Pets

/

Home & Leisure

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

By Steve Dale, Tribune Content Agency on

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.

...continued

swipe to next page

(c) 2014 DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

 

 

Comics

Dana Summers Mike Du Jour Dustin Heathcliff Doonesbury Mutts