Hey, Bob, have to disagree with you, m'friend.
 
By simple dint that there has been at least one report here of just
such injuries to fine nasal structures, there are two possibilities:
1. That the injury was of other more serious but unknown cause,
2. That nasal blows were indeed responsible.
 
If the second then there are two possibilities I can see:
1. That blow worse than person thought,
2. That for some reason the nasal structures were more prone to injury
   than your explanation would allow.
 
If the second then there multiple possibilities:
1. The individual variation in bone density,
2. That there was vulnerability due to stage of development or age,
3. That something was reducing bone density or increasing brittleness.
 
If the third then there are again multiple possibilities:
1. That there was some cause of reduction in bone density or increase
   in brittleness other than osteoporosis,
2. That there was osteoporosis.
 
This leaves the question if osteoporosis (or some other calcium-leeching
imbalance or a brittleness-increasing disorder) would enough affect
structures which are not weight bearing to create a vulnerability in
ferrets.  You've got me -- no idea.  On the other hand, I DO recall that
you HAVE found indications of osteoporosis in pet ferrets in comparison
to wild mustelids and they were serious enough for you to have reported
upon same.  If in ferrets (or even in some individuals among ferrets since
there will be genetic variation) the same causes of osteoporosis that you
have noted in weight bearing long bones (if the bones you tested are being
correctly recalled, and if I am remembering correctly that you tested) have
a bearing upon delicate structures such as the turbinates then you have
right there a possible reason just why there has been at least one case
reported here of exactly such damage to just such structures from nasal
blows.  (Also note differences in direction of forces between nasal blows
and muzzle bites.)
 
What remains is simply that it HAS been reported so a person has to
seriously take into account that such damage could very well be possible
(adjusting behavior accordingly since we all learn all the time), although
the cause (perhaps a continuation of the same osteoporosis you have
described?) remains merely postulation.
 
RSPCA: took a week or so to get my ACTUAL reply.  Maybe the points you
tackled will be answered next week given that working time frame.  I also
at first got the auto-responce, then waited... Sorry to hear it stinks in
at least some places; we have a lot of variability here.
 
ADV: personally think it makes sense to err on the side of health cautions
rather than of ribbons and that all should be careful.  Bill K. is right
about it getting early attention here and in preceding formats; that was
due to James Fox's reports way, way back when... Hey, we put good money
into the AFA, and we KNOW that the AFR has been regularly PRAISED.  Think
that all, and especially members like us, SHOULD be able to disagree when
it seems appropriate.  That is what represented people do and should do.
Those who represent then have a responsibility to listen and consider.
[Posted in FML issue 3063]