Tar Content

[amnite]

You guys have read my mind

Thing is, there has to be a chemical analysis of the particulate in the smoke. I'm sure there are bad things in there such as the aforementioned tar. Would it not help to space out your smoke sessions by a week or 2? This would give your lungs time to cleanse. The body is an amazing machine where people who have chain smoked for years stopped and became healthier over the time that they let their lungs repair themselves. I would think that giving time between smokes, maybe somewhere between a week and a month, could help your system pass the tar and other chemicals related to smoke. I suppose that until the WHO make it their top issue, which it seems they have, we'll see what the deal is.

Thats exacly what I used to think... How long after a hookah session will it take for your lungs to recover/make some sort of recovery. I've read your lungs immediatly begin the recovery process after smoking.

Some thoughts.

1. Smoking Hookah is bad for you.

2. The term "tar" as applied to cigarettes and how it is applied to hookahs should be completely different. They are not that similar. That crap that sticks to your clothes and the walls...is tar. Hookah doesn't smell up the clothes or the walls...the glycerine, the flavor and other stuff could be thought of as tar, too...certainly less harmful "tar" than in cigarettes, presumably.

3. I read a study that showed a positive correlation between ignition temperature and amount of carcinogens produced. That is, the hotter the temperature the cigarette burned at, the more carcinogens were produced. Hookah tobacco operates at significantly lower temperatures than a cigarette which would lead us to believe less carcinogens are produced.

4. Cigar and Pipe smokers have lower mortality rates, in general than cigarette smokers, although they do indeed burn tobacco and presumably inhale the same type and variety of "tar"...The Surgeon General and other researchers have even taken to generalizing the results for cigarette studies to all types of smokers, although earlier data suggests, despite similarity in chemical composition, cigarettes are much more dangerous. These types of disparities have led some people to question whether its these chemicals or another factor (like the filter or the ammonia in cigarettes and a few types of cigars). That is, put another way, the earliest research indicate that pipes and cigars aren't as dangerous as cigarettes...but second hand smoking laws apply to all types of tobacco...equally.

1. Agreed
2. Agreed, Cigarette smoke and hookah smoke is different
3. Agreed, I have proof to back this point up from different scientists... Its known since the last 40 years
4. Agreed

4. Cigar and Pipe smokers have lower mortality rates, in general than cigarette smokers, although they do indeed burn tobacco and presumably inhale the same type and variety of "tar"...The Surgeon General and other researchers have even taken to generalizing the results for cigarette studies to all types of smokers, although earlier data suggests, despite similarity in chemical composition, cigarettes are much more dangerous. These types of disparities have led some people to question whether its these chemicals or another factor (like the filter or the ammonia in cigarettes and a few types of cigars). That is, put another way, the earliest research indicate that pipes and cigars aren't as dangerous as cigarettes...but second hand smoking laws apply to all types of tobacco...equally.

i swear it is the zinc in the paper tht is the cause of cancer! i will give my evidence later, I have to go to class right now but its some solid stuff my grandpa paid to get researched.

btw this turned into a very good thread.. stayed on a good topic started from some objective arguing between myself and that crazy ninja

If you look at facts, over the last 50-100 years there seems to have been an increase in the mortality rates caused by cigarette smoking.. I wounder why, something is up with the tobacco industy (adding extra nicotine? extra chemicals? the paper?) or is it the over exagurated figures or an increase in the amount of smokers.. Edited February 5, 2008 by amnite

[manic007]

Carbon Monoxide reader is a good idea man. I was looking for C. Monoxide filters today... Yeah, there isn't any.

I've already done this test. I brought this CO detector:

http://www.safelincs.co.uk/product.php?xPr...8e&fdb=true

It has a digital display to show you what the average concentration of CO ppm is observed over a 15 second intervals.

I haven't done an extensive experiment, it basically consists of smoking and then putting my mouth over the sensor hole and blowing (please, someone put that in your sig ).

The CO detector manual gives the CO concentration and time it takes for the alarm to sound. The numbers are based on some government regulations and it appears that all CO detectors in the UK have similar numbers:

THIS CO ALARM MEETS THE FOLLOWING ALARM TIME / CONCENTRATIONS
REQUIREMENTS:
At 30 PPM, the unit cannot alarm in less than 120 minutes
At 50 PPM, the unit must alarm within 60-90 minutes
At 100 PPM, the unit must alarm within 10-40 minutes
At 300 PPM, the unit must alarm within 3 minutes

Ok, so what have I found out?

Well "typically" if I start using my shisha (Mya QT, Nour/Al-A-something finger charcoal, AF tobacco), with normal breathing the CO concentration is initially very high about 100 ppm (when blowing out one lung full onto the detector), a few minutes later it drops to about 50-100 ppm. A while into the session, about 20-30 min, the detector will go up to about 200-300. *BUT*, if I suck through my hose hard and constantly blow on the detector and keep doing that for about 4 puffs, it will reach 999 ppm and the alarm will instantly sound.

I think the CO monitor is a really good idea, its not very expensive (I think the government doesn't charge VAT on safety products?). It shows that the CO concentration in my room (not in my lungs) when using finger charcoal rarely goes above 30 ppm, it would be interesting to compare it to self-lighting charcoal.

Like I said, I haven't done extensive testing with it. There's a lot of variables that you can alter with this sort of test. But I get the impression that if you want to reduce the CO concentration you inhale you should pull gently through the hose, increase the intervals between puffs and maybe limit your session since for me it appears that the CO ppm increases with time.

Maybe someone else would like to some proper research, I;m a bit busy at the mo.

[Shisha.Bubbly]

I sent an email out to one of the major tobacco companies that makes shisha, and here's their response:

"Thank you for visiting our website and taking the time to contact us. You can find information regarding to make-up of our tobacco on the boxes of our products. Unfortunately, there is very little research that has been done on shisha smoking and molasses tobacco. In reference to the tar content lab results have shown that the smoke is actually free of tar. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask."

What do you all think??? Truly free of tar AFTER it's cooked/burned???
Hello,
There is a much smaller percentage of tobacco to turn to tar since a ciggie has much more. I can't smoke cigarettes, too harsh. But its like those guys who run distance for health on the sides of the highway where they ingest more bad fumes than anyone from Chicago to Boston. Poor on the lungs and heart.
They could find an area free of smog, or maybe like us we say "its my hobby". Former President Bush is 80 or more and he just went free jump parachuting (with a chute).
If you want an un-healthy culprit, look towards the coals.
What did all the miners get "Black lung disease" from?
A friend of mine from the army who was known as a famous poet with 9 albums out wrote a song "I live to smoke"
Also his biggest song was "There is a mound of friends laying on the grass" which we sang "There is a mound of grass laying on our friends". Just enjoy the smoke laugh at "the Grim Reaper" and be thankful every day.

[hockeydudde]

from what I heard on the forum, the coal burns at around 450F.

the coal may be 450 degrees, but when you pull the heat down to the shisha, it only gets about 100 degrees F on the actual tobacco.

i have an infrared temperature gun and i think what i may do is use a screen to smoke a bowl of shisha and then, really quickly, when i am pulling hard on the hose, i'll take the screen off and quickly point the gun at the tobacco and get a reading. if i'm fast enough, i'm sure that i'll be able to catch it at a pretty acurate temperature. then, to make sure that the delay didn't cool it down too quickly, i'll also measure the temperature a couple secconds after i take the screen off to show how quickly it cools down. iono. maybe it could at least prove that the shisha does not get that hot.

(edited to remove the extra puntuation that tends to sneak into my sentances. )

if it really was only actually 100 degrees f on the tabaco then we would be able to smoke hookah here in the summer without coals, and i am pretty sure that is not possible.

[gr!m]

If the tobacco cooked at 100 degrees I wouldn't burn the hell out of my fingers on the bowl lol...This would be amazing, but impossible. Smoke wont even generate at 100 degrees, let alone steam or anything else.

[zeppyrkr]

yeah its gotta be somewhere hmm ... i'd say 300.

[Dom]

yeah its gotta be somewhere hmm ... i'd say 300.

If the tobacco cooked at 100 degrees I wouldn't burn the hell out of my fingers on the bowl lol...This would be amazing, but impossible. Smoke wont even generate at 100 degrees, let alone steam or anything else.

if it really was only actually 100 degrees f on the tabaco then we would be able to smoke hookah here in the summer without coals, and i am pretty sure that is not possible.

hmmm.... that makes sense, you are right. looks like i got my facts screwed up. (where did i get that number from?) i'll have to check my source again. lol

[Plain Old Me]

yeah its gotta be somewhere hmm ... i'd say 300.

If the tobacco cooked at 100 degrees I wouldn't burn the hell out of my fingers on the bowl lol...This would be amazing, but impossible. Smoke wont even generate at 100 degrees, let alone steam or anything else.

if it really was only actually 100 degrees f on the tabaco then we would be able to smoke hookah here in the summer without coals, and i am pretty sure that is not possible.

hmmm.... that makes sense, you are right. looks like i got my facts screwed up. (where did i get that number from?) i'll have to check my source again. lol

100 degrees C would make more sense, but it probabally still a tad low...

[EricDub]

That would make sense since that is the boiling point of water and the molases has water in it and saoks the tobacco.