check out this news article...

[alen]

[quote name='Mathazar']Yep,  that IS a bit alarming,  but I already pretty much had an idea that hookah smoking wasn't as safe as the distributors would like us to believe.  I"m smoking right now,  and that article as disturbing as it is will probably not alter my smoking habits.  I don't smoke cigarettes,  but I do smoke a great deal of maasell up to about 10 bowls a day.  I realise that I've acquired a bad habit in the amount that I smoke and should slow it down a bit,  but I can't imagine going thru an entire day without smoking my hookah,  it' unfathomable [/quote]
10 bowls per day wow thats atleast 10 hours smoking + preparations a day- im impressed - what are you doing the rest of the day ?

[E.G.]

[quote name='Mr. Scratch']Unfortunately, you can't depend on the  reputation of a researcher on such topics; once they get in the  pocket of a lobby or a social movement, truth goes out the window.  [/quote] Well, the WHO report is upsetting. It should be released, so that people can come to indpendent conclusions about how much weight to give it.As for the other articles you linked... I dunno'. I haven't actually done a lit search myself, but I suspect that there is quite a preponderance of evidence suggesting SHS is harmful. While the ETA's methodolgy is certainly dodgy if not suspect, I am prone to think that the motivation was primarily politcal, trying to build a stronger case than there perhaps is. Still I suspect the preponderance of evidence is going to come down on the side of "harmfull" if the data is played with fairly. As the article in question was from the late 90's (IIRC), I'd be intersted to know if any meta-analysis have been done since and what those results show.As for the lack of credibility of researchers, you make a good point. But, I would point out that the tobacco lobby is *huge* and has mucho influence as well, so I'd approach articles claiming smoking and related issues aren't as bad for you with an equal dose of salt. Similarly, I believe the judge in the ETA case was from N. Carolina, right? N. Carolina is a large tobacco producer -- possible that economics may have predisposed him to find one way or the other?E.G.

[NERV]

[quote name='TheHookahGurus']"thats just stupid, 1 how could it have tar
when its just tobacco, honey, and flavor? 2, if your smoking it
properly the tobacco never actually burns so how could it have as much
carbon monoxide if it isnt burning like cigarettes?"  
  Are you kidding?  No carbon monoxide? 
What do you think you are smoking then?  Smoke IS carbon
monoxide.  The coals do burn the shisha, its just not a direct
flame to the shisha.  I mean, I do not agree with the article, but
some of it is factual.  Even though most do not inhale shisha
smoke, you are in the process of bring it in.  Some does enter you
lungs.  There is no doubt about it in terms of "safer" smoking,
however smoke is smoke.  You just dont have all those other
additives of cigarette smoke.[/quote]

smoke isnt carbon monoxide, u cant see carbon monoxide, and direct
flame or not if your shisha is actually burning and turning to ash then
its wrong. there is a difference between burning and getting burned, if
ur shisha is burnign then its combusting, releasing harsh smoke that
wud be akin to inhaling a cigar, if your shisha is getting burned then
its only releasing vapors and maybe tiny pieces of itself

[NERV]

im not saying there isnt any carbon monoxide because there would be
from the coal itself, but it shouldnt even compare to cigarettes

[TheHookahGurus]

Nice try.  Carbon monoxide is smoke.  Smoke is a byproduct of combustion.  If you wanna get technical, carbon monoxide/carbon dioxide is formed through breaking the carbon bonds in the organic substance (shisha) and forming new bonds with oxygen in the air thus...giving you carbon monoxide/dioxide.  So yes...you ARE buring the shisha.  "there is a difference between burning and getting burned."  There is no difference between "burning" and "burned"....well really except for one is in the process and one already occured.
-Mac

[NERV]

perhaps i didnt make it clear, when i say there is a difference between
burning and getting burned think of it this way, cigarettes burn,
gasoline burns, alcohol burns, oil burns, its supports its own
flame/ember shisha in a bowl gets burned by the coal, food in a stove
gets burned, the shisha isnt burning the coal is burning the shisha is
getting burned, and smoke isnt only carbon monoxide if it was then u
wudnt see it or smell it, smoke is also particles of the things
burning/getting burned. i didnt say there isnt any carbon monoxide, its
coming form the coal not the shisha, if there wasnt any shisha in the
bowl and u were just sucking on a hot coal u wud get the same carbom
monoxide

[Roketsloth]

"the shisha isnt burning the coal is burning the shisha is getting burned" 
wow.

[NERV]

put some ,, in there and itll make more sense, im n ot too big on punctuation

[Fumystery]

massel is cooked not burnt

[NERV]

well technically cooking is a type of burn, if ur arm got cook ud say
it was burned but the point im making is the difference between
something that is burnign and sustaining its own fire and heat which is
bad because of the combustion, and something that is getting burned by
a seperate heat source, since shisha doesnt burn itself it cant let off
carbon monoxide because there is no combustion any CO is from the coal
not the shisha

[Eissenberg]

Regarding the "tar" content of waterpipe smoke:  There is a group in Lebanon, led by Dr. Alan Shihadeh, who have analayzed the smoke that emerges from a waterpipe (or hookah).  They use quick lighting charcoal and maassel tobacco.  The smoke contains many of the same compounds that are found in the "tar" of cigarette smoke.  And, as you have read, there is much carbon monoxide in the smoke.  As has been reported in this forum, waterpipe users in Jordan have been studied, and they receive carbon monoxide and nicotine. 
I've never said I want to ban hookah smoking - in fact, I think banning dependence producing drugs can be very counterproductive.  I do think that waterpipe smokers should be mindful of the dangers -- as many of you seem to be.
I am also interested to see that at least some of you have moved from waterpipes to cigarettes.  I never meant to say that all waterpipe users will make this transition -- only that it is one possible scenario.  
I can see that some folks here are skeptical of the WHO, but, nonetheless, I'll point you to a recent health advisory:
[url="http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/waterpipe/en/"] [url="http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/waterpi"]http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interact.../tobreg/waterpi[/url][/url] pe/en/
 

[jmexx]

Very cool that Eissenberg came into this discussion. Sorry I haven't posted earlier in this topic, to be honest I haven't seen it yet .Being someone who's tried cigarettes, cigars, cigarellos and the hookah, I can safely say that it would be impossible for me to go from smoking ma'assel to smoking cigarettes. I would smoke a cigar on occasion, not so much as a social gathering. I've tried cigarettes and I never plan on taking on smoking. I smoke the hookah because it's very social-oriented and it's a relaxing pass-time. I work 36 hours a week and go to school full-time, it helps to have something to help relax myself with a few friends. We know that it's not GOOD or unhealthy, but for us it's worth it. We are inhaling a byproduct of combustion, which is never good for anyone, but choices will be made.There are already strict laws, in North America anyways, that restrict teens or anyone under the age of 18 to smoke the hookah. There are signs everywhere and lounges have been known to "card" clients as if it were a bar or tobacco store.It's all very interesting, though, to know what we are inhaling. Not by tests of vaporization, but tests having to do with the same way we smoke our hookahs.Jon

[Sonthert]

Burnt is defined as the oxidation, therefore it must be turned into CO/CO2 partially to be burnt, your definition is cyclic. Data shows that CO in Sheesha is higher or even "double" what it is in cigarettes. Nobody, though, that I've seen, ever claimed that the level of CO poses a threat...its higher than cigs...but it begs the question...does it exceed some threshold (OSHA, FDA, EPA, whatever)? I've never seen that data. Charcoal does make a difference. Some charcoal has oxidized chemicals in to reduce the amount of CO produced (eliminate?) The presence of unoxidized chemicals lead to more CO production...the culprit may be the glue/binder when charcoal is ground up and formed into turds or bricks or whatever using a glue or a binder. Natural coals or coals that reciprocially have oxidized chemicals as "accelerants" might pose less of a threat.

[Sonthert]

My father smoked a pipe from when he was around 17 until the day he died, at age 79. 62 years! In fact he died with his pipe in his hand. Died suddenly of natural causes...no previous indication of trouble although he had regular medical checkups .I would bet that it doesn't by induction because the alarmists always say things like "that exceeds the EPAs standards by 150%" or "A Double bacon whopper has more fat than the average person's diet requires for a day"whatever. If the threshold of CO from cigarettes or hookahs exceeded it, I'm sure the alarmists would mention it. Nicotine has not been shown to be a carcinogen and the data I've seen seems highly suspect...that is its carcinogenic if it comes from smoking, but its not carcinogenic if it comes from a nicotine patch or nicotine gum....sounds suspicious like Nicorette has been paying for some research.Smoke and CO are not synonymous. CO is odorless and smoke is not odorless. Smoke may or may not contain CO. Smoke does contains aerosolized particles of carbon. Thats how smoke differs from a vapor, for one thing.

[[LB]]

this is an old thread. Good thing it got kicked up its nice to see some
argument within the forum(livens up this place), and to understand
everyones stance on the health risks of smoking shisha. One problem
though, the article link doesent work anymore id like to read it so i
can get pissed off. 80% of the people who write articles on hookahs go
into the story ready to bash hookahs even before they experienced, or
know enough about it. They are eager to destroy the reputation of the
water pipe (jealousy?) probably cause they see everyone smoking a
hookah happy and relaxed, and half the time smokers being skittish,
nervous and antisocial in comparison (no offense to the cig smokers out
there, but thats the typical reactoin). 

[Sonthert]

[quote name='King Mo']*correction - above I mean it's the cigarettes which go through more quality checks, as oppose to Shisha which is essentially, rotten apples mixed with tobacco[/quote]Actually, I don't know what brand you're buying, but almost none of us use real fruit...your sheesha would be so frickin expensive...Maybe you should switch companies or give up smoking...my tobacco goees through as many or more checks it needs to have its quality assured.  The tobacco industry is almost completely unregulated. 

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Eissenberg']Regarding the "tar" content of waterpipe smoke:  There is a group in Lebanon, led by Dr. Alan Shihadeh, who have analayzed the smoke that emerges from a waterpipe (or hookah).  They use quick lighting charcoal and maassel tobacco.  The smoke contains many of the same compounds that are found in the "tar" of cigarette smoke.  And, as you have read, there is much carbon monoxide in the smoke.  As has been reported in this forum, waterpipe users in Jordan have been studied, and they receive carbon monoxide and nicotine.   
I've never said I want to ban hookah smoking - in fact, I think banning dependence producing drugs can be very counterproductive.  I do think that waterpipe smokers should be mindful of the dangers -- as many of you seem to be.
I am also interested to see that at least some of you have moved from waterpipes to cigarettes.  I never meant to say that all waterpipe users will make this transition -- only that it is one possible scenario.    
I can see that some folks here are skeptical of the WHO, but, nonetheless, I'll point you to a recent health advisory:
[url="http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/waterpipe/en/"] [url="http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/waterpi"]http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interact.../tobreg/waterpi[/url][/url] pe/en/://http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_i...erpi pe/en/
 [/quote]The WHO and the Health Community have a Nazi-approach to finding any little evidence, or falsifying it to make their point...they're the ones who looked at an EPA study and completely misinterpreted it to decide "second-hand smoke" causes cancer when the report showed the cancer rates being 10 and 12.5 per million for non-smokers and second smoke consumers (respectively), which was decided to be, by the EPA report, statistically insignificant. Why does the health community continue to do research into something we all know...Smoking Kills Peoplehow many studies do we have to do? Don't these guys have better ways to get grants? Maybe you could study if gravity really does pull people to Earth or if the Sun does really rise in the East every morning...Cars kill alot of people too...do we have a battery of researchers telling us not to drive? Do we have groups encouraging us not to leave our houses because we could be run over by a car or be involved in a car accident? How about groups banning the use of cars in public....they certainly produce more chemicals than a carton of cigarettes do.Whether second hand smoke actually causes cancer, I'd like to see some real data, I don't think I'm convinced....I'm also not so sure nicotine, itself is so dependency producing...true cigarettes are VERY addictive, but those things are loaded with other dependency-producing substances. Since nicotine patches/gum are so remarkably ineffective (<20%) my guess is that nicotine is less addictive than the other things put into cigarettes/processed tobacco products. Addiction rates in less processed tobacco products empirically seem to be lower, but I haven't seen much data. I anecdotally heard a study that placed cigarette smoking cancer rates at lets say 100 units, cigar smoker's cancer rates were lets say 35 units, non-smoker's cancer rates were lets say 10 units, but pipe smoker's cancer rates were 9 units (all averages). Obviously, if this study is real and the methodology is sound, I don't think the difference between non-smokers and pipe-smokers is significant...but the average level of processing in tobacco products follows that trend Cigarettes> Cigars> Pipe Tobacco.

[Kofod]

[quote name='Tangiers']Nobody, though, that I've seen, ever claimed that the level of CO poses a threat...its higher than cigs...but it begs the question...does it exceed some threshold (OSHA, FDA, EPA, whatever)? I've never seen that data.  [/quote]Just for the record:CO is a toxin, thats basic knowledge not anything that nobody ever claimed, you can learn that in highschool chemistry class, no need to beg the question to sources like FDA etc.It works exactly like cyanide - blocks the heamoglobine in the blood and thereby obstruct it to transport oxygen. The body suffocates with the lack of oxygen. This is bad for you - also even though the intake less than lethal.Accordingly studies show that smokers intake of oxygen falls drastically after smoking - proving the effect of the toxin.Besides that it is a radical and radicals have both imidiate and longterm negative effects on the human health.Most developed countries have legislation that set a "treshold" to; how much CO cars can emit, how much CO a person may be exposed to and how high the CO level in the environments can be. The latter is often observed in big cities same as smog and other gaseous toxins to make sure the levels are under a tolerable limit to not harm people.

[Sonthert]

That's my point exactly Kofod, we have established thresholds (in the USA) for these pollutants (I'm sure Denmark has similar thresholds)...anythng is poisonous in great enough quantity...where does the amount of CO from a cigarette or a hookah stand in terms of this threshold...is as much as breathing the air in a city? Is as much as sucking on car's tailpipe? Is it .001 as much as breathing the air in a city? It makes a difference as to the potential health effects being proposed...

[Sonthert]

[url="http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/carbonmonoxide/ind"]http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/...bonmonoxide/ind[/url] ex.html#Recognition [url="http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/carbonmonoxide/ind"]http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/...bonmonoxide/ind[/url] ex.html#Recognition50ppm exposure, concentration, max. per 8 hour average. A hazardous level is 100ppm which requires evacuation. [url="http://www.carbonmonoxidekills.com/carbon_monoxide_in_cigare"]http://www.carbonmonoxidekills.com/carbon_...oxide_in_cigare[/url] ttes.htmwas the first link I found on a google search, based on the name of the website, I wanted to find some more data...this link cites CO levels in a pack a day smoker to be 20ppm and 40ppm in a 2 pack a day smoker. [url="http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&"]http://quitsmoking.about.com/gi/dynamic/of...te.htm?zi=1/XJ&[/url] amp;sdn=quitsmoking&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpsc.gov%2Fcpscp ub%2Fpubs%2F466.htmlFrom this, I found:
[*]What CO level is dangerous to your health?

The health effects of CO depend on the level of CO and
length of exposure, as well as each individual's health condition. The
concentration of CO is measured in parts per million (ppm). Health
effects from exposure to CO levels of approximately 1 to 70 ppm are
uncertain, but most people will not experience any symptoms. Some heart
patients might experience an increase in chest pain. As CO levels
increase and remain above 70 ppm, symptoms may become more noticeable
(headache, fatigue, nausea). As CO levels increase above 150 to 200
ppm, disorientation, unconsciousness, and death are possible.http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419The American Heart Association seems to disagree with OSHA's threshold...they say OSHA's is 35ppm, OSHA says its 50ppm. They list the CO concentration of a non-smoker to be 0-8 ppm. They go further to claim that a smoker's CO concentration is 5-10 times higher if 40ppm is a 2-pack a day smoker, then that is approximately 5-10 times as much...the numbers seems to connect...So there's some data to start with...anyone else have any good stuff?

[Buford]

Well, no kind of smoke in your lungs is exactly healthy. I accept that and smoke shisha anyway. I also occasionally smoke a pipe whenever I take a notion to (the non-water briar kind), which is a [i]very[/i] different experience especially if you smoke aged Virginias (almost meaty-bbqy) or English blends with latakia (very smoky/leathery). I however don't smoke cigarettes and very rarely smoke cigars since I've only ever found one type I like, that being Romeo y Julieta Reserve Maduro Churchhills that run like $7.50 a pop. As far as shisha goes, I only smoke one bowl every few days anyway, so I'm not really overdoing it.Smoking anything isn't exactly a healthy decision, but neither is a lot of the food I eat. I say heck with it and enjoy life rather than spending all your time worrying about it.

[Sonthert]

I heard, by way of my personal tobacconist, that there was a study that showed the relative rates of cancer based on what you were smoking and it found this:(I'm adding the relative values for clarity, they weren't part of the study)Cigaratte smokers had a relative cancer rate of 100 unitsCigar smokers had a relative cancer rate of 35 unitsNon-smokers had a relative cancer rate of 20 unitsPipe Smokers had a relative cancer rate of 18 unitsSo could it be said that smoking a pipe prevents cancer, based on this study?I noticed that the numbers for each smoking type also roughly correspond to the "amount" of processing each one undergoes. Cigarettes are all heavily processed. Cigars vary, some are like Swisher Sweets and Black N Milds are heavily processed, but they make up only part of the cigar market. Pipe tobacco is probabl the least processed of all three.

[E.G.]

[quote name='Kofod']CO is a toxin...It works exactly like cyanide - blocks the heamoglobine in the blood and thereby obstruct it to transport oxygen.[/quote]

Kofod -- just a gentle correction.  You're correct about CO
binding to hemoglobin with greater affinity than O2 and blocking O2
transport.

However, that is not how cyanide works.  Cyanide is what is
refered to as an uncoupling agent.  When a cell is making energy
in the form of ATP, the final step in a long process involves passing
electrons across the membrane of the cell's mitochondria. 
Uncoupling compounds reverse the flow of the elctrons, abolishing the
elctrochemical gradient that provides the energy to create the majority
of the cell's ATP.

Another way to think of it is a dam producing electricity. 
Normally water is stored behind the damn (water = electrons) and when a
small hole in the dam is opened, the energy of the water can be
captured to produce electricity (ATP).  If there wasn't a dam
there wouldn't be any potential energy, just a flat lake.  If the
dam had lots of holes punched in it (cyanide's effect) after things
settled down* you'd have a no-energy situation (dead cell).

*This is where the analogy falls apart some, as I don't think a cell
would have a burst of energy production equivlent to a flood...
although, the flood's energy isn't really being captured either, so
maybe it's not so bad?

Cheers!
E.G.

[Kofod]

E.GBut we can agree that both CO and cyanide works by inhibiting the oxygen intake?CO takes the room in the carrier whilst CN will disallow the oxygen to be of use in the cell?That is ofcourse the more precise version and my "exactly" does'nt extend to that accuracy, and you are correct in that sense.I was'nt aiming at being that technical - just that both leads to suffocation and then concentrate on CO.

[Sonthert]

Technically, we all die of acidosis, so I guess they are all the same thing.