Originally Posted by Red_Pyramid
I've been seeing this a lot, and after reading the article in the news section here I have to ask if this is just more falsified propaganda.
"The carbon monoxide content is much higher in hookah smokers than in cigarette smokers. A study comparing hookah smokers who smoked between 10-40 minutes and cigarette smokers and non smokers found that the concentration of carboxyhemoglobin (a degree of measuring carbon monoxide) in hookah smokers was 10.6% compared to cigarette smokers (6.5%) and non smokers (1.6%). The more carbon monoxide in the blood stream means less oxygen the various parts of your body will receive. This could very well correlate with the light headed feeling many hookah smokers claim to have after a session."
The only time I've gotten lightheaded was when I was building the tolerance toward the tobacco. For a while, when increased my smoking, I had gotten achyness/weakness in my legs and head pressure, but sure enough, that slowly started to go away and as far as I know you can't build a tolerance to CO like that. So what the hell man?
The problem with studies like this is that narghile smoking is such a complicated affair that a research model can't be comprehensive enough to give any real generalized info about the hobby. As I have pointed out a few dozen times CO exposure is a very complicated affair since what sort of coals are used matter a great deal as does the manner in which they started, the rate of draw on the hose, the packing method, the length of the narghile, hose length and how well the smoke is diffused. Most important of all is how one smokes and that is nearly possible to account for in the experiential design. When I say how one smokes I don't just mean the rate at which one draws on the hose but also the volume of smoke one inhales as well as whether or not one inhales at all. Beyond all of that what exactly one smokes in hos narghile has a lot to do with what exactly are exposing yourself to.
The upshot of all of this that studies like the one mentioned above say far less about the risks of smoking then then presume to show. I should also mention that most anti-tobacco research (yes the studies are biased do to funding methods, decades of propaganda and the fact that the researchers often don't even pretend to be objective) is that smoking machines are far more commonly used in studies that are actual smokers and smoking machines do not act the way the humans do. Those of you are interested in this sort of thing need to check out the links i've posted on the matter if you want to understand how the research is done.
Another matter I touched on before is that since the funding and political pressures to "produce the right results" are so intensive and media coverage of tobacco issues varies only in the intensity of the bias against smokers no real effort is made to critically analyze the studies issued. The Colby website ( http://www.lcolby.com/
) points out that such an environment makes honest research impossible as he so amply demonstrates in his book.