Health?

[strangeone]

Hey guys, i've read through quite a few sources on the risks of hookah smoking and still havent come up with a proper answer in regards to whether it is infact worse than cigarettes or exactly the same... can someone please clear this up? 

[jmexx]

It doesn't make sense to say it's worse then cigarette smoking.You'll find plenty of articles saying that it is, without testing the tobacco through the same process that it's smoked. They vapourize it or cook it with different methods. On the other hand, there's still combustion and you're smoking it. There's no way it's GOOD for you but it's not worse then cigarettes, at least from what I've dug up...Jon

[pavlakos_politakos]

who cares.sorry to ruin your thread but it really pisses me off wen people say negative things about shi sha.i smoke shi sha to forget my problems and relax,not to think about how bad it  is and how soon im gunna die.

[dizzing]

[quote name='pavlakos_politakos']who cares.sorry to ruin your thread but it really pisses me off wen people say negative things about shi sha.i smoke shi sha to forget my problems and relax,not to think about how bad it  is and how soon im gunna die.[/quote]i'm sorry to say this, but that really seems like an unhealthy attitude to take with it.  it's one thing to know the dangers of something and accept them just as we accept that we all will die someday, but it's another to simply avoid thinking about what's potentially harmful or dangerous and exist in some sort of denial in order to be happy or satisfied.  i know hookah smoking is potentially harmful to one's health.  does that piss me off? of course not.  i know that i smoke a hookah every day , give or take (definitely no more than that on average, because some days i don't smoke one at all), and even if a hookah is like smoking 5 cigarettes, that's far from a harmful level of addiction.  studies have shown that "as few as 4" cigarettes a day can be harmful to one's health, but that's in people who smoke like that for 40-50 years and die of lung canger at the age of 80 or something similar.  of course, if i just decide to ignore the risks of hookah smoking, i might be tempted to smoke as much as i want.  what was once an acceptable level of risk (a  hookah a day) becomes dangerous (wasn't it mathazar who smoked like 10 a day or something ridiculous?).  this is ultimately the problem with all drug addictions (nicotine is a drug, remember); moderation is the key to enjoying ANYTHING responsibly.sorry to come off as critical, i really only say this to be helpful.  constructive criticism, as it were.

[Sonthert]

The problem is, its genetic, people have different tolerances for different things. The medical community says your chances of getting cancer or heart disease go up from smoking. The truth is, there is a correlation. In science one of the cornerstones is "correlation doesn't imply causation". If I'm walking down a street and I see everybody wearing a raincoat and then it starts to rain, do I assume that everyone wearing raincoats started the rain? No. Smoking adds stress to your system. My father smoked for 60 years, no heart problems, no cancer. No genetic basis in our family. The logic of the medical community and studies regarding smokiing follow the logic "Ma'am, you're pregnant! Congratualtions. We've calculted the baby has an 12% chance of being black, since 12% of the people are black."

[NERV]

i tihnk a picture is worth 1000 words, i saw a picture where they took
2 white filters, one had the smoke from a cigarette run through it, it
got dark brown, the other had the smoke form a full hookah session run
through it, it became light beige

[[LB]]

[quote name='NERV']i tihnk a picture is worth 1000 words, i saw a picture where they took
2 white filters, one had the smoke from a cigarette run through it, it
got dark brown, the other had the smoke form a full hookah session run
through it, it became light beige[/quote]

thats the kind of feeling i get from hookah smoking- ive been smoking
hookah all through my wrestling season (about 2 months now- 5 bowls a
week) and not once have a i coughed, wheezed or been affected in any
way by the hookah, never been short of breath, as a matter of fact im
know for outlasting my opponents.

 On the other hand our heavy weight is a cigarrette smoker and he
has been DYING he cant even run a suicide without have to stop to suck
air like breat milk!

i dunno for me thats the defining difference.

[jeans]

I've always wondered about the effects of hookah smoking on athletes...especially after seeing a couple of cross-country runners and a wrestler at the hookah lounge downtown.
BTW, wrestling = awesome ;D

[yashman19]

Racquetball feign checking in.

At school, I smoke anywhere from 1-3 times per day, and play
racquetball roughly around 4-6 times per week, and can still keep up.
I'm sure I would have even more lung capacity if I didn't smoke, but
I'm not suffering.

One thing I'm grateful for though is not having a smokers cough. A
buddy of mine has been smoking ciggs for 4 years now, and has that
hacking, phlem filled smokers cough which disgusts me... I think once I
get to that point, its time to quit... Until then, smoke up

[wyteboy]

dude I LOVE raquetball!!

[NERV]

Oh and i play DDR intensely, i have played to the point where my legs
ran out of energy and gave out underneath me before i ran short of
breathe

[Sariél]

[quote name='dizzing'](wasn't it mathazar who smoked like 10 a day or something ridiculous?).  [/quote]So there may be a correlation between excessive hookah use and mental/behavioral disorders?

[jmexx]

Mathazar was crazy. I don't think he was in decent shape, or at least that's what I heard.I go to the gym without any problems. That's always been my back-up that it's not as distructive as cigarette smoking.If it cuts a year or two off my life, I think it's worth it. That's the way I see it. Jon

[Sariél]

[quote name='jmexx']If it cuts a year or two off my life, I think it's worth it. That's the way I  
see it.  

Jon[/quote]I used to think that. Now years later, I just try not to think about it. You'll find that justification fades as you get closer to the cutoff point.Now I'm just in denial.

[yashman19]

[quote name='dizzing']wasn't it mathazar who smoked like 10 a day or something ridiculous?[/quote]

10 bowls a day, and then some.... He also said he smoked anywhere from 2-4 cigars a day AND smoked pipe as well....

Christ what I'd pay to see a picture of his lungs... Must have done
nothing but sat around all day and smoked... I can't imagine fitting
anything else into a day with a schedule of smoking like that

[HookahDuck]

I run/work out a lot... and im on a competetive swim team. Its yet to really become an issue, but I smoke very occasionally; usually one bowl once every 1-2 weeks.DDR... haha. Well I play Initial D often, and its yet to affect that either!

[Eissenberg]

I am glad this thread has been started and sorry if it depresses some people -- I'd like to address as briefly as possible some of the issues raised here.  Please bear with me, I know the message is long, but I hope it is pertinent.  And, if after reading it, your moderator tells me to never post again, that is what I will do.
First, the statement that there is no correlation between (cigarette) smoking and disease is not supported by data from over 30 years of study.  For example, each year in the US, lung cancer (124,000 deaths), heart disease (111,000 deaths), and the chronic lung diseases of emphysema, bronchitis, and chronic airways obstruction (82,000 deaths) are responsible for the largest number of smoking-related deaths.  Rates of these disease are *dramatically* higher in (cigarette) smokers than in non-smokers -- the risk of dying from lung cancer is more than 22 times higher among men who smoke cigarettes and about 12 times higher among women who smoke cigarettes compared with never smokers.  Also, the relationship between cigarette smoking and these disease is not all-or-none, but rather is "dose-dependent".  Any smoking increases the risk somewhat, and more smoking increases the risk more.  That said, there are the few lucky exceptions who smoke a lot and die of non-smoking related illness.  They are very rare.
Second, while the carcinogens in tobacco smoke have been implicated in lung cancer deaths, the chronic carbon monoxide (CO) exposure associated with (cigarette) smoking has been implicated in heart disease.  CO binds to hemoglobin in red blood cells, preventing affected cells from carrying a full load of oxygen.  Thus, with prolonged exposure to CO, the heart is stressed in an unhealthy manner.  The issue of CO is directly relevant to waterpipe users, because we know, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that there is CO in waterpipe smoke and that waterpipe users (measured in studies in Jordan, Turkey, and Syria) have CO levels that are as high or higher than cigarette smokers.
It is also not true to say that ". . .without testing the tobacco through the same process that it's smoked. They vapourize it or cook it with different methods."  Let me detail how cigarettes are tested right now, and then state how waterpipes have been tested thus far. 
Cigarettes are tested in the following manner:  a cigarette is smoked by a machine using a predetermined number of "puffs" of a predetermined size with a predetermined interval between each puff.  The CO content of the smoke is analyzed, and the smoke is also drawn through filter pads.  The contents of the filter pads are analyzed, and are described as water (of no interest), nicotine (of great interest if you are concerned about addiction) and "nicotine free dry particulate matter".  This latter category is known by the public as "tar".  So tar is simply the stuff is tobacco smoke that is not nicotine and is not water. 
This discussion is relevant to wateripe users because waterpipe smoke has been measured in *the same way* by a scientist in Lebanon.  So, when waterpipe is smoked by a machine (using puff number and size and interval that were derived from measuring how people smoke waterpipes) , the smoke contains high levels of CO; nicotine and "tar" are found on the pads.  More nicotine and tar than produced by a single cigarette?  Of course, given that the waterpipe was smoked for more than 30 minutes, and a cigarette is smoked in 5 minutes.  Does the tar contain carcinogens?  Yes.  Is the tar different from cigarette tar?  Almost certainly, given the different heat source (charcoal) and burn temperatures (cigarette tobacco gets *much* hotter than waterpipe tobacco, and lower heat is associated with lower heat is associated with lower carcinogen content).  Waterpipe smoke also contains heavy metals, perhaps from the charcoal.
What does all this mean to waterpipe smokers?  Let's ask two questions: 
1) Is waterpipe smoking more dangerous to your health than no smoking anything at all?  Unequivically yes.  Waterpipe smoking is associated with lung cancer (a study in India), cardiovascular disease (lebanon) and lung disease (Egypt).  There is bad stuff in the smoke produced by a waterpipe that is smoked under naturalistic conditions, and there is bad stuff (CO, nicotine) in the waterpipe user.
2) Is waterpipe smoking more dangerous (or as dangerous, or less dangerous) to your health than smoking cigarettes?  The data do not exist to make that determination.  I don't know.  To my knowledge, no one knows.  We are working on it. 
Should you smoke waterepipe?  Obviously that is your decision.  I'm not interested in taking away people's right to self-determination.  I'm interested in studying the health effects of tobacco products and preventing tobacco-related addiction, disease, and death.
Thanks for your attention.

[gunsboy]

They did a research in the International Development Research Centre and said the following:
"Early studies coming from that research are really disturbing in terms of the health effects of the water pipe," she says.
"What we're finding is that the carbon monoxide delivered in a single 45-minute water pipe session is twice that consumed by a single cigarette and the nicotine is three times that of smoking a single cigarette."
Basically, 45-minute "Bowl" =  CO in 2 cigs, and Nicotine in 3 cigs.
So smoking a 45-minutes bowl equals smoking 2.5 cigs if two share that 1.25 cigs.  Which is not too bad.
 
[url="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051205/water_pipes_051205?s_name=&no_ads"] [url="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051205"]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...TVNews/20051205[/url][/url] /water_pipes_051205?s_name=&no_ads = 

[Kofod]

Eissenberg - thx for your input. I am very much in line with your point of view. Where I differ is of course in that I have chosen to smoke waterpipe. But I am equally interested in seing an uncovering of the health effects from smoking. Both to make a decision on a more enlightened background and possibly alter the way of smoking to a relative more healthy manner. So in that respect we share the same goal as smokers and researchers - despite the commen conception that these two groups are somewhat on "opposite sides". 

[pojzon]

Hi everybody,
I'm a newbie in the forum and I'm a newbie in the whaterpipe smoking. I used to smoke one box of "light" cigarettes per one and half day and I realised that I have no problem mornings now than before I smoked cigarettes. Maybe one session of smoking waterpipe has more "things" than one cigarettes but If you aren't a chain smoker you reduce the risks, I think. that's why I turned to wahterpipe instead of cigarettes.
And the wahterpipe give me more fun because if I'm starting to smoke I don't have to run so I can relax.
Unfortunately In hungary there is no culture of whater pipeing.

[jmexx]

Welcome to the forum, pojzon.Eissenberg, you bring up some decent points. Saying that waterpipe is tested through a "smoking" machine is a little hypocritical of you. The study that you either wrote or added to a little while back stated that it was tested through some sort of cooking mechanism, never smoked. What sort of ma'assel (tobacco,) are they using? Is it made with molasses or is it made with honey? What kind of charcoals are used? Natural or quicklights?The problem with waterpipe smoking is that you can smoke it so many different ways. You can have less water or more water depending of the size of the pipe, which seems to change the amount of smoke actually filtered. You can have diffusers on them, which apparently add to the filtration. Not to say that's all 100% true but have you, personally and first handedly done the studies yourselves? I can call myself a doctor and make plenty of claims. I see the affects of cigarette smoking ruining people's physical ability and healthy while those who smoke the waterpipe and who've smoked it for centuries enjoying their life.I used to smoke cigarettes lightly and would have a horrible cardio vascular system, I wasn't able to keep up on the field as well as I used to etc. I had quit for quite awhile and started getting back in shape without a problem. Now that I smoke the waterpipe, for about two years, I still have yet to feel the same fatigue or have the same smoker cough that I used to have.Just a few points for you to ponder and maybe you can open your mind a little more for other opinions.We all listen to you and take your opinions literally and into consideration, maybe it would be a nice change for you to follow suit.Jon

[NERV]

I'm sure that smoking the hookah isn't good for you, but I have yet to
see any negative results. I am fully aware that there is CO in hookah
from the coal and I'll admit I'm no expert on CO and the human body but
as you describe it any effects from it would be temporary, either 1 the
CO clings to the red blood cells and blocks some O2 for awhile but as
it cycles around it would eventually come back out, or 2, the red blood
cells do die out and get replaced. I would assume theory 1 since i
haven't had any kind of cumulative or lasting effects from it.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Eissenberg']First, the statement that there is no correlation between (cigarette) smoking and disease is not supported by data from over 30 years of study.  Any smoking increases the risk somewhat, and more smoking increases the risk more.  That said, there are the few lucky exceptions who smoke a lot and die of non-smoking related illness.  They are very rare.
Second, while the carcinogens in tobacco smoke have been implicated in lung cancer deaths, the chronic carbon monoxide (CO) exposure associated with (cigarette) smoking has been implicated in heart disease.  
It is also not true to say that ". . .without testing the tobacco through the same process that it's smoked. They vapourize it or cook it with different methods."  Let me detail how cigarettes are tested right now, and then state how waterpipes have been tested thus far.  Waterpipe smoke also contains heavy metals, perhaps from the charcoal.[/quote]

[dizzing]

what tangiers? ? you mean scientists use actual methodology and real experimental observations ??they don't just make up facts?

[Sonthert]

Crud, sorry...Yes, smoking is bad for you. I didn't see anyone say otherwise. Asking if smoking a hookah is better than smoking cigarettes is like asking which is better to have, Yellow fever or typhus. Both are bad. (No offense, people!) My statement was there IS a correlation, but correlation does not imply causation.Fine, about the CO, what are accepteble limits? Everybody smoking is under OSHA limits, so what are risk levels and what are water pipe smoker's levels? Yes, it creates a risk Eisssenberg, but to what extent? Is it negligible or significant?I think you sidestepped the issue, a little, sir, the point JMexx posed was questioning whether or not your scientific method was reasonable and representatative of the way people smoked hookah. You said that it was, your research and another research team in the Middle-East did it the same way. If they were using a faulty method, they could get nearly identical numbers that were still not representative of the real picture. How do they know how they are setting up their hookah for testing and how the machine tests the "smoke" is representative of the way hookah smokers smoke? What brand of tobacco do they use? What type of charcoal do they use? How much charcoal do they put on the bowl? I could set up a hookah and put 10 Japanese tablets on and I could get some pretty bad burning and oxidation occurring, I could probably find all sorts of interesting chemicals in there. I don't smoke that way, in real life. Maybe their method is flawed and these results don't really pertain to this discussion. The fact that tar is produced is interesting, myself personally, my tobacco, that I smoke from a water pipe, doesn't burn. The heat vaporizes glycerine, and the constitutents of that "smoke" should be almost completely vaporized products, no solid material. Solid material comes from burning and smoke, as I understand it. Oxidation cant occur until the phase change in question (glycerine) occurs completely. Since this occurs at a lower temperature than the oxidation of the tobacco, solid products should be reduced greatly or eliminated altogether. I think  everybody just wants a clarification of the experimental method. Well, I do at least. I'm not disagreeing with you research or your colleagues, I think its obvious the results are going to be there, but we'd like to know the degree of the risk (which was the original question) which you can't answer or anybody, at this point, but does the data apply is the real question.Likewise, what are the heavy metals present, in question? Do they pose a threat? I had an independent analysis completed on Japanese charcoal and there were no toxic heavy metals found, other normal, benign heavy metals were present. Are these heavy metals present in sufficient amounts to pose a threat?Would you agree about my point about the genetic basis of these diseases? Why or why not?