Bird Owners->Increased Risk Cancer
Elizabeth Shirney Lane
: Having read an article a while ago and since then researched the topic
: for my own interest, I have found that bird owners opposed to non-bird
: owners have an increase chance/risk of lung cancer due to the dust from
: birds skin and feathers.
: Nevertheless, I would never get rid of my bird pets for the small chance
: of getting lung cance. I mean heck, if you go to a smoking place (be it a
: bar, bingo night, whatever) you probably have a better chance of getting
: lung cancer from the second-hand smoke there.
: ***********************************************************************
: * Ken Hoekstra (veterinary technician) B.Sc hoek...@unixg.ubc.ca *
: * University of British Columbia Ken.Ho...@deepcove.com*
: ***********************************************************************
I'm a bird owner studying to be a doctor. I have had birds ever since I
was a child. Now, I have developed allergies and asthma to my YNA. I
would never think of leaving her. Could you list some of the article titles
(so I can look them up in our medical library). Thanks Ken.
Liz
Storm
The "research" that get's everybodys feathers in a wad was
flawed... It was composed ENTIRELY of smokers! Here is how
these bozo's think. A good percentage of these SMOKERS owned
birds! Therefore, ITS THE BIRDS CAUSING THE LUNG CANCER! How
they figure that makes you pre-disposed to cancer, I'll never
understand...
"Have you ever had this before?"
"Yes"
"Well you've got it again..."
--
"Conform, or be cast out..."
Ken Hoekstra
Meliva
he requested copies of the study and related followups. These studies
were anecdotal surveys conducted in an area in Europe noted for it's
industrial pollution. The sample was small and the study contradicted
itself by showing that individuals owning birds more than 10 years had a
decreased cancer risk.
These studies came out about 1.5 years ago and there was an excellent
article written about them in Bird Talk magazine critiqueing the methods.
Unfortunately for the avian community, the headlines were the results of
this flawed study not the flaws in the study. We really need to begin
demanding a higher standards of research in this field.
KT Lyons
Alison Evans
I am both a bird owner and a cancer epidemiologist, i.e. one of those
"bozos" who does studies about causes of cancer in human populations.
While I am as reluctant as any other reader if this newsgroup to jump to
the conclusion that my beloved pets cause lung cancer, in my professional
opinion the studies that *suggest* this connection should not be dismissed
so lightly.
In particular, it is certainly not true that the studies (yes, there are
multiple studies) on this subject have used only smokers as subjects. I
also think that it is unfair to call the studies "flawed". The studies
were done about as well as it is possible to do such studies, and the
authors have been very careful not to go too far in the interpretation of
their results. There will be future studies that will be done better, and
we are a long way for getting the definitive answer. It has taken me many
years of training and experience to be qualified to assess the quality and
potential flaws in epidemiologic studies, and I would be happy to go into
the nitty-gritty details of the published studies and their strengths and
weaknesses with anyone from this group who is interested.
I think it serves the interest of the bird-owning and bird-loving
community to deal responsibly with this information, i.e. not to overreact
but not to ignore it either. No responsible scientist that I know of
considers these studies to be conclusive, but we would also be shirking our
scientific responsibility to inform the public about potential health
hazards if the studies were not publicized.
At the present time, there have been at least three studies of this
relationship. All of them have suggested an association between bird
exposure and lung cancer *aside* from any possible relationship of lung
cancer to smoking. The species of birds most directly implicated are
pigeons and doves. No clear mechanism for how this might occur has become
apparent, but I think this reinforces what every responsible bird owner
already knows -- that it is in the best interest of our birds' and our own
health to keep cages, dishes, toys, food supplies, etc. as clean as
possible and to deal with any health problems as quickly as possible.
For those of you who have access to medical libraries, the original
references can be found in BMJ Vol 305, 1992 and there are some followup
letters in BMJ from January of 1993.
Cathy Quinones
>Could you mail that adress to me? I'd really be interested in knowing how that
>study was done and what it is in the birds' dander that causes cancer. I'm
>really skeptical but I think it's worth researching (although it would make NO
>difference as far as my
> birds are concerned except maybe and air filter in the room we all share). My
>e-mail address is doi...@delphi.com. Thanks a bucnch.
>Thea
Folks, one of the parts (3?) of the rec.birds.faq lists the references of some
papers relevant to this bird-lung cancer story. I saw the info on where
the FAQs are kept posted today. If I remember correctly (and I admit to
not having read this file lately), the FAQ even has the abstracts to the
papers.
I, too, prefer to remain a bit skeptical, but why not err on the side of
caution? We now know that 2nd hand smoke increases the chances of lung
cancer, why would our lungs "enjoy" dealing with fine particulate matter,
in the form of bird dander, dust and bird poop (yes, when it dries up it
crumbles, and when the bird flaps its wings all this good stuff gets
sent up into the air)? Like someone else said so well, everyone (people
and birds) benefit from keeping high cleaning standards, so why not go
with that? At best, we may save ourselves medical complications, at "worst",
we make our birds healthier (remember birds are highly active metabolically,
which means they breathe fast, which means if their air/environment is
not clean, their lungs suffer, too...)
--
////////// ////// // \\\ ~ //////////////////
////// /\_/\_____ \\ /// quin...@biology.ucsc.edu ///////////////
///// \"."/ \_// /// ////////////////////
//////////////// "Gravity is a harsh mistress." -The Tick ///////////
Jeff Blattman
non-smokers were taken into account. it is perfectly logical; foreign
substances going into our lungs cause us to have a greater risk of lung
cancer, whether it be smoke, coal, dust, or bird dust.
this is not to say that keeping birds compares in danger with smoking or
working in a coal mine. as a i remember, the chances of getting cancer
for a bird owner compared to a smoker was something like 10 x less, and
this was for dusty birds.
if anyone wants references, just ask.
--
Jeff Blattman Academic Computing Services
n941...@cc.wwu.edu Western Washington University
Bellingham, WA 98225
DEE HOWELL
professional.
HOWEVER, I also have read about the "study" that supposedly showed that
birds owners are more likely to get cancer. I also read NUMEROUS reports
that the study was not done properly ... that there were many smokers in
the group, etc.
If you want more information, perhaps you should contact the American
Federation of Aviculture. If you need an address, I'd be happy to find
it for you.
Enjoy your bird(s)!
-
DEE HOWELL PRM...@prodigy.com
soencksen
>
>Having read an article a while ago and since then researched the topic
>for my own interest, I have found that bird owners opposed to non-bird
>owners have an increase chance/risk of lung cancer due to the dust from
>birds skin and feathers.
>
>* Ken Hoekstra (veterinary technician) B.Sc hoek...@unixg.ubc.ca *
I think there is a simple solution to this problem, although it costs some
bucks: an air cleaner/purifier. These are advertised throughout Bird Talk
and other magazines. They're good for the birds as far as removing toxins
and diseases from the bird's environment. Seems to me these things would
work equally well to the benefit of the owner by removing the potential
hazards from the air.
Keith Soencksen
soen...@arl.army.mil
Spencer Doidge
james eric graham
pet birds in several careful studies which considered smoking and
vitamin C intake as factors.
Air filtration and other dust maintainence procedures are suggested.
I see this as another plus for the "low-dust" parrots.
Jim
J. E. Graham
Biology and Chemistry Departments
Indiana University Bloomington
Dean Brady
writes:
>
>Having read an article a while ago and since then researched the topic
>for my own interest, I have found that bird owners opposed to non-bird
>owners have an increase chance/risk of lung cancer due to the dust from
>birds skin and feathers.
>
I read the same article or similar and they attributed some of this to
the birds dander. My wife and I bought a Hepfilter at a local warehouse
store for under $100 and found that it dramatically reduce the floating
bird debris. That with 3 tiels and a B&G.
Laura Campbell
: i have read several studies which confirm this fact. and, smokers and
: substances going into our lungs cause us to have a greater risk of lung
: cancer, whether it be smoke, coal, dust, or bird dust.
: this is not to say that keeping birds compares in danger with smoking or
: working in a coal mine. as a i remember, the chances of getting cancer
: for a bird owner compared to a smoker was something like 10 x less, and
: this was for dusty birds.
: if anyone wants references, just ask.
Ok, how does bird dander, etc., compare with dog and cat dander?
Laura
--
*********************************************************************
The sole purpose of this message is the sole purpose of this message.
leca...@ucdavis.edu
james eric graham
This is what is know as a specious argument (seems logical, but is
really a fallacy).
Even though there may be more severe health hazards associated with other
pets, this does not make the problem in question any less important.
Emily Breed
james eric graham <jgr...@mango.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
[the attribution got snipped, but leca...@ucdavis.edu wrote:]
>> Ok, how does bird dander, etc., compare with dog and cat dander?
>
>This is what is know as a specious argument (seems logical, but is
>really a fallacy).
>
>Even though there may be more severe health hazards associated with other
>pets, this does not make the problem in question any less important.
It didn't sound like a specious argument to me; it sounded like a serious
request for information. If we know the relative hazards of the choices
we make, we're better equipped to make intelligent choices. Some may
choose to keep their birds, but not have any other pets. Some may decide
that they can live without a bird, but not without a cat. And some may
decide that the benefits of having these animals around outweigh the
possible drawbacks.
-- Emily
Laura Campbell
: > Ok, how does bird dander, etc., compare with dog and cat dander?
: This is what is know as a specious argument (seems logical, but is
: really a fallacy).
: Even though there may be more severe health hazards associated with other
: pets, this does not make the problem in question any less important.
I don't think that this is in any way a specious argument. It's
perfectly logical to me to want to know how bird dander ranks with dog
and cat dander.
1. People make pet choices. People with allergies may need to know more
about available pet choices than people without allergies. "Pet" dander
is a common allergen.
2. I breed and sell cockatiels. I am very up-front about talking about
cockatiel dander. I feel people should know as much about their
potential pet(s) as possible, including the possible "allergic" effects
of different animals.
3. *I* want to be as informed as possible about pets and their impact on
their owners.
I realise that the categories "dog", "cat", and "bird" don't constitute
dander-constant groupings. For the purposes of #2 above, the relative
levels of reaction are sufficient. Then I can talk about different birds
and give guidelines for prospective pet owners to research further on
their own about the other categories.
Laura
james eric graham
I've never heard any hint of a suggestion of an cancer risk associated
with dog or cat ownership by the way.
Jim
J. E. Graham