[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

 

[Mikey T]

I have had two dogs develop cancer from what I beleive was caused by chemicals a lawn service was treating our yard with,

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,

my first basset hound got an auto-immune disease from that even though we tried to be careful

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

the chemicals may not have been responsible for Grace's cancer BUT even the Vets agreed it was possible

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

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

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

Special Remarks on Toxicity to Animals: Highly toxic to aquatic organisms
Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans:
May affect genetic material based on tests with microorganisms and animals.
May cause cancer (tumorigenic) based on animal data.

...
Inhalation: Repeated exposure to low concentrations may cause bronchitis with cough, phlegm, and/or shortness
of breath. May also cause liver and kidney damage, and affect the brain, and blood.

Eye: May cause corneal damage and the development of cataracts and glaucoma.

Skin: Repeated skin contact to low concentrations may cause dryness, itching, and redness (dermatitis)

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

Lymphosarcoma occurs in middle-aged to older dogs. Breeds of dogs that are at a higher than average risk of developing this disease include Rottweilers, Scottish terriers, Golden retrievers, Basset hounds, and German shepherds. Males and females are affected equally. In dogs, there may be a genetic basis for this disease and, in certain breeds, some families several closely related animals have been affected. An association between development of lymphosarcoma and exposure to the herbicide 2,3-D may exist.

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]

Mikey T and lawn services

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]

Me too!

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]

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!

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]

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.

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.

The Kennel had Cornell U. test products from several lawn service companies their findings confirmed that all could potentally cause cancer

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

In a highly debated study, a small increase in the incidence of a type of blood cancer called canine lymphoma was observed in pet dogs of owners whose lawns were frequently treated with 2,4-D. This increase was seen only in the dogs that were allowed access to areas that had been treated with 2,4-D. However, this study relied on homeowners to remember the pesticides that they had used years ago, and was criticized for the lack of information on the actual exposure of the dogs to 2,4-D and other lawn chemicals.

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.

 

[Mikey T]

And it is not like Frontline where if you bath the dog it is washed away

Revolution has a two hour drying period and frontline 24 hours after which a dog may swim or bath without effecting efficacy not a significant difference and hardly a reason suspect that Frontline is washed away by bathing.

 

[bubbad]

Mikey

It is what it is Mikey. I would also be concerned about children playing on treated lawns as well as pets. All the scentific jargon in the world is nonsense it cannot proove the cancer was not caused by the chemicals just as I cannot proove that the chemicals did cause it and that is the way it ends. I'm not going to be able to change your thinking about this and obviously you can't change mine. You think I didn't weigh the possibilties but I did and I kept coming back to the same conclusion and even though the possibilities could be slim to none it is enough for me to continue to warn people with pets to not use chemicals on their yards.

 

[Mikey T]

You think I didn't weigh the possibilties

Never said that only that your risk assesment has some serious logical flaws. Nothing is perfectly safe, But in general the risk of harm from parisites is much greater than the minimal risk from lawn chemical, To avoid controling parisites with chemicals is well not logical

to warn people with pets to not use chemicals on their yards.

Except that is not what you have done. You warn people not to use a professional lawn service, but admit to using lawn chemical and describe specifical a homemade recipe so clearly it is not lawn chemicals that are at issue. Also the Homemade formula contains at least one chemical that is potential more harmful than most pesticides used on lawns. All natural, homemade, etc are often more toxic than the "evil" commericial preperation that must undergo a much more rigoris review before being allowed in the market place.

I am not say one should not try and minimize their use etc only that knee jerk reaction is not helpful nor is a blanket statement that all lawn chemicasl are bad, Is applying lime to the lawn harmful to dogs? fertilizer? they are lawn chemicals. Things like application method, application rate, amount of expoure time to the chemical etc all play a signifcate factor and can not be over looked. The evalutation of any must be made on a case by case basis by taking a look at the risks and benefits of it use as well as any alternatives.

. All the scentific jargon in the world is nonsense it cannot proove the cancer was not caused by the chemicals just as I cannot proove that the chemicals did cause it and that is the way it ends.

If we were to eliminate ever possible threat to a dog it would not live very long because it would not be able to eat, breath or drink. When it comes to risk it not a simple black and white issue there are nuances that are very significant. Many potentially harmful things are benefital at lower rates, or have a signifacant impact at reducing a much higher risk. Blanket statements like lawn chemical are harmful and should never be used is hyperbol that adds no substantive information. If instead you said I believe "XYZ chemical" was a signifacant contributing factor to my dogs cancer and here's why and lay out the case against a specific chemical and the risk , then you are adding knoweledge that can contribute to anothers ability to make a reasonable risk assesment. A statement like "lawn chemicals are bad" does none of that. Impling that there are never instance that lawn chemical can significantly impact the risk to a particular dog in particular sitution in a highly postive manner, that is siginficant reducing health risk to the dog, is blantently false.

 

[jessallus]

If you go to your feed store and ask for something called diatmatious earth (not sure about spelling) it is a very fine crushed shell product that is not dangerous to your dogs or you. Some of the farmers around me use it in goat feed to keep them wormed and I use it on my chickens to keep mites off.

 

[hig4s]

Revolution has a two hour drying period and frontline 24 hours after which a dog may swim or bath without effecting efficacy not a significant difference and hardly a reason suspect that Frontline is washed away by bathing.

It is not the drying time, it is how they work. Frontline is stored in the oil glands under the skin and released through the hair follicles. Every time you bathe the dog it washes away oil and reduces protection, then the dogs glands release more oil, and reduce the supply faster. So the more you wash the dog the less protection they have at the end of the month.

Revolution is absorbed into the blood stream, has to be or it wouldn't work on heartworms, and slowly diminishes over the month,, like Frontline, but is not affected by baths. If your dog is mostly indoors or only gets dirty at the end of the month, Frontline is fine.

 

[vb3]

I don't say any of this to throw fuel on the fire but Mikey is definitely right about the causes and effects of cancer. It is basically unregulated cell growth and division - the proteins that shut down cell growth get screwed up. There are literally hundreds of thousands of different ways that those pathways can get messed up.
Unfortunately we don't know enough about it to say with any certainty what does and does not cause cancer in humans, let alone dogs.

A lot of carcinogenic compounds are found in human diets. I'm diabetic and drink a lot of diet coke, it contains phenylalinine, which has been shown to be carcinogenic in lab animals. Why would that still be sold to humans for consumption if it causes cancer? Because the dosage that caused cancer in those animals was astronomical - I would need to drink cases of it every day for 30 years to get an equivalent dosage myself.

I don't know anything about lawn chemicals and their effects on dogs - there may well be a certain genetic predisposition to one or more chemicals that was on the lawn that may have led to cancer in your dogs. I'm sorry you lost them, I would be pretty heartbroken to lose my pups at such a young age.

 

[Mikey T]

If you go to your feed store and ask for something called diatmatious earth (not sure about spelling) it is a very fine crushed shell product that is not dangerous to your dogs or you

Just one caveate not all DE (diatmatious earth) are the same, the stuff for pool filter etc is quite hazardous if inhaled or swallowed.

 

[Mikey T]

Revolution is absorbed into the blood stream, has to be or it wouldn't work on heartworms

To be effect on fleas it must remain on the skin not in the blood. Yes a small amount is absorbed but one must understand that monthly heartworm medication does not offer protect from heartworm all month long but simply kills the parasite every mouth when given before they can do any harm.

From Evidence Based Vet Forum

In dogs, the maximum plasma concentration occurs 3 days after administration and the half life of the product is about 11 days. In cats, the maximum plasma concentration occurs in less than a day after application, and the product's half life is about 8 days. Much more of the product becomes bioavailable in cats than in dogs. After administration, the product is distributed to the sebaceous glands where it is readily available to interact with fleas, ticks, and mites.

from the revolution web site

. Revolutions’ presence in the sebaceous glands and in the skin is the reservoir of drug that provides protection against fleas, flea eggs and mites.[/url]

This is the exact same mechanism that frontline use to protect against feas and ticks ,

from the Frontline UK web site

Re-treatment every 5 weeks is recommended if you shampoo your dog weekly. For more details, refer to the “further information” section of the package insert.

 

[BubbaLeroy]

We lost our Bubba to Lymphoma Cancer in Dec. 2005 at the age of 7. We had been using Chemlawn to treat our yard and questioned our vet about the chemicals possibly causing the Cancer. She told us many of the things that Mikey has stated, but her last words were that: "She did not and would never use chemicals on her yard. There was always a CHANCE!!!"
We deleated the yard service!!! and enjoyed our weeds.

 

[hig4s]

from the revolution web site

. Revolutions’ presence in the sebaceous glands and in the skin is the reservoir of drug that provides protection against fleas, flea eggs and mites.[/url]

This is the exact same mechanism that frontline use to protect against feas and ticks ,

Hmmm, I don't see that on the Revolution web site.. what I see is this..

"Revolution enters the bloodstream through the skin. Concentrations of Revolution in the blood and tissues prevent heartworm disease. Revolution selectively redistributes from the blood to the skin, where it provides protection against fleas, flea eggs, American dog tick, and mites."

I guess this wording is a little ambiguous so I assume you are correct.

I was told by a Vet it was OK to bathe dog regularly with Revolution but not Frontline. But it won't be the last time a Vet is wrong.