Georgetown Univ. Medical Study On Hookahs

[[LB]]

what are these idiots talking about, there is no tar in ma'assel, at least the ma'assel i smoke. Plus theres much less nicotine i mean goddd do these guys ever do hands on research like READING THE FUCKING BOX

[camelflage]

what are these idiots talking about, there is no tar in ma'assel, at least the ma'assel i smoke. Plus theres much less nicotine i mean goddd do these guys ever do hands on research like READING THE FUCKING BOX

why bother, when it's apparent about 65% of the population can be controlled through the art of the "press release".

[mgcsinc]

what are these idiots talking about, there is no tar in ma'assel, at least the ma'assel i smoke. Plus theres much less nicotine i mean goddd do these guys ever do hands on research like READING THE FUCKING BOX

why bother, when it's apparent about 65% of the population can be controlled through the art of the "press release".

The tobacco companies that produce ma'assel do not, so far as I can tell, actually perform any tests to come up with that 0 tar figure. Anything you smoke has tar in it. Tar is not a technical term for some specific chemical; it just refers to all the non-nicotine particulate matter that precipitates out of smoke when filtered. Edited February 7, 2007 by mgcsinc

[Scheetz]

what would happen if there is a certain mix of water to alcohol ratio ( because tar is solubule in alcohol)

Quick off-topic comment; anyone know what the effects of alcohol inhaled in this manner are? As in, any toxicity changes, etc.?

Dunno facts, but its very unhealthy for you. If you want to do it once or twice fine. But dont make it a habit.

[OPR234]

“People who use these devices don’t realize that they could be inhaling what is believed to be the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes in one typical 30-60 minute session with a waterpipe, because such a large quantity of pure, shredded tobacco is used,” said Christopher Loffredo, Ph.D., Director of the Cancer Genetics and Epidemiology program at Georgetown University Medical Center.

Does shisha even qualify as "pure" shredded tobacco with all of its glycerin, honey, molasses, dyes, and flavorings? They're most likely testing with Tombak or however you spell it, although none of us can be sure. There is an enormous of lack of details in the article for any conclusions to be drawn. I don't even know what they're 'smoking' and testing on.

As many people before me have said, smoking in any way is obviously bad for you. Are cigarettes worse for you than shisha? In my opinion, I say they are, but not by much. I say that because most cigarettes have weird additives like ammonia and stuff that can't be good for you, but shisha delivers more nicotine (unwashed) and carbon monoxide. I don't know for sure, thats just the way I like to see it.

The hookah = pack of cigarettes reference in the article does not appear to refer to his own research, so his "pure, unshreaded" comment is meaningless.

There is "enormous lack of details" here because it is not a study, despite what the title of this thread (annoyingly) implies. This is a press release. Press releases don't have numbers and they don't have methodological details. You people are reading a news report on the epidemiology of hookah smoking that makes passing references to the danger of hookah smoking (a totally different issue!), and pretending like it's a study on the dangers of hookah smoking. Amazing.

Oh I know the difference between an actual study and a press release. I called it an article originally, I was kind of trying to make the same point you're making to me, and I wrote a little about what I thought about the subject in general, not directly related to the article. But the fact that its a simple article doesn't mean that the little information about the tobacco that was in it is meaningless (why would a researcher reference research that had absolutely nothing to do with his work?). There are multiple styles of tobacco that are smoked in a hookah, I just wanted to say that I doubted that the report was relevant to shisha from what the researcher mentioned.
You dont need to talk to me like I'm a complete retard or act like a complete prick. I don't mean any hard feelings, but I think you should understand what someone is trying to say before acting like an ass and trying to shoot them down.

[mgcsinc]

“People who use these devices don’t realize that they could be inhaling what is believed to be the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes in one typical 30-60 minute session with a waterpipe, because such a large quantity of pure, shredded tobacco is used,” said Christopher Loffredo, Ph.D., Director of the Cancer Genetics and Epidemiology program at Georgetown University Medical Center.

Does shisha even qualify as "pure" shredded tobacco with all of its glycerin, honey, molasses, dyes, and flavorings? They're most likely testing with Tombak or however you spell it, although none of us can be sure. There is an enormous of lack of details in the article for any conclusions to be drawn. I don't even know what they're 'smoking' and testing on.

As many people before me have said, smoking in any way is obviously bad for you. Are cigarettes worse for you than shisha? In my opinion, I say they are, but not by much. I say that because most cigarettes have weird additives like ammonia and stuff that can't be good for you, but shisha delivers more nicotine (unwashed) and carbon monoxide. I don't know for sure, thats just the way I like to see it.

The hookah = pack of cigarettes reference in the article does not appear to refer to his own research, so his "pure, unshreaded" comment is meaningless.

There is "enormous lack of details" here because it is not a study, despite what the title of this thread (annoyingly) implies. This is a press release. Press releases don't have numbers and they don't have methodological details. You people are reading a news report on the epidemiology of hookah smoking that makes passing references to the danger of hookah smoking (a totally different issue!), and pretending like it's a study on the dangers of hookah smoking. Amazing.

Oh I know the difference between an actual study and a press release. I called it an article originally, I was kind of trying to make the same point you're making to me, and I wrote a little about what I thought about the subject in general, not directly related to the article. But the fact that its a simple article doesn't mean that the little information about the tobacco that was in it is meaningless (why would a researcher reference research that had absolutely nothing to do with his work?). There are multiple styles of tobacco that are smoked in a hookah, I just wanted to say that I doubted that the report was relevant to shisha from what the researcher mentioned.
You dont need to talk to me like I'm a complete retard or act like a complete prick. I don't mean any hard feelings, but I think you should understand what someone is trying to say before acting like an ass and trying to shoot them down.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be an ass - I was just annoyed at the overwhelming number of people not understanding that this was not in any way supposed to be a presentation of original research. In retrospect, you clearly understood that better than other people, and I apologize.

To me, it was immediately clear that the researcher had not done more general research on the health effects of tar in hookah tobacco, but that's probably just because I'm used to reading press releases with a grain of salt. I was tipped off by this paragraph:

"His series of recently published studies documents the trend toward waterpipe tobacco smoking, showing how it has swept through the Middle East and is gaining popularity in the West, and demonstrates that the amount of cellular chromosomal damage produced inside the mouth is the same as that seen in cigarette smoking."

So he's only done one tiny, extremely specific study on cell damage in the mouth, and I assumed his other claims were based on other people's research (I'm pretty certain they are). Otherwise, he seems like he himself was just concerned with epidemiology.

Anyway, I'm really sorry, again, and I'll be more careful next time.

[OPR234]

Its all good man, its easy to get annoyed at that kind of thing, honestly it annoys me too occasionally. But back on topic, you've raised a good point about him doing a test about chromosomal damage to cheek cells. I want to say that he maybe did some simple preliminary studies so he knew what to look for in his cheek cell study, but who knows. Before I didn't quite realize that this guy specializes in the genetics of cancer, not an expert on lungs or other other illnesses tobacco can cause, like emphysema. But he goes and says things like

“And because the tobacco is burning at a lower temperature, it is more tolerable to inhale deeply, and in fact you need more force to pull air through the high resistance of the water pathway,” Loffredo said. “That means the tobacco smoke can be penetrating deeper in a person’s respiratory tract than cigarette smoke does. The damage could be even worse than seen in cigarette smokers, but we haven’t done studies long enough to quantify the true cancer risk.”

I dont even know if thats remotely true. When I've seen anti-smoking ads and things and they show a persons lung who smoked, they all look uniformly blackened to me, I dont understand how the smoke "penetrates deeper" and poses potentially greater risk. But I probably was misled about his statement of a session equaling a pack of cigarettes. There is probably a lot I'm missing from this, mainly because I'm no expert, and I don't understand where he gets his information.

[mgcsinc]

Its all good man, its easy to get annoyed at that kind of thing, honestly it annoys me too occasionally. But back on topic, you've raised a good point about him doing a test about chromosomal damage to cheek cells. I want to say that he maybe did some simple preliminary studies so he knew what to look for in his cheek cell study, but who knows. Before I didn't quite realize that this guy specializes in the genetics of cancer, not an expert on lungs or other other illnesses tobacco can cause, like emphysema. But he goes and says things like

“And because the tobacco is burning at a lower temperature, it is more tolerable to inhale deeply, and in fact you need more force to pull air through the high resistance of the water pathway,” Loffredo said. “That means the tobacco smoke can be penetrating deeper in a person’s respiratory tract than cigarette smoke does. The damage could be even worse than seen in cigarette smokers, but we haven’t done studies long enough to quantify the true cancer risk.”

I dont even know if thats remotely true. When I've seen anti-smoking ads and things and they show a persons lung who smoked, they all look uniformly blackened to me, I dont understand how the smoke "penetrates deeper" and poses potentially greater risk. But I probably was misled about his statement of a session equaling a pack of cigarettes. There is probably a lot I'm missing from this, mainly because I'm no expert, and I don't understand where he gets his information.

Yeah, that quote sounds like pure speculation. I'd prefer it if scientists had a general policy of not talking to the general press. People too easily take their speculations as statements of fact.

For an idea of where the hookah = pack of cigs figure comes from, see my new thread about an empirical study on hookah smoking.

[hookah hippie]

I believe from personal experience that ciggerettes are more harmful

Before I ever smoked a hookah I would go through roughly a pack or 2 a week possible sometimes three

I did this non stop for 2 years

during this time I was unable to hold my breath under water run or do physical sportsa such as basketball without becoming extremely winded

I eventually kicked the habit and about 3 months after it was September 2005

I got a hookah and I now smoke about 3 bowls during the week and a hole ton on Saturday about 3-4
(of course the number of bowls will vary depending on factors)

But with my constant exposure to the hookah pipe much of these bowls are solo smoked

I am able to run and play hockey as well as engage in numerous activites that once would get me winded and breathing heavily while I was a ciggerette smoker

Those are my 2 cents