Shishasuch as has many names hubbly bubbly or hookah. The trend of smoking shisha has been spreading across the world as many Arabs travel around the globe. In UK, many shops along edgeware road still operate shisha, despite the smoking ban in London(effective in 2007). The response and the type of crowd that visit the ’shisha joints’ are becoming more varied and young. This hobby/activity is seen as hip and happening.
Many are under the impression thatsmoking shisha is not really smoking. However, BBC recently came up with an article about shisha and they did state that the health effects are 4 times worst than smoking a normal cigarette. Whilst that is true, the overall effect is very difficult to measure as different people smoke differently (which affects the intake of harmful toxins). So, the next time you feel like having a relaxing time with your mates and decide to take shisha, please think twice!
4 responses so far ↓
shasa aziz // 11 September 2009 at 6:04 pm |
wow this is a good one! thank you no i have a reason not to Shisha
sohas // 13 September 2009 at 7:30 am |
Yes – haven’t had shisha since I wrote that article!
nikolas // 19 September 2009 at 11:25 pm |
BBC accused of gross exaggeration in ’shisha worse than cigarettes’ story
Print article Print article
Refer this article Refer to a friend
2009-08-25 22:56:52 – One of the world’s leading scientific experts on shisha smoking has criticised the BBC and the Tobacco Control Collaborating Centre for “misrepresentation” and “gross exaggeration” in a news story that claimed that hookah smoking can be “450 times more dangerous” than cigarette smoking.
Dr Kamal Chaouachi, a tobacco expert who teaches at Paris IX University, has written to the BBC to complain about a news story and radio programme the corporation produced on August 24 2009.
The BBC had been given research by the Department of Health which purported to show that shisha use could result in carbon monoxide levels 400 to 450
times greater than that seen in cigarette smokers.
The BBC stands accused of relying on research which has been neither peer-reviewed nor published. The Department of Health and the Tobacco Control Collaborating Centre stand accused of issuing ’science by press release.’
The new report runs contrary to decades of research into shisha smoking and questions have been asked about why it was passed to a BBC radio station rather than published in a scientific journal.
In an interview with Christopher Snowdon, Dr Chaouachi said: “There are numerous studies on this issue and there is absolutely nothing new in this scare-mongering report. The bottom line is that shisha smokers actually experience the same carbon monoxide exposure as cigarette or cigar smokers do.”
“Besides, their exposure is, unlike cigarette smokers who generally smoke every day, not chronic. For the great majority of them, they indulge in their habit only 1 to 3 times a week. Even in the case of a daily exposure, keep in mind that the carbon monoxide is quickly washed out from the body because its half life is only about 3 to 4 hours.”
“Carbon monoxide is only one chemical out of thousands in cigarettes, so one cannot compare. But even if we look only at that chemical, shisha is not “worse” than cigarette smoking. The BBC should apologise.”
The claim that shisha smoking is as bad, or worse, that cigarette smoking has now gone around the globe as a result of the BBC’s report.
“In the ideal world of public health, overstating the dangers of shisha will persuade its users to cease using tobacco products,” said Christopher Snowdon, who has recently published a book about the anti-smoking movement.
“In the real world, claims that shisha can be up to 450 “more dangerous” than cigarettes is more likely to encourage users to switch to cigarettes. It is the kind of unintended (but hardly unforeseen) consequence that has dogged the anti-smoking movement efforts for decades.”
sohas // 20 September 2009 at 7:37 am |
Very interesting Nikolas – thanks for sharing this. Would you care to direct us to the publications related to this issue? A peer-reviewed one is definitely a better option. However, many cigarette companies do pay for research in this area and would the results obtained be slightly skewed to favour them?