Article About Effects Of Hookah(not Bs)

[Giant Ninja Robot]

So after further reseach I'm pretty damn sure that this study is legit peoples. I couldn't find a way to contact the authors since I'm not part of the science community therefore cannot get through the website's registration process.

However I started reading the comments that have been left by other professionals and the rebuttals left by the authors. These exchanges deal with pretty much any question you could ask of the validity/bias of the study and are asked/answered by people much more adept at asking the right questions than I.

Take some time to read those if yer interested and they should add some weight to the article in question.

edit - the damn pdf wouldn't download btw

edit #2 - After more thorough reading of the article and attached Q&As I'm inclined to say that this is slightly bias on the side of pro-hookah smoking but that the info is not distorted in any wayand only the wording of the article leads to thoughts of bias. It reads as thought the authors are tired of the BS anti-smoking research and are just trying to shed some light on the true level of danger that hookah smoking represents not to say it isn't harmful but much less harmful than those damn WHO type reports would have you believe. It would seem that the major qualms other's in the science community have with the article is that cessation of smoking is more effective to control CEA levels than smoking hookah and that the control group wasn't mentioned enough statistically and the focus was turned more towards cig smokers, which is just nitpicky methodology talk to me.

Edit # 3 - I just found this

"We are neither “pro” nor “anti” tobacco. Opting for one of both would be unscientific and would certainly impair our judgment. Since science is based on observation, we have observed real fully-fledged hookah smokers, young and old, light and heavy smokers, in their natural environment."

Dr Kamal Chaouachi Edited August 18, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[Giant Ninja Robot]

nother tidbit from the arguments and rebuttals you may like...

We, in Pakistan, are really surprised by the world sudden crusade against hookah. We see it very similar in its nature to the war on drugs and its users, including in its geopolitical dimensions. We reject such wars, such intolerance and fanaticism, so alien to our traditional societies and culture, particularly in Punjab. Let us make it clear that peoples of our region, and this is certainly true for two major continents, have lived with hookahs around for centuries. We are sorry if the findings of our studies carried out in a natural environment may hurt some people [4][5]. We are just doing evidence and observation-based science. We know what a hookah is.

We know that it is very different from a water pipe in a laboratory. 15 years back, i.e., long before the hookah epidemic, one of us studied CO (carbon monoxide) concentrations in hookah and came out with unexpected (and sometimes unaccepted) findings that the bigger the hookah, the lesser the CO levels and that the latter depend on the nature of tobacco and charcoal [6].

They just told us to buy bigger hookahs!!!!! Exotica here I come!


Well this hopefully leads to a study using our modern pipes:

"The two pipes are so different from all points of view: biochemical to anthropological. We would venture to think that our hookah is much more hazardous than the now world fashionable shisha but we may be wrong" Edited August 18, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[Giant Ninja Robot]

here's a link to the comments, a pretty interesting and entertaining debate between the authors of the original article/study and a "leading world waterpipe research guy" (aka douchebag) as mentioned in the above posts.

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19/comments

[UltraGoth]

Wonderful article!

Those who detract from hookah are most likely trained to categorically respond to any smoke or tobacco as ( from the " axis " of ) evil. Odd, the Native America smoked tobacco from time out of mind and NEVER had the ills associated with most modern tobacco products.... it is the non-Native American who defiled the tobacco, not the Native American or those of the East! One wonders not why that is....

That hookah is less harmful by far than cigarette is a no brainer. The average cigarette has some 300 chemicals in it including , according to several reports, polonium. Second, the paper is a hazard in and of itself but certainly far more so when heavily laced with saltpeter ( a component of gun powder .) Third, the filters are made of cotton or fibreglass, both of which leve fibre in the lung, the later being the worse. Last, the tobacco is not burnt in hookah but roasted until nearly dry. Burning is from whence most of the non-additive trouble comes.
I do not say there NO harm in hookah. Used properly, there is a minute amount to be sure as nicotine is addictive. The key word in previous is PROPERLY!

I thank you for that article.

Be well,
Ultra Goth

[Bulldog_916]

I still dont think you guys get it at all. They are studying the effects of hookah smoking unlike what we do. We use shisha with molasses and glycerin. That is completely unlike what they tested. They tested tobacco and molasses or just straight rinsed tobacco. Coal directly on top for all the tests. They only puffed as opposed to our full inhale. It's way different. They even differentiated what we do completely by saying the "fashionable smoking of shisha and hookah" as opposed to the old style. Just because it has "hookah" in it doesnt mean it's anything like the conditions we smoke under. We full on inhale, the glycerin produces tar equivalent to that of cigarettes. Read the study completely before coming to your own conclusion.

[srawas89]

So bulldog do you mean to say that smoking the old style (Tambuk) tobacco is safer than smoking ciggs?

[Bulldog_916]

YES because you DONT INHALE smoking tombeik. That is the difference. We full on inhale, no filters, no safeties, no nothing. Full inhale. That inherently makes it more dangerous because we are taking the full amount of smoke directly into the lungs.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

one could debate that you inhale regardless of whether you do intentionally or not and that the cumulative buildup of the puffing would still be bad if only not as. Oh, and I DID read completely...

example A - "The two pipes are so different from all points of view: biochemical to anthropological. We would venture to think that our hookah is much more hazardous than the now world fashionable shisha but we may be wrong" from the comments page...

or does an in depth scientific study and life of research make their opinions LESS valid then ours?....

they also speak directly stating that the smoke is smoother and easier to take into the lungs than cigs.....or am i misremembering?

just a thought, no beef or anything... Edited August 19, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[whiplasher]

So is is safer than cigs?????
I dont inhale that deeply......

[Bulldog_916]

one could debate that you inhale regardless of whether you do intentionally or not and that the cumulative buildup of the puffing would still be bad if only not as. Oh, and I DID read completely...

example A - "The two pipes are so different from all points of view: biochemical to anthropological. We would venture to think that our hookah is much more hazardous than the now world fashionable shisha but we may be wrong" from the comments page...

or does an in depth scientific study and life of research make their opinions LESS valid then ours?....

they also speak directly stating that the smoke is smoother and easier to take into the lungs than cigs.....or am i misremembering?

just a thought, no beef or anything...

Example A states nothing about them using our type of pipe in the study. It just tells you about an assumption they could make. Completely unsubstantiated.

The study group used tombeik or tobacco and molasses mixtures their entire smoking careers. We use considerably more "ingredient rich" shishas in our smoking. The flavorings have chemicals, the glycerin introduces tar. Who knows what all else goes into the making of the shisha. Manufacturers arent required to list all the ingredients in their flavorings. The study in question eliminated all variables but the tobacco and the molasses percentages, that is it.

Anyone that has smoked tombeik tobacco will tell you that you dont inhale it generally. Tobacco/molasses mixtures are different and can be inhaled.

Putting the Two Studies Straight - "In our two studies, the hookah is filled with a quantity of up to 120 g of a tobacco-molasses mixture each (i.e. the tobacco weight equivalent of up to 60 cigarettes of 1 g each) and consumed in 1 to 8 sessions."

There was NO GLYCERIN or flavorings in the mixture. This makes the study completely irrelevant to our smoking style. You have to take EVERY variable into account when trusting a study like this. 1 variable can throw the whole result off. Edited August 19, 2008 by Bulldog_916

[whiplasher]

Wait you said "Tobacco/molasses mixtures are different and can be inhaled."
then you quoted

"up to 120 g of a tobacco-molasses mixture each"

Anyway, I believe that our hookah smoking is safer due to that fact that we dont directly put the coals on the tobacco....... They do, and look at the results.
When you burn tobacco, tar is produced, we dont burn it. Rather heat it up. So with their methods they are taking in tar, where if done right, we arnt.....
Just like cigars people dont inhale, but still some of that creeps into the lungs. basically it always comes down to moderation.
Their methods actually seem more dangerous than ours.

This may be irrevelent, but even if you dont inhale oxygen deeply it still gets to your lungs, thus, if you dont inhale the smoke it will still get there. How do you think cigars cause lung cancer??????? because some of it gets in there. Edited August 19, 2008 by whiplasher

[mattarios2]

Wait you said "Tobacco/molasses mixtures are different and can be inhaled."
then you quoted

"up to 120 g of a tobacco-molasses mixture each"

Anyway, I believe that our hookah smoking is safer due to that fact that we dont directly put the coals on the tobacco....... They do, and look at the results.
When you burn tobacco, tar is produced, we dont burn it. Rather heat it up. So with their methods they are taking in tar, where if done right, we arnt.....
Just like cigars people dont inhale, but still some of that creeps into the lungs. basically it always comes down to moderation.
Their methods actually seem more dangerous than ours.

This may be irrevelent, but even if you dont inhale oxygen deeply it still gets to your lungs, thus, if you dont inhale the smoke it will still get there. How do you think cigars cause lung cancer??????? because some of it gets in there.

our way of smoking still produces tar, we like to think just not as much. Bulldog is just stating it is completely different than what we do and therefore we must disregard it (meaning this article) when talking about the way we smoke.

[chromecarz00]

Hi Everyone.
Since I just came back from Pakistan and smoked shisha many times over there, I believe I may be able to shed some light on the background of the article.
Pakistan burns their trash, which I don't know what scientifcal chemicals are released but it basically stinks the entire country up like nothing else. This messes with the air there, so in theory it probably is safer to stay inside smoking all day than to go out.
The shisha there is always mixed with mint, and (at least in the real world) less intense than here, partly becuase they mix mint with EVERYTHING and partly because they use predominantly AF.
Like any "third" world country, the water is unsafe to drink.
I think there are a few mis-types in the essay which should be corrected, but other than that, very convincing.

[melanko]

Awesome read. I am definitely bookmarking that for future nay-sayers.

[cymptom]

I'm inclined to agree with Bulldog. No offense Ninja, but you seem too eager to get in that "Hah, we told you so!".

The study deals with a very different type of smoking. And even if it did pertain to the way we smoke hookah, the study is a measure of CEA levels -- NOT a measure of health risks. As far as I know, carcinoembryonic antigens have been linked to cancer and not much more -- and while cancer may be the main threat to cigarette smokers, there's no reason to believe that low CEA levels make hookah smoking less dangerous than cigarettes. The composition of hookah smoke is very different and for all we know could bring about an entirely different array of health risks.

[whiplasher]

Well. Hmmm........... Maybe this isnt our first "hah, we told you so"
Im not saying hookah is good for you, but theres no way its like 100-200 cigs.(pry 10-15 at most) Thats absurd. i guess we still need that study.

But regarding the way of their smoking, they put the coal directly on, that would produce way more carcinogens because the tabak is being burned directly. Our way must be safer, this is my opinion. I think that our new world smoking is safer. Even if it isnt, it would be similar to these results imo, because in essence, they are the same thing. We shouldnt disregard this ENTIRELY. Edited August 20, 2008 by whiplasher

[newjacksm]

I didnt read all of it, but I wonder if it has any effects on the heart being my father side of the family has heart disease, thats what im a little more concerned with.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

What I was trying to communicate is that professional scientists who live in Pakistan, and have dedicated a large portion of their lives to studying hookahs would have far more credentials to make an educated guess that our type of smoking is less harmful than their type of smoking.

But if you think whatever education you have is more reliable and makes your opinion more valid than theirs, then by all means go with it.

Did I say this was the be all end all study? No.

I feel this is our first victory and it would be very ignorant to dismiss the results of the first well developed and executed study on this topic as it is potentially the precursor and building block to the more specific answers we're looking for.

IT'S NOT APPLES TO ORANGES PEOPLE, IT'S GRANNY SMITH TO MCINTOSH!!!!!!! Edited August 20, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[cymptom]

I'm not trying to say anything about the integrity of the research -- I'm very glad that work like this is being done. I'm just suggesting that we carefully consider what these findings should mean to us. They're pretty much taking the model commonly used to evaluate the dangers of cigarette smoking and applying it to a form of smoking that is different from both cigarette smoking AND the type of hookah smoking that has become popular in the west. I do think the differences between these kinds of smoking could be greater than one would think. Think about it -- who's to say that the difference between inhaling burning tobacco and inhaling charcoal+flavoring isn't as significant as the difference between apples and oranges?

While the media has recently been making exaggerated claims about the dangers of hookah smoking, there's also still this common assumption that hookah smoking is safer than cigarettes. For a number of reasons, I think it's important to discourage people from believing that claim until it can be substantiated. A "victory" for me would be some truly pertinent research, whether or not it reveals that hookah smoking is more dangerous than cigarettes. If there IS a serious health risk, I want it to be found. If such a risk is found, perhaps it could be circumvented. I don't think much can be done to make a safe cigarette, but hookah is an entirely different thing that I think could be made safer if there was a demand to do so.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

I'm not trying to say anything about the integrity of the research -- I'm very glad that work like this is being done. I'm just suggesting that we carefully consider what these findings should mean to us. They're pretty much taking the model commonly used to evaluate the dangers of cigarette smoking and applying it to a form of smoking that is different from both cigarette smoking AND the type of hookah smoking that has become popular in the west. I do think the differences between these kinds of smoking could be greater than one would think. Think about it -- who's to say that the difference between inhaling burning tobacco and inhaling charcoal+flavoring isn't as significant as the difference between apples and oranges?

While the media has recently been making exaggerated claims about the dangers of hookah smoking, there's also still this common assumption that hookah smoking is safer than cigarettes. For a number of reasons, I think it's important to discourage people from believing that claim until it can be substantiated. A "victory" for me would be some truly pertinent research, whether or not it reveals that hookah smoking is more dangerous than cigarettes. If there IS a serious health risk, I want it to be found. If such a risk is found, perhaps it could be circumvented. I don't think much can be done to make a safe cigarette, but hookah is an entirely different thing that I think could be made safer if there was a demand to do so.

I agree. Remember though, a war is made of many battles, and won with many victories. I'll take what positive news I can get and look with hope to the future that it will be expounded on and more specific answers can be found.

I still don't think it should be discarded that the authors and researchers of a truly legit study/article who have dedicated their lives to this research think our hookahs are less dangerous than theirs. Let's not fall into the assumption that just because there is yet to be a publicly released study of this magnitude dealing directly with modern hookahs, that these people are basing their prediction on nothing. I'm sure it has been thought through and is not just an off the cuff BS hypothesis based on personal belief without circumstancial evidence or at least comparitive personal or scientific experience on their part.

edit - If the charcoal ends up being the major health issue with hookahs, us connesieurs have glass screens as an option to effectively destroy that concern... Edited August 20, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[Wharbone]

Wow! That was a great read.

[Bulldog_916]

I'm not trying to say anything about the integrity of the research -- I'm very glad that work like this is being done. I'm just suggesting that we carefully consider what these findings should mean to us. They're pretty much taking the model commonly used to evaluate the dangers of cigarette smoking and applying it to a form of smoking that is different from both cigarette smoking AND the type of hookah smoking that has become popular in the west. I do think the differences between these kinds of smoking could be greater than one would think. Think about it -- who's to say that the difference between inhaling burning tobacco and inhaling charcoal+flavoring isn't as significant as the difference between apples and oranges?

While the media has recently been making exaggerated claims about the dangers of hookah smoking, there's also still this common assumption that hookah smoking is safer than cigarettes. For a number of reasons, I think it's important to discourage people from believing that claim until it can be substantiated. A "victory" for me would be some truly pertinent research, whether or not it reveals that hookah smoking is more dangerous than cigarettes. If there IS a serious health risk, I want it to be found. If such a risk is found, perhaps it could be circumvented. I don't think much can be done to make a safe cigarette, but hookah is an entirely different thing that I think could be made safer if there was a demand to do so.

I agree. Remember though, a war is made of many battles, and won with many victories. I'll take what positive news I can get and look with hope to the future that it will be expounded on and more specific answers can be found.

I still don't think it should be discarded that the authors and researchers of a truly legit study/article who have dedicated their lives to this research think our hookahs are less dangerous than theirs. Let's not fall into the assumption that just because there is yet to be a publicly released study of this magnitude dealing directly with modern hookahs, that these people are basing their prediction on nothing. I'm sure it has been thought through and is not just an off the cuff BS hypothesis based on personal belief without circumstancial evidence or at least comparitive personal or scientific experience on their part.

edit - If the charcoal ends up being the major health issue with hookahs, us connesieurs have glass screens as an option to effectively destroy that concern...

I'm just saying they really have absolutely no idea what ingredients go into modern shisha. Stuff made by American companies and even some middle eastern companies are completely foreign to Pakistani and Middle Eastern scientists from the aspect of flavoring ingredients and recipes/ratios. Every single flavor and brand is made of different chemicals, colorings, extracts, etc. in a recipe. The only thing that may be even slightly alike among all the brands is the tobacco. Otherwise, every single one is different. There is no standard element like in cigarettes or cigars where the only difference might be the genus of tobacco plant or whether or not a filter is used. We cant just assume everyone uses the same recipe when making shisha. At least test the glycerin variable so that we know if an amount of that might be harmful in percentage. After that I would be more convinced.