This came up in a conversation and I realized with all the endless messages about the danger of second-hand smoke, I’ve never once heard of a pet with lung cancer. I’m sure it happens, but googling feline lymphoma I learn that it’s commonly linked to leukemia, not owner’s smoking. The only cites I can find linking lung cancer in housepets to secondhand smoke seem inconclusive, giving equal weight to household cleaners, smoke and flea treatments as risk factors.
Stands to reason that indoor cats have less opportunity for fresh air, smaller lung capacity, can pick up particulates in their food and water and would be more at risk than children even, but if that’s so, why isn’t it being hyped?
Someone asked almost this exact question a couple weeks ago. The only response to it was mine, which I’ll repeat here.
My suspicion is that it’s simply lifespan – lung cancer takes longer to develop in humans than most cats or dogs would live, especially from a secondary source rather than a primary one (assuming no one’s taught their pet to smoke).
Now certainly other diseases develop in animals at a younger age than humans, but lung cancer seems like one of those “long-term exposure” type illnesses that wouldn’t occur in a short time unless you were performing laboratory-level exposure experiments.
That makes sense, thanks!
Yep. While lung cancer does occur in pets, it is typically metastatic in nature, for instance from a primary mammary tumor.