Bbc Article On The Harmful Effects Of Shisha

[ih303]

So why is it that cigarettes stink so bad and leave that stench on everything while hookah smoke does not?

Okay, I'm not a fan of these quasi-studies myself, but this kind of statement is just dumb. You reckon the smell is a precise indicator of harm? You don't fight quasi-science with "grandma-science".

"If cigarettes are worse than water, how come people never drown from cigarettes?"

Um, do you see anything in my post referencing a correlation between odor and toxicity? I was just asking a question. Sheesh.

It's good to know there are people on the forum who prioritize belittling others' posts over actually contributing.

So, does anyone actually know why cigarette smoke stinks and lingers so much more than hookah smoke? Is it the amount of tar?

[redjako]

So why is it that cigarettes stink so bad and leave that stench on everything while hookah smoke does not?

Okay, I'm not a fan of these quasi-studies myself, but this kind of statement is just dumb. You reckon the smell is a precise indicator of harm? You don't fight quasi-science with "grandma-science".

"If cigarettes are worse than water, how come people never drown from cigarettes?"

Um, do you see anything in my post referencing a correlation between odor and toxicity? I was just asking a question. Sheesh.

It's good to know there are people on the forum who prioritize belittling others' posts over actually contributing.

So, does anyone actually know why cigarette smoke stinks and lingers so much more than hookah smoke? Is it the amount of tar?

I would imagine its the tar and other additives outside of tobacco which is in the cigarette.

I'll bet if you attempted (ATTEMPTED) to smoke shisha with coals STRAIGHT on the tobacco, the smell would linger, and perhaps the nicotine would stain the walls over a number of years.

[Svaals]

I was just reading that article form Harm Reduction Journal the other day... it's a good read.

I think science and media as a whole are going through a tumultuous time right now. America is churning out more scientists than in previous years and research money is dwindling. Grant writing is very competitive, and nobody wants to be the person to spend precious dollars on these kinds of studies. While interesting, they're not likely to be beneficial to a scientists' career, and will probably not help you get tenure. Meanwhile, when someone does do a good study on issues that may affect average people, the media reads it and reports on it with their PR and their agenda in mind.

Unfortunately, many people don't get their news from scientifically literate sources, as science writers have mostly been displaced (replaced by "Dr. Hipster Says"-type segments). Edited August 27, 2009 by Svaals

[Sonthert]

Ian: Cigarette smoke is actually smoke and made primarily of oily non-water soluble substances. Hookah vapor is composed primarily of glycerine and is water soluble, so it washes up easily. Also, glycerine is a poor solvent, and doesn't evaporate much, so it withholds smells more.

[white_rabbit]

Here's a fun study that says its not that dangerous. This study involves people who smoke 50% tobacco/50% molasses mixtures and not cigarettes....

Hookah Tobacco Study

It has real things like statistics, data, hypotheses and all the stuff that makes science actually something worth reading...

Do you have links to other studies? If so, could you list them?

[Balthazar]

Um, do you see anything in my post referencing a correlation between odor and toxicity? I was just asking a question. Sheesh.

It's good to know there are people on the forum who prioritize belittling others' posts over actually contributing.

So, does anyone actually know why cigarette smoke stinks and lingers so much more than hookah smoke? Is it the amount of tar?

Sigh...

This thread is about "the Harmful Effects of Shisha" and there's been a lot of comparisons between shisha and cigarettes.

You make the reply: "So why is it that cigarettes stink so bad and leave that stench on everything while hookah smoke does not?"

Is it wrong to assume that you had toxicity in mind at all? Or that your point of view is that cigarettes indeed are more dangerous? If my assumptions were wrong, well then I'm sorry. Not trying to offent anybody. But theres a trend with these health-threads. A lot of people make a lot of conclusive statements without knowing the first thing about the science behind it. I don't know much about the topic myself, which is why I never say that "this is worse than that because ...". If a cigarette smoker told me "hookah is way worse, just look at the amount of smoke!" I would probably disagree with him. It's the same when these simple statements are made by "one of us", "the good guys". "Just blow cigarette smoke into a handkerchief, see the result for yourself! Clearly this is proof!". Then I would also disagree. I don't feel like im belitteling. Neither that I'm not contributing on this forum. Would one of the thousand "I agree on this, x1000 ;D" be more of a contribution? And as I said: If your question was simply a trivial one, not suggestive about toxity at all, then I'm sorry.

[ih303]

Ian: Cigarette smoke is actually smoke and made primarily of oily non-water soluble substances. Hookah vapor is composed primarily of glycerine and is water soluble, so it washes up easily. Also, glycerine is a poor solvent, and doesn't evaporate much, so it withholds smells more.

Ah... that makes sense. Thanks a lot, Eric.


Balthazar: Now worries, man. Everyone's crossed paths with people who get on the forums just to make unintelligent criticisms rather than constructive responses. It's one of my pet peeves. But it's apparent now you are not one of those.

[Sonthert]

If I might, Balthazar is a good man. I respect him a lot. I don't recall him ever being rude or trollish. Its been like three years or so, too. Whenever I read one on Balthazar's posts, I would never believe his statement to be anything other than intelligent Some people, you read their posts like "I wonder which foot is going in their mouth today?" However, some people you reread their posts trying to understand them because you know you missed their point. I think Baltazar definitely fits into the latter category. If I don't understand it, I ask him for clarification.

[Sonthert]

So how can we measure our CO exposure? It sounds like it's the main culprit, and i'm wondering if there is some equipment thats not too expensive that can give us our exposure at any time.

This may sound a bit stupid, but could one of these be used to detect a high CO output in exhaled breath? It seems to have sensitivity of 30ppm (parts per million) and the BBC article said Shisha smokers had between 4-70ppm. So would this work?

http://www.safelincs.co.uk/Carbon-Monoxide...-9CO5/?fdb=true

I read an article about before the British smoking ban. Some guys took a carbon monoxide meter around with them to the smokiest bars in London. Pictures showed a haze of cigarette smoke. The meter outdoors was reading some nominal number (like .003 or something)...they'd go inside one of these bars and it would read .003. They might not have been using a real sensitive meter, or there may be any number of explanations that would call their informal results into question...however, it does give one pause.

[Straykat]

Unsure if this was posted before, but just in case, the material here by Chaouachi is relevant and directly refutes many of the assumptions and liberties published by World Health Organization as well as references by the BBC. Amongst other things, the report describes a large discrepancy that can be found due to particulars such as coal type, lack of coal movement, burning of shisha, frequency of tokes, etc.

http://www.jnrbm.com/content/5/1/17

The intro is as follows:

A critique of the WHO TobReg's "Advisory Note" report entitled: "Waterpipe tobacco smoking: health effects, research needs and recommended actions by regulators"
Kamal Chaouachi

Background and aim
The World Health Organisation Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation (TobReg) has issued in 2005 an "Advisory Note" entitled: "Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: Health Effects, Research Needs and Recommended Actions by Regulators". "Waterpipe" smoking is now considered a global public health threat and the corresponding artefact is actually known in the world under three main terms: hookah, narghile and shisha. This important report, the first ever prepared by WHO on the subject, poses two major problems. On one hand, its bibliographical references dismiss world chief relevant studies. On the other, it contains a certain number of errors of many orders: biomedical, sociological, anthropological and historical. The purpose of the present study is to highlight, one by one, where these weaknesses and errors lie and show how this official report can be considerably improved.

Results
We realise that widely advertised early anthropological studies were not taken into consideration whereas they shed a substantial light on this peculiar form of smoking and help understanding its high complexity. As for concrete errors to be found in this report, they deal with the chemistry of smoke, health-related effects, smoking patterns, description and history of the artefact and its use, gender and underage use aspects, prevention and research needs in this field.

Conclusion
The scientific credibility of an international expert report may be at stake if its recommendations do not rely on sound objective research findings and a comprehensive review of the existing literature. The critical comments in this study will certainly help improve the present WHO report.

[Straykat]

Poop, I can't edit the above. This was published in 2006, after the WHO repor, and before the 2008 report, previously linked on page 1 by the same author. Apologies, missed the edit.

[Svaals]

So how can we measure our CO exposure? It sounds like it's the main culprit, and i'm wondering if there is some equipment thats not too expensive that can give us our exposure at any time.

This may sound a bit stupid, but could one of these be used to detect a high CO output in exhaled breath? It seems to have sensitivity of 30ppm (parts per million) and the BBC article said Shisha smokers had between 4-70ppm. So would this work?

http://www.safelincs.co.uk/Carbon-Monoxide...-9CO5/?fdb=true

4-70ppm is not a useful statistical number. Without a useful average, standard deviation, etc., the number means virtually nothing. A range of 66ppm, to me, illustrates a drastic change in more than one variable.

Another thing to consider is that exhaled CO concentration is not the same as absorbed CO. Blood CO levels would be a much better variable to measure.

[arzan87]

So why is it that cigarettes stink so bad and leave that stench on everything while hookah smoke does not?

Okay, I'm not a fan of these quasi-studies myself, but this kind of statement is just dumb. You reckon the smell is a precise indicator of harm? You don't fight quasi-science with "grandma-science".

"If cigarettes are worse than water, how come people never drown from cigarettes?"

Um, do you see anything in my post referencing a correlation between odor and toxicity? I was just asking a question. Sheesh.

It's good to know there are people on the forum who prioritize belittling others' posts over actually contributing.

So, does anyone actually know why cigarette smoke stinks and lingers so much more than hookah smoke? Is it the amount of tar?

Yeah mate. That answer is simple. Boxes of shisha flavor indicate the tar content to be 0.0%. This is true, shisha doesn't contain tar to begin with. However Tar is that black sticky substance used to make roads, it's formed when anything organic burns. What everyone has neglected to tell you, however, is the TEMPERATURE required to form tar. It's in excess of 900 degrees centigrade.

I did a lab test at Murdoch Uni during semester break (My prof though I was doing extra credits ) on a phunnel bowl, with aluminum foil separating the shisha tobacco from the coals, and 4 AF quicklites on it (I normally smoke with 3). We then measured the temperature just under Aluminum foil, after the coals had been lit, and placed on the bowl for 15 mins (no-one was drawing however, because we're not allowed to smoke at Murdoch). The temperature we measured was 480 something at the highest. It's nearly impossible for anything burning at this temperature to form tar. Also , that tar would then travel down the stem, into the water. To reach the hose inlet, it would then have to be converted into gaseous form since the valve the hose goes into isn't connected to the water in the vase in any way.
The tip of a typical cigarette burns at approx 1100 degrees centigrade. I'll let you figure out what happens there

Also, on topic of CO emissions in Shisha smoke, I've never been able to test this at Uni, so I'll just assume (for arguments sake) that sisha smoke does contain CO and a full session has as much CO as 4 cigarettes or w/e the articles were saying. Like people have mentioned before, just because 1 session has x amount of CO, doesn't immediately mean that Shisha is now worse than cigarettes. Cigs have hundreds of toxic chemicals, right down to the fact that you're inhaling the burnt paper that surrounds the tobacco. Shisha has, 1 (if that) known harmful gas (CO).
Also I don't know if they were testing the smoke coming out of a shisha smoker after a draw, or the smoke coming out of the hose into the shisha smokers mouth, and I think in their setups they had the coals directly on the shisha, and they probably opened up a pack of cigarettes and put that tobacco in the bowl because they claimed their nicotine content was 4% - 6% (LOL). There's just way to many variables that need to be standardized, and therefore these tests at best, are inconclusive.

Also, I fly as a private pilot (my hobby) at the moment, and I recently did a Class 1 medical. Along with it, I have a full medical which was a cancer test, ECG, ENT, lung power test and then for the cardio part, I asked to do a beep test, which I reached level 9 on (I only do weights at a gym, no cardio training). So clearly smoking only shisha (I don't drink, smoke anything else) for the last 7 years (last 2 years almost 3 times a week, before that slightly less, and in the first 2 years probably every day when we had to wag advanced math class) hasn't done anything drastic to my health, I'm sure if I was a cigarette smoker the results would have been different.

Also already posted by someone else, Shisha smokers have been around for 1000s of years. So why is it that studies show increase in the risk of lung cancer for people in NA or Europe?. I think this also has other factors about their lifestyle (maybe the fact that they all live inner-city) , pollution, not enough exercise, other habits like smoking drinking etc. Once again, no concrete testing conditions have been established here.

Finally, when shisha "cooks" (notice, not "burns") , it's the glycerin, molasses , crushed sugarcane (in some tobacco) etc that vaporizes first, because they all have lower combustion temperatures then the tobacco, so by the time the tobacco starts burning, all the "juice" should be gone (if the smoker exercised proper heat management) and you should be left with just the burnt tobacco, your session should end just before this happens when you realize the shisha is "over" or getting "too harsh". (This also mentioned previously in this thread, I'm just summarizing , please give credit to other posters where due).

In conclusion, it's impossible to state on current research that shisha smoking is worse that cigarettes, while I do agree it's detrimental, I still believe it is significantly better than cigarettes in all aspect bar maybe one (The CO emissions).
We're all going to die anyway. Nobody really wants to live till they're 100 years old, you can even hold your piss in at that age.
My 2 cents.
Cheers

[Sonthert]

TAR on cigarette packages is Total Aerosol Residue or some such thing. Its an acronym...it has nothing to do with the oil product known as tar, used on roads.

[arzan87]

Quoting Wikipedia ...

There is a common misconception that the tar in cigarettes is equivalent to the tar used on roads.[citation needed] As a result of this, cigarette companies in the United States, when prompted to give tar/nicotine ratings for cigarettes, usually use "tar", in quotation marks, to indicate that it is not the road surface component. Tar is occasionally referred to as an acronym for total aerosol residue[1], a backronym coined in the mid-1960s

I never knew that one Eric, infact I think I was taught the tar thing back in school / college or the likes
Cheers