A Question Regarding Amount Of Smoke And Health

[Balthazar]

Most of you are probably sick of threads regarding the health-aspect of hookah, so I apologize in advance.

It's not that I care particularly, I know smoking is not healthy. It's more of a curiosity, I hate having questions unanswered.

I see most of the health reports on hookah include the aspect of smoke volume. This is something that is often emphasized: "The amount of smoke inhaled through a single draw is equal to that produced of a pack of cigarettes" etc (this example is just something I made up). And I guess the fact that "more smoke = worse" doesn't really require knowledge of rocket science to get. But how major is this factor?

Let's say one person smokes dry Nakhla (in other words, no added glycerine) and another person smoke Al Fakher. They spend the same amount of time smoking, they both take as many and as long drags as the other person. I know this is just a few of countless factors, but would this mean that the AF-smoker would be more endangered than the Nakhla-smoker?

And adding glycerine, sirup or honey yourself, to get bigger clouds, would this exaggerate the unhealthy part of hookah-smoking?

Again, I am only asking because this is something that interests me. Not trying to moralize or promote cloud-less sessions. Edited April 30, 2009 by Balthazar

[Bookworm]

I too have pondered this over a bowl.

[Hookie The Hookah]

I will not ever take a hookah study seriously (that is, I won't be able to fully trust anything they say) until they are able to stop sounding like a high school counselor decrying something that they blatantly know nothing about. There are a million factors that contribute to the healthiness/unhealthiness of a hit of burnt plant matter. Not a single study I've read makes any attempt to address these factors, and thus is full of shit. Tell me the difference between washed and unwashed shisha. Natural and Quick-lite coals. Tell me the difference between hookah size. Tell me why simple tar tests (exhale cigarette smoke through a piece of tissue paper and it turns brown, exhale hookah smoke and nothing appears) completely disagree with what you're saying. Honestly, I think we'll only start to see conclusive evidence of the health risks of hookahs in 10-20 years when all of us big time smokers are/aren't developing diseases. Edited April 30, 2009 by Hookie The Hookah

[inino]

I guess if the smoke volume argument is something that makes sense, then yes the AF smoker would be worse off. But without scientific evidence we really dont know if this argument is even relevent. Who knows how much the density and volume of the actual smoke affects negative health.

[Tom1]

I guess the fact that "more smoke = worse" doesn't really require knowledge of rocket science to get. But how major is this factor?

That's not right at all. It's like saying eating a smaller amount of poison is healthier than eating a full dinner.

Tell me the difference between hookah size.

And what would that be? Edited April 30, 2009 by Tom16689

[K1024]

the only one worth reading

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

and the nakhla would be worse because its not washed

[ilikemyusername]

too bad its not smoke. its vapor, they're different.

[Balthazar]

I guess the fact that "more smoke = worse" doesn't really require knowledge of rocket science to get. But how major is this factor?

That's not right at all. It's like saying eating a smaller amount of poison is healthier than eating a full dinner.

I don't think that analogy works to well. Inhaling anything but air is always unhealthy, simple as that. Your analogy would work if "a full dinner" was something we know is harmful (but don't know just how harmful it is). I'm not comparing hookah to cigarettes when I'm saying "more smoke". I'm comparing shisha to shisha, but with one producing far more smoke.

I'm not saying hookah is better or worse than anything. I'm saying an intake of 100L of smoke volume would be considered worse than 50L of smoke volume (if the substance being smoked is the same in both cases).

I guess the whole Nakhla/AF-thing was not very good. Let's say Nakhla without anything added vs. Nakhla with added glycerine. Edited April 30, 2009 by Balthazar

[Tom1]

Fine, we'll substitute dinner for fast food then. Cigarette's use chemicals to make them taste better and reduce the harshness. That's why you can't smoke a hookah when it's burning since the tobacco is actually on fire, just like a cigarette. If you're comparing it to hookah though, it's pretty much just vaporized sugar. I'm no biologist so I don't really know how well our lungs could break down sugar.

[Vladimir]

I guess the fact that "more smoke = worse" doesn't really require knowledge of rocket science to get. But how major is this factor?

That's not right at all. It's like saying eating a smaller amount of poison is healthier than eating a full dinner.

I think it's a great analogy. It's like eating 5 ib profuen and your liver won't like you (and unless you are 75 lbs) and it won't kill you. But take 50 and it will kill you .

All I conclude from this thread- I am no longer excited to try Nakhla!

[ilikemyusername]

I guess the fact that "more smoke = worse" doesn't really require knowledge of rocket science to get. But how major is this factor?

That's not right at all. It's like saying eating a smaller amount of poison is healthier than eating a full dinner.

I think it's a great analogy. It's like eating 5 ib profuen and your liver won't like you (and unless you are 75 lbs) and it won't kill you. But take 50 and it will kill you .

All I conclude from this thread- I am no longer excited to try Nakhla!

you should be.

[Rani]

None of this takes into account what's actually in the smoke. So comparison to cigarettes isn't ever going to work because the contents of the smoke differ greatly. It's like comparing hookah smoke to the smoke inhaled by a fireman in a burning house. Might have one ingrediant in common but not much else. I agree nobody is going to have any real solid evidence until years down the road.

'Rani

[Hookie The Hookah]

Tell me the difference between hookah size.

And what would that be?

Someone posted an article a while ago that said something along the lines of carcinogens disperse more the longer they spent away from their source. In this case, the longer the hookah the more likely the carcinogens are to have dispersed.

[Tom1]

If ever really? Yes, the smoke can be tested fairly easily; however getting accurate replicable results when testing the smoke thickness would be very hard.



Edit: Carcinogens is a pretty broad term hookie. I used to believe that taller hookahs were "healthier" but new evidence proves otherwise. Edited April 30, 2009 by Tom16689

[Sonthert]

Saying cyanide is a poison is fine, saying that something that appears to be similar to cyanide doesn't make it a poison. The composition of hookah vapor (Not really smoke) and cigarette smoke are VERY different. Saying the volume of smoke from hookah is greater than cigarettes is irrelevant until you show that the smoke from one is the equivalent to the other, which isn't the case. Its bullshit science. Would it be safe to say, then, that cars are more hazardous to your health since they produce for smoke than cigarettes? Not necessarily. It may be the case, but its overly simplistic to say so. On the other hand, if you were a scientist who wanted to get grants (=more money) to research anything, you might release that overly simplistic statement to the press. The press, being overly sensational and not very selective in the bullshit they publicize might report that, too. It does come from a scientist, after all, presumably a renowned scientist at that. If enough people make a big stink about it, maybe you'll get money to research it...even if you don't, you'll get your name or the name of your university in the news, partially sating the emphasis on the academic world to "publish". If you do end up doing the research, and find out it isn't true, you'll send the results to the people that paid for the study, but not the media and nobody will ever notice that there's no proof that its true. If you find that it is reasonable to connect the two, from the study, you'll release the study and there will be an instant reinforcement. To the average person, they'll hear a lot of scary statements, but never a follow-up, if its found that there is no link.

When you here the phrase "Scientists think" or "scientists believe that it may..." disregard it. Scientists don't like agreeing with this sort of indictment, its accusation is that a good number of them are financially motivated, if not captivated and that their press releases of highly suspect and scientifically blind statements are nothing more than self-serving.

Cigarettes are killers. The ammonia they add to them increases their addictiveness and likely increases their hazardous nature. Although hookah doesn't contain ammonia (at least mine doesn't...I can't speak for others), it still likey contains carcinogens and carbon monoxide, which are both dangerous. The mortality rates for hookah smokers are likely to fall into the same order of mortality increases seen in pipe smokers or cigars...which is zero. I'd say the mortality rates would be lower...but whats lower than zero? Morbidity rates on the other hand, are unclear and require an intensive study, rather than a blithe "Scientists believe statement". It is likely that hookah smoking increases your morbidity rate. Less than cigarettes, presumably, due to the lack of pyrolysis and Acrolein, but certainly more than not smoking at all.

This is why I got out of research...its aims and work are noble, but its means to do so are dishonest and alarming.

[Bookworm]

Eric, you are a hero.

[Balthazar]

Eric (and Boho), while I agree completely, I was not comparing hookah with cigarettes. Tried to make that clear in the second post.

My question was simply how relevant smoke amount is. In other words, if adding glycerin on your own to get bigger clouds would be "worse" (since I don't know a thing about how dangerous it is this is purely theoretically) than to not do so. I do agree on the fact that the studies that are done is overly simplistic, biased pseudo-science. Edited May 1, 2009 by Balthazar

[Sonthert]

Oh, uh glycerine is relatively safe.

From Wiki: "Glycerol is a chemical compound also commonly called glycerin or glycerine. It is a colorless, odorless, viscous liquid that is widely used in pharmaceutical formulations. For human consumption, glycerol is classified by the FDA among the sugar alcohols as a caloric macronutrient. Glycerol has three hydrophilic hydroxyl groups that are responsible for its solubility in water and its hygroscopic nature. Its surface tension is 64.00 mN/m at 20 °C , and it has a temperature coefficient of -0.0598 mN/(m K). The glycerol substructure is a central component of many lipids. Glycerol is sweet-tasting and of low toxicity."

Low toxicity. An LD50 for glycerine is about 5 gallons. (!)

[Balthazar]

Thanks

[Sonthert]

Supposedly, it raises the fat level in your blood stream or something like that. Do we get enough of it to worry? I don't know. Can it contribute to health problems? Again, no se.

[Tom1]

I do agree on the fact that the studies that are done is overly simplistic, biased pseudo-science.

Well, soon there will be an unbiased published hookah research paper based on CO levels. As of now I can say that the water filtration of the hookah really does make a significant difference in the CO levels.

And from previous (though not 100%) research that there weren't even traces of aluminum in hookah water even after multiple uses.


Sorry about the cigarette reference, just saying that volume can't be compared to what's in the smoke. I'll take Eric's word on the glycerin though.

[Canon]

i believe that there is some stuff that you inhale.. ever taken a look at the purge valve? all that stuff is stuff that you inhale. i got a plastic bb in my purge valve and it is covered in brown stuff. any idea what it is? tar?

[Sonthert]

The primary source for CO, from what I can tell is the charcoal. The question will be when the study is released (they will report CO present in hookah vapor if they announce the release of the study) what type of charcoal did they test and how much does the type of charcoal affect the CO content? I would guess its going to correspond to (whether they cite it in the study) the presence of contaminants that require oxygen to burn, sulfur being the principal concern.

[Thermo]

too bad its not smoke. its vapor, they're different.

this x10

The studies I've seen fail to define 'smoke' adequately.

Smoke = combustion product = burning matter = made mostly of particulate matter = bad

Hooka 'smoke' = vaporized liquids = steam = very little particulate matter = there's a humidifier next to nearly every baby's crib and a fog machine in every dance club, and nobody complains about "secondhand steam." Edited May 1, 2009 by Thermo

[Sonthert]

Or the smells from people cooking or boiling water.