Effects Of Hookah 2(not Bs)

[whiplasher]

So here's i guess, a rebuttel to the study i posted earlier.

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/conten...comments#304579

tell me what you guys think.

[bjelder]

tl dr

[sss8789]

wow thats long. I read the first article and I believe what he said was true (about the coals are what makes hookah worse that cigs), but I think that people measure the CO levels and whatnot on quicklites and not natural coals. I think that there would be far less toxic (CO, ect.) matter in the naturals compared to QLs.

[mattarios2]

well they state many good things, the main thing I liked was that overall even in comparison to "light" cigarettes, hookah smokes toxic makeup is alot less concentrated. Which I always assumed, just never knew.

They also found a very weak relation to hookah smoke and lung cancer. Good to hear.

[duckhater]

wow thats long. I read the first article and I believe what he said was true (about the coals are what makes hookah worse that cigs), but I think that people measure the CO levels and whatnot on quicklites and not natural coals. I think that there would be far less toxic (CO, ect.) matter in the naturals compared to QLs.

I would also think using different methods would yield different results...for example, using a glass screen on a phunnel would make me think less CO due to air not being sucked through the bowl directly around the coals.

[whiplasher]

so based on this, do you think hookah is less worse than cigs?????????

[whiplasher]

well they state many good things, the main thing I liked was that overall even in comparison to "light" cigarettes, hookah smokes toxic makeup is alot less concentrated. Which I always assumed, just never knew.

They also found a very weak relation to hookah smoke and lung cancer. Good to hear.

nice.

[cymptom]

wow thats long. I read the first article and I believe what he said was true (about the coals are what makes hookah worse that cigs), but I think that people measure the CO levels and whatnot on quicklites and not natural coals. I think that there would be far less toxic (CO, ect.) matter in the naturals compared to QLs.

I don't see any reason to believe that QLs are any different from naturals after the lighting agent is done burning. Actually, although I don't have much justification for saying this, I think Three Kings and Golden quicklights probably actually burn cleaner than most naturals (excluding Golden Canaries and maybe Coco Naras.) They certainly taste cleaner, and the lower density of the ash makes me think that there is less matter burning and thus less noxious chemicals being produced.

I've also heard it said that blacker ash indicates less sulfur -- this would be consistent with what I've experienced in terms of the taste of the coal. Golden Canaries have very black, low density ash and have a particularly clean taste. Three Kings and Golden QLs have a grayish ash that isn't very dense, and they're second for me in terms of taste. Some non-QL coals that I've tried (nours, exoticas, starlights, bulk naturals, easylites) all have a dense white ash that seems to correlate with a dirtier sulfur taste. Coco Naras have an ash that it similar to quicklights and I think they have a similarly minimal effect on the taste of the smoke.

This is all just speculation of course, but it is based on the experience of a few years spent smoking every day, trying different coals and paying attention to these types of things. One thing is for certain -- the bulk of the health hazards of smoking hookah are tied to the inhalation of burning charcoal. I hope someone finds a way to get vaporized glycerin, flavoring and nicotine into our lungs in a way that minimizes or eliminates the fumes of burning charcoal.

[mattarios2]

wow thats long. I read the first article and I believe what he said was true (about the coals are what makes hookah worse that cigs), but I think that people measure the CO levels and whatnot on quicklites and not natural coals. I think that there would be far less toxic (CO, ect.) matter in the naturals compared to QLs.

I don't see any reason to believe that QLs are any different from naturals after the lighting agent is done burning. Actually, although I don't have much justification for saying this, I think Three Kings and Golden quicklights probably actually burn cleaner than most naturals (excluding Golden Canaries and maybe Coco Naras.) They certainly taste cleaner, and the lower density of the ash makes me think that there is less matter burning and thus less noxious chemicals being produced.

I've also heard it said that blacker ash indicates less sulfur -- this would be consistent with what I've experienced in terms of the taste of the coal. Golden Canaries have very black, low density ash and have a particularly clean taste. Three Kings and Golden QLs have a grayish ash that isn't very dense, and they're second for me in terms of taste. Some non-QL coals that I've tried (nours, exoticas, starlights, bulk naturals, easylites) all have a dense white ash that seems to correlate with a dirtier sulfur taste. Coco Naras have an ash that it similar to quicklights and I think they have a similarly minimal effect on the taste of the smoke.

This is all just speculation of course, but it is based on the experience of a few years spent smoking every day, trying different coals and paying attention to these types of things. One thing is for certain -- the bulk of the health hazards of smoking hookah are tied to the inhalation of burning charcoal. I hope someone finds a way to get vaporized glycerin, flavoring and nicotine into our lungs in a way that minimizes or eliminates the fumes of burning charcoal.

like previously said, I think using a glass screen would lower that tremendously, the coal heats the glass which in turn burns the shisha, so the actual heat isn't going through the holes to the shisha.

[sensae]

Well the color of the ash could help explain the contents of the coal, but the other interesting thing is how much a coal ashes. Remember that all the solid matter that the coal is made up of has to go somewhere, and if it's not ashing very much it's giving off more solid matter as particulates. Health wise, you'd probably want to find coals that ash the most.

[imfantabulous]

Just in case anyone didn't notice immediately, if you scroll to the top of the page following that link you can see that the entire 20-ish page length of comments are from essentially 2 scientists arguing with each other over the validity of this study. To make things clear, Maziak is arguing against the validity of the the study and Chaouachi is arguing for the validity.

In my professional opinion, take the entire study with a grain of salt because it doesn't seem to be better than any study that we've seen with an actual agenda in mind.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

In my professional opinion, take the entire study with a grain of salt because it doesn't seem to be better than any study that we've seen with an actual agenda in mind.

how so?

[whiplasher]

Maziak says stuff but never backs it up.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

Maziak says stuff but never backs it up.

exactly, just childish accusations and semantical derision.