Who And Media In Sweden

[erik]

The Swedish national tv channel discussed hookah smoking tonight. First time it got this big "official" coverage as far as I know.

For those who know Swedish:
http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=2262...amp;lpos=lasmer

It seams to be based on the WHO report that states that hookah smoking is at least as dangerous as cigarettes. I would guess it's the usual one which we have seen discussed lots of times before.

Their first conclusion was that hookah smoking isn't as healthy as many young people think, which is entirely rights since lots of people seam to think that shisha doesn't contain nicotine or anything dangerous at all.

But then they go a bit too far and states that a one hour hookah session equals the crap you get from 100 cigarettes!

Who's up for making a movie and put on youtube where we smoke 100 cigarettes in one hour and compare to one hour of hookah? The excercise would probably include not feeling to weel for a few days after all those cigarettes...

Erik

[Zerodynamic]

The Swedish national tv channel discussed hookah smoking tonight. First time it got this big "official" coverage as far as I know.

For those who know Swedish:
http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=2262...amp;lpos=lasmer

It seams to be based on the WHO report that states that hookah smoking is at least as dangerous as cigarettes. I would guess it's the usual one which we have seen discussed lots of times before.

Their first conclusion was that hookah smoking isn't as healthy as many young people think, which is entirely rights since lots of people seam to think that shisha doesn't contain nicotine or anything dangerous at all.

But then they go a bit too far and states that a one hour hookah session equals the crap you get from 100 cigarettes!

Who's up for making a movie and put on youtube where we smoke 100 cigarettes in one hour and compare to one hour of hookah? The excercise would probably include not feeling to weel for a few days after all those cigarettes...

Erik

I dont believe it.. there was a UK study like 1 or 2 years ago stating a 45 minute session was equal to 9 cigs... everything is subjective, imho.

[fizzgig]

OMG! Yeah, imagine how sick you'd be if you smoked 100 cigs in an hour! Anything you smoke is unhealthy but to compare a one hour hookah sesh to smoking 100 cigs is going a wee bit overboard methinks!

[kitefanatic]

Well, either way I don't care. I smoke what I like, and I like what I smoke. Like Dennis Leary says, smoking takes time off of the END of your life. So what are we going to miss? The drooling years?

[.cOLt.45.]

I'll die when i die...fuck it, im gonna enjoy the time i last

[rattler]

I'm not up for helping make that video. 100 cigs in a hour is a little out of my ability. I would be throwing my lungs up LOL and I smoke cigs.

[Johnny_D]

Herein lies the problem.

That has to be the single most ridicoulous thing i have ever heard. 1Hour Hookah=100 cigarettes.

Reports like this will ultimately kill hookah smoking for all of us. I often wonder why the major tobacco players
(BAT, William morris) have not gotten into hookah and ran a new tests from the 'other side' as it were.

I'd be interested to see those!

JD

[web250]

Absolutely retarded.

Most of these tests make one machine sit and ferociously smoke an entire bowl. Which is not how it works in real life!

[fewwdragon]

I heard once that it takes the average person three mins to finish a cig ... So here is a little math 3 *100 = 300 300/60 = 5 hours. 100cig in 1hour = very very sick.

[SanguineSolitude]

100 cigs would probably be really dangerous for you. it might well put you into a coma, thats if you could manage to stop throwing up after the first 10.

[Sonthert]

Its likely they were making a silly comparison based on the tobacco content, which is erroneous and naive at best.

[ShishaFred]

There automatically is a bias in these reaserches for the simple reasons that people pay reaserchers to proove that hookah smoking is dangerous. The only people who would do the reverse research and proove it isn't as bad as 100 cigarettes would be shisha tobacco companies , and I don't think they feel the need to be spending that kind of money.

[Sonthert]

There automatically is a bias in these reaserches for the simple reasons that people pay reaserchers to proove that hookah smoking is dangerous. The only people who would do the reverse research and proove it isn't as bad as 100 cigarettes would be shisha tobacco companies , and I don't think they feel the need to be spending that kind of money.

Of course, when a claim becomes prevalent, it changes the focus of research, too. Like you said, some dishonest scientist for hire says smoking hookah is like smoking 100 cigarettes and hour (a new speed rating system for driving...cigarettes per hour...I was going about 8 cigarettes an hour out to Flagstaff!). Now, additional research begins to prove that it isn't as bad as 100 cigarettes an hour. Once a threshold has been established, even though it may be false, everyone has to approach the claim as a challenger, even though they may have been right all along. Good example: Bush and the 2000 election...once his cousin called him the winner for Fox News, now Gore was looked at as the challenger and had to disprove the initial findings.

[ghostofdavid]

I'd like to meet someone who wasn't biased.

[Sonthert]

If you weren't biased, maybe you could!

[looloopoopie]

What would be a more realistic comparison is to measure each puff of smoke from each source.

But of course, no one who doesn't want to put a spin on their research would ever think of such a method.

[art_official]

I'll die when i die...fuck it, im gonna enjoy the time i last

yea.

[Hexagon]

I can't believe if one hour of hookah equals 100 cigarettes. If you will smoke 100 cigarettes in one hour - you will DIE! I've read in one journal what smoking a hookah equals 2 cigarettes!

[mgcsinc]

Well, I wanted to write a longer reply to this, and actually cite some stuff, but don't have the time. Suffice it to say that I don't think the 100 cigarettes thing is right. However, I do think an estimate of 10-20 cigs is accurate and well supported. Cue the line of people ready to tell me that smoking 18 cigs in an hour would kill any normal person, blah blah blah. This kind of common-sense argument against good science is part of the reason the evolution "debate" wasn't dead hundreds of years ago. So how is it possible that a hookah could equal 18 cigs without killing you after half an hour? Simple: the dangerous content being referred to by these studies is not nicotine (which is what would kill you after so many cigs) but rather the particulate matter that you breathe in when you smoke - that is, tar. The fact that shisha brands label their product as if it contains no tar is, in my opinion, really dishonest, and it contributes to the strange myth among young smokers that hookah is danger-free.

When I smoke hookah, I love to see puffy white clouds of smoke emanating from my mouth. Smoke is particulate matter suspended in the air. While in my lungs, some of that suspended particulate condenses and clings to my bronchioles. Among the compounds now clinging to the inside of my lungs are heavy metals and other carcinogens. True, these are probably less populous in hookah smoke than in cigarette smoke because of the very different (and less hot) form of "burning", but there can be no doubt that they are there in significant quantities. When smoking hookah, I sit and suck clouds of smoke all the way into my lungs (compare that to the lighter drags of a cigarette smoker) for hours on end. For me to think that that isn't a considerable number of times worse for me than smoking a single cigarette would be ignorant and silly.

[Allia22]

mmm yep. Had my first hookah for 2 days and I sat in the car smoking for three hours straight in between classes XD

[Sonthert]

Since Hookah Tobacco contains alot of glycerine, which boils at a lower temperature then the ignition temperature of tobacco, burning won't occur as long as there aren't pockets of "dry" tobacco. Any time a phase change occurs in a system (like glycerine boiling) the system can't rise above that temperature of the phase change until the liquid is all vaporized. Examples: wet log in the fire place doesn't burn until the water is boiled off and the temperatue of boiling water is 212F (at sea level) until the water is all boiled away, then it could rise to 213F,etc.

Therefore, particulate matter from the tobacco is not released. Particulate matter is released from the charcoal, perhaps, depending on the charcoal, but that isn't the what the study seems to be saying. So, we would really need to talk about charcoal and their hazards. There is no way to determine what one person or another person actually intakes since people smoke hookah differently. So I would say that the study, true to the anti-tobacco stance of the WHO, who likes to base their research on discredited studies that agree with their aims, is way off.

[afrdzak]

Hej Erik, what part of Sweden do you reside? I've been tinkering with the idea of moving back to Stockholm and opening a hookah lounge there.

[mgcsinc]

Since Hookah Tobacco contains alot of glycerine, which boils at a lower temperature then the ignition temperature of tobacco, burning won't occur as long as there aren't pockets of "dry" tobacco. Any time a phase change occurs in a system (like glycerine boiling) the system can't rise above that temperature of the phase change until the liquid is all vaporized. Examples: wet log in the fire place doesn't burn until the water is boiled off and the temperatue of boiling water is 212F (at sea level) until the water is all boiled away, then it could rise to 213F,etc.

Therefore, particulate matter from the tobacco is not released. Particulate matter is released from the charcoal, perhaps, depending on the charcoal, but that isn't the what the study seems to be saying. So, we would really need to talk about charcoal and their hazards. There is no way to determine what one person or another person actually intakes since people smoke hookah differently. So I would say that the study, true to the anti-tobacco stance of the WHO, who likes to base their research on discredited studies that agree with their aims, is way off.

Sonthert, you're right about the tobacco not reaching ignition temperature, but the leap that you make from that fact to assuming that particulate matter is not released from the tobacco is apparently unjustified. Burning is simply not the only way to release condensible particulate matter. See Shihadeh, 2003, a very well-conducted study that mimics actual smoking conditions and finds a standard session of hookah smoking to produce about 20 cigarettes-worth of "tar". The idea that the charcoal is contributing the bulk of total particulate matter ("tar") is also unsupported, as has been mentioned before:

"In experiments carried out with no tobacco in the
head it was found that the TPM collected was up to 7
mg, indicating that the coal disk provides a small contribution
to the 400 mg of TPM collected under standard
smoking conditions. This is not to discount its
potential contribution to the risk posed by argileh
smoke, since its chemical composition is unknown and
may contain carcinogenic compounds not present in the
particulate matter originating from the tobacco."

Please read that study before dismissing it as poorly executed - I find it to be quite well done. While you seem to be regarded as the expert on hookah science here for whatever reason, I would suggest you read some of the research more carefully before you continue to provide your expert opinion.

[Sonthert]

If my assertion that the tobacco produced no tar is correct, then my assertion that the charcoal produced the bulk of the particulate matter would be correct. That might be a little hasty. I'm saying I don't understand that it can, from the science I understand of it. The study is saying that it is true. I find many studies to be biased and lacking in real scientific foundation, ie making assertions that can't be scientifically or rationally true. Hidden behind statistics and experiments, many people lose sight of the line of logic. If you can explain physically or empirically how particulates can be released, that might justify the study as being potentially true. I will accept that there are particulate matters in aerosol form that are released...it is boiling glycerine after all, but since the contents of those are listed as FDA GRAS those couldn't be implicated possibly as having the same impact as cigarette particulate matter, which includes smoke, solids suspended in air, a result of burning tobacco.

I'm also a little confused about your reference about charcoal emissions...I say they happen, you say they happen. What you disagree with is their proportion in the final analysis...you are saying tobacco is a far bigger contributor, I'm saying its negligible (OK, I said non-existent...that of course IS impossible) Is that also correct?

In response, to your last line, I do indeed research things. To suggest I don't is absurd and I resent it. Perhaps you should stop presuming you are more educated than me. I'm not going to spend all my time reading scientific papers. To say I can't dismiss one because it violates what I understand as chemistry or physics is laughable. More than that, when it is released or sponsored by an organization (WHO) that is known for unloading biased, politically slanted bullshit on people, it loses credibility almost entirely out of the gate. Would you believe a Tobacco Industry research study that dealt with cigarettes? Nor would I a WHO research study on the dangers of smoking. Medical data means very little, frequently. I worked in the industry...how to major Pharmas get these organ damaging drugs on the market? They researched the drug for an average of 8 years, and after being released, in a couple of years, problems arise? How did this drug get out of Stage 1 testing? Easy...they know how to groom data and get it below that magic threshold. I read a great deal of the most recent Surgeon General's report on second hand smoke for instance, a waste of my time, but nonetheless. Its not long to be thorough, its long to hide the fact that there is no significant statistical evidence to say second hand smoke is a carcinogen.

Here is the Surgeon General's report in a nutshell:
A. Primary-hand smoke causes cancer and DNA damage (DNA damage...they must be using the same scientists who claimed LSD caused DNA damage).
B. Second-hand smoke contains the same chemicals as Primary-hand smoke.
C. Second-Hand smoke therefore causes cancer (and DNA damage)

Its nice that they can pick on DNA damage, unless there's some new technique I don't know about, pick some form of significant damage that can't be seen or tested for! Statistically, second-hand smoke only shows a factor of 1.25, less than 2, the accepted threshold of acceptance. (Diesel exhaust has a factor of 1.7 and it was rejected as a carcinogen). So, the Surgeon General's Study or the cancer-rate data for second-hand smoke must be faulty. Dismissing the second possibility for a moment, what error could the Surgeon General's Report have in it that would lead to erroneous conclusions? Neatly imbedded in the lines of reasoning is that there are chemicals that there is no safe level of exposure. That is, they know the amounts in second-hand smoke, but without citation other than "Experts believe", they casually say there is no safe exposure limit. That flies in the face of logic and toxicology as I understand it. Even alpha-particle emitting radioisotopes have "exposure limits" to claim that a single molecule of a particular chemical will cause cancer or kill you is absurd. This is the Surgeon General of The United States of America resorting to the scientific equivalent of Fox News "Experts Say", that is "We believe, without evidence, that this is true. If it weren't, this report would be a pile of horse-dooty." Which it ends up being.

Does that demonstrate that I read "some of the research"?

You may be right, I just don't see it. Just because I dismiss reports from the WHO doesn't mean others should nor do I dismiss what you have to say. YOU, sir, have more credibility to me than the WHO. The Surgeon General may have less than you, soon, too.

So, in summary:

How would harmful particulates be released by the tobacco while smoking hookah? Empirical/physical level reasoning is fine.
Are we in agreement over the charcoal or not?

[erik]

Hej Erik, what part of Sweden do you reside? I've been tinkering with the idea of moving back to Stockholm and opening a hookah lounge there.

Hej!

I live in Södertälje, just south of Stockholm. Opening a hookah lounge sounds like a good idea, let me know if you need someone to help you I have a few plans in the line of a hookah lounge in the area myself. Only problem is of course the smoking ban, which limits hookah smoking to a designated room where drinking/eating is not allowed - or outdoors during spring/summer.