on Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:36:48 GMT, Julia Altshuler
wrote:

Here's what I don't understand: Why aren't more dogs and cats sick?
I know that sounds horribly callous so let me explain myself before
everyone jumps down my throat. The recall was/is huge. The number of
pets exposed to possibly tainted pet food has to be huge. Yet I'm
hearing very relatively few reports of sick or dying pets. Believe
me, I think that's a good thing, but it doesn't make sense. When you
look at the numbers, it seems like there should be more. In my
neighborhood, all the dogs and cats are fine. You have reports of
veterinarians working overtime testing animals, but they're all fine.
It doesn't seem possible that the food isn't really tainted since some
animals have died from poisoning. What explains the fact that so many
exposed animals haven't gotten sick?

We don't know how many animals have gotten sick or died yet. I've heard
that in some areas vets have seen a dramatic rise in acute kidney
failure over the past 2+ months, so maybe the tainted foods were
distributed to some areas and not others?

(How was your trip, and would you email me privately your notes on
airport recordings?)

I already posted it in the original thread.

--
Lynne