Comments on: Household Toxins More Dangerous to Pets Than People http://medheadlines.com/2008/04/18/household-toxins-more-dangerous-to-pets-than-people/ Medical news updated 24 hours Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:51:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: John Williams http://medheadlines.com/2008/04/18/household-toxins-more-dangerous-to-pets-than-people/comment-page-1/#comment-6929 John Williams Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:56:00 +0000 http://medheadlines.com/2008/04/18/household-toxins-more-dangerous-to-pets-than-people/#comment-6929 When we buy a pet, we have to accept that it is literally a "dumb animal" and will lick its fur (my cats) or the ground (my dog always did this) and thus pick up much more dirt, disease organisms, and harmful chemicals than if it were a person. Pets have bodies designed (=bred) or evolved to handle this. It is unclear whether higher toxin concentrations mean anything merely because the numbers are higher. Just as lead is relatively harmless in adults but very harmful to babies, perhaps we should determine whether these other toxins are harming the pets? It may be a waste of effort to try to bring down the concentrations, if they are not having any effect on the pets. California has gone to foolish extremes to limit air pollution in relatively clean regions, or on clear days, costing the budget enormous expense for minimal gains. As a result, we have a terrible deficit, as well as very high smog-check fees and dealer expenses. Lowering numbers for no good reason is a big mistake. The research effort and consumer money on pets might be better spent on more healthful food and more frequent exercise. When we buy a pet, we have to accept that it is literally a “dumb animal” and will lick its fur (my cats) or the ground (my dog always did this) and thus pick up much more dirt, disease organisms, and harmful chemicals than if it were a person. Pets have bodies designed (=bred) or evolved to handle this. It is unclear whether higher toxin concentrations mean anything merely because the numbers are higher. Just as lead is relatively harmless in adults but very harmful to babies, perhaps we should determine whether these other toxins are harming the pets? It may be a waste of effort to try to bring down the concentrations, if they are not having any effect on the pets.

California has gone to foolish extremes to limit air pollution in relatively clean regions, or on clear days, costing the budget enormous expense for minimal gains. As a result, we have a terrible deficit, as well as very high smog-check fees and dealer expenses. Lowering numbers for no good reason is a big mistake. The research effort and consumer money on pets might be better spent on more healthful food and more frequent exercise.

]]>