Originally Posted by kalutika
The numbers are misleading. It's nothing new but as stated often times these tests are done very improperly which can greatly skew the results.
I am wondering why they don't use the actual measure for CO exposure. Parts per million (ppm) is the most accepted concentration and exposure measure. Possibly because it doesn't sound as scary. And maybe they should mention that a high ambient concentration of 100 ppm will cause headaches in... 3-5 hours? Huh.
Regarding blood concentration they should also mention that discomfort occurs when blood concentration reaches 30% or higher. 10% isn't great for you but it's not going to kill you. 50% is where you get serious complications on average. If 40 minutes results in 10% then let's just assume that you would reach 30% after two solid hours. I've smoked for that without any ill effects.
If they are recording levels that will cause effects faster than 100 ppm then the concentrations in the smoke would have to be high enough to set off a CO detector, which go off at 100 ppm on average, and not just when the coals are lighting.
Carboxyhemoglobin levels is what is used in the diagnosis of carbon monoxide poisoning because it is a measure of how much CO made it into one's system as opposed to the ambient CO levels one was exposed to.
While clinical effects do vary from person to person, I would personally consider levels over 30% to be fairly serious as symptoms like nausea, vomiting, severe headaches, impacted vision, asphyxia, loss of judgment, etc. start to become common. Headaches and dizziness can occur at just over 10% and levels above 50% can put you in a coma. For comparison, a one pack a day smoker generally has levels around 5% and a two pack a day smoker has roughly a little under twice that.
I agree that linear extrapolation of the study's results would not be accurate at all. If it were that would mean smoking for 5 hours straight would be fatal or near fatal depending on the person. FWIW, I smoke in excess of 2 hours straight and indoors with no noticeable effects on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Sambooka
Yeah throw three quick lights on a bowl .. then hit them with a torch while they "do their study, as they are being ignited" and of course there is going to be high CO! While their at it they might as well run a vacuum on the line for a constant hour just for good measure!
I don't buy into this .. and HATE listening to someone tell me .. "It's like smoking a hundred cigarettes in an hour!" ummm I would be throwing up after the first three cigarettes in a row!
What they measured was the level of hemoglobins in the blood that have binded with CO so assuming they are forthright with their findings, it would be an indicator of how much CO the smoker actually consumed during the entire session and not just how much CO was in the air when they lit off the charcoals. While I agree for the results to be taken seriously it should be known what their setup is, how/where they were smoking, and what their levels were prior to starting, a test like this would be more realistic as far as what a hookah smoker goes through but it is limited to only CO exposure.
To the OP, is it possible to link to the article?