Bulldog_916 Posted June 4, 2009 Share Posted June 4, 2009 Yea this study was pretty rigorous in how they actually tested the variables. It doesnt just say "1 session of hookah has the same smoke volume as 100 cigarettes." It's not "scare you straight" science it's actual, well-tested experiments and studies using people who smoked hookah exclusively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted June 6, 2009 Author Share Posted June 6, 2009 Thats interesting Lunatic, I never read the article, although it is on the page for hookahs because the person who cited it said it proved that smoking hookah was dangerous. It's rampant that anti-smoking people misquote and misinterpret studies for their own uses, since their own science is scant...I guess I just learned something. Don;t trust anything an anti-smoking person has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSU Smoker Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 QUOTE (FSUReligionMan @ Jun 4 2009, 08:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's my point, don't diffusers make more bubbles, therefore making more filters?yep more bubbles for the same amount of smoke would mean a larger water smoke surface area would be provided. The larger this water/smoke surface area is the more filtering the water will be able to do, up until the water reaches its saturation point of filtrates, which I would assume would take multiple sessions and isnt anything to worry about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momatik Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 QUOTE (Sonthert @ Jun 6 2009, 12:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thats interesting Lunatic, I never read the article, although it is on the page for hookahs because the person who cited it said it proved that smoking hookah was dangerous. It's rampant that anti-smoking people misquote and misinterpret studies for their own uses, since their own science is scant...I guess I just learned something. Don;t trust anything an anti-smoking person has to say.It's a shame really it is. I'd like to believe all scientific studies are objective, but they are far from it. But at least you are able to deduce that yourself when you read their methods and data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glottis2 Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I'm going to gift you guys with some of my university access and post this 46-page review article. I haven't had a chance to read it but the text (not the shitty MS Paint diagram) seems to be high quality, at least in the beginning. Feel free to take a look.here it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonthert Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share Posted June 24, 2009 It looks pretty good. I skimmed the abstract and introduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueSmoker Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Great find Very interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinyj316 Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 QUOTE (Glottis2 @ Jun 23 2009, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'm going to gift you guys with some of my university access and post this 46-page review article. I haven't had a chance to read it but the text (not the shitty MS Paint diagram) seems to be high quality, at least in the beginning. Feel free to take a look.here it isThis made me lol a little...QUOTE Competing interests The author has never received direct or indirect funding neither from pharmaceutical companies (nicotine "replacement" therapies and products) nor from the tobacco industry. He was the first to publish results of (ambient and alveolar) Carbon Monoxide levels in hookah lounges and their patrons (Tobaccology thesis 1998; Alcoologie 1999; Doctoral thesis 2000) and subsequently issued public health recommendations in this respect. Out of this concern, he has participated in the design of a harm reduction hookah (cutting down CO by 95%) of which he is an official co-inventor (Patent 2005. "Narguilé à allumage simplifié" [Narghile with simplified ignition]. Appl. EP20050291196. Filed 3 June. Published 14 Dec). His participation in the project was frozen by Autumn 2004. However, the official termination was formalised only by 15 June 2005, date by which the author has ceded all his rights regarding the invention (legally certified by State Attorney in Paris). Therefore, the author does not consider this as a competing interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsboy Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 I cannot view it ... It downloads like 20 % then it stops ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now