Do cats and dogs in confined spaces with smokers eventually die of lung cancer?

December 8, 2008 6:26 PM

Holy wheezing chihuahua: Do dogs (and cats and birds) living in confined spaces with their chain smoking human owners eventually die of lung cancer?

I've always wondered about those pets who live with heavy smokers. Do they suffer the ill-effects of second hand smoke like a human trapped in the same space eventually would? Are their lives too short? Are they too close to the ground? I'm talking about a really confined space with no windows open, for example.

posted by lottie to grab bag (18 comments total)

I'm not sure about dogs and cats (though I am imagine smoke is terrible for them too), but smoke is absolutely fatal to birds. They have very delicate respiratory systems, and should be kept away from smoke, scented candles (and air fresheners of any kind), and teflon pans.
posted by theantikitty at 6:47 PM on December 8, 2008

Yes, the pets of heavy smokers can and do get COPD, lung cancer, et cetera. I've also heard (though never had it verified) that pets can even become addicted to nicotine.
posted by Electrius at 6:59 PM on December 8, 2008

My Dad, who died from COPD, had a little dog that eventually started wheezing and getting short of breath as bad as my Dad during the time that he smoked.
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 7:07 PM on December 8, 2008

I used to cut grass for a lady who had a dog. Tanya. (left the dog shit in the overgrown yard for me to run over, too.) Anyway, the lady smoked. The dog sounded like propoganda for the American Lung Society. Wheezing, hacking, snorting, etc. If I recall, Tanya died at eight.
posted by notsnot at 7:20 PM on December 8, 2008

My grandma is a chain smoker and her little dog is 17 and has a smoker's bark. He's really knocking on death's door, but its more related to the fact that he's 17... I think. That doesn't answer your question, but I always think its interesting.
posted by nataliedanger at 7:40 PM on December 8, 2008

In veterinary medicine one often hears about the link between secondhand smoke and oral cancer in cats -- their rigorous grooming habits mean they are cleaning large amounts of carcinogens off of their body and collecting it in their mouths. Lung cancer is pretty rare in pets, but I'm not really sure why. I'll talk to our oncologist tomorrow.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:44 PM on December 8, 2008

Yeah. My brother's cat Monty. Nasal tumour.
posted by rdc at 9:58 PM on December 8, 2008

I'm not sure about dogs and cats (though I am imagine smoke is terrible for them too), but smoke is absolutely fatal to birds. They have very delicate respiratory systems, and should be kept away from smoke, scented candles (and air fresheners of any kind), and teflon pans.

This is, I'm afraid, a collection of urban legends that often get repeated as fact. IF you heat a teflon pan up to extreme temperatures for long periods of time (say, empty on a burner on high for 1/2 hour), and IF your bird is directly overhead with no ventilation, your bird MIGHT have a problem. But then again, so would you under the same circumstances. The rest are often repeated in internet postings and by pet store owners with no real scientific basis. They generally crop up because someone had a bird die of unexplained causes, so the owner searches for a reason for the death, and they quickly get repeated over and over again.
posted by TungstenChef at 10:05 PM on December 8, 2008

Lung cancer is pretty rare in pets, but I'm not really sure why.

Yeah, it's pretty rare among humans, too.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:54 AM on December 9, 2008

The link posted by Civil_Disobedient 'Yeah, it's pretty rare among humans, too' has widely been discredited. It is the typical Tobacco Industry funded FUD that they have been pushing out for over 60 years now.
posted by lamby at 4:03 AM on December 9, 2008

Appears to be some anecdotal evidence, and weak epidemiological evidence for the phenomenon (emphasis mine):

BMJ (British Medical Journal) (1994) Vol. 309: 960 (8 October)

Pets and passive smoking

EDITOR, - The risks of passive smoking are becoming increasingly well recognised,1,2 but attention has been focused almost exclusively on the risk to humans. I recently saw a patient who had smoked over 40 cigarettes a day until she developed bronchial carcinoma. Two of her pet dogs had died of lung cancer (one after undergoing pneumonectomy and intensive chemotherapy), and her cat had suffered from chronic wheezing that resolved when the patient discontinued smoking. Some of my colleagues can provide similar anecdotes.

Household exposure to environmental tobacco smoke seems to be associated with an increased risk of lung cancer in pet dogs, particularly those with short and medium length noses.3 Unfortunately, most cigarette smokers are probably unaware that their habit may seriously affect their pets' health. Given that awareness of the risks of passive smoking to humans can undoubtedly change smokers' behaviour 4 and that people often seem to be more sympathetic to the plight of animals than they are to that of humans, does this not suggest a powerful weapon with which to assail smokers who own pets?


American Journal of Epidemiology (1992) Vol. 135, No. 3: 234-239

Passive Smoking and Canine Lung Cancer Risk
John S. Reif, Kari Dunn, Gregory K. Ogilvie and Cheryl K. Harris

A case-control study was conducted to determine whether household exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer in pet dogs. Lung cancer cases and controls with other forms of cancer were obtained from two veterinary teaching hospitals during 1985–1987. Exposures assessed included the number of smokers in the household, the amount smoked, and the proportion of time spent indoors by the pet. A weak relation was found for exposure to a smoker in the home (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.7–3.7), after controlling for confounding in stratified analyses. Strong evidence for a further increase in risk associated with more than one smoker in the home was not found, nor was a significant trend observed for increasing number of packs of cigarettes smoked per day or an exposure index based on number of smokers in each household, packs smoked per day, and the proportion of time the dog spent within the home. However, skull shape appeared to exert effect modification; the risk was restricted to breeds with short and medium length noses (odds ratio = 2.4,95% confidence interval 0.7–7.8). Despite the inconclusive findings of the current study, epidemiologic studies in pet animals may add to our understanding of environmental tobacco smoke effects in human populations.
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:51 AM on December 9, 2008

With the full understanding that anecdotes are not data: My chain-smoking aunt's dog died at the age of about 10 from lung cancer.
posted by ROTFL at 5:00 AM on December 9, 2008

It seems odd that pets would get cancer that much faster than humans. Lots of humans smoke like chimneys for decades before lung cancer is a factor. It seems to me that dogs don't really live long enough to be statistically at the same risk for lung cancer. Unless somehow they develop diseases at a faster 'dog years' rate?
posted by ian1977 at 5:48 AM on December 9, 2008

This is, I'm afraid, a collection of urban legends that often get repeated as fact.

Actually, I did verify this with more than one vet. It's true that normal use of the pan will probably not affect the bird, but it takes far less time that you indicate for (especially a pan with a newer coating) to overheat over a high flame and produce some type of fumes. It's not a risk that I'm willing to take personally.
posted by theantikitty at 8:54 AM on December 9, 2008

The rest are often repeated in internet postings and by pet store owners with no real scientific basis.

from the ewg
and from the horses mouth
posted by ljesse at 10:52 AM on December 9, 2008

The rest are often repeated in internet postings and by pet store owners with no real scientific basis.

from the ewg
and from the horses mouth

I think you misread my post. What I was saying was that teflon pans are a problem for birds if they're scorched close to the bird without adequate ventilation. Normal use won't scorch a teflon pan, you have to leave it on the stove empty, with the stove on high for a significant period of time before significant toxic fumes will outgas. In that situation, you'd have a problem too because your lungs would be damaged by the fumes. You shouldn't have a bird in the kitchen while cooking in general because of the possibility of dropping sharp objects, or of them having grown back enough feathers to fly into something hot.

The comment you quoted was in reference to the other supposed dangers to birds. I often see those and othes repeated uncritically in internet forums and on pet shop bulletin boards. I think bird owners are more susceptible to health scares like these because of how birds tend to cover up any malady, and sometimes keel over dead without showing any symptoms that they were ill beforehand. The owners will try to find something to blame for their pet's death and their suspicions are quickly repeated as fact just like any other urban legend.
posted by TungstenChef at 12:47 PM on December 9, 2008

but it takes far less time that you indicate for (especially a pan with a newer coating) to overheat over a high flame and produce some type of fumes. It's not a risk that I'm willing to take personally.

Yes, you're right, I was being a bit hyperbolic in saying 1/2 hr. I don't take the risk with my pet birds either, but I kick them out of the kitchen when I'm cooking because of other, more immediate dangers like dropped knives or a hot oven.
posted by TungstenChef at 12:49 PM on December 9, 2008

I'll talk to our oncologist tomorrow.

Finally did get around to chatting with the cancer doc about this. Basically, he says that there is a definite connection between mouth and nasal cancers in dogs and cats and secondhand smoke. The connection to lung cancer is more anecdotal at this point, but he notes that large scale veterinary studies on the effect of secondhand smoke on pets just have not been done yet. He hopes that someday soon one of the mega-chains like Banfield or VCA will open up their records to a researcher who can confirm what he and other veterinary oncologists have been thinking for some time.
posted by Rock Steady at 7:35 AM on December 17, 2008