home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!rutgers!uwvax!zazen!psl.wisc.edu!gorski
- From: gorski@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Tom Gorski)
- Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
- Subject: Re: dog myths (was Tea-totalling dog!)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec28.143922.20685@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>
- Date: 28 Dec 92 14:39:22 GMT
- References: <1992Dec22.204708.104178@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> <22971@drutx.ATT.COM> <1992Dec28.001045.6997@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Dec28.001045.6997@midway.uchicago.edu> betsy@rainbow.uchicago.edu (Betsy Weatherhead) writes:
- >> It is a myth that dogs have less germs than humans. (I learned that while
- >> working for a vet).
- >
- >I'm not so sure this is a myth. The vet I worked for believed that dogs'
- >mouths were fairly sanitary. It's true that their licking of problem spots
- >can cause more harm than good, but generally not because of increased
- >infection. My other personal experience on this subject comes from working
- >in an (human) emergency room. A human bite was considered massively more
- >dangerous than a dog bite. Procedures for cleaning, antibiotics, and
- >follow-up care differed drastically. The emergency room was in a teaching
- >hospital, where doctors came to do a residency in emergency care, so I'm
- >only assuming that their decision to treat human bites from dog bites was
- >well founded.
-
- More likely, from a human point of view, the dog's mouth has fewer bugs
- in it that could live in and infect us than does the fellow humans's--not
- necessarily fewer bugs overall. By the same token, dogs might consider a
- "people bite" to be less serious than the bite of another dog. All depending
- on the dogs...and the people, of course. :)
-
-
- >--
- > O betsy@rainbow.uchicago.edu
- >_ __ \
- > \ / \ -- > O E. C. Weatherhead
- > \ __ / \ __ / / 5734 S. Ellis Chicago, 60637
-
- --Tom Gorski
-