Something Falsely Reported. False Information

[shalowlow]

[quote name='Zinite' date='16 December 2009 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1260996804' post='439648']


If you want kids to grow up as intelligent people, teach them to look at the facts and decide for themselves, in any situation. Otherwise they are parroting what other people are saying. It's just like abstinence education. Teaching to fear sex doesn't stop kids from having unsafe sex. In fact, every peer reviewed study about abstinence education [b]ever[/b] has shown that it has the opposite effect. Teaching kids the realistic dangers of sex, and how to have safe sex has been shown as the more effective way.

[/quote]


Zinite, while I agree that people should figure things out for themselves, and part of knowledge is finding it oneself and not parroting what you hear, the fact still remains that the boards are extremely defensive regarding the health of sheesha smoking. And I have not been convinced one way or another that it is healthy or not healthy. Why not err on the side of abstaining from something we truly do not understand? If not abstain, than certainly do not try to convince me that the other side is wrong.

Case in point: what's wrong with cigarettes? Well basically, we really have no idea what the heck is in them, and by the time they are put into stores, they are hardly recognizable as tobacco.

What's the difference in sheesha? Really nothing. We don't know the exact curing process of every single company. They are produced mostly outside of the states. We don't know what is in the sheesha, and that is going to be a problem one day when the government comes knocking and asks what is being put in this stuff.

We don't know the effect of smoking dyes long term. Some companies have taken procedures to alleviate these issues (long live Tangiers) but the fact is Starbuzz is more of a representative of what most people are smoking out there anyway.

We don't know the long term effects of inhaling glycerin or molasses. We don't know the effects of the carbon monoxide that is being inhaled into our lungs. At the very least it is causing an increase in red blood cells, perhaps even enlarging our spleens...same problem as smoking cigarettes.

We don't know the complete effect of the water filtration and whether or not particles being deposited into our lungs is causing long term.

So what is the end result of all this?

We pick up our pitchforks and go to Mr. Principal and tell him that he is spreading lies by saying sheesha smoking is harmful. We end up looking like idiots. Sure the WHO report is based on a faulty premise and logic. But to defend something that you are an objective expert on is one thing. But to defend something that you (or anyone else in the world it seems) knows nothing about, just because you like it and want to continue to do it yourself is doing the same thing, if not worse, than that flyer is doing.

In the end, a lot of people on here are simply intimidated by what the harmful effects may be. But they like it too much, so they rationalize.

[Zinite]

[quote name='shalowlow' date='16 December 2009 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1260998451' post='439655']
[quote name='Zinite' date='16 December 2009 - 12:53 PM' timestamp='1260996804' post='439648']
If you want kids to grow up as intelligent people, teach them to look at the facts and decide for themselves, in any situation. Otherwise they are parroting what other people are saying. It's just like abstinence education. Teaching to fear sex doesn't stop kids from having unsafe sex. In fact, every peer reviewed study about abstinence education [b]ever[/b] has shown that it has the opposite effect. Teaching kids the realistic dangers of sex, and how to have safe sex has been shown as the more effective way.

[/quote]


Zinite, while I agree that people should figure things out for themselves, and part of knowledge is finding it oneself and not parroting what you hear, the fact still remains that the boards are extremely defensive regarding the health of sheesha smoking. And I have not been convinced one way or another that it is healthy or not healthy. Why not err on the side of abstaining from something we truly do not understand? If not abstain, than certainly do not try to convince me that the other side is wrong.

Case in point: what's wrong with cigarettes? Well basically, we really have no idea what the heck is in them, and by the time they are put into stores, they are hardly recognizable as tobacco.

What's the difference in sheesha? Really nothing. We don't know the exact curing process of every single company. They are produced mostly outside of the states. We don't know what is in the sheesha, and that is going to be a problem one day when the government comes knocking and asks what is being put in this stuff.

We don't know the effect of smoking dyes long term. Some companies have taken procedures to alleviate these issues (long live Tangiers) but the fact is Starbuzz is more of a representative of what most people are smoking out there anyway.

We don't know the long term effects of inhaling glycerin or molasses. We don't know the effects of the carbon monoxide that is being inhaled into our lungs. At the very least it is causing an increase in red blood cells, perhaps even enlarging our spleens...same problem as smoking cigarettes.

We don't know the complete effect of the water filtration and whether or not particles being deposited into our lungs is causing long term.

So what is the end result of all this?

We pick up our pitchforks and go to Mr. Principal and tell him that he is spreading lies by saying sheesha smoking is harmful. We end up looking like idiots. Sure the WHO report is based on a faulty premise and logic. But to defend something that you are an objective expert on is one thing. But to defend something that you (or anyone else in the world it seems) knows nothing about, just because you like it and want to continue to do it yourself is doing the same thing, if not worse, than that flyer is doing.

In the end, a lot of people on here are simply intimidated by what the harmful effects may be. But they like it too much, so they rationalize.
[/quote]


shalowlow, I couldn't agree more with what you've said. People who are about to smoke a hookah should know exactly what you just talked about. You've just listed the true dangers of smoking a hookah. I never expected the OP to go to the principal and get a retraction printed that said 'smoking hookah is healthy, go buy a KM and Tangiers'. Under hookah, it should have said the things you just listed. The truth is, no one really knows the long term effects of smoking modern shisha. Put that in the flyer, not made up statistics.

[jeremyk]

[quote name='Stuie' date='16 December 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1260993635' post='439636']
[quote name='jeremyk' date='16 December 2009 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1260989915' post='439629']
[quote name='Stuie' date='16 December 2009 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1260981988' post='439606']
[quote name='joytron' date='16 December 2009 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1260981834' post='439605']
God forbid someone tries to keep kids from smoking!
[/quote]

That's not the point.

It's using false information as fact.
[/quote]
its called using factual errors and scare tactics. stuie being from texas like me you may know that this is exactly how that teach sex ed in texas.
i would go to the school board and that present them with facts but be professinal about it



[/quote]
yeah its retarded

OH God yes... first day slide show of STDs.... like the worse cases they could find... some of them still haunt my dreams.
[/quote]

[shalowlow]

[quote name='Zinite' date='16 December 2009 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1261002235' post='439669']



shalowlow, I couldn't agree more with what you've said. People who are about to smoke a hookah should know exactly what you just talked about. You've just listed the true dangers of smoking a hookah. I never expected the OP to go to the principal and get a retraction printed that said 'smoking hookah is healthy, go buy a KM and Tangiers'. Under hookah, it should have said the things you just listed. The truth is, no one really knows the long term effects of smoking modern shisha. Put that in the flyer, not made up statistics.
[/quote]

That's a good point. You are right about that.

I personally wouldn't bother still, but you have a point.

[jeremyk]

[quote name='jeremyk' date='16 December 2009 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1261003277' post='439676']
[quote name='Stuie' date='16 December 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1260993635' post='439636']
[quote name='jeremyk' date='16 December 2009 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1260989915' post='439629']
[quote name='Stuie' date='16 December 2009 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1260981988' post='439606']
[quote name='joytron' date='16 December 2009 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1260981834' post='439605']
God forbid someone tries to keep kids from smoking!
[/quote]

That's not the point.

It's using false information as fact.
[/quote]
its called using factual errors and scare tactics. stuie being from texas like me you may know that this is exactly how that teach sex ed in texas.
i would go to the school board and that present them with facts but be professinal about it



[/quote]
yeah its retarded

OH God yes... first day slide show of STDs.... like the worse cases they could find... some of them still haunt my dreams.
[/quote]
[/quote]
yeah its stupid lol

[Brandon`]

[quote name='shalowlow' date='16 December 2009 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1260988439' post='439623']
[quote name='joytron' date='16 December 2009 - 08:43 AM' timestamp='1260981834' post='439605']
God forbid someone tries to keep kids from smoking!
[/quote]

+1000000000000000000000000000000000


You guys are really talking about speaking to a principal about a flyer that he sent out about sheesha, because you think it has wrong information? looooool. You guys all seem to have an inferiority complex about your sheesha smoking.....oh nooooes! he said that sheesha is not healthy! They must be wrong because I smoked yesterday and didn't die!

You guys have all been killing me lately. Of course a young kid should not be smoking. Who cares if it's scare tactics? We really don't know the health effects of sheesha. There are just too many variables. We really don't even know what is in most of the tobacco we smoke. Different coals have different emissions. Different tobacco's have different levels of nicotine. If you're burning your sheesha, maybe you ARE smoking tar....you don't REALLY know do you? Stop trying to rationalize its effects on your health. In the end, you are taking a risk by smoking anything.

Brandon....if you go speak to the principal based on his sending out a flyer about kids not smoking sheesha....your gonna look like an idiot. Suit or not.
[/quote]

How am I going to look like an idiot for reporting false information? So if you don't want someone to do a certain thing you can lie? So if the goverment says, if you don't pay your taxes, you will die in 7 days, That's all right?

So you think its right to say something like if kids speed and they're caught they get the death penalty? It doesn't matter if it's a scare tactic it's a lie. You can scare kids, adults, or anyone as long as its the truth. You can't lie to scare someone. How about I call my boss and tell him I got 2 days to live and I can't come into work?

Yes you are right we don't know if we are smoking tar or not so THEY don't know either? Make sense? We are not sure if the world is going to end in 2012 so we should tell everyone that the world is gonna end just because we want to and we flipped a coin?

I'm not trying to say that its the safest thing in the world to do hookah but people can't make it seem like its worse. You can't say alcohol will kill u the first drink just so kids don't drink. Everyone has a right to the truth i'm not saying to say that Hookah is safe or anything but theres things worse that are TRUE so why make up lies about something thats not as bad to try and keep kid. It's hard to explain this in my point of view but maybe you can understand what i'm saying.

[Bulldog_916]

Brandon. I understand what you are saying. But you also need to understand that the report you cited in no way paints shisha smoking as less harmful or in any way removed from tobacco smoking in general. The author is basically highlighting ways the WHO report could have been done better. He says that the purpose of the corrections he is suggesting is to get better information in the areas where flaws appear to be. They arent lying when they say shisha smoking is harmful in some ways. I think that we have a way of justifying our position based on the fact that we havent felt negative effects yet. Is the information a little loaded on one side? Of course. It is in a lot of ways fatally flawed. WE as a community have to wait on studies being done. The bulk of those studies will take several more years to complete in all their complexities. The long term ones, we have to wait maybe until the health damage to us is already done. We are now where cigarette smokers were pre-1985. We have no idea what the lasting effects are going to be.

[Arcane]

hi eddie! i dont think brandon's point is they're pushing hookah smoking as dangerous....we all know it is not healthy, but do we really know to what extent?

i think the case is, call hookah smoking bad all you want....but, dont cite facts that arent true....instead, just admit you dont know what the harms are yet, but none of it leads to being healthier than not smoking at all....

[Chreees]

[quote name='Arcane' date='17 December 2009 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1261077736' post='439856']
hi eddie! i dont think brandon's point is they're pushing hookah smoking as dangerous....we all know it is not healthy, but do we really know to what extent?

i think the case is, call hookah smoking bad all you want....but, [b]dont cite facts that arent true....instead, just admit you dont know what the harms are yet, but none of it leads to being healthier than not smoking at all....[/b]
[/quote]

Exaaaactly.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Brandon`' date='15 December 2009 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1260939289' post='439492']
The Truth:

1. Carbon monoxide concentrations found in the blood of water-pipe smokers has been found tobe 8.4 times the levels in cigarette smokers.

2. Nicotine content in water-pipe tobacco is higher than found in cigarettes. 100 Puffs = 1 pack of cigarettes

3. Concentrations of cancer-causing and addictive substances in tobacco blends smoked in water pipes are higher than those found in cigarettes. [b]There is 36 times the amount of tar found in a cigarette.
[/b]
4. Water does not filter the harmful ingredients.
[/quote]

1. They can be, depending on the type of charcoal being used, but it is not universally true...it would be correct, although misleading to say: "Carbon monoxide concentrations found in the blood of water-pipe smokers can be 8.4 times the levels in cigarette smokers." Whether that data is true or not, I can't say.

2. True. With an asterisk. 100 puffs is not a universal amount either. Some weird machine gets 100 puffs and gets X nicotine, which is as much as 20 cigarettes. Fine. People don't smoke the same (between each other) and never the same way as the machine does it. So its true, but misleading. Even then, nicotine is not that hazardous of its own right. The nicotine levels they are talking about are not "OMG, you're going to die!" high.

3. Thats mostly false. The TAR amount is true, but with an asterisk, they are applying cigarette terminology to hookahs, but the TAR in hookah tobacco is not comparable to the TAR in cigarettes, since there is little to no burning of the tobacco in hookahs. Concentrations of carcinogens is most certainly false. It would be also reasonable to say brier pipes have higher amounts of all these things, although the mortality rate for brier pipe smokers is not increased over non-smokers. I don't think cancer rates are as high either, but I still need to research that. Your chances of dying, smoking a brier pipe are no worse than a non-smoker, so all of those pieces of data must be irrelevant. If you see what I'm saying. As a parallel, made up-up example, people who go to a florist get to look at pretty flowers, smell flowers, talk with a florist, etc. People who place internet orders don't. If both groups have the same mortality rate, then it would be misleading or questionable to say that smelling flowers and talking to florists is dangerous. Somebody ASSUMES smelling flowers is dangerous, but when you look at the mortality rates, there is no proof to support that. So, all those things may or may not be true regarding hookahs, but there is no evidence to show that its dangerous. In fact there is evidence to the contrary, that its not dangerous (At least smoking a brier pipe anyways).

4. There is at least one study that says the opposite. So I would say as an absolute statement, its false. It really isn't proven to be true. If I said "god doesn't listen to prayers." Somebody could come along and tell a story of when they prayed and god heard and answered it I don't think its been conclusively proven one way or another. The statement could be seen as false if you were talking about the harmful ingredients. There are no harmful ingredients in Tangiers, everything in Tangiers is FDA compliant. So what harmful ingredients? So, I guess it is true if there are no harmful ingredients in Tangiers, the water does nothing to filter them out, since there are none. So I guess if we're having a lying contest, its not false, but stupid.

[Jacob Shock]

Ok if they want to keep kids from smoking they hare to re evaluate their nazi campagin.

as it was said earlier kids who smoke eithor wont care, or dont belive the information. they need to learn to accept the fact that the kids who dont care are gonna do it anyway, thier just wasting thier own time.

as for the kids who dont belive it. Why dont the just give out more accurate belivable information. lying there ass off to scare someone wont work. an hour on google and the kids will know the truth.

people always tried to scare me about the dangers of tobacco and it never worked. i started smoking cigarettes at 14 and started hookah at 17.

i must say i find this little pamphlet hilarious. i couldnt give a rats ass if kids smoke or not, i do however think spreading false information about anything is WRONG.

[Bulldog_916]

I think the better bet would be to say that smoking hookah is not conducive to health, but at the same time it is not deadly in the same way that cigarette smoking is. There are conflicting studies. The main hitch in the whole testing methodology is the machine they use to smoke the hookah. It in no way reflects the true nature of individuals smoking in a social or alone type setting. The temperatures are also abnormally high for a hookah.

[Chreees]

Really kids will smoke cigarettes no matter WHAT you tell them...

My sister's been smoking cigs since she was 14. She won't quit no matter what. My gf's brother is the exact same way. Just felt I had to say that about the cigarettes aspect of smoking in relation to kids...


Brandon, really what I would do if you do decide to do anything is just state your case that they don't need to spread false information. Tell them to at least change it to say "Hookah smoking is believed to be dangerous" or something... Them putting those "facts" on there aren't making them very credible. I'd at least demand they add their sources of information. As a school, they shouldn't object to that.

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Teissenb' date='16 December 2009 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1260991640' post='439633']
There is most certainly tar in waterpipe/hookah smoke. This fact has been demonstrated in several rigorous scientific studies by Dr. Alan Shihadeh at the American University of Beirut but it is also demonstrated through simple logic: in the U.S., tobacco smoke "tar" is legally defined as "nicotine-free, dry, particulate matter" so anything in the smoke that is not nicotine (nicotine-free) and is not water (dry) and IS a particulate, is "tar". Please believe this fact! The labeling on the boxes that says Tar = 0.0% is TRUE b ut also MISLEADING: there is no "tar" in the box because there is no smoke in the box. Once there is smoke, there is tar!

Relative to a *single* cigarette (~5 minutes of smoking), a single waterpipe use episode (~45 minutes of smoking) exposes the user to ~3 times the carbon monoxide, 1.7 times the nicotine, and 48 times the smoke. See Eissenberg and Shihadeh, 2009:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944918?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1

Besides the CO and nicotine, the smoke from a waterpipe/hookah also contains cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, lung-disease causing volatile aldehydes, and a variety of heavy metals.

That link is only the ABSTRACT. The whole paper is available to you from any medical library.
[/quote]

Hey Tom! I got your stuff ready and I am going to ship it out this week.

I think the tar thing is a matter of interpretation and language translations. There is no tar is hookah tobacco, but there is TAR or "tar" in hookah tobacco. I have seen a study that have pointed out that the "tar" or TAR in hookah tobacco is not comparable to cigarette tar since it is composed mostly of glycerine. I think that makes a great deal of sense. It is unfair to claim that nicotine levels are X higher than cigarette smokers since many/most brands in the U.S. have their nicotine removed. This was backed up by an independent lab in Great Britain that nicotine levels from three washed brands had no nicotine coming from them. I can't provide a link to the information since it hasn't been published and can't be released until the tribunal issues a verdict on the case.

Related to the case is the nature of the "smoke" from the hookah. The idea is vaporizing, not burning. The logic applied is that smoke comes from combustion, pyrolysis is a form of combustion, therefore, since we see pyrolysis in hookah tobacco, we assume there's smoke. There are quite a few cases of combustion that don't have smoke, though, so combustion does not imply smoke by necessity. For instance, several types of charcoal that hookah smokers use don't have smoke, yet they are combusting. So, I would ask you, on what basis is the assertion that hookahs during normal usage produce smoke? You say there is 48 times as much smoke...why is it smoke and not a vapor? The stuff coming out of cigarettes could be easily agreed to be smoke, but the nature of the cloud from a hookah is different. Or not?

Are the numbers from your study based on blood levels or on puff machines out of curiosity? I don't remember if I ever asked you or if you answered why puff machines accurately model how hookah smokers smoke. Several "pro-tobacco" researchers have addressed whether they accurately model what the smoker is taking into their bodies...can you speak to this point?

Can you provide a link to the PAH content of hookah smoke?

The study I read regarding the heavy metal content in hookah smoke was less that compelling. The amounts present were in ng/volume (1/1000000000 of a gram for you lay-people). I calculated the amount of lead (the most lethal content of the heavy metals studied), based on OSHA Exposure limits and Merck Published LD50s, present wouldn't constitute an LD50 for over 700 years assuming you smoked everyday. Assuming no remediation in the body. The other heavy metals had much longer exposure periods to build up LD50s based on the information at hand. It contains heavy metals, sure, but the scope of them is quite a bit less than would be cause for concern, don't you agree? Is there a different study you are looking at? Link?

Otherwise, I mean, OK, there are nitrosamines in hookah tobacco, significant levels, its something to talk about. The nitrosamines in hookah tobacco constitute a significant risk that can be discussed. Agreed. Based on the study regarding levels of heavy metals in hookah smoke, they were too low to even consider...or am I missing something? How did types of charcoal affect the results? This is the problem I see with the anti-smoking establishment (not implying you are a part of it). They attribute irrelevant or insignificant risk factors to hookah tobacco and say "Its in there". It makes smokers go "huh?" when they find out the scope that its in there. It makes the science look alarmist and unreasonable at best. Its deceptive, in my opinion. Like "Cigarette smoke contains nicotine, which is a pesticide." The concentrations its used in as a pesticide is far, far higher than is found in cigarette smoke. Its why tobacco is cultivated in the first place, for its nicotine. Come on, now. Give us some some numbers, give us some LD50s, give us some blood levels, give us clinical studies. We can take it. The anti-smoking establishment often comes along with claims that lack data and we, the smokers, have come to ignore them, since they lack data. I think you could make your points better with some support with numbers. Some of us might be lost, but its worth a try? I'm sure you posted it before, but a lot of us can't find old posts.

[mustang_steve]

The 36 cigarettes comment is simply bogus....that at the least needs to be removed.

If they don't remove it, then take the time to find all the fallcies and distribute your own pamplet about doing your own research instead of listening to propoganda. The harm it will cause their agenda will possibly get them to tell the truth. Just be sure not to say anything slanderous about them, just point out that there is plenty of non-facts within their document and it's best to do your own research.

Just because it's the accepted answer doesn't mean it's the truthful answer.

[Tsohg_Eci]

kids shouldnt smoke. any tactic the retards use to persuade kids to be "legal", i say go for it as long as its appropriate. now if someone is trying to persuade an adult with that bullshit, the politely tell them to go f--k themselves

[Sonthert]

I don't know. I believe children should be taught to question the source of questionable information. Having them blindly accept what they learn in school goes against that. Schools lie all the time.

Do you believe that everybody except Christopher Columbus believed the world was flat? I was told that in school, like most people in the United States. In fact, everybody knew the Earth was round, they just doubted the ability of a ship to circumnavigate it. Thats what Columbus had to overcome...not everybody thinking he was going to fall off the edge. If children believed that blindly, they would misunderstand the development of science, technology, navigation, the Renaissance, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, etc. Lying to children is wrong. Under any circumstances.

[Bulldog_916]

I would agree with Eric's assessment of the data. It simply doesnt have the numbers available to prove the point. Everyone cites the WHO study in trying to convey the harms of hookah. But the study is at best misleading, at worst down right wrong. I never say it's healthy or a "better way to consume tobacco" but I do say that the jury is still WAY out in understanding the harms involved, if any are present.

[Teissenb]

Hey Eric.

Thanks for preparing that stuff for us -- we look forward to starting our project. I just now sent you a PM with the actual paper that the abstract I linked to describes. As you'll see, we are talking BLOOD levels of CO and nicotine -- this is the first controlled study to ever compare cigarette and hookah in terms of their ability to raise smokers' blood levels of CO and nicotine. The results are as I said: three times the CO and 1.7 times the nicotine (this is comparing a single 45-minute hookah session with a single ~5-minute cigarette, the unit of analysis being the "smoking episode"). Note that, relative to the cigarette, CO levels were higher after only 5 minutes of hookah smoking .

As for tar, it is not a matter of interpretation or language. There is a legal definition. Here is one of many links/documents that tells you that tar is nicotine free dry particulate matter (or, anything in smoke that is not nicotine or water):

[url="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu:8080/q/e/x/qex13d00/Sqex13d00.pdf"]http://legacy.librar...0/Sqex13d00.pdf[/url]

here is another (see definition 3.5)

[url="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/tobac-tabac/legislation/reg/indust/method/_main-principal/nicotine-eng.pdf"]http://www.hc-sc.gc....icotine-eng.pdf[/url]

So, if you accept that "tar" is NFDPM (i.e., everything in smoke that is not nicotine or water) then of course hookah smoke has "tar". Hookah smoke has things in it that are not nicotine or water. For instance, it has all of the products of charcoal combustion, because there is charcoal smoke that is being dragged past the tobacco.

Why is hookah smoke smoke? Because it has combustion products in it (at the very least, charcoal combustion products). CO is the giveaway here. Is it vapor and not smoke? Well, it has a gas phase and a particle phase. If we agree that gas = vapor, then YES some of it is vapor. Some of it is also particle. The tar is everything in the particle phase that is not water or nicotine. Also the smoke contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the particle phase and volatile aldehydes in the gas phase.

PAHs: [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.proxy.library.vcu.edu/pubmed/18308445?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=8"]http://www.ncbi.nlm....um&ordinalpos=8[/url]
Volatile aldehydes: [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.proxy.library.vcu.edu/pubmed/18834915?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=5"]http://www.ncbi.nlm....um&ordinalpos=5[/url]

Does hookah smoke differ from cigarette smoke? ABSOLUTELY! The charcoal and the different temperatures at which the two forms of tobacco are heated guarantee differences. HOW are they different? In many ways that we do not yet know, I am certain. What we do know is that the levels of some PAHs are never less than and, for some PAHs, 20-200 HIGHER in hookah smoke than in cigarette smoke (link above). As you noted, the heavy metal content differs. While you may not be impressed by the absolute finding of 6,870 ng of lead in the smoke produced by a single waterpipe use episode, I am impressed by the fact that this level of lead content is several orders of magnitude greater than in a cigarette. When you consider the known adverse effects of chronic lead exposure on the developing brain, and also that there are threads on this very forum devoted to whether or not a forum member should facilitate a 12 year old's interest in hookah smoking, I hope you can see how 1000 times greater lead levels are a concern. If you cannot, then I will convince you of nothing.

With regard to machine smoking tests, I value their results to determine smoke toxicant yield (what is in the smoke), and always prefer to follow up with studies in humans to determine smoke toxicant exposure (what is in the smoker). I would not say that machine smoking tests of smoke yield are flawed, but would agree that they are best when complemented by parallel studies of smoker exposure. FYI, we have tested the blood nicotine levels of hookah smokers using almost every widely available hookah tobacco product, and, to the best of my recollection EVERY ONE OF THEM delivers nicotine to the hookah smokers (SOEX does not -- that is the only non-tobacco preparation that we have tested). When my university opens up again in the new year, I will try to get you a list of brands tested and whether or not they deliver nicotine. I would be very surprised to find a popular brand that does not deliver nicotine. I would be very interested in getting from you a list of the so-called "washed" versus "unwashed" brands, because I personally doubt there is a difference in smoker nicotine exposure between the two types but would like to test the hypothesis and be proved wrong.

LD50s have no place in this conversation as they assess acute toxicity and we are discussing chronic exposure. What we should be discussing is relative risk, as in (fact) cigarette smokers have a 10-20 times greater chance of getting lung cancer and dying form lung cancer than non smokers. There are similar elevated risks of other disease like cardiovascular disease, lung disease, and other cancers. You know this, I am sure. So, you want the same relative risk numbers for hookah smoking, right? Me too. Those kind of numbers take decades of carefully controlled epidemiological research that, for hookah, has not been done. To be very clear:

Is the risk of a hookah smoker dying of lung cancer greater than, equal to, or less than a non-smoker? We don't know.
Is the risk of a hookah smoker dying of cardiovascular disease greater than, equal to, or less than a non-smoker? We don't know.
Is the risk of a hookah smoker dying of lung disease greater than, equal to, or less than a non-smoker? We don't know.

What we do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that hookah smoke contains cancer-causing PAHs, cardiovascular disease-causing CO, and lung-disease causing volatile aldehydes. It also contains the nicotine that can cause the dependence that can keep people inhaling these toxicants even when the people want to stop and try to stop. We also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that hookah smokers are exposed to CO and nicotine, and we have no reason to believe that they would be exposed to these toxicants and not PAHs and volatile aldehydes. So, my conclusion from all of this is that, while we are waiting for the epidemiologists to do their thing, we should be aware that hookah smoking, by virtue of the toxicants in the smoke and in the smoker, is almost certainly associated TO SOME DEGREE with diseases as cigarette smoking, and hookah smokers are elevating their risks for these diseases by some unknown multiplier that is greater than 1.0

I believe, based on the best evidence to date, that this statement is true. That doesn't mean I also want to ban hookahs or hookah smoking. I would like hookah smokers to be informed about the risks of this behavior and I hope that, based on this information, they will stop smoking voluntarily before death or disease makes that choice for them.

Tom E.







Hey Tom! I got your stuff ready and I am going to ship it out this week.

I think the tar thing is a matter of interpretation and language translations. There is no tar is hookah tobacco, but there is TAR or "tar" in hookah tobacco. I have seen a study that have pointed out that the "tar" or TAR in hookah tobacco is not comparable to cigarette tar since it is composed mostly of glycerine. I think that makes a great deal of sense. It is unfair to claim that nicotine levels are X higher than cigarette smokers since many/most brands in the U.S. have their nicotine removed. This was backed up by an independent lab in Great Britain that nicotine levels from three washed brands had no nicotine coming from them. I can't provide a link to the information since it hasn't been published and can't be released until the tribunal issues a verdict on the case.

Related to the case is the nature of the "smoke" from the hookah. The idea is vaporizing, not burning. The logic applied is that smoke comes from combustion, pyrolysis is a form of combustion, therefore, since we see pyrolysis in hookah tobacco, we assume there's smoke. There are quite a few cases of combustion that don't have smoke, though, so combustion does not imply smoke by necessity. For instance, several types of charcoal that hookah smokers use don't have smoke, yet they are combusting. So, I would ask you, on what basis is the assertion that hookahs during normal usage produce smoke? You say there is 48 times as much smoke...why is it smoke and not a vapor? The stuff coming out of cigarettes could be easily agreed to be smoke, but the nature of the cloud from a hookah is different. Or not?

Are the numbers from your study based on blood levels or on puff machines out of curiosity? I don't remember if I ever asked you or if you answered why puff machines accurately model how hookah smokers smoke. Several "pro-tobacco" researchers have addressed whether they accurately model what the smoker is taking into their bodies...can you speak to this point?

Can you provide a link to the PAH content of hookah smoke?

The study I read regarding the heavy metal content in hookah smoke was less that compelling. The amounts present were in ng/volume (1/1000000000 of a gram for you lay-people). I calculated the amount of lead (the most lethal content of the heavy metals studied), based on OSHA Exposure limits and Merck Published LD50s, present wouldn't constitute an LD50 for over 700 years assuming you smoked everyday. Assuming no remediation in the body. The other heavy metals had much longer exposure periods to build up LD50s based on the information at hand. It contains heavy metals, sure, but the scope of them is quite a bit less than would be cause for concern, don't you agree? Is there a different study you are looking at? Link?

Otherwise, I mean, OK, there are nitrosamines in hookah tobacco, significant levels, its something to talk about. The nitrosamines in hookah tobacco constitute a significant risk that can be discussed. Agreed. Based on the study regarding levels of heavy metals in hookah smoke, they were too low to even consider...or am I missing something? How did types of charcoal affect the results? This is the problem I see with the anti-smoking establishment (not implying you are a part of it). They attribute irrelevant or insignificant risk factors to hookah tobacco and say "Its in there". It makes smokers go "huh?" when they find out the scope that its in there. It makes the science look alarmist and unreasonable at best. Its deceptive, in my opinion. Like "Cigarette smoke contains nicotine, which is a pesticide." The concentrations its used in as a pesticide is far, far higher than is found in cigarette smoke. Its why tobacco is cultivated in the first place, for its nicotine. Come on, now. Give us some some numbers, give us some LD50s, give us some blood levels, give us clinical studies. We can take it. The anti-smoking establishment often comes along with claims that lack data and we, the smokers, have come to ignore them, since they lack data. I think you could make your points better with some support with numbers. Some of us might be lost, but its worth a try? I'm sure you posted it before, but a lot of us can't find old posts.
[/quote] Edited December 20, 2009 by Canon
fixing filter mistake

[Jacob Shock]

[quote name='Sonthert' date='19 December 2009 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1261268318' post='440413']
I don't know. I believe children should be taught to question the source of questionable information. Having them blindly accept what they learn in school goes against that. Schools lie all the time.

Do you believe that everybody except Christopher Columbus believed the world was flat? I was told that in school, like most people in the United States. In fact, everybody knew the Earth was round, they just doubted the ability of a ship to circumnavigate it. Thats what Columbus had to overcome...not everybody thinking he was going to fall off the edge. If children believed that blindly, they would misunderstand the development of science, technology, navigation, the Renaissance, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, etc. [b]Lying to children is wrong. Under any circumstances.[/b]
[/quote]


Child - Daddy what are you doing to mommy? why is she screaming?

Daddy - Ahh.... Were wresteling. Edited December 20, 2009 by Jacob Shock

[Chreees]

[quote name='Jacob Shock' date='20 December 2009 - 06:27 AM' timestamp='1261312050' post='440530']
[quote name='Sonthert' date='19 December 2009 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1261268318' post='440413']
I don't know. I believe children should be taught to question the source of questionable information. Having them blindly accept what they learn in school goes against that. Schools lie all the time.

Do you believe that everybody except Christopher Columbus believed the world was flat? I was told that in school, like most people in the United States. In fact, everybody knew the Earth was round, they just doubted the ability of a ship to circumnavigate it. Thats what Columbus had to overcome...not everybody thinking he was going to fall off the edge. If children believed that blindly, they would misunderstand the development of science, technology, navigation, the Renaissance, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, etc. [b]Lying to children is wrong. Under any circumstances.[/b]
[/quote]


Child - Daddy what are you doing to mommy? why is she screaming?

Daddy - Ahh.... Were wresteling.
[/quote]

?

[Jacob Shock]

[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='20 December 2009 - 05:33 AM' timestamp='1261312381' post='440531']
[quote name='Jacob Shock' date='20 December 2009 - 06:27 AM' timestamp='1261312050' post='440530']
[quote name='Sonthert' date='19 December 2009 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1261268318' post='440413']
I don't know. I believe children should be taught to question the source of questionable information. Having them blindly accept what they learn in school goes against that. Schools lie all the time.

Do you believe that everybody except Christopher Columbus believed the world was flat? I was told that in school, like most people in the United States. In fact, everybody knew the Earth was round, they just doubted the ability of a ship to circumnavigate it. Thats what Columbus had to overcome...not everybody thinking he was going to fall off the edge. If children believed that blindly, they would misunderstand the development of science, technology, navigation, the Renaissance, mathematics, geometry, astronomy, etc. [b]Lying to children is wrong. Under any circumstances.[/b]
[/quote]


Child - Daddy what are you doing to mommy? why is she screaming?

Daddy - Ahh.... Were wresteling.
[/quote]

?
[/quote]
i see you have questions. well here we go.

when a mommy and a daddy really love each other the daddy will stick his wiener inside of her and pee, unless he dosnt want to get her pregnant.........then he will pee on her leg.

any questions?

this is from south park if anyone is wondering. Edited December 20, 2009 by Jacob Shock

[Chreees]

I so totally didn't get that at first for some reason... Now I get it reading it a second time and feel stupid...

It's time for me to get off work and go home... It's been a long night...

EDIT: So tired I can't even spell right...

[Jacob Shock]

[quote name='INCUBUSRATM' date='20 December 2009 - 06:02 AM' timestamp='1261314168' post='440534']
I so totally didn't get that at first for some reason... Now I get it reading it a second time and feel stupid...

It's time for me to get off work and go home... It's been a long night...

EDIT: So tired I can't even spell right...
[/quote]
been there done that. i cant even spell right when im wide awake, when im tierd it like a whole other language.

have a good night man.

[mustang_steve]

If they wanted to compare based on the length of a session....then compare based on that same time chain-smoking.

Seriously, I usually get 20-30 puffs on my hookah per hour. I don't sit there and breathe through the hose or any thing of that sort.