Immediate symptoms and they think contact with a stray dog may have something to do with it? Not unless he was in contact with some kind of irritating chemical. Of course I'm sure emergency room personnel and officials are aware of that, if not the person who wrote the story. Where do you get these writers?
One person's (or family's) contact with an animal would not likely be an airborne irritant to another person in a different enviornment...unless they shaved the dog and were wearing it's fur...
well the fur isn't the allergen usually, it is the dander...so shaving the dog wouldn't help either, nor would wearing its fur...wonder if the dog came from a contaminated environment (meth lab or something) which could cause those symptoms not only for the people in the house, but for second and third level exposures. Who knows, the article was so vague it almost begs for us all to start guessing and assuming! lol another journalistic gem, thanks msnbc
Another fine example of the death of journalism. How about telling us WHY they think the dog may be the problem or even what they think the problem IS? Gee, I guess that would have required asking questions and looking for answers, something the so-called journalists of today simply don't bother with.
No wombats were harmed in the making of this story.
Immediate symptoms and they think contact with a stray dog may have something to do with it? Not unless he was in contact with some kind of irritating chemical. Of course I'm sure emergency room personnel and officials are aware of that, if not the person who wrote the story. Where do you get these writers?
My thoughts exactly, Nathalie.
did they eat the dog?
Maybe it was a chupacabra.
Actually, if my dog got "involved" with a skunk, I think I would have exactly the same symptoms. Just sayin'.
"which included headache, shortness of breath, throat irritation and a burning sensation. All nine people were decontaminated and have improved."
a skunk seriously? dont you think they would smelled it?
My thoughts as well, Nathalie...
One person's (or family's) contact with an animal would not likely be an airborne irritant to another person in a different enviornment...unless they shaved the dog and were wearing it's fur...
well the fur isn't the allergen usually, it is the dander...so shaving the dog wouldn't help either, nor would wearing its fur...wonder if the dog came from a contaminated environment (meth lab or something) which could cause those symptoms not only for the people in the house, but for second and third level exposures. Who knows, the article was so vague it almost begs for us all to start guessing and assuming! lol another journalistic gem, thanks msnbc
Well, that was vague and uninformative.
Another fine example of the death of journalism. How about telling us WHY they think the dog may be the problem or even what they think the problem IS? Gee, I guess that would have required asking questions and looking for answers, something the so-called journalists of today simply don't bother with.
If the family came in with an illness and the staff came down with it, thank goodness the "illness" wasn't pregnancy.
Mold Exposure.
Has anyone tested their well water?
yes, the hospitals well water may be contaminated.........ahem
more details in the local news