Hookah smoking health risks versus Cigarettes? (Answers: 1) (Comments: 0)

My boyfriend used to smoke cigarettes a lot, now he's just smoking hookah. I've been doing research about the health risks of smoking hookah. Any medical professionals know well the health risks of hookah versus cigarettes?

pipe smoking health risks? (Answers: 2) (Comments: 0)

if i smoke a pipe maybe once every couple weeks or less, is my health going to be adversely affected or is the sparsity of how i smoke enough to keep me from being affected seriously (mouth, throat, lung cancer) in the long run?

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer? (Answers: 9) (Comments: 0)

UK Sunday Telegraph... Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent Dateline: March 8, 1998 The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."