do spikes for every one on the list? Or just clean up the 1/2 dozen that were actually present in any given sample?

5 Likes

Indeed, can it remove all 300 from a sample?

I’d like to see what he has to offer, but at the same time my gut also says too good to be true.
Perhaps watching him do the process and taking the samples for analisys at two or three labs would put that paranoia to rest! I mean we all have secrets, I just don’t boast about them.
High edit: but if you talked about your secret was it really a secret? bill-ted-3-confirmed-001-480x320

10 Likes

@Soxhlet I don’t always have secrets, but when I do, I always brag about it.

7 Likes

Well played

@DrJosh any response to my concerns?

Hope to hear from you soon @DrJosh

1 Like

Flame in flame out, no shit product is worth running in my books too :wink: but I can see how there will be a huge market for this due to low/medium quality mass produced flowers flooding the market. Another thing I think people will look into very soon is PGR remediation, specifically the removal of paclo and diamonozide as their use is becoming increasingly popular

Whatever happened to the hippy growers who wouldn’t use anything… nothing worse than folier sprays and pesticides…

2 Likes

IMO all pesticides, fungicides and Foliars are unnecessary and most people buy them because as they are scammed by marketing ploys. A grower that keeps their environment in check and provides balanced nutrition for their plants needs none of these products that only act to lessen the quality of our favourite flowers. But for maximising output in grow rooms they become overcrowded and a haven for all sorts of pests hence the massive use of pesticides in industry. Money is the madness driving the use of all these nasty chemicals haha

Probably the wrong lace to say all that. But anyhow I do love the chemistry of the remediation and all of the contributions from everyone, very thought provoking. Also intrigued to hear about dr.joshs remediation process that doesn’t rely on columns or saline washes…

7 Likes

@Soxhlet HPLC/MS has shown that 90% of those hippies were full of shit. #closetsprayers

9 Likes

@skankhunt420 paclobutrazol etc is on the list of chemicals to test for. In fact, in CA paclo is a “class I” chemical meaning that there is no soft/grace limit, if it tests positive AT ALL in any concentration, your product fails testing.

Luckily, it is pretty easy to remove to a non-detect.

2 Likes

Almost forgot, but I want to note that @DrJosh has been communicating with @Soxhlet and I privately, and addressed some concerns and answered a few questions SO FAR to my satisfaction.

What appears to be a non-response on this thread kinda makes it look bad, but want to note that is SO FAR not the case.

Still waiting on an answer to ONE more important question, however.

5 Likes

I classify those types as “dirty hippies”.
Ive know some hippy growers that go as far as making their own toothpaste and won’t look at a microwave. The hella paranoid of chemicals type. I not saying it makes much sense as a lifestyle, it’s just they would be too scared to use anything on their plants except compost.

4 Likes