To smoke in my own garden

[LittleBear4]

I am a smoker. I smoke 10 fags a day and I'm not planning on giving it up yet (one day!).

In smoke in my garden, I've got two neighbours either side and one every time I'm smoking will come out and say 'it stinks out here' and will start to cough loudly.

It's really getting on my nerves, I can't move down the end of the garden because it's tiny and would make no difference at all but AIBU to hate the passive aggressive comments when I'm smoking in my garden?

SinkGirl - you are so invested in this idea that some passive smoking is inconsequential. Are you trying to convince us or yourself?

I have no horse in the race, I’m a former smoker. I am simply saddened by the baffling lack of awareness demonstrated by some people here - on many occasions I’ve asked people to back up their ludicrous statements. Prove what you’re saying and I’ll gladly apologise and agree you were correct (that’s how science generally works).

And yet strangely enough, no one can. It’s almost as if they’re talking rubbish and, when called on to back it up, there’s ad hominem attacks or deflection. Shocker.

It's not like alcohol in pregnancy. If it was, we would also be saying the odd cig in pregnancy is okay like we do with

I've posted links that are cited that clearly stated been brief exposure to cigarette smoke can have effects; from effecting coagulation to triggering cancer forming activity.

Even*

It is medically possible to demonstrate that some toxins and carcinogens are not active below certain concentrations. This is known for many chemicals that have safe limits. It tends to be determined by knowing the mode of action of the toxicity and hence being able to prove that below a certain threshold concentration there is no possibility of the pathway being activated.

But this isn't true of the majority of the thousands of toxins and carcinogens in cigarette smoke. The mechanisms by which they cause cancer scale with the exposure all the way down with zero biochemical activity only occurring at zero concentration.

So while you would be spectacularly unlikely to get cancer from a single whiff of cigarette smoke, it isn't impossible....like winning the lottery....very very unlikely, but not impossible.

I don't play the lottery and I don't worry I'll get cancer every time I smell cigarette smoke. But I might if it was happening 10 times a day....

off is it? The murder rate is very VERY low.....the rate of people dying from other people's pollution is much higher.

If we were ordering things to ban on the basis of which kills more people, smoking would be far higher up the list than murder...

We actually moved house last year as we were so sick of our neighbour smoking in the back garden! It may be your garden so legally its "up to you", but it IS rude and inconsiderate, and of course your neighbour is going to be fed up with it. Not being able to hang your washing out, leave your back door open to let some "fresh air" in, let children/pets out to play, enjoy our garden yourself without having to inhale second hand smoke, does become extremely irritating. ONLY 10 a day, is 10 occasions your neighbours will have to be closing their doors/windows, retrieving their washing, having to stop their enjoyment of THEIR garden to go inside because of YOUR smoking. It stinks, and affects other people's health so no, they are not being unreasonable at all. Imagine if your neighbour had a dog that stood outside barking loudly for 10 solid minutes at 10 different intervals throughout the day, so irritating that it made you have to stop what you were doing to go inside and shut your doors. You'd be really annoyed. And the dog wouldn't even be putting you at risk of cancer and making your laundry/house stink! Smokers don't realise how awful smoking is to non smokers (the vast majority of the population) it really does STINK!!! I'm sure smokers are immune to the smell. Stale smoke on people's hair/skin/clothes is probably the most repulsive smell 🤮 Why can't you smoke out the front of your house so at least your neighbours can enjoy their gardens?

prequelle there should be a special term for people who respond to the posting of peer reviewed data and explanations of the science behind the genuine risks of passive smoking by ranting about how unscientific and handwringy you are being and how you'd have really benefited from some science GCSE's.

I mean maybe some of the obvious words already work, but there is something especially painful about being declared ' unscientific' when you are a professional scientist with a degree level working knowledge of biochemical mechanisms of drug action and have the actual data to back your position.

TBH its something my 7yo DD has already picked up on. Mid tantrum last week, in the middle of a tirade about how she hated me and I was ruining her life, she yelled 'your so stupid you can't even do science properly. You're rubbish at your own job'.

We laughed about it afterwards....

when you are a professional scientist with a degree level working knowledge of biochemical mechanisms of drug action and have the actual data to back your position
Yikes, I wouldn't be arguing with you about this stuff!

The research is out there but it isn't palatable for some people because it doesn't confirm their ideas that we are just being silly

No worries Sinkgirl, I knew you weren't being mean xxxxxxxxx knitting has helped me, two thirds through a double blanket at moment. Next step is curbing my constant want of munching, need something else to do with my mouth lol, one thing that's keeping me on track is that I made a promise to my sons, they were so worried about my health and I couldn't keep putting that on their shoulders x

Oh I don't mind a good argument at all, and I don't mind who with either....I just don't like being called unscientific

On the other hand, I really am being shit at my job and should get off MN and tackle the project marking that's stacked up on my desk....some of which pertains to the use of model membrane systems to understand the penetration of drug molecules and toxins for biomedical applications - so I should at least be nicely in the mood!

I mean maybe some of the obvious words already work, but there is something especially painful about being declared ' unscientific' when you are a professional scientist with a degree level working knowledge of biochemical mechanisms of drug action and have the actual data to back your position.

Great - where’s the actual data? The CDC links posted earlier don’t back up what’s being said here and, somewhat ironically, their statement about alcohol during pregnancy is no different whatsoever than the statement about how any exposure to cigarette smoke is harmful.

I’m also pretty sure that I wasn’t directing those comments at you M3lon and if you are indeed a scientist then I’m quite surprised you’re comparing the likelihood of small amounts of passive cigarette smoke in an outdoor space causing cancer to “winning the lottery”, especially with no data to back it up.

And here you go Prequelle...

”These results show what common sense would suggest—when you're within a few feet downwind of a smoker, you get exposed," Ott explained. "But likewise, when you go a little distance or stay upwind, the exposure goes way down. If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem. At the same time, if there are a lot of smokers nearby, you may be exposed to very high levels of secondhand smoke. So this thing that critics have been dismissing as trivial is not."

Just one smoker, six feet away.

This study is looking at outdoor second hand smoke exposure in places like outdoor cafe areas, and shows that if you’re within two feet of a smoker you will be exposed to “wisps” of air far more polluted than background air quality.

Increase the distance or reduce the number of smokers to one, and it’s a very different scenario.

But again, if you have proof that occasional exposure to occasional smoke from a single neighbour smoking ten cigarettes a day (and certainly where you won’t be present for al of them) and that this can cause cancer, I’m all ears.

news.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html

SinkGirl

I’m sorry, you’re right. There’s literally no difference between class A drugs in your vicinity, and something you can buy in the corner shop. Silly me.”

Don’t apologise Sink Girl. You’re absolutely right, there’s a big difference. Lots more people die from smoking related conditions than from Class A drug misuse. Let’s just forget about the smoking related limb amputations and chronic, lingering, dignity robbing conditions for the sake of this argument.

I don't care about the science of it I just think inflicting your habits and lifestyles on those around you is selfish, like not picking up dog shit or using noisy technology in public without headphones. It's the I don't give a shit brigade

Here's a paper. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029938/

As I said in an earlier post. You look at the rate at which response drops off with exposure at (in this case reasonably low including second hand exposure) a range of levels of exposure and extrapolate back to see if there is a cut off. The study shows there isn't one. So all exposure leads to response - hence there is no safe level and the low but non-zero probability that a neighbour smoking 10 times a day could (but almost certainly won't) give you cancer.

Loving the passive aggressive 'if you are indeed a scientist'. I'll mention that to DD for next time she gets cross.....

Hahahaha @M3lon you're great

😂😂

The trouble with this back-strapalation is that it’s the same as the arguments of the anti-vaxxers. Just because there’s a risk at some dose it doesn’t follow that there’s any risk at a (much) lower dose.

If you don’t like the smell of cigarettes over the garden fence by all means complain as you would for the nuisance of music, loud talking, cat shit, hot tub humming, squeaky trampolines, joss sticks, barking dogs, bbqs or wind chimes.

But don’t pretend your health is at risk.

kissing its doesn't follow automatically that if there is risk at high dose then there will be risk at low dose, however in the case of cigarette smoke it has been reasonably demonstrated that there is indeed a risk at all doses all the way down to zero. So a its a moot point that some other toxins do become safe at low dose...because fag smoke doesn't.

I've never heard that particular anti-vax argument before. It doesn't sound reasonable because vaccines aren't diluted diseases, but modified disease....but who knows.

TBH I'd gladly accept a small dose of toxicity in exchange for immunity to say measles....other peoples fag smoke fails to have the compensating positive benefit to offset the toxicity though....

The anti-vax argument is that aluminium adjuvants (and when it was used, mercury) in vaccines are dangerous because at far, far higher doses aluminium is a neuro-toxin. ‘The dose makes the poison’ is not a truth that anti-vaxxers will recognise.

There is nothing unique about tobacco smoke. There is no element cigarettum in the periodic table. Hydrazine, for example, that you mentioned upthread is found in tiny quantities in plants. If any exposure to cigarette smoke brings a risk because of its constituents then we must accept that risk is inescapable with or without smoking.

TBH it’s a puzzle to me why I’m defending back garden smokers. I don’t smoke and I dislike it. I suppose I just dislike bogus arguments even more.

@M3lon
No it hasn't. For eg Ott and Keplis in their study 'Exposure to second hand smoke in outdoor settings' state
'Unlike indoor tobacco smoke, which can persist for hours, the researchers found that outdoor smoke disappears rapidly when a cigarette is extinguished. ..Our data also show that if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker, your exposure levels are much lower .... If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem..'
That is one of few studies that looks at near behaviour of cigarette smoke particles and carcinogens outside in air.

And they mostly looked at areas where numerous people were gathered smoking at the time as it took that to get readings!

And as a Scientist, you should understand that you are being disingenous to overextrapolate with data from a study that cannot cover variables in situ you are trying to apply it to.

For a chemical engineer, it is surprising how lax you are in interpreting research or identifying the variables that existed in OP's situation.

That's why several scientists & researchers have challenged you. Your DD may think in your words how funny these other scientists have said mummy isn't acting very scientifically, but ... well... Peer reviewed you aren't!
(But ssshhhh...we won't tell your DD )

We can assume OP's house is more than 12 foot wide. Average house width in UK is 20-30 foot wide. And that the NDN aren't complaining whilst standing up against her fence with their mouths open. 😄
Single smoker.
Light smoker. (I could go into why, but to keep this post short..)
More than 6 foot away.
Findings were negligible with even most sensitive of equipment.

No one has argued that several people chain smoking right by you- within a couple foot- wouldn't adversely affect your health even in open air, but the research many PPs have been quoting is about indoor smoking in enclosed space where smoke behaves very differently.

This is hilarious. But surely nobody seriously thinks the neighbours don't have the right to be annoyed?!
I'm amazed anyone still actually smokes these days. I don't know a single smoker in my social circle 🤷‍♀️