The Big Lie

[amnite]

Being part of a massive conspiracy loll wtf, how did u get in contact with him? Edited July 16, 2007 by amnite

[Sonthert]

First, let me address the aspects of what I've said that you are misrepresenting:

1. I never claimed that nicotine is a "health problem" in terms of negative health outcomes. I've explained this time and time again in the past. My acknowledgment of this is also inherent in my assertion that 'herbal' shishas are not safer. I don't know where in the world you got the idea that I thought it was a health problem. The only reason I mentioned it is because people seem interested to know about the nicotine content in hookah, because of its (supposed) addictive potential.

2. I did not, on first principals, apply tar equivalences to hookah smoke. I was simply responding to the constant debate that is going on here and in some scientific venues about such an equivalence. There is a reason I used 'tar' in quotation marks, and it's the same reason that it is used in quotation marks on cigarette packs, i.e. to avoid making any specific claims about what that 'tar' contains. 'tar' has a specific scientific meaning, and under that scientific meaning, hookah has the 'tar' content that I described. How on earth am I being dishonest when you note that I have specifically acknowledged the differences in the 'tar' contents? Acknowledging a flaw is, like, the definition of honesty.

What I really don't get is that you seem to have misunderstood the entire purposed of my post, which, rather than "blowing things out of proportion", was designed to give an understanding of the way that the comparisons made by some scientists were technically accurate (contrary to some cries otherwise) but of dubious usefulness. Thus, I move on to my next point...

3. I never calculated a cancer potential. I said "less than 1 cigarette worth of carciongenicity". How, in your wildest dreams, that could appear to be a precise calculation, I don't know. I didn't say "about 1 cigarette..." or "almost 1 cigarette..." - I used "less than" for a reason. The only things that I meant to communicate with that statement were my beliefs that there is some amount (no specified quantity) of carcinogenicity involved, and that quantity is less than a cigarette. The latter idea comes from the various reasons (which you have articulated) for thinking that 'tar' from hookah is less carcinogenic than 'tar' from cigarettes.

Now, for your point #4. So far as I'm concerned, your discussion about the study I linked to betrays the fact that you have limited understanding of the scientific process, at least in this field and any field in which I have ever been involved. Just to make sure we're actually talking about the same thing, I'm discussing the article at http://webfea-lb.fea.aub.edu.lb/aerosol/do...gilehpaper1.pdf .

1. This is not an "on-line article". This is quite simply not true. It was published in 2003 in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol 41, pp. 143-152. Any 'scientist' would have understood that after 5 seconds of reading the front material of the article.

2. The majority of criticisms that I have read of this and other studies have demonstrated large misunderstandings of the apparatus. This is how I know that the critics did not actually read the study.

3. A scientific study is not like a movie. In science, one does not get one or two pages into a study and decide they don't like it, and walk away without making substantive criticisms. This study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, so at least two scientists unrelated to the original author read and accepted the manuscript. This is how it works in science, and it's a system designed so that papers which are eventually published are of high enough quality that you can't just reject them without making specific, pointed criticisms.

4. My praise of the author's apparatus was not an attempt at calling it perfect, but rather, a response to criticisms that compare it to the continuous smoking machines of smoking research past. I was simply indicating that, compared to previous methods, these methods are much more accurate. IN FACT, they were designed based on observing patrons at an actual hookah lounge.

5. I invite you to explain what made the study 'look awful'.

6. The assertion that their data was presented poorly is strange to me. I've seen much worse, and I actually think their data was presented quite well. Explain what you mean.

7. "the data regarding the heavy metals was under the heading of "So what"?"; "I'm not going to keep reading a study that attributes a systematic error to "god's whims"" - I'm assuming these are not specific references to this study? If so, I'm confused.

To be fair, I've saved your best point for last: vapor v. smoke. My understanding is that there are elements of the shisha that pyrolate at the circa-500 degree centigrade temperatures reached by the coal. However, I admit that the nature of the content of the 'smoke' that is coming off the shisha is not well understood, and I am open to the idea that it is simply glycerine vapor. I'll leave that discussion for another day, when I am more prepared for it. As it is, I have never made any specific claims about the carcinogenicity of hookah smoke.

1. OK. It was, I read it on-line. It wasn't on paper and the doctors responsible for it weren't standing here.
2. You roughly stated that smoking a hookah has the equivalent of five cigarettes of tar. How can you make that claim? You can't show how dangerous hookah tar is, so how can you make a comparison...by volume? If by volume, you are directly comparing them on a 1:1 basis, which is dishonest since you admitted that they are likely to be different. If I admitted that the organic chemicals in apples weren't as dangerous as those in cigarettes and then said apples have ten cigarette equivalents of organic chemicals, that is dishonest. Its junk science, its the same logic you used. If you can't show the relationship between one tar and the other, don't compare them.
3. You were talking about websites. If someone chooses to reject an article because it is poorly done, that has nothing to do with what you're saying. You said nothing in your previous post about it being a peer review. You're trying to commit yet another straw man fallacy. Either that or you left out they key piece of information that peer reviews were done unfairly.
4. How do you justify saying the study's apparatus represents smoking conditions well? How can you make that statement...are you a doctor?
5. Um, I read it and noticed there were several points where the presentation was questionable at best. I define that as look awful, from a guy trying to get information. I'm not going to sit here and comb that crummy article again.
6. I felt like, for the experiment, there was little valuable data. Its all ng of heavy metals and nicotine and tar amounts. Nicotine...so what, ng of heavy metals...so what...tar, the relationship not established or proved.
7. Spread out, try a few other fallacies. We got the red herring fallacy out now. Better yet, if you are going to respond to what I said, read what I said. The data, from what I culled out, showed the heavy metal toxicity to be so low as to be, what I would call, unimportant. That was the so-what. The other part, several sentences later, was talking about why people would throw a study in the trashcan without reading it completely. If a "scientific" study associated systematic errors to God's whim, I would stop reading it, too.
8. Perhaps, perhaps. So, if we are comparing apples and oranges, why are you still making comparisons in relation to cigarettes? Cigarettes may have some relation or basis regarding hookahs. Until you establish that, its dishonest. Like me comparing apples and cigarettes. Yes, hookah tobacco and cigarettes both contain tobacco. Yes, apples and cigarettes contain organic chemicals. Comparing the members of either pair is absurd without establishing the relation, if any, of their health effects. You admit you haven't done that, but keep comparing anyway.

You did make the comparison between cigarette and hookah cancer risks. How do you know that hookahs increase cancer risk at all? I agree it would follow, but you throw theses assertions around like facts, yet have ZERO evidence to back most of it up? Where does this stuff come from...does God speak to you and tell you that a hookah has less than one cigarette of carcinogenicity? I smoke an average of six hours a day, the same hookah...do I still have less than one cigarette of cancer risk? Give me something other than your opinion to work from. How do you know its not more...more than 3 cigarettes worth? Where do you get the data to make this assertion? How do you know its not much, much less than a cigarette, like less than two orders of magnitude? If you can't back this shit up, say "This is my opinion". Don't portray yourself to be the greatest scientific mind of the century.

In fact, I have worked extensively in the scientific community. I've worked in research and practical engineering. I've worked for DuPont. I've worked for General Atomics. I worked in semi-conductor gases and gas phase chemistry. I've worked with all sorts of scientists. I read your posts and laugh sometimes. You read a lot and swallow everything that is said, biased or not, as somehow factual. Is there not such a thing as a dishonest or a bad scientific study? You admit that there are things science hasn't explored, yet you follow theories based on irrelevant information and champion it as worth repeating. If we don't know how dangerous hookah tar is, in relation to cigarettes, why does there being five times as much of it even bear mentioning? You admitted its not worth mentioning...so? What gives you the right to question my credentials? It must be that you get tired of losing argument after argument and have to resort to questioning my abilities as a scientist. It is a compliment, really. I point out the inconsistencies in what you say and you claim I know nothing of the scientific process in response. You claim I employ an ad hominem argument and "They are not useful to anybody", right after you claim: "betrays the fact that you have limited understanding of the scientific process". Practice what you preach. Edited July 16, 2007 by Sonthert

[Sonthert]

Bad news for you, sunshine. Cotenine (sp?) is an oxidation product of nicotine...that is, it is created when tobacco is burned...it just adds more fuel to the fire that sheesha doesn't burn (Pardon the pun). Cotenine is not produced by the human body, at least from my reading of the Merck Index, but by burning...so obviously its level in the bloodstream doesn't go up from smoking a hookah. Cotenine isn't a metabolite...where are you getting this manure? Somebody's citing something that isn't true. I may have to read over it again, just to make sure, but I read that monograph with great interest many times. Oxidation product, not metabolite.

Besides, why are we comparing hookahs and cigarettes? Why do we use the most dangerous of the tobacco products? According to the old Surgeon General's Reports, mortality rates in people smoking pipes (independent of average per day or length of habit), or less than 5 cigars per day are not different than for non-smokers. Hookahs are a lot closer, from a functional perspective, to a pipe than to a cigarette or even closer to a cigar. Why make the worst possible parallel that just strengthens the case? Obviously, if unbiased scientific researchers were studying this, they would be making closer comparisons...they choose to make the worst possible associations to make their case seem more important. If I chose to compare a virus with another virus, and I wanted to bias people's opinions, I would compare it to bubonic plague or herpes. I choose the framework of a comparison...If I were comparing a duck to another animal, would I choose a snake or a chicken? Ducks are closer to chickens, rationally, unless you wanted to make a case for how dangerous ducks (or hookahs) were, then you would compare them to dangerous snakes.

I think it goes without saying that the continued comparison of cigarettes to hookahs is distorting the case to begin with. Smoking a pipe burns tobacco, it contains nicotine. It contains all the same chemicals as cigarettes...yet, it doesn't seem to increase mortality rate. How could that be? It must be unreasonable to compare pipes and cigarettes in terms of mortality rate, which seems pretty damned important. If it isn't reasonable to compare pipes and cigarettes...why is it reasonable to compare hookahs and cigarettes?

Come on, don't resort to calling me things like 'sunshine' - it's just not nice, and ad hominem attacks are not useful to anyone

Every piece of tobacco control literature I've ever read has indicated that cotinine (correct spelling) is a nicotine metabolite. Either your source is wrong, you misread it, or a large body of science is wrong. You can guess which of these I think it is.

Furthermore, in a hilarious twist, even if you're right about it being a combustion product, you just admitted to me that there is combustion taking place, because you didn't read my original post carefully enough. In fact, cotinine levels in hookah smokers WAS higher than controls, just not higher than the cigarette smokers.

Why compare hookah to cigarettes rather than cigars or pipes? Because hookah and cigarettes are both inhaled, while the other forms are not. This seems simple enough to me.

You're not sunshine? An honest mistake. You seem to throw fallacies around quite a lot. I think I might be entitled to one every now and then. Not this case, though.

Who says pipes and cigars aren't inhaled? Even so, how is not inhaling or inhaling affect anything? You make that leap of reason that it makes a difference, but you do so without scientific footing. True scientists don't make leaps of reason. I can make the leap of reason that smoking hookah is much more like smoking a pipe than a cigarette, so I want to compare pipe data to hookahs. You insist cigarettes. In this case, neither one of us has any data, empirical observations or footing to make these assertions, so its just opinions. Opinions should be stated as such, not passed off as science. I believe I read something in a Surgeon General's Report some time that it didn't matter whether smoke was inhaled or not...it didn't make it safer...that would also tend to disprove your idea...right?

As for the other one, regarding cotenine, if you are correct, regarding that, you got me.

[amnite]

wow some really interestin discussions going on here.. I guess am learning along with it

[aldonb1]

has there been a formal analysis of tar from hookah, pipes, cig's.... say through mass spectrometry or something? just curious.

edit: typo Edited July 17, 2007 by aldonb1

[DVS]

It's simple boys and girls... Like EVERYTHING in life, moderation is key.

If you decide to smoke, do so reasonably. There is no reason to smoke for 8 hours a day or x amount of bowls every day for weeks and weeks just because you can.

I smoke maybe 4-5 days a week at my peak, sometimes once in a bi-weekly period or more. If i'm not constantly bombarding my lungs and throat with smoke and whatever carcinogens may or may not be in the "smoke" or "vapor" then it is definately less harmful.

I'm no scientist, but i think my lungs and throat will recooperate from the smoking sessions if i smoke one day, and not the other. Long term effects in any case aren't really valid either. Over any one persons lifetime they are subjected to many unhealthy substances that may contribute to long term health problems. Things not necessarily including inhalation such as smog, harmful sun rays, asbestos, large quantities of lead, any sort of toxic substances etc. etc.

Anyway, either smoke and enjoy it or don't, life is too short too bicker about what is causing your high blood pressure, bad cholesterol, lung cancer, Alzheimer's or whatever your ailment may be. Explosive diarhea? Blame it on hookah.

[Sonthert]

I did indeed look it up, I was mistaken, cotinine is indeed a nicotine metabolite in addition to being an oxidation product. Hat's off to mgc. Edited July 17, 2007 by Sonthert

[amnite]

It's simple boys and girls... Like EVERYTHING in life, moderation is key.

If you decide to smoke, do so reasonably. There is no reason to smoke for 8 hours a day or x amount of bowls every day for weeks and weeks just because you can.

I smoke maybe 4-5 days a week at my peak, sometimes once in a bi-weekly period or more. If i'm not constantly bombarding my lungs and throat with smoke and whatever carcinogens may or may not be in the "smoke" or "vapor" then it is definately less harmful.

I'm no scientist, but i think my lungs and throat will recooperate from the smoking sessions if i smoke one day, and not the other. Long term effects in any case aren't really valid either. Over any one persons lifetime they are subjected to many unhealthy substances that may contribute to long term health problems. Things not necessarily including inhalation such as smog, harmful sun rays, asbestos, large quantities of lead, any sort of toxic substances etc. etc.

Anyway, either smoke and enjoy it or don't, life is too short too bicker about what is causing your high blood pressure, bad cholesterol, lung cancer, Alzheimer's or whatever your ailment may be. Explosive diarhea? Blame it on hookah.

True Edited July 19, 2007 by amnite

[mgcsinc]

Sonthert,

I haven't had time to read through your replies, but I'll get to responding fully at some point soon. I'm actually (honestly) in the middle of preparing a research article on which I am first author for publication in a top journal in my field (Cognitive Neuroscience). Maybe I'll have time this weekend. Thanks for acknowledging the cotinine thing, btw.

I only read a couple of things you wrote back. Incidentally, I will point out that you still don't seem to have read my explanation of the use of 'tar' in quotation marks. This is important, because many cigarette companies would argue that one cigarette's tar is completely incapable of being compared to another, but the federal government still requires them to measure a magical quantity called 'tar', which may or may not be meaningless. People here wanted to know about 'tar', which I told them about, making sure to point out the caveat that the quantities cannot be measured accurately. Also, as you would know if you read the paper I've mentioned a thousand times, the tar quantity was measured in units of mass, not volume. This is by prescription of the federal government's labeling requirements for cigarettes, I believe.

I should clarify my point about your scientific background. I was wrong to assume you lacked one. It is clear that you and I come from different scientific disciplines. In a biological sciences, academic (read: Universities) journal, the article that I've linked to was formatted in exactly the way it should have been, and presents its results as they should be presented.

I'll reply more when I get a chance.

[Quixote6942]

Does any of this really matter? I see this whole issue from these few stand points..
I'm looking down at my bowl, and can't figure out how ANYONE could get 200 cigarettes out of that little bit of tobacco (my Twin brother would like to know, as he "rolls his own" and spend ALOT more on HIS tobacco).
The Shisha is "cut" (for lack of a better term) with Molasses, flavoring and Glycerin... all natural. Cigarettes are "processed", using various chemical additives.
When your done with Shisha, there's a hardened black "clump" in the Bowl, meaning something was left behind, with a cigarette, it's completely consumed, leaving only fallen ash. All gone!
The same people telling you hookahs are akin to "smoking 200 cigarettes" are the same ones telling me the Stogies I smoke are as bad as "smoking 10 cigarettes" (funny thing is, with a cigar you DON'T INHALE)!

There's been a Surgeon Generals Warning on Cigarette packages since I was a little kid, yet there are still people sueing the Tobacco companies when they come up with lung cancer. Seems to me that there should be a user consent claim on the cigarette packages that read "Use at your own risk".
I smoke Hookahs and Cigars because I want to. Are there risks? YES! But there's risks in my riding my Motorcycle, and no ones banning them, and there's risks in take out food, and I can still get a greasy burger without a license. Drinking? FAR more dangerous than any tobacco, and we can still go out and get pie-eyed. There's nothing in this world that can't kill you one way or the other. So I'm gonna get my Hookah fired up, and enjoy the smoke while the good lord see's fit to keep me here.

"If it's more than you can handle
if it's more than you can take
Blow out the candles
and have a piece of cake"
Weird Al Yankovic

[Sonthert]

Sonthert,

I haven't had time to read through your replies, but I'll get to responding fully at some point soon. I'm actually (honestly) in the middle of preparing a research article on which I am first author for publication in a top journal in my field (Cognitive Neuroscience). Maybe I'll have time this weekend. Thanks for acknowledging the cotinine thing, btw.

I only read a couple of things you wrote back. Incidentally, I will point out that you still don't seem to have read my explanation of the use of 'tar' in quotation marks. This is important, because many cigarette companies would argue that one cigarette's tar is completely incapable of being compared to another, but the federal government still requires them to measure a magical quantity called 'tar', which may or may not be meaningless. People here wanted to know about 'tar', which I told them about, making sure to point out the caveat that the quantities cannot be measured accurately. Also, as you would know if you read the paper I've mentioned a thousand times, the tar quantity was measured in units of mass, not volume. This is by prescription of the federal government's labeling requirements for cigarettes, I believe.

I should clarify my point about your scientific background. I was wrong to assume you lacked one. It is clear that you and I come from different scientific disciplines. In a biological sciences, academic (read: Universities) journal, the article that I've linked to was formatted in exactly the way it should have been, and presents its results as they should be presented.

I'll reply more when I get a chance.

I have read everything you indicated. I understand about "'"'"'tar'"'"'"' with quotation marks. My reference to volume was a "what else is left to measure by?" Of course its mass, I would say that the tar between cigarettes is going to be more or less the same. I wouldn't agree that hookah tar is going to be the same. I know you didn't advocate that it was, there is obviously room to say a nominal difference is essentially no difference. It was formatted fine, but I'm saying the clear results lacked any weight. The questionable results, if true, could be weighty, but I see too many problems.

Why do you consistently assume just because I disagree with you that I haven't read the same things you have or don't understand your points? Its a little self-conceited, on your part. You might be wrong. Its important for a scientist to always question the possibility they could be wrong. Anybody, no matter what their vocation, really. You seem to assume you're right and that everyone else who doesn't see things the same way doesn't know or hasn't seen as much as you. In my case, nothing could be farther from the truth.

I had a short debate with somebody last night, she said the moon had an atmosphere. I said it did not. In fact, I looked it up, the moon does have an atmosphere. It is estimated to weigh in around 30 tons, approximately 10^-14 of the Earth's atmosphere. The moon's atmosphere is comprised of primarily helium (from the solar wind) with traces of argon. I would say the Moon's atmosphere is so minimal, it could be disregarded practically. Technically, Sarah was right there is an atmosphere around the moon. The real question is, how significant is the revelation? Not very. Thats the point. If I said "Titan doesn't have an atmosphere". I'd be very wrong, the debate has a lot more substance because whats at issue is larger and has more significance. In my opinion, that smoke study has little to offer. ng of heavy metals are fairly insubstantial. The tar content means little without something to show the relative health effects of one versus the other. That is, Sarah says the moon and the Earth both have atmospheres. Its technically true, but its deceptive because one is so much more insignificant than the other. I would argue that the health effects of the hookah smoke tar, on a mass basis, are much, much lower than cigarettes, to the point that the despite the discrepancy in masses, the tar from hookah smoke is less substantial in health effects. Would it be fair to say the atmosphere of the Earth is far more dangerous to my health than the atmosphere of Titan? There's a lot more atmosphere on the Earth...right? How do I know that hookah tar is so much less harmful? I don't. I manufacture the stuff, I see what I put into mine I assume (perhaps erroneously) that all manufacturers use pretty much the same stuff, so I don't think it poses much of a threat. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Who has more proof for their statement? None of us. Edited July 18, 2007 by Sonthert