Après les trois premiers éléments (Critique du rapport erroné de l'OMS, Etude étiologique sur le cancer et Etude sur les dangers radioactifs), une étude (de type Critical Review) vient clore la Tétralogie des Premières Mondiales sur le Narguilé. Elle porte sur les dangers du "tabagisme passif" de la cigarette et du narguilé (chicha, shisha) et vient d’être publiée dans le International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health .Au total, on trouve 50 pages de mise au point scientifique. A offrir rapidement au représentant de la Prohibition dans votre quartier…
En ACCES LIBRE) avec une table des matières (utile) ICI
TRADUCTION EN FRANCAIS DU TITRE ET DU RESUME
Le houka (narguilé, chicha) et son tabagisme environnemental (tabagisme passif). Revue critique de la littérature scientifique et conséquences sur la santé publique
RESUME: Le tabagisme au moyen du houka (narguilé, chicha, « pipe à eau ») est aujourd'hui considéré par les responsables de la santé publique comme une épidémie mondiale. La fumée environnementale (« fumée passive ») de la cigarette est classiquement définie comme la somme du CS (Courant Secondaire, soit la « fumée latérale » qui s’élève entre deux bouffées du fumeur) et du CP (Courant Principal, soit la fumée directement inhalée par le fumeur), le tout en tenant compte des phénomènes de dilution et vieillissement de la fumée. Certaines des études portant sur le tabagisme environnemental (« tabagisme passif ») de la cigarette ont notamment servi de base scientifique (« preuve ») à l’élaboration d’une législation sévère réprimant la fume dans les lieux fermés, à travers le monde. Or, l'un des traits distinctifs du narguilé est que ce dispositif ne génère quasiment pas de CS. En effet, sa fumée environnementale se réduit pratiquement au CT (Courant Tertiaire, soit la fumée expirée par le fumeur), c'est-à-dire la fumée originelle qui a été filtrée au niveau du fourneau (sommet de l’appareil), lors de son lavage dans l'eau du récipient (à la base), le long du tuyau d’aspiration et enfin par l’arbre respiratoire (poumons) du fumeur lui-même. Cette étude passe en revue les données scientifiques disponibles, souvent rares et dispersées, sur la fumée expirée par un usager de narguilé et celles qui peuvent être extrapolées à partir la composition chimique du CT de la cigarette. L’analyse montre que le la fumée environnementale du narguilé (« fumée passive ») est composée essentiellement de celle de son CT et que celui-ci diffère qualitativement du CP. En gardant à l'esprit que la première victime du tabagisme passif est le fumeur actif lui-même, la toxicité de la fumée environnementale du narguilé pour les non-fumeurs ne doit pas être surestimée et exagérée d’une manière anti-scientifique.
RESUME ANGLAIS
Hookah (narghile, shisha, “water-pipe”) smoking is now seen by public health officials as a global tobacco epidemic. Cigarette Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is classically understood as a combination of Side-Stream Smoke (SSS) and Exhaled Main-Stream Smoke (EMSS), both diluted and aged. Some of the corresponding cigarette studies have served as the scientific basis for stringent legislation on indoor smoking across the world. Interestingly, one of the distinctive traits of the hookah device is that it generates almost no SSS. Indeed, its ETS is made up almost exclusively by the smoke exhaled by the smoker (EMSS), i.e. which has been filtered by the hookah at the level of the bowl, inside the water, along the hose and then by the smoker’s respiratory tract itself. The present paper reviews the sparse and scattered scientific evidence available about hookah EMSS and the corresponding inferences that can be drawn from the composition of cigarette EMSS. The reviewed literature shows that most of hookah ETS is made up of EMSS and that the latter qualitatively differs from MSS. Keeping in mind that the first victim of passive smoking is the active smoker her/himself, the toxicity of hookah ETS for non-smokers should not be overestimated and hyped in an unscientific way.
EXTRAITS
Un “serious risk” pour les Non-Smokers (WHO report) . Vrai ou faux ?
“In view of all the above described distinguishing traits, a central objective of the present review is to determine whether hookah ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke, i.e. “Passive Smoking”] represent a “serious risk” to non-smokers. It is recalled, once again, that what is at stake here is “passive smoking”, not active smoking. The latter has also been surrounded by a wide confusion. Consequently, the focus of the present review is on EMSS.” (page 808)
L'expérience que les organisations anti-tabac n'aiment pas voir commentée
“Three decades ago, Russell et al. carried out a famous artificial experiment in which 20 volunteers spent about 78 minutes seated in an unventilated smoke-filled room of about 43 c.m. (15x12x8 ft). Eighty cigarettes and two cigars were burnt or smoked. The average ambient CO concentration reached 38 ppm. Thanks to COHb monitoring, the researchers concluded that “the amount of inhaled CO by non-smokers as a result of their exposure to ETS was about the same as would be expected if they had actively smoked and inhaled one cigarette”[105]. Other researchers have performed a more realistic although “acute natural exposure” experiment in which seven non-smokers were exposed to tobacco smoke under natural conditions for two hours in a public house. They found that the increase in expired CO of 5.9 ppm was similar to increases in smokers after a single cigarette [101]. Scherer et al. measured an active/passive ratio of CO varying between 2.7 and 4.2 (40 mg-400 mg / 14.4 mg-96 mg) [Table 3] [100]” (page 819).
“In view of all the above described distinguishing traits, a central objective of the present review is to determine whether hookah ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke, i.e. “Passive Smoking”] represent a “serious risk” to non-smokers. It is recalled, once again, that what is at stake here is “passive smoking”, not active smoking. The latter has also been surrounded by a wide confusion. Consequently, the focus of the present review is on EMSS.” (page 808)
L'expérience que les organisations anti-tabac n'aiment pas voir commentée
“Three decades ago, Russell et al. carried out a famous artificial experiment in which 20 volunteers spent about 78 minutes seated in an unventilated smoke-filled room of about 43 c.m. (15x12x8 ft). Eighty cigarettes and two cigars were burnt or smoked. The average ambient CO concentration reached 38 ppm. Thanks to COHb monitoring, the researchers concluded that “the amount of inhaled CO by non-smokers as a result of their exposure to ETS was about the same as would be expected if they had actively smoked and inhaled one cigarette”[105]. Other researchers have performed a more realistic although “acute natural exposure” experiment in which seven non-smokers were exposed to tobacco smoke under natural conditions for two hours in a public house. They found that the increase in expired CO of 5.9 ppm was similar to increases in smokers after a single cigarette [101]. Scherer et al. measured an active/passive ratio of CO varying between 2.7 and 4.2 (40 mg-400 mg / 14.4 mg-96 mg) [Table 3] [100]” (page 819).
Une simple question de nuisances dues aux odeurs ?
“Perhaps the only problem regarding hookah ETS might be odours. Experts had once noted that “although many people dislike the smell of burning tobacco, there are some who enjoy it” and added that “this is especially true of cigar or pipe smoke, which nevertheless contain higher concentrations of irritants than cigarette smoke” [74]. In the case of heated flavoured (apple, strawberry, rose, etc.) tobacco-molasses mixture (moassel/tobamel), it is noteworthy that non-smokers do not feel bothered by the smoke [2]. The only problems reported so far are social nuisances caused by the smell of flavours, particularly in urban settings.” (page 832)
Les US Américains continueront-ils à fumer en 2010 malgré la Prohibition ?
“Citing a report of the Institute of Medicine (2001), a recent paper concludes that: "While prevention and cessation is the most effective way to eliminate the health risks of cigarette smoking, the use of cigarettes and other tobacco products will continue. In spite of stringent smoking restrictions in the United States, it is expected that, in 2010, approximately 10–15% of the adult population in this country will not be willing or able to give up tobacco consumption (Institute of Medicine, 2001). For these people it is most important to develop products of harm reduction" [26].” (page 832)
“Perhaps the only problem regarding hookah ETS might be odours. Experts had once noted that “although many people dislike the smell of burning tobacco, there are some who enjoy it” and added that “this is especially true of cigar or pipe smoke, which nevertheless contain higher concentrations of irritants than cigarette smoke” [74]. In the case of heated flavoured (apple, strawberry, rose, etc.) tobacco-molasses mixture (moassel/tobamel), it is noteworthy that non-smokers do not feel bothered by the smoke [2]. The only problems reported so far are social nuisances caused by the smell of flavours, particularly in urban settings.” (page 832)
Les US Américains continueront-ils à fumer en 2010 malgré la Prohibition ?
“Citing a report of the Institute of Medicine (2001), a recent paper concludes that: "While prevention and cessation is the most effective way to eliminate the health risks of cigarette smoking, the use of cigarettes and other tobacco products will continue. In spite of stringent smoking restrictions in the United States, it is expected that, in 2010, approximately 10–15% of the adult population in this country will not be willing or able to give up tobacco consumption (Institute of Medicine, 2001). For these people it is most important to develop products of harm reduction" [26].” (page 832)
Pour les chercheurs en littérature : Le tabagisme passif dans la littérature italienne et française...
Les sciences humaines sont très importantes ici. Ne dit-on pas que fumer est un acte qui distingure l'homme de la bête ? (même si nombre de cafés portent le nom "Au chien qui fume....")
« Qui venivano gli amici, e anch’essi si buttavano e, come diceva Muscarà, s’abbiavanu e sdavacàvanu, sui pagliericci e le ciambele di cuoio, rimpiendo presto la camera di un tale fumo di sigareta che, dal balcone socchiuso, i passanti vedevano uscire una sorta di lenzuolo grigio palpitante nell’aria. Fumo, caffè, e liquori... » (Vitaliano Brancati, 1940)
« ...sous les treilles aux pampres frais, sous les glycines, sous les platanes; des narguilés par myriades, le long des rues, exhalaient leur fumée enjôleuse. » (Pierre Loti, 1904)
POUR LES AMATEURS DE CONFITS D’INTERETS A LA SAUCE ANGLAISE
Car certains disent déjà que c’est une “study flawed from the outset” (étude biaisée depuis le commencement…) ou “fatally flawed” (fatalement biaisée, c’est à dire comme le rapport de l’OMS sur le narguilé…) et il y aurait un “need for clarification on comfit of interest” (urgent besoin de clarifier les confits d’intérêts. Bien sûr, chef…). En tout cas, c’est du “irresponsible journalism” (le journal qui l’a publié serait un méchant). En termes plus modernes, on dirait que c’est du ”DENIALISM” (prononcer dine-aioli-s-me en se remémorant le repas de la veille…)
For those under the influence of the above and professional defamers (Wasim Maziak, Thomas Eissenberg, Kenneth Ward, Alan Shihadeh, Brian Primack, Michele Walsh, Cindy Bryce), undercover and proxy agents (Matthew GELFAND, “student” from Brown University, etc.), witch hunters (Pascal Diethelm, etc.) and other plagiarists and liars, are kindly requested to go:
THERE and contemplate Section 13 in particular. Good Bye.
A LIRE EN RAPPORT DIRECT AVEC LA QUESTION DU DANGER DU TABAGISME PASSIF DU NARGUILE
Denialism, Hookah Environmental Tobacco Smoke, and the «Overwhelming Consensus on the Evidence». Eur J Public Health; Feb 17, 2009
Attention : Vous n'êtes pas sur la page d'accueil de l'Observatoire Narguilé OU Santé (Chicha OU santé, Narghilé OU santé, Shisha OU santé)(Cancer, nicotine, goudrons, monoxyde de carbone, etc.). Cliquez ICI pour y retourner.
> En parcourant ce site, vous verrez que nous ne pratiquons pas l’euphémisme. Nous appelons un chat un chat (même quand ce dernier est Oustachi…) et une étude biaisée, une étude biaisée ; une grave erreur scientifique, une grave erreur scientifique (*) ; un plagiat/contrefaçon, un plagiat/contrefaçon ; un comportement indigne d’un chercheur scientifique («scientific misconduct»), un comportement indigne d’un chercheur scientifique; une étude pire-reviewed, une étude pire-reviewed ; un mensonge, un mensonge ; une bonne étude, une bonne étude.
Posts
