to not let my grandmother hold my son

[gunting]

My grandmother is a heavy smoker. My son is 3 months old and i refuse to take him to her house as she smokes in there.

She comes over to my house to visit him but won't brush her teeth/change clothes and it makes me anxious allowing her to hold him.

AIBU to not allow her? I feel cruel.

As I read it Dustarr there isn't any smoke... just possible smell of smoke.

But its not only my argument,its also the ops.And many people on this thread.

Cigarette smoke is horrible so it might not have any harm,the smell alone is horrible.No baby deserves that.So in this case the baby trumps the smoking GM.

That's absolutely fine-and I understand that position as a non smoker. But it is really harmful to present as fact things which are unproven. Pregnant women and new parents are bombarded with all sorts of advice all the time. We should not be adding more things that they should be doing/avoiding unless there is actual proper evidence to support the change. Or it should be made clear that this is just general advice and there isn't scientific evidence to back it up yet. We risk people ignoring things that actually are dangerous for children if it gets lost in all the "helpful" extra things they are now supposed to take into account.

No - dusstar. Your final argument iwws that cigarette smoke smells. No-one on this thread has disputed this. The OP's argument is that it may be harmful but there is no peer reviewed scientific evidence to prove this. Again, it is all conjecture and supposition!

The OP was asking if she's BU... and feels mean. I think it is because she feels herself she is going a little OTT with the clothes changing/teeth brushing. If it were a real 'risk' surely we'd all be told or given a leaflet upon leaving hospital but we aren't.

*is not iwws!

I dont think the op is bu cause shes doing what she thinks is best. But you are disputing it saying the smell doesnt matter but it does.Its horrible.Do you think the baby would want someone wtht smoky breath breathing on them,no of course they dont.Whether it causes them asthma it comes down to the smell.

The OP is stopping her own grandmother from touching her son due to her being a smoker. There is no evidence (of course there isn't) that this is dangerous. There is either more to this or the OP is PFB.

Dusstar - are you being deliberately being perverse? The OP's question was is she being unreasonable in letting her smoker grandmother hold her great grandchild. In my opinion she is because there is no evidence that it is harmful to the baby. It would obviously be preferable if her grandmother didn't smoke but as I imagine she is is unlikely to give up her smoking habit I would suggest that the odd 5 minute cuddle isn't likely to cause any harm especially as there is not currently any scientific evidence to suggest otherwise. So why not let an elderly lady have brief physical contact and therefore pleasure in holding a young relative?

There is no suggestion or evidence at all that a short cuddle with a smoker causes asthma.

dustarr

Asthma isn't caused by smells HTH

It is cruel

You are not being unreasonable, because you perceive your child's grandmother holding your baby as a risk to his health.
But, that it possibly a combination of post-natal anxiety and scaremongering in media and by health professionals.

Emotional wellbeing for both mother and baby takes precedence over the beyond-measurable-miniscule effect the baby's grandmother's clothes will have on him.

I hate this scaremongering. No-one is allowed to lead a normal life anymore. The healthiest children will come from families who have the mental, psychological and physical support of extended family.

It's not your fault, but the media has a lot to answer for.

There is no such thing as a baby giving joy to everyone anymore. No such thing as extended family support. No such thing as getting a break from your baby while everyone else looks after said baby.

It is actually no surprising statistic that PND is on the increase.

It's awful and needs to be addressed.

As a young child, my grandmother would put her cigarette in the ashtray, pick me up, and cuddle me while she smoked. You are being paranoid to forbid an occasional cuddle.

Link please?

Sure, no problem. These took ten minutes to dig up - clearly, there will be rather more.

Exposure to nitrosamines in thirdhand tobacco smoke increases cancer risk in non-smokers

[[http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/119/9/ehp.1103500.pdf Thirdhand Tobacco Smoke: Emerging Evidence and Arguments for a
Multidisciplinary Research Agenda]]

Does the Smoke Ever Really Clear? Thirdhand Smoke Exposure Raises New Concerns

Low-level environmental tobacco smoke exposure and inflammatory biomarkers in children with asthma

Effects of cigarette smoke residues from textiles on fibroblasts, neurocytes and zebrafish embryos and nicotine permeation through human skin

Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards

When smokers move out and non-smokers move in: residential thirdhand smoke pollution and exposure.

Households contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke: sources of infant exposure - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747815/

Environmental monitoring of secondhand smoke exposure - tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/3/147.full.pdf

(Afraid I can't seem to format the last two links correctly, and at almost 1 am I can't be arsed to sort it - they seem to at least link to the right articles.)

Thing is, if some want to believe that substances of proven extreme toxicity, proven to remain in the environment in general, and on fabrics in particular, are somehow rendered harmless by... well, something, then that's certainly their prerogative. As is stating the (absolutely true) fact that it is, at the moment, just a theory that a substance heavily impregnated with exceedingly toxic micro-particles might not be very healthy. Of course, the statement was once just as true of second hand smoking (I remember that being a live debate) - and before our time, it was true of cigarettes themselves.

It doesn't make the OP, or anyone else, unreasonable if they feel that it is exposure they'd rather their kids avoided. Because there is evidence that there is harm, and the research is ongoing.

It is a little unreasonable but I'm exactly the same. My OH will smoke if we have the occasional night out, I make his shower and change clothes before he holds her the next morning. I'm fully aware of how over the top it is but he understands and does it anyway. If you're not happy with it then that's down to you, I'm aware how small the risk is if it's occasional but I still won't take that risk. Yet as PP's say I take other risks, I put her in her own room and started weaning before 6 months () completely irrational and I can't justify why I pick and chose which risks I deem greater but each to their own. If you have a happy healthy baby then I wouldn't worry!!

The way i look at it,is if i wouldnt like it.I wouldnt do it to my kids.Why is that so hard to understand.

I had pnd on my last,nothing to do wiht smoking and me afraid to hand baby over.All to do wiht a c section and me hiding pnd.Not everything is cut and dried.There are other
factors.

Again, sleep, just skim reading those articles there is no definitive harm just perceived harm. If you looked you'd probably find similar papers citing risks of mobile phones and wifi. Are you going to stop using those when your children are in the vicinity?

Again, find me peer reviewed scientific journal articles which link third hand smoke to any possible harmful effects and I will willingly concede.

It is in scientists interest, and I should know I am one, to suggest health issues so that they get continued funding.

For example, BSE and variant CJD. Also Andrew Wakefield and his scaremongering on vaccines.

Find me a definitive paper citing actual not perceived harm and I will agree with you and the OP.

Dusstar - you argument is going off on an a tangent. I understand that you agree with the OP but from my perspective there is no rationale behind your views.

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/5/1030.long

Just one example. Increases risk rather than cause and effect. Thought everyone knew this. Those denying it are probably smokers. One of the most selfish habits.

I haven't read the whole thread as I quickly got tired of folk telling you you were being ridicululous

A resounding YANBU from me, I was just the same. Why risk it? Frankly she should have enough respect to smell clean if she wants a cuddle!

But you dont need rational to do whats right for your child.You do what you thinkis right.Sometimes you get it right and sometimes you get it wrong.

I didnt bring up pnd,someone else did.

Found, there's a lot of evidence against wifi etc risk though, isn't there? Not least that there are far more radioactive exposures occurring naturally - same thing with thimerosol/mercury in vaccination. Can you find similar evidence against tobacco residue's environmental toxicity being potentially harmful? (I'm not being narky, I should add, I am genuinely interested.)

Level A recommendation. Personally, it is one of the recommendations I will be following. But I also think smoking gross. I wouldn't to bury my head in a smoky cardigan so I won't subject my newborn son to it either.

For those wondering how babies born in the 60s, 70s and 80s survived, the answer is simple: many didn't.

Have a look at sids rates. The decrease in smoking around children is one of the factors for the significant decline.

Yes, my parents freely smoked around me and I'm fine, no asthma or breathing issues, obviously no sids.

The point is that you just don't know if you have a vulnerable baby for whom exposure to smoke - even 3rd hand - is the trigger. I'd be ok with an occasional cuddle from a smoker as the risk is very small but that doesn't mean that it's unreasonable or hysterical as it IS a known risk factor for sids

sleeponeday - the link titles are alarming.
I haven't bothered my arse to click into them.

Is a child going to develop asthma from being held by a woman who smoked? Or die?

Jesus Christ. Media and advertising agencies feed off serious PND and anxiety. It's not right.