My Pet World: Second-hand smoke is bad news for people and pets

Q: We have a friend who's started smoking cigarettes, and quite heavily. She claims to love animals. I wonder how second-hand smoke affects pets. I think I know the answer, but my friend needs a blast of reality from a professional like you. -- D.G., Henderson, NV

A: Your friend doesn't need a professional to remind her that smoking is hazardous to her health; it says so right on the packaging. Cigarettes smoke can also harm pets.

The Pet Health Care Gazette blog (by the late Dr. Lorie Huston) includes her warning: "Cigarette smoke has been proven to be a source of health issues for dogs and cats, including cancer. Just as in people, second-hand ingestion of cigarette smoke has been proven to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing). Dogs and cats which live with smokers have a higher incidence of cancer than those that live in smoke-free homes."

In a report issued earlier this year, researchers at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, MA, found that repeated exposure to second-hand smoke doubles a cat's chances of developing malignant lymphoma. The same study indicated that second-hand smoke exposure also significantly increases the odds of lung and nasal cancers in dogs and asthma in cats. Also, pets' coats can become permeated with smoke. As a result, they not only smell like cigarettes, but can also swallow the harmful particles as they groom themselves.

Even a 2006 report by the Surgeon General of the United States indicated that pets are at risk from second-hand smoke. Since your friend loves her cats, quitting is the best thing she can do for them -- and herself.

----

Q: Our animal-assisted therapy dogs visit a local hospital and two local nursing homes regularly. At the hospital, people who've had strokes or other neurologic illnesses receive therapy by playing with the dogs. And at the nursing homes, the dogs help people by putting smiles on their faces, even those too lost in dementia to typically smile. To avoid exposure to Ebola, out of an abundance of caution, we thought it best that our dogs stay home for a time. Don't you agree? -- S.G., via cyberspace

A: No, I absolutely do NOT think it's best, and I propose that your decision is based on an over-abundance of caution, if not downright panic.

So far, instances of Ebola have been extremely isolated in the U.S., and media reports keep us informed about the location of each person infected by the virus.

It's true that dogs are also susceptible to Ebola, although they don't actually get sick. No one yet knows how our best friends are able to muster an effective immune response, or if they can transmit the illness to other dogs or people.

We do know that there's never been a case of Ebola in a companion animal in the U.S. We also know that dogs (or people for that matter) can't get Ebola just by going outdoors and breathing. I'm not certain I understand how your dogs (or you) might be exposed just by entering a hospital or nursing home. It would be one thing if there was a case of Ebola in the hospital or either nursing home you visit, but I assume that's not the case.

I've participated in animal-assisted therapy myself and am aware of the valuable service dogs and their handlers provide. Now, without due cause, you want to pull the plug? This would be unfair to people who'd otherwise benefit by your presence.

----

Q: I've always loved cats. I care for a colony of feral cats and also have four cats of my own. My husband and I moved in together a year ago, and our merged family now consists of six indoor-only cats. Last week, my doctor gave us the news: We're pregnant!

Now, my doctor says I have too many cats, and he's concerned about toxoplasmosis. He says I need to stay away from the feral cats -- which makes little sense since those cats never come very close to me. How would I get sick from them? On rare occasions, I might pet one. The doctor also says half of our indoor cats must go. What do you think? -- B.A., San Diego, CA

A: With all due respect, your doctor's edicts make no sense.

Perhaps it's best to start with an explanation of toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis is a protozoan (Toxoplasma gondi) which occurs commonly in the environment. Cats most frequently get the infection by snacking on an infected rodent or eating undercooked meat. Therefore, the odds of an indoor-only cat carrying toxoplasmosis are low.

I won't minimize the possible impact of infection, however. If a woman contracts toxoplasmosis during her first trimester of pregnancy, she could lose the baby, or the newborn could suffer serious birth defects.

Here are more facts: The infection is transmitted only through feces, so without direct contact with feces, there's no way to get toxoplasmosis. I assume you don't even know where those feral cats relieve themselves.

Cats can only transmit the disease 7 to 10 days of their lives (when there is an acute infection). And such a cat's droppings require anywhere from a day to five days to become actively infectious. That's why scooping feces daily prevents transmission of toxo. Of course, double protection is a good idea, such as wearing gloves when scooping, or even better, have your husband take over scooper duty.

Even if one of your indoor-only cats were to develop toxoplasmosis, the odds of any cat transmitting toxo -- whether you have six cats or three cats -- remains infinitesimal if you take appropriate precautions.

Most importantly, congratulations; and I hope you show this answer to a more enlightened doctor who can support all the info I offer here as fact.

========