Here's A Jewel For You All

[Sonthert]

Here's a new study about the "risks" of "Hookah smoking"

Note: They tested smoking molasses tobacco...much different than Tangiers or anything else. They're talking about Jurak or Zaghloul, where the tobacco is super heated and burns.


Study

[Tyler]

That's interesting. Does the amount of heat/burning of the tobacco change things?

[Sonthert]

Also note, that the CEA levels in light hookah smokers is lower than in non-smokers...which implies that the ambient CEA Level in Pakistan is higher than normal or that light smoking deters cancer?

I'll read this more at length and get back to you.

[Baric]

That's interesting. Does the amount of heat/burning of the tobacco change things?

Yes - I believe there is a direct correlation between heat and the release of tars and other harmful constitutents, ie the higher the temperature the more tar is released (although im not sure of the exact correlation). Its one of the reasons most hookah smokers reject current health warnings like one session equals 100 cigarettes as the studies act like hookah tobacco is burning at the same temperature and in the same way as cigarette tobacco (which is directly 'alight').

Nice find btw Sonthert Edited June 4, 2009 by Baric

[Tyler]

I read that the same way too, Eric. Seems weird but science is science? Maybe light smoking activated some kind of bodily defense thing that helped fight off the CEA levels? Who knows...if you figure it out that would be interesting.

[Sonthert]

Another area of public health concern in the context of the global epidemic of hookah smoking is ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke). There has been a serious debate over statistics about cigarette ETS and their interpretation [36]. However, and in striking contrast with cigarettes, hookah does generate almost no side-stream smoke because of its peculiarities

From the same study. That is it doesn't produce second hand smoke! Mushy...here's your loophole. If it doesn't produce second hand smoke...how can it endanger employees or non-smokers?

[Sonthert]

A team led by Guillerm in France early found that when passed through water (50 cm3), the combustion gases of cigarette smoke have no inhibitory effect on the respiratory epithelium cilia. The researchers concluded that narghile users can, "without apparent disorders, smoke dramatically greater quantities of tobacco than ours in our countries" [37]. Wynder et al have established that water filtered cigarette smoke is less toxic to clam gill tissue and that "a flask containing 200 ml of water dramatically can reduce the dose of ciliatoxic agents delivered to the ciliated epithelium"

So water does filter the smoke after all...yes?

[Sonthert]

Weiss also reported that the effect of bubbling tobacco smoke through 15 ml of water was "equivalent to the effect of the better charcoal filters" [39]. Zaga and Gattavecchia have shown that the water in the vase of a hookah acts as an antioxydant against some short half-life free radicals [40]. Other substances are supposed to be affected by the water obstacle because of their solubility or the low temperatures: e.g. HCN, nitric oxides, etc. As for particles in the mainstream smoke, and particularly ultra fine ones (0.02 to 1 μm), a recent study shows that hookah smoke is up to 3 times less concentrated than cigarette smoke: 74.4 109 for a 1000 ml hookah (machine) puff and 9.24 109 for a 45 ml cigarette "puff" [35].

[Tyler]

So diffusers that make more, smaller bubbles would make hookah smoking even less harmful?

[Sonthert]

Similarly to ETS, there is a serious debate on the so-called "nicotine addiction" as this alkaloid is not seen as the central substance involved in the dependence phenomenon [41,42]. Also, it is not the most dangerous one. Hookah dependence is very specific and research on it will help reconsider the "nicotine addiction" hypothesis. Recently, a Lebanese team has found that more than 90% of so-called "mild smokers" (3 pipes or less per week) and about 50% of the so-called "moderate" ones (3 to 6 pipes per week) are considered as non dependent [43]. A certain confusion is also a direct result of the misuse of smoking machines [33,34]. A team in Kuwait has established with a rigorous methodology that the nicotine intake is not as high as in cigarettes [44]. Some of the smokers in our study, particularly the "heavy" ones, were obviously dependent. Further research is needed in this field and it is certainly too early to suggest the use of Nicotine "Replacement" Therapies and products to "hookah addicts", bupropion [32] or even Varenicline produced by Pfizer laboratories and marketed as Chantix and Champix.

Does that say Hookahs are less addictive than cigarettes?

[Sonthert]

An oldie, but a goodie:

53 years ago, the British Medical Journal tried to answer the following question: "Does the custom of filtering tobacco smoke through water as in the Eastern hookah remove the noxious elements? Carcinoma of the lung is very rare, in my experience, in hookah-smoking Indians" [49].

[Sonthert]

Furthermore, in the case of the fashionable shisha (using flavoured molasses tobacco with glycerol), a great portion of the calculated "tar" is expected to be made up of glycerol which has proved not "adversely alter the smoke chemistry or biological effects normally associated with exposure to mainstream cigarette smoke"

I've been saying this for years. The "tar" that hookah vapors have is less hazardous than cigarette tar...

[Sonthert]

Gray et al, in a study on Polish products, showed that cigarettes containing more nitrosamines were not those with a higher tar content [58]. Consequently, the rating of tar, particularly produced by smoking machines, makes no sense and may deceive tobacco users.

So, the carcinogen class "Nitrosamines" is not linked with tar content on cigarettes...that is, the tar rating on cigarettes may not impact how carcinogenic the cigarette is...

[Sonthert]

Sound and deep research is needed in this field, all the more that a recent study by Sepetdjian et al, based on a smoking machine, has found great amounts of carcinogenic PAH [59]. The underlying methods, including the smoking topography, have been criticised for considerably reducing a highly complex human and social situation [34]. For example, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and ISO norms suggest the use of a 1 minute machine smoking interval between 2 puffs in the case of cigarettes for which the duration of a session barely exceeds 5 minutes. However, and by a striking contrast, the hookah smoking device used in the laboratory was based on steady puffs every 17 seconds. This implies that about 1 out of every 4 puffs is supposed to be a human breath for a whole one-hour session (171 regular puffs were drawn this way). Also, contrary to common practice in the real life, the charcoal was left in the same position over the bowl during all this period. In these conditions, the nature and yields of toxicants in the smoke are questionable. Furthermore, the low temperatures involved, as highlighted several times in our study [27,33-35,50,55], do not theoretically allow for the abundant formation of hazardous PAHs. Sepetdjian et al suggest that one source for the PAHs might be the charcoal and that different types of the latter might induce different yields. As in the case of CO, Sajid et al had early established in 1993 that concentrations of this gas depend on the nature of charcoal (natural vs. commercial)[28]. In any case, assays on human subjects (urinary carcinogens, chemical or biological markers) would be more appropriate as in our previous study and the present one [19].

That is...the smoking machines they use to test how dangerous smoking a hookah is don't test actual usage well.

[Sonthert]

Also, charcoal present a sizable portion of the risk.

[Sonthert]

There is also a disclaimer that the researcher received no funding from either the pro or anti tobacco industry.

I do want to point out, again, a few points:

1) The sample sizes of the Pakistanis gets broken down into quite small groups...perhaps too small a sample size.
2) This study involves a dark tobacco similar to zaghloul...it doesn't apply to our modern hookah tobacco, although the implication is that our tobacco is safer than zaghloul.
3) There is room for improvement...using lower nitrosamine content tobacco is preferable.

It has been demonstrated in other scientific studies that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and acrolein (Other carcinogens) found in cigarettes are not present in our hookah tobacco, because the temperature is not high enough to initiate pyrolysis.

Tangiers has and is always looking to make ours as safe a product as possible and I have been looking to make a switch to lower nitrosamine tobaccos...I have done some research...before I read this study.

That being said...if you pick up a gun, you were taught to treat it as if it were loaded...right? If you smoke hookah hookah, you should treat it similarly...it will cause cancer and it will kill you...or shorten your life.

I found this study to be quite good, really. It has the bearing of a scientific study and it comes close to exonerating hookah smokers of harm to themselves and others...but until more science piles up...treat it like a loaded gun.

That is all for this thread.

[Sonthert]

Also, another warranty statement. They are talking about natural coals and the large amount of CO they produce. It doesn;t necessarily apply to Japanese coals.

[Sonthert]

Oh, FSU smoker...diffuser? I don't know...it might make no difference at all...its hard to jump to a conclusion here. It would stand to reason...but...its a dangerous assumption.

[Tyler]

My idea was related to activated charcoals that they use in oder eaters footpads or refridgerator odor eliminators that work better because the surface area is so much greater due to it being porous and allowed to trap more smells. I thought it correlated pretty well to the bubble filtration idea?

[Sonthert]

If you read the study, it says water works as well as an activated charcoal filter...

[Tyler]

That's my point, don't diffusers make more bubbles, therefore making more filters?

[Barnaby]

So are you saying that Jap Coals produce less CO than coco's? Time to switch??

[Tikhman]

Yeah that study was brought up sometime last year, its promising but there are still issues with it.

I personally like this one, it show more of an affect on living organisms
http://www.informapharmascience.com/doi/ab...583701300001078

And yes, I am aware that its done by a tobacco company, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

If anyone wants a full PDF, pm me I'll send it out.

[Lunatic768]

it's funny
the only reason i bought a hookah was because i found that article a couple months ago
i think it was linked off the Wikipedia page on hookahs
it was the only scientific article i could find
everything i found on google was poorly reported news with data that had to backup to it
just random "facts"
anyway
good find eric

[Giant Ninja Robot]

http://www.hookahforum.com/?showtopic=24087

last year's thread discussiong the article which entails my overexcited ass and a bunch of haters trying to keep the ninja down lol.