Also, " Bubinga has been reported to cause skin irritation and/or skin lesions in some individuals. ". Not sure I would trust burning tobacco for consumption in Bubinga.
Bubinga Wood (?)
- Thread starter madox07
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Also, " Bubinga has been reported to cause skin irritation and/or skin lesions in some individuals. ". Not sure I would trust burning tobacco for consumption in Bubinga.
I know we live in the lawsuit and Lysol generation, but that's kind of an overly broad statement, don't you think? One person having a skin contact allergy to one member of the rose family is not followed by all people are allergic to all members of the rose family.
Rose family:
Apple, cherry, pear, hawthorn, raspberry, blackberry, plum, peach, almond...
What are you talking about? He said he would not smoke it. Not anything more. But thanks for policing our opinions.
When someone asks an opinion, and the responder says, "I wouldn't do it", he's not 'just saying' he wouldn't; he's suggesting that the other person also should not.
I respectfully pointed out a distinct non sequitur, and this is the reaction I get? Offering another opinion does not equal policing others opinions.
Let's apply the same logic we are applying to bubinga to tobacco. Hmm, I wonder if there's any research or anecdotal evidence suggesting adverse reactions to tobacco...
Well ... I smoked it, and I am happy to say I am still alive. No adverse reactions, and on top of things it does smoke pretty cool. I am not sure whether this solves the mystery, as some people may be allergic to something while others may not be to that same thing, but I, non the less, cannot report any problems with this particular piece.
Tobacco? Seriously?
For wood, yes, there is. For example, the USDA and the wood database rate it as one of the worse sensitizers you to use for making a pipe. Simply because you are constantly exposing the wood to fire.
Wood Allergies and Toxicity | The Wood Database
www.wood-database.com
But believe what you want. I have been a scientist for 4 decades and if I have learned anything, especially the past 2 years, is that many people will look at the facts and still walk away saying, well, I am not sure or I just don't believe.
I think we are talking past each other. You seem to think I'm denying the science, which I'm not. I'm saying, like other risks we take, like smoking tobacco, driving, trying a new fruit for the first time, cooking a salmon on western red cedar, and using Spanish cedar or mahogany in our humidors, it's all about calculating risk and personal choice. The OP demonstrated this by being his own experiment, not by magically thinking the science doesn't apply to him, and I would too.Tobacco? Seriously?
For wood, yes, there is. For example, the USDA and the wood database rate it as one of the worse sensitizers you to use for making a pipe. Simply because you are constantly exposing the wood to fire.
Wood Allergies and Toxicity | The Wood Database
But believe what you want. I have been a scientist for 4 decades and if I have learned anything, especially the past 2 years, is that many people will look at the facts and still walk away saying, well, I am not sure or I just don't believe.
Science isn't about narrowing focus on the risks, right? Isn't it about making judgements on the big picture? If it were, we wouldn't do hardly anything. Certainly wouldn't take an aspirin because you know, the USDA.
Last edited:
I don't doubt that what you say is right, but I cannot but wonder how come this pipe is legal for sale? It is made in Arizona after all ... or at least that's what the package says, so therefore it is subject to USDA regulations, right?
AND IT'S DISCONTINUED AND GOOD AS EFF
The USDA does not regulate pipes or wood used in the making of a particular pipe.
The links you provided say nothing about it being a "worse sensitizer," or anything about making it into pipes, or anything about the application of heat or fire to it. That is conjecture on your part, not fact. Bubinga dust can be an irritant, that is well known. Many common woods have irritant dust, he's not sawing the pipe.Tobacco? Seriously?
For wood, yes, there is. For example, the USDA and the wood database rate it as one of the worse sensitizers you to use for making a pipe. Simply because you are constantly exposing the wood to fire.
Wood Allergies and Toxicity | The Wood Database
But believe what you want. I have been a scientist for 4 decades and if I have learned anything, especially the past 2 years, is that many people will look at the facts and still walk away saying, well, I am not sure or I just don't believe.
Also the pipe has a waterglass coating inside.. the ember isn't even contacting the wood.
Actually, they do. You have to dig a bit deeper and follow some internal links. For instance, on Bubinga: " Bubinga has been reported to cause skin irritation and/or skin lesions in some individuals." You might think, "some" is no big deal and indeed, it may not be. On the other hand, they are talking about simple skin contact...not inhaling into your lungs, a burning substance from the wood heated to a high temperature. You make your own call. No sweat off my back. The point is, do your homework. There are plenty of woods that are perfectly adequate to make pipes from. Bubinga may be better relegated to something you can put a thick coat of poly over. Maybe even pipe stands. There is no doubt it has a beautiful grain.
My concern with the science previously mentioned regarding the USDA is that there is no data or presentation of research.
My last post doesn't explain how the extract was derived, but it adds some levity by suggesting that without data specifically on wood dust, and certainly not on wood ash, it could have any effect from limited and rare to common and extreme. The USDA site is relatively irresponsible science, stating conclusions without explaining the prevalence and degree. We are reading that in, depending on our personal opinions. Please show me the data.
My last post doesn't explain how the extract was derived, but it adds some levity by suggesting that without data specifically on wood dust, and certainly not on wood ash, it could have any effect from limited and rare to common and extreme. The USDA site is relatively irresponsible science, stating conclusions without explaining the prevalence and degree. We are reading that in, depending on our personal opinions. Please show me the data.
This ^^
I’m going to be making a bubinga, tambootie, iroko and wenge snare drum soon. Not sure I’d make any of those into a pipe though... tambootie will definitely ruin your day if you smoke it.
Back around 1977 when I was working in the Tinder box in northwest Ohio. The owner of the shop purchased several bubinga pipes. I bought one and it smoked so hot (to the touch and the tongue) that I quickly gave it away to someone--but I don't remember who that was.
I don't recommend them, based on my experience.
I don't recommend them, based on my experience.
I am also a woodworker by trade (over 40 years now, yikes!) To complicate this discussion I would add that 4 species of trees are sold as "bubinga", so you can't be sure of what species you are actually getting. Personally I don't think it's worth the risk, but that ship has sailed. 