Officer Rod Farva

Officer Rod Farva says no to NHT! ...but yes to fart jokes. Fuck NHT

Shenanigans! Were going to ban you but somebody beat me to it! You better not post links to sites without listing yourself as a vendor first. Talk to the Mushrat! Masking IPs only makes you more suspicious. And stop calling me radio!

Can I get a password? I'm a woman.

I vote his name be Rod Farva after yours truly.

Forget screens and foil. just put the coal right on top of the shisha. thats how real men do it!

QUOTE (Sonthert @ Apr 30 2009, 09:50 PM) I don't know who this Eric guy is, but I'm a little annoyed that he's using my name. I try to learn one new thing each day, to get better. I don't believe there is such a thing as an expert. All experts can be classified as either con-men or dilettantes. you calling me a con Sonthert? well take this outside if you want to.

Man! I wish I got here sooner. I would have banned him.

Are you nutsos still smoking that Tangiers crap? I thought they would have been out of business years ago. Its terrible. Afzal FTW. Sonthert told me that the flavors in each one would be determined later and then each would be assigned a letter/number after.

Ban them all and let God sort 'em out.

Shit ya, it really sucked. Wait...if your you again...who am I? Where's my chamois cloth? Where's my liter of cola? Something is very wrong here!

Shenanigans!

Just here to announce my login of Sonthert is purportedly fixed. Send any comments, questions ticking bombs, etc to Sonthert. Thank you administrators and thank you people for your patience. I turn you over to Sonthert:

Sounds like an anti-smoking website. "Ask Pat" . Real scholarly. His table contains no units...the units could be so small that they are still insignificant...or not...it just takes me down to disregard another crackpot website. The units could be tons, ng, Kg/cubic Mm...there's no telling. A real scientist or someone wouldn't make such a basic mistake...even an anti-smoking one. My guess is that a large amount of the heavy metals come from the charcoal...a lot of the carcinogens. I would expect to see chrysene only if someone were using charcoal briquettes for a BBQ, the organics they use as lighting substituents would be perfect in the production. According to the slightly more scholarly Wikipedia, Chrysene is only a suspected carcinogen...if its anything like Benzene's activity...its not very carcinogenic. According to the slightly more scholarly website of OSHA, the maximum tolerable limit for Chrysene is the same as other coal/tar gases: "* Coal-tar-pitch Volatile's standard is exceeded only if the following conditions are met: 1. The volatile emissions are from distillation residues of coal, petroleum, wood, or other organic matter, and 2. Volatile emissions are found to contain more than 0.2 mg/M3 of benzene-soluble material and 3. Laboratory analysis by mass spectrometry of the benzene-soluble fraction confirms the presence of benzo(a)pyrene and/or one or more of five additional fused polycyclic hydrocarbons: anthracene, acridine, pyrene, chrysene and phenanthrene." I don't know that hookah could be considered or similar to a distillation residue...that would be the waste products out of the butt end of a plant that distilled coal and tar and such. True, charcoal is derived from wood, but its not a distillation residue. A distillation residue would likely be a gas or a smutty sludge that forms at the bottom of those distillation columns. That eliminates condition one, condition two we can't be sure about and condition three we can't be sure about, either. Chrysene is a chemical, it is similar to benzene...is it dangerous in the amounts found in hookah smoke? Can't say and that chart that calls it a tumor initiator is a little extreme. From all of five minutes of research, it doesn't seem conclusive that hookah smoke contains enough chrysene to worry about, and even if it did, its not a proven carcinogen...although I would strongly suspect it has a weak propensity for it, similar to benzene. What if I said chicken contains N-bromo-bispropyl-2,4,beta-trihydroxy-phenylbutylamine (BPBTP)? It contained .206...ten times the amount of pork that only contains .0196? I then said that this chemical is a tumor initiator...so don't think chicken is safer than pork! Same thing, no units! What if the units were ng? Where is a proper citation of the data. The final message is the important one...don;t smoke either...scare tactics. Smoking's bad, thats for sure, but some people are dedicated to annoying other people into stopping it. That one study that one guy quoted...anyone else remember that? I pointed out, based on government data and the data presented by the study, it would take hundreds or thousands of years of smoking once per day to accumulate enough to constitute an LD-50, or a lethal dose 50% of the time? From one study that one guy, the sciency guy who slams back and forth with me, I demonstrated that the lethal doses in question were close to irrelevant in relation to heavy metals. Sure heavy metals are bad, but from my calculations the heavy metal content according to that one guy's study he quoted are irrelevant in real terms of lethality...health issues maybe...but it doesn't seem likely in amounts that are 100,000 times lower than a lethal limit. Its easy to say "It contains chemical X."...chemical X is bad for you. Don't use it. If it really was that bad...studies would include the lethal limits, LD-50s and so on, to show you how bad they are...when they just say "It has Chemical X and its bad." they are trying to scare you. Smoking is bad....we all know that. I wish some of these "scientists" would find something productive to do with their time, rather than bombarding us with fake statistics. If I then said, in my example study earlier that the units were micrograms and that an LD-50 of BPBTP was .350 micrograms, then you could be afraid of chicken...but still not necessarily pork. If I really want to stop you from eating chicken, I would include how close a lethal dose is to what's found in chicken. If these people want to really scare us, the best way to do it is with the truth. If they conveniently leave out details, those details would only serve to hurt their case, generally, thats why they ignore them. Source: California Meat Processing Information Council Here's what I want to see, I challenge the scientific community: Hookah Smoking, one hour: Chemical X .482 mg/cubic meter Chemical Y 19.67 ng/cubic meter Chemical Z 574.6 ng/cubic meter Chemical X: LD-50 .800 mg/cubic meter [1], JAMA [4] lists health complications in the kidneys in concentrations as low as .500 mg/cubic meter. Chemical Y:LD-50 100 ng/cubic meter [2] Doctors link liver damage and renal failure in patients to Chemical Y at around 25 ng/cubic meter [5] Chemical Z:Known Carcinogen [3], In seizures and comas associated with excessive smoking, doctors linked Chemical Z in 6 different studies [6,7,8,9,10,11]. It is presumably highly toxic and contributing to nerve and brain damage [12]. [1] Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Toxicity of Chemical X in Primates and Mice". Vol. 118, Sept. 2003, Pages 84-88. [2]...Etc. Now thats scholarly and frightening. Short too. They may overload us with pages of theoretical metabolic pathways, conjecture as to tetratogenocity effects in monkeys, whatever...all B.S. until they ante up the data. Read the Merck Index (Chemicals edition) sometime. That's scholarly and concise. I suspect, your doctor's trying to scare you with irrelevant crapola. Carbon monoxide...thats a problem/threat...heavy metals...not so much, from what I have read. Tar, eh. Show me that glycerine is as dangerous as what comes out of the end of a cigarette and I'll concede that the tar is 1:1 as dangerous. The term tar is kinda vague and doesn't pertain to hookahs in the same way it does in cigarettes. Nicotine, they have been trying to pin something there for sometime: not dangerous...addictive, definitely. Some people would like to link it to cancer or "Chromosomal damage" but lack real, resonating data. Assume smoking is bad for you though.

Don't mash the tobacco down, for one thing, don't spread it out either. I don't know how to make the MN hookah phunnels work, or if they do...I can only comment on the Tangiers end. Since it was very harsh and smoothed out, either you had too heavy a pack, you had too little a charcoal (I don't think so, but with the MN Hookah phunnel, I can't say for sure), or it wasn't acclimated well enough. Also, stir the tobacco well. Don't discard any of the juice. Keep it all. Eric