Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2007-5519
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: 182458
Nom du titulaire (nom légal complet, aucune abbréviation): S.C. Johnson and Son, Limited
Adresse: 1 Webster Street
Ville: Brantford
État: ON
Pays: Canada
Code postal /Zip: N3T 5R1
Incident chez un animal domestique
Pays: UNITED STATES
État: ARIZONA
Inconnu
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. 4822-473
Nom du produit: Raid Ant Killer 16 -17.5 oz
Autre (préciser)
AerosolOui
Inconnu
Site: Res. - Out Home / Rés - à l'ext.maison
Propriétaire de l'animal
Dog / Chien
Labrador Retriever
1
Femme
6
70
lbs
Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
Système
Persisted until death
Oui
Oui
3
Day(s) / Jour(s)
Not recovered / Non rétabli
Other / Autre
préciser Clearly defined point of exposure or direct contact with pesticide or pesticide treated surface is not evident and based on speculation.
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
5/2/2007 Caller's husband was using the product outside the house on an ant hill and on the patio 2 days ago. The dog was outside when he was spraying. The dog may have licked the patio but no exposure was witnessed. Yesterday, the dog had stopped eating and drinking. Dog is drinking some today but still not eating. 5/24/2007 Follow-up with owner. Dog was diagnosed with renal failure by the DVM and eventually died after three days of hospitalization. The DVM determined that the dog¿¿¿s illness was not related to the pesticide.
Mort
The information contained in this report is based on self-reported statements provided to the registrant during telephone Interview(s). These self-reported descriptions of an incident have not been independently verified to be factually correct or complete descriptions of the incident. For that reason, information contained in this report does not and can not form the basis for a determination of whether the reported clinical effects are causally related to exposure to the product identified in the telephone interviews.Clearly defined point of exposure or direct contact with pesticide or pesticide treated surface is not evident. Even had casual contact with treated surface occurred, such a profound illness would not be expected. Treating veterinarian had also ruled out involvement of this pesticide.