The discussion revolves around the deaths of three dogs after drinking water from Kent Lake, with participants exploring the potential causes, particularly focusing on the role of blue-green algae and associated toxins. The conversation includes speculation about the timing of the dogs' deaths, the reliability of water testing, and previous incidents related to similar algae contamination.
Participants express a range of views regarding the cause of the dogs' deaths, with some agreeing on the potential role of blue-green algae while others remain uncertain about the implications of the findings. The discussion reflects multiple competing hypotheses and does not reach a consensus.
Limitations include the lack of detailed information from veterinary and water reports, as well as uncertainty regarding the dogs' activities prior to their deaths. The discussion also highlights the challenges in testing for all possible contaminants in drinking water.
lavoisier said:
Cyanobacteria is poisonous to dogs, but if there was toxic bacteria in the water, wouldn't the dogs have had symptoms first? The article just says that they "died shortly after" being in the water.256bits said:
I wish the article stated some more details on the dogs' death.jim mcnamara said:
Anabaena is beautiful!jim mcnamara said:
If you're talking about bacteria, of course, with DNA tests.lavoisier said:
Well, it's not exactly "cheap" (depends on your standards), but the technology has been out there for quite some time and DNA testing can be done quite efficiently. If contaminated water becomes a serious problem, as suggested in the references you linked to, then there is no reason why they shouldn't test the water. It's really just a matter of whether it is necessary or not.lavoisier said:
If you are in the UK then your drinking water is tested regularly, with all the results being recorded and collated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which also has advice for consumers on its website.lavoisier said:
Hypothesis confirmedLaroxe said:
