bubbad

I have had two dogs develop cancer from what I beleive was caused by chemicals a lawn service was treating our yard with,of course I was assured it was a very safe treatment the dogs just needed to stay off the grass till the lawn was dry.I never thought about it again. Not thinking that the dogs can still pick up the chemicals on their paws after a rain. My dogs were exposed for only three months when we moved from Florida to Pennsylvania in fall 2001. Bubba was two years old and on his way to his Champion title, Grace was 6. In May of 2002 Bubba ,just turned three,had exploritory surgery for a mass the Vet discovered in an examination. Advanced Lymphosarcoma,with meds he could live two to four months ,without meds, he had about two weeks. I had seven months more with Bubba and on December, 31st 2002, Bubba had to put to sleep.I promised him I would not allow him to suffer. 10 months later Grace was diagnosed with Lymphoma in September 2002 and needed to be put down October 17,2002. Granted , the chemicals may not have been responsible for Grace's cancer BUT even the Vets agreed it was possible. A few people on other sites have dissagreed with me about using chemical services for their lawns and thats ok ,if you know of a service using all natural products ,good,make them poove it. I use a recipe of 1/2 cup of dish soap, 1 cup ammonia,1/2cup of instant ice tea mix put into a 20 gallon sprayer that hooks up to my hose ,used once or twice a week it is great for the grass(it doesn't kill weeds) and flowers,and helps cut down on fleas and ticks and it is safe enough for my bassets wet or dry. Please just take this as it is ment, a precaution.

Lightning&Stomps

I used to have my front yard treated by Chemlawn, but not the back where the dogs were, as I just couldn't accept when they told me it was safe for pets. The name alone was scary. I'm very sorry for the loss of both your babies at such a young age. I too find it difficult to believe that the chemicals didn't have something to do with it, although you can't beat yourself up over that. They told me it was perfectly safe for my animals, and you'd think they wouldn't dare lie about that. But I don't see how it couldn't have some kind of negative effect. Thanks for bringing this up.

Yogi's Mom

I have often wondered about lawn chemicals myself and questioned my vet about it years ago. She always told us to double the amount of time that a product said to keep animals off the lawn for so we ended up not using our backyard for two weeks every summer. Even so, a product that we used back then, supposedly considered safe is no longer available due to safety reasons.
I have often wondered if my first basset hound got an auto-immune disease from that even though we tried to be careful. We no longer spray our lawn for anything at all just to be on the safe side.
Bubbad--don't beat yourself up over what happened. There is no way to be sure and you do the best you can with the knowledge you have at the time. Bubba and Grace know you loved them and still watch over you always.

2hounds

Very scary. We don't treat our lawn with anything, and I intend on keeping it that way.

~Heather

__________________
Mommy to Gibbs and kitty kitty Eva

Dear sweet Lily (ATB ) you will never be forgotten.

Mikey T

highly unlikely While no chemical is perfectly safe Modern pesticides are close to being safe for mammal as possible while affecting invertabret. Also cancer is the largest single killer of dogs so a lot of unfounded associations are made,

most auto-immune deseases are though to be strongly genetic in origin


just as it is possible that radiation from halley's comet is the cause, unlikely but possible.

Your mix is possible more toxic to the dogs than the lawn chemical you are complaining about. Ammonium is highkly toxic is is a potential carcenogen

THE DIFFERENTIAL TOXICITY OF AMMONIUM SALTS


Ammonium hydroxide

and if you are concerned about run - off ammonium hydroxide like most ammonium salts is highly toxic to aquatic animals.

compared to a fairly common lawn pest control chemical Scotts Grub-x Ammonium is much more toxic and is so noted on MSDS sheets
Scotts Grubex Season Long Grub Control

NFPA Ratings: Health: 3 Flammability: 1 Reactivity: 2 for ammonium hydroxide and [Health Rating:2 Flammability Rating:0 Reactivity Rating:1 for grub-x Most so called homemade recipies are more toxic than the equivlent counterparts which have been extensively studied.


Lymphosarcoma (Lymphoma) in Dogs

FWIW herbicide 2,3-D is also known as 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and the Herbicide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2, 4-D) in Eastern Nebraska 1990 study of farmers in Nebraska, even when adjusting for exposure to other chemicals, found that 2,4-D exposure substantially increased the risk of Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL).
Mortality in chemical workers potentially exposed to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 1945–94: an update
A 2000 study of 1517 former employees of Dow Chemical Company who had been exposed to the chemical in manufacturing or formulating 2,4-D found no significant increase in risk of mortality due to NHL following 2,4-D exposure, but did find an increase in risk of mortality due to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The link to cancer is weak and in those cases where on is thought to possibly existed it occured with multiple contact at full stregth not something likely encounter by dogs after application. This is also a herbicide, weed killer not a pest control measure.

hig4s

I have the front treated by a company, but do the back where my dogs run myself and do it very seldom. Other things to consider are all the crap in most dog food that is bad for dogs. And that many if not most Milkbone products are now produced in China, who knows what crap is in that.

bubbad

Thank you for all the information, much of it I have read before and I don't believe everything I read. Even though I do not have proof, it is still hard to believe that the chemicals didn't contribute to the death of a very young otherwise healthy animal whose pedigree I was very familar with and no realitives having died from cancer. The kennel in PA who boarded dogs for me was not at all surprised that Bubba could have had cancer from the chemicals. They had several clients with fairly young dogs who were found with cancer and the only thing in common was the clients were getting their yards treated by lawn services. The Kennel had Cornell U. test products from several lawn service companies their findings confirmed that all could potentally cause cancer. The solution I use on my lawn is diluted by the 20 gal sprayer so I still consider the services far more toxic. Chemlawn is who we used and I was nieve enough to think they would be truthful when I asked them about the effect on dogs. Thank you all for your thoughts. I don't come down on myself ,what is done is done.Bubba was a one in a million show dog ,I just never ever thought I would lose him at such a young age. I thought I would have many years to show him,get his title and special him. Not once did I think his life would be so short,he was such a dear,dear dog. So if what I have left is to remind others to be aware of the chemicals being used on lawns then that is what I'll do.

gsally

I too have been concerned about chemicals. Not just lawn chemicals but chemicals we put on our pets. Frontline, states right on the lable that humans need to use care and not touch the chemical. If it's not safe for a human to touch, why is it safe to put on our pet's skin? Living in PA, I feel I have no choice but to treat my pet with Frontline but it certainly doesn't make me feel good about it!

hig4s

We use Revolution, it is a heart worm and flea/tick preventative in one. And it is not like Frontline where if you bath the dog it is washed away. Not sure if it is any safer but seems better to me.

Mikey T

I think one could also find a link to cancer an dogs that are vaccinated and dog the are fed kibble. etc Because A number of dogs with a certain disease have a common denominator does not mean it has a causual effect. This is espeicial true when one talks about "cancer" which is not a single disease but 1000's of diseases with unique causes. If a single causual source was behind an increased cancer rate one would ecpect to find and increase in a specific cancer not cancer in general. What happens is Humans tend to rember the case that fall into their preconcieved notions and forget those that do not match up. It is why anticdotal evidence is extremely unreliable.

There are very few chemical including ones we eat regularly, that are naturally occuring that when consdumed or used in excess won't cause cancer or show some mugentic effect a some type of cell. The fact there is a potential is not very informative, What is the actual Risk. When that is examined it is very low much lower than risk we takes with dogs every day. Like taking them to the vet in a car.

from Cornell Pesticides and Breast Cancer Risk: An Evaluation of 2,4-D

While often sited as a potential cause of Lymphosarcoma, the only link is a study that is quite honestly dubious at best. It is this psuedu-scientific investigation that lead to much misinformation and unfounded risk assesment.