November 14, 2016

The Diversionary Tactic

One sector seek clean air and the other profit at the expense of many.
Incidentally, this is Palm Springs California during my 12,000 mile road trip.
The fight to breathe, the metallic taste in the mouth, and the stinging
tongue.   Numbness in the upper-respiratory tract,  the dry heaving
episode, and the headache that leaves cheekbones and temples feel-
ing bruised.  It involves a world that has also included hepatic injury,
(liver cell death/necrosis), dermatitis, urticaria, hematotoxicity (the
killing or damaging or red blood cells), and anaphylaxis.  Technical-
ly this condition is regarded as Chemical & Irritant Sensitivities.

The Razor Blades of  Defamation


Mainstream medical science has already established that chemicals,
at nontoxic levels, aren't universally harmless.  Numerous chemicals
have been identified as sensitizers, while other ones were already cat-
egorized as irritants.  Chemical Sensitivity has already been defined in
case-specific and body-system-specific form.  Irritant-induced Asthma
and its subset condition, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, is
one form, while Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis is another form.
Chemical sensitivity is already a well-established component in main-
stream medical science, and so too is the irritant-induced reaction.
However ...

Throughout the past fifteen years, literature has been posted online that
can easily deceive a novice into assuming that no chemical of any kind,
whenever encountered at a nontoxic level, could ever trigger an adverse
reaction in anyone.  The literature accentuated the Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity debate, while simultaneously declining to acknowledge the
existence of the several case-specific forms of chemical sensitivity, such
as Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, Irritant-induced Asthma,
and Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents which
had already been identified and defined.

Each piece of  propaganda asserted that Multiple Chemical sensitivity is
merely a matter of mental illness.  As a result, persons not familiarized
with Occupational and Environmental Medicine were clueless that suf-
ficient medical findings in a number of chemically sensitive patients were
identified, along with the numerous chemicals that triggered the adverse
reactions.

The Corporate Claim of  Universal Harmlessness
  Contradicted by the Findings of  Medical Science


It had even gotten to the point where insecticide providers boldly pro-
claimed that their product lines were entirely harmless, provided that
they were used according to regulatory guidelines.  This proclamation
was accompanied by the claim that all persons suffering from Multiple
Chemical Sensitivity were merely mentally ill.  However, mainstream
medical science had already established that nontoxic exposure to the
carbamate/organophosphate class of pesticide can cause a build-up of
acetylcholine in one's lungs and cause asthma to develop.

Perfumes Have Been Identified as Triggers of Asthma


The propaganda against the chemically sensitive was relentless.  In
fact, the non-chemically sensitive got caught in the crossfire in 1996,
when the perfume intolerant were called "fragrance phobic fruitcakes."

Now, perfumes contain potent non-chemical ingredients as much as
they contain sensitizing chemicals.  Therefore, Fragrance Intolerance
includes hyperreactivity to non-chemical ingredients as much as it in-
volves hypersensitivity to chemical-bearing agents.  This means that,
in 1996, even persons who were not chemically sensitive were placed
under attack.

Never mentioned in the 1996 character assassination was the 1995
publication detailing a research undertaking which confirmed that
perfume strips found in magazines are asthma triggers.   [Ann Aller-
gy Asthma Immunol., 1995 Nov;75 (5):429-33 ].

In the years to follow, perfumes would come to be acknowledged as
asthma triggers by the American Medical Association, the American
Academy of  Allergy Asthma & Immunology, the American Lung As-
sociation, and the National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Then, in 2001, a published medical report placed perfume among the
triggers of  anaphylaxis.  Yet, no apologies were ever made to the per-
fume intolerant by the propagandist who defamed them. 

            Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals
http://www.lungusa.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html

            Understanding Asthma - American Lung Association
http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/about-asthma/understanding-asthma.html 

            Chemical Asthma Triggers and Irritants
http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm 

            Asthma Triggers: Gain Control (EPA site)
http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.html 

_____________________________________________
Sensitization Is Not Limited To Chemical Exposures

The phenomenon of  sensitization is not new.  Neither is it unproven.
Nor is it limited to matters involving Chemical Sensitivity.  The recog-
nition of the medical condition known as sensitization includes:

1] metal dust exposure; Berylliosis (beryllium), etc.
2] mold exposure; Mushroom Worker's Lung, etc.
3] enzyme exposure; Detergent Worker's Lung, etc.
4] organic dust exposure; Byssinosis (cotton dust), etc.
5] chemicals & irritant gases; Irritant-induced Asthma, etc.

The Medical Doctrine of  Concomitant Sensitivity


Concomitant Sensitivity is also known as Cross-sensitization, and it
means that, if you're hypersensitive to one chemical compound, then
you are hypersensitive to all other chemical compounds with similar
characteristics.  An example of  Concomitant Sensitivity exists within
the family of  the acetylated salicylates.  To be adversely reactive to
one of  them is to be adversely reactive to all of  them.

The Undeniable Proof of Mainstream Medicine's Recognition
of Chemical Allergies ... The RAST Test Order Form

You can be tested for IgE-mediated chemical allergies via the RAST
TEST.  The specific chemicals for which a person can be tested are lo-
cated in the Occupational Panel, when filling out the allergy test order
forms.   Case closed.   Mainstream medicine has recognized chemical
allergies for decades.  It's simply that deceptive propaganda, including
that of the unconscionable John Stossel, made society unaware of this.

High Production Volume Chemicals
  and their Ubiquitous Presence in Modern Life


There have been medical professionals who declined to support the re-
cognition of  MCS, but who simultaneously acknowledged that a per-
son can be severely hypersensitive to "one or a few" chemicals.  Such
an acknowledgment needs to be accompanied by a qualifying state-
ment.  That qualifying statement goes as follows:

            Persons who are hypersensitive to a few High
            Production Volume Chemicals are actually
            hypersensitive to the dozens of  commonly
            encountered products that contain those
            HPV chemicals.  Concomitant Sensitivity,
            combined with hypersensitivity to merely
            a few HPV chemicals, easily explains how
            a person can seem to be hypersensitive to
            almost everything.

The Demarcating Factor in MCS


If you're adversely reactive to dozens of chemical-bearing agents, but
have symptoms that affect only one reoccurring symptom, then you
are outside of  the MCS controversy.  This is because the demarcation
factor in MCS is not hypersensitivity to multiple chemicals.  Rather,
the demarcating factor is reactivity that adversely affects multiple
body systems.

As an example, if  bronchial hyper-responsiveness is your only chemi-
cal sensitivity reaction, then only one body system is involved, mean-
ing that there is no presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity to assess
in you.  The anti-MCS propagandists will have to find another way in
which to call you mentally ill.  That is to say, your case involves local-
ized chemical sensitivity.  It involves either Reactive Airways Dysfunc-
tion Syndrome or Irritant-induced Asthma; two similar conditions not
in controversy.

Nor does MCS have anything to do with multiple symptoms, per se.
You can have a repertoire of  reoccurring symptoms and be outside
of  the MCS controversy, if those multiple symptoms are limited to
the reactions of only one body system.  In such a case, the anti-MCS
people will have to find another way by which call  you mentally ill,
while simultaneously claiming chemicals to be virtuous and blame-
less at nontoxic levels.

The respiratory system is a body system that can host multiple symp-
toms.  Firstly, asthma can coexist with upper-respiratory ills, and the
upper-respiratory tract can be the host of  a number of  symptoms.  In
fact, within the world of  Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
it's a regular phenomenon to find asthma coexisting with Rhintis or
Rhino-sinusitis in the same one worker (or subset of  workers.)

In summary, it's neither the number of  symptoms nor the number of
chemicals that define Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.  It is the number
of body systems that engage in the hypersensitivity reactions that de-
fines it.  In the world of  Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
chemical sensitivity reactions have been documented as having had
adversely affected two body systems in the same one worker or sub-
set of  workers.  Such coexistence hints of the authentic existence of
MCS.

Formaldehyde:  A Specific Example


Formaldehyde is a suitable example to employ, in showing that hyper-
sensitivity to merely one HPV chemical constitutes hypersensitivity to
dozens of chemical-bearing agents.  Formaldehyde is a known trigger
of  asthma, rhinitis, dermatitis, and anaphylaxis.  It is released from a
number common products.  This includes those liquid soap and sham-
poo products that contain quarternium-15, diazolidinyl urea, DMDM
hydantoin, and imidazolidinyl urea.  In fact, go through the shampoo
and liquid soap section of  any store and see if you can find one pro-
duct free of  the ingredients listed above.

A detailed list of  formaldehyde-releasing agents includes:

[] urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, [] oriented strand board,
[] medium density fiberboard, [] melamine resin, [] plywood,
[] surface coatings, [] joint cement, [] paints, [] wall coverings,
[] durable press drapery, [] permanent press clothing, [] floor
wax, [] kerosene heater emissions,[] burning wood, [] cosmetics,
[] nail hardeners, [] sun screen lotion, [] tanning lotions, [] liquid
soaps, [] moisturizing lotions, [] carpet cleansers, [] liquid scouring
cleansers, [] shampoos, [] medical venues, etc.

Formaldehyde shares common characteristics with benzaldehyde and
the sterilization agent, glutaraldehyde.  Therefore, the products which
bear glutaraldehyde and benzaldehyde are to be included in the list of
formaldehyde-releasing agents.  This includes cinnamon oil, and this
means that the phenomenon of  Concomitant Sensitivity, in combina-
tion with hypersensitivity to a few High Production Volume Chemicals,
can account for the reason why some individuals seem to be hypersen-
sitive to almost everything.

Persistent Vulnerabilities,
aka Pre-existing Conditions


Then there is the matter of  chronically existent vulnerabilities, also
known as atopy.  One example is the upper-respiratory inflammation
known as boney turbinate hypertrophy.  It is a condition not known to
be able to resolve itself,as surgery has been the only treatment offered
for it, by mainstream medicine.

Cases of  chronically existent vulnerabilities can make a person hyper-
sensitive to both chemical and non-chemical odors.  Therefore, such a
person can be adversely reactive to the smell of  cleaning agents and
new vinyl products, as well as cooking odors, and musty cardboard.
Such a person might appear to be allergic to almost everything.

Immunological in Some Cases.
Nonimmunological in Other ones.


An individual can have either an immunological allergic reaction or
a non-immunological irritant reaction to chemical-bearing agents.
It depends on the person, the person's exposure history, the person's
pre-existing vulnerabilities, the chemicals themselves, and the way in
which the chemicals are encountered (by inhaling, ingestion, touch,
or ocular absorption.)

The bottom line is that chemical sensitivity has been proven to exist,
and to state otherwise is to defame the Occupational & Environment-
al Health programs who diagnose such conditions.  To do so is to de-
fame the private practitioners who treat chemical sensitivty, as well
as the patients who develop this type of condition.  Be it Reactive Air-
ways Dysfunction Syndrome, Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis,
Limonene Sensitivity, Aspirin Sensitivity, Methyltetrahydrophthalic
Anhydride Allergy, or Oil of  Turpentine Allergy, it is all a matter of
chemical sensitivity.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is not the only type of chemical sensitiv-
ity proposed to exist.  It was simply one of  the two forms used in a pro-
longed and unconscionable diversionary tactic.  Other variations of the
disease have already been validated.  Therefore, any discussion about
MCS that doesn't admit to the existence of chemical sensitivity (in its
case-specific and body-system-specific forms) invalidates itself.
___________________________________________________

November 12, 2016

A 1999 AAAAI Position Statement on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity contrasted with chemically-triggered Occupational Asthma

Stephen Barrett is co-author of "Chemical
Sensitivity:  the Truth about Environmental
Illness."  Of course, the truth is missing from
the book.  The book was an attempt to  con-
vince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is
mental illness.  This is in contradiction to
Barrett's own writings, being that he once
stated that there are legitimate cases where
repeated chemical exposure caused harm.
None the less, the campaign of Barrett and his associates lost its last ves-
tige of credibility with the 911 clean-up crew members who developed
Small Airways Disease and Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome.
Concerning this, the experts at Mt. Sinia in NYC discovered that it was
the pulverized concrete dust, with all its alkalinity, which caused those
specific respiratory diseases to develop.  Those diseases consisted in
sensitivity to a plurality of synthetic chemicals and naturally occurring
ones, as well.

In Barrett's relentless campaign which has shown itself  to have been
solely a money-making venture, he cited a 1999 position statement
issued by the American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology.
The position statement is titled Idiopathic Environmental Intolerances,
and the title refers to the claim that Environmental illness has no identi-
fiable cause.  This is deceptive, because Occupational Illness has easily
identifiable causes, namely the chemicals, molds, and irritants in one's
place of work.  Needless to say, the symptoms of Occupational Illness
are often the same as the ones involved in Environmental Illness.


In contrast to the chemical attacks of WWI, 21st Century mankind under-
goes a pernicious, execution style chemical attack, with tens of thousands
of synthetic chemicals used in commerce and industry with such prevalence
that those  chemicals reach the common household, even its drinking water.

The odd thing about the AAAAI position statement is that it admits to the
authentic existence of specific environmental illnessess.  Yet, it denies the
existence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity so much so that its author(s)
changed the name of the illness to Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance.
However, IEI did not replace MCS at Johns Hopkins, Mt. Sinai, Central
New York Occupational Clinic, Marshall University, and Cambridge
Hospital.

Perhaps Barrett Should Have Read 
the Entire Text Before Citing It

As I previously stated, the irony to Barrett's citing of the 1999 text, in
order to strengthen his anti-MCS assertion, consists in the fact that the
1999 position statement expressly recognizes the existence of "true en-
vironmentally caused diseases.

Within that same published text appears examples of such true envi-
ronmental illnesses.   The examples in the text include:

1) "hypersensitivity pneumonitis,"
2) "sick building syndome,"
3) "reactive airways dysfunction syndrome."

[The aforementioned diseases appear by name at the section nearest to
the Summary.  That section is titled,"Comparison with Other Illnesses."]

In as much:

1)  Stephen Barrett called Sick Building Syndrome "a fad diagnosis."
     The AAAAI did not do so.

2)  Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) is regarded by
     the AMA as "a subset of Irritant-induced Asthma."   It's a chemical
     sensitivity disease and a form of environmental illness.   Yet, has the
     never-board-certified Stephen Barrett and his fellow propagandists
     ever acknowledged the existence of this particular form of chemical
     and irritant sensitivity disease in their writings?

3)  Furthermore, a subset of Hypersenstivitiy Pneumonitis is Chemical 
     Worker's Lung.  Now, the Stephen Barrett who has absolutely zero 
     experience in internal medicine,  zero experience in dermatology,
     zero experience in cytopathology, zero experience in immunology,
     and zero experience as a biochemistry professional has mocked the
   "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" by name.   But has he ever acknowl-
     edged that there exists Chemical Worker's Lung ... or Occupational
     Asthma due to Low Weight Molecular Agents?

The Chemical-bearing Agents that MCS patients Avoid Are the 
Same Ones which the AMA, AAAAI, and ALA Recognize as the
Triggers of Asthma and Rhinitis

4) The 1999 position statement acknowledged the following:

       "Certain environmental irritants, including some of
         those mentioned above, are recognized as triggers
         for patients with asthma and rhinitis."

[The above-cited quote appears at the section titled, "Clinical
 Description of IEI."]

The environmental irritants mentioned in the same section of the
AAAAI's 1999 position statement are:

   - "perfumes and scented products, pesticides, domestic and
      industrial solvents, new carpets, car exhaust, gasoline, 
      diesel fumes, urban air pollution, cigarette smoke, plas-
      tics, and formaldehyde."

   - "certain foods, food additives, and drugs"

   - two things not claimed to trigger asthma and/or rhinitis. 

In order to confirm that the above-mentioned things are recognized
as asthma triggers by mainstream medical science, see:

Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals

http://www.lungusa.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html

Understanding Asthma - American Lung Association

http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/asthma/about-asthma/understanding-asthma.html 

Chemical Asthma Triggers and Irritants

http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm 

Asthma Triggers: Gain Control (EPA site)

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.html

The above-cited web addresses are those of the American Lung Asso-
ciation, the AMA, and the same AAAAI Barrett elected to use in his
campaign to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is nothing more
than a psychological illness.   In as much, count the number of chemical-
bearing agents that the three mainstream associations regard as asthma
triggers.

The AAAAI's public education material 
on the subject of Occupational Asthma

Concerning the AAAAI that Barrett cited in his campaign to convince
mankind that Environmental Illness is merely a matter of mental illness,
it published an instructional website about Occupational Asthma.  The
AAAAI has already acknowledged that Occupational Asthma can be
caused by a number of chemicals at nontoxic/ambient levels, afflicting a
number of  workers employed in a number of  industries.

     Acrylates  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adhesive handlers
     Amines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Shellac & lacquar handlers
     Anhydrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plastic, epoxy resin users
     Chloramine-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Janitors, cleaning staff
     Dyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Textile workers
     Fluxes   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electronic workers
     Formaldehyde/glutaraldehyde . . .  Hospital staff
     Isocyanates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spray painters, Insulation
                                                                installers; plastic, rubber,
                                                                foam manufactory workers.
     Persulfate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hairdressers

     The same public education material of the AAAAI states:

          "The cause may be allergic or nonallergic in nature,
            and the disease may last for a lengthy period in some  
            workers, even if they are no longer exposed to the
            agents that caused their symptoms
."

           "Inhalation of  some substances in aerosol form can
            directly lead to the accumulation of  naturally oc-
            curring chemicals in the body, such as histamine or 
            acetylcholine within the lung, which in turn lead to 
            asthma."

            "For example, insecticides, used in agricultural work,
            can cause a buildup of  acetylcholine, which causes
            airway muscles to contract, thereby constricting air-
            ways."

           "Allergic occupational asthma can occur in workers
            in the plastic, rubber or resin industries following
            repeated exposure to small chemical molecules in 
            the air."

          "If occupational asthma is not correctly diagnosed
           early, and the worker protected or removed from the
          exposure, permanent lung changes may occur and 
          asthma symptoms may persist even without exposure."

          "Up to 15% of  asthma cases in the United States may
           have job-related factors."

          "Isocyanates are chemicals that are widely used in many 
           industries, including spray painting, insulation installa-
           tion, and in manufacturing plastics, rubber and foam.
           These chemicals can cause asthma in up to 10% of ex-
           posed workers."

The aforementioned illustrates that Chemical Sensitivity, as it applies to
asthma and rhinitis, is acknowledged as valid and authentic by the same
AAAAI that Barrett elected to use, in order to support his assertion that
chemical sensitivity is merely a psychological illness.

Conclusion

Stephen Barrett can mock the diagnostic title, Multiple Chemical Sensi-
tivity, all that he wants to.  It will not take away the fact is that chemical
sensitivity has already been recognized in case specific form.  Nor will it
take away the fact that the sufferers of those case-specific forms of chem-
ical sensitivity need to avoid the chemicals which exacerbate their medical
conditions.

Avoidance and AMA (CSA) Report 4 (A-98)

Avoidance is not 'detrimental.'  Nor is it nonsense.  Avoidance is a
medical necessity.  And as it applies to asthma, the AMA has stated:

   Regardless of the efficiency of clinician assessment and pa-
   tient self-monitoring, if the patient's exposure to irritants
   or allergens to which he or she is sensitive is not reduced 
   or eliminated, symptom control and exacerbation rate may
   not improve.  Formerly titled 'Environmental Control,' the
   key points in this area logically include efforts by clinicians
   to pinpoint causative agents and to provide specific advice 
   on how to avoid or reduce exposures to environmental or
   dietary triggers and drugs that may provoke or exacerbate 
   symptoms." AMA Report 4, Council on Scientific Affairs (A-98)
   ============================================

November 2, 2016

The asthma-triggering fad of letting cars reek with sickingly sweet amounts of chemically laden fragrance products.


1} A very nice young lady who works at the
deli section of an Akron area grocery store
told me that some cars today reek with such
a gluttonous supply of synthetic fragrances
that she literally was choked a few times,
when in the presence of those cars, such as
when she was at a red light or in a parking
lot.
2} A female Bank of America employee said that she got overwhelmed
     by the gaudy odors reeking from the same type of vehicles ... those
     that emit sickeningly sweet artificial fragrances, including those cars
     that have three, five, even seven and nine chemically laden fragrance
     products hanging from their rearview mirrors or clipped on to the car
     dashboard.

3}  A very athletic young lady in the Pittsburgh area who has the physique
      of an Irish River Dancer concurred, in that some cars today are noxious-
      ly repugnant, due to the glut of synthetic fragrance products reeking
      from them.

 4} Her manager agreed.  In fact, both ladies responded with their eyes
      wide open, in confirming that they, too, were overwhelmed by inor-
      dinate amounts of synthetic fragrances that reek from today's cars..

5}  An aging cashier of a spacious Pittsburgh-area health food store told
      me that the artificial fragrance odors reeking from cars gave her split-
      ting headaches ... and she had to walk through a parking lot at least
      twice a workday.

6}  Two retail store employees in Saint Augustine Florida also admitted
      that they get assailed by the gluttonous levels of synthetic fragrance
      products that reek from certain cars and pick-up trucks.

7}  A sporting goods cashier mentioned how Febreze clip-ons are the
      worst triggers to her asthmatic respiratory tract.  She even stated
      that she once detected from a distance an automobile reeking with
      the asthma-triggering smell of Febreze, with her husband as a wit-
      ness to the event.  It turned out that there were two Febreze clip-
      ons attached to the dashboard.  Her radar was on track.

8} Concerning Febreze, a woman who communicated to me several times
     even during my 12,000 mile road trip, stated that Febreze was her worst
     nightmare.

9} Yet another woman ... from the other side of America ... let me know that,
      as soon as she removed Febreze from her night stand, her symptoms van-
      ished.  Febreze Air Effects was found to have 86 chemicals in it.

10} A social worker concurred on how intense are the odors that radiate from
       heavily fragranced automobiles.

11} A Western Pennsylvania police officer also concurred that some cars reek
       hideously with sickeningly sweet levels of fragrance products.

12} A volunteer of the homeless shelter who has asthma concurred to how
       intensely assailing the levels of fragrances are that reek from American
       cars.

For the reality check on Febreze, incidentally, refer to the following:

http://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2013/10/chemically-laden-febreze.html

When we were young, we were told to never overdo it with cologne.
Two dabs will do.  If you go any further, you'll reek and drive people
away from you.  Today, that rule of nature has been forgotten.  Yet,
there are far more asthmatics in the world today, some of which are
reactive to fragrance chemicals.  Even automobiles reek hideously
today, illustrating a generation of humanity entirely out of touch
with perception reality and proportionality ... of a generation en-
tirely inconsiderate to other people ... kind of like right winged
conservative Republicans:

When you're at a red light, in a parking lot, or in a traffic jam, while
driving a car or truck that has in it 2 to 4 to 6 chemically-laden fra-
grance products in it, and there.  If you're hiding the odor of illegal
substances that you smoke, by means of putting high levels of sick-
eningly sweet fragrance chemicals in your car, know that you're at-
tracting attention.  That's not how you hide things.

If this applies to you, know that the American Lung Association and
other organizations of trusted reputation publicly acknowledge that
"air fresheners" are asthma triggers.  This means that, if you have a
gluttonous amount of synthetic "air fresheners" in your car, your car
is an asthma attack waiting to happen to an asthmatic somewhere.
The person merely needs to be relatively near your car; not in it and
not beside it. 

An anti-cigarette commercial explained it correctly, years ago

An anti-cigarette commercial, years ago, explained it properly, by re-
minding the viewers that the clothing in the closet of any cigarette
smoke reek with cigarette smoke.  The same applies to chemically-
laden fragrance products.  They are cigarettes with a wider reach-
ing delivery system, meaning that chemical fragrance odors travel
much further than cigarette smoke, because the smoke vs vapor/fume
factor.

 The airspace in your car or truck is very small.  The glut of chemical
fragrance products in those vehicles don't achieve what you think they
do, because they reach a saturation point in your vehicle's cab, and the
rest the fragrance compounds leak out of the cab, making your vehicle
reek.  Your car isn't airtight.  If it were, you would suffocate in it.  The
scenario goes as follows:

Saturation Point ==> Leakage ==> a car that reeks ==> asthma attack
to any poor soul afflicted with asthma and stuck at a red light next to
(or behind) a reeking auto.

http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/home/resources/cleaning-supplies.html

The United States Environmental Protection Agency concurred with the
American Lung Association, concerning synthetic "air fresheners" trig-
gering asthma.  So, why not start protecting the American environment,
for a change?   Now, Dick Cheney and his cohorts succeeded in dumb-
ing down America.  The fragrance industry is succeeding in numbing it
down, as in neurotoxic chemicals, sensitizers, clastogens (chromosome
chain slicers), endocrine disruptors, hepatotoxins (liver cell killers),
irritants, etc.

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/chemical_irritants.html

Even an RN (registered nurse) writing for About.com mentioned that
"air fresheners"are common asthma triggers.  Therefore, when you have
three, four, or five of those automobile air fresheners reeking from your
car, your car is literally a vehicle of toxic battery.  The operative phrase
in the article linked below is "common asthma trigger."

http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmatriggers/qt/chemictriggers.htm

You're first response will be to say that you can do whatever you damn
please in your car.  ANS:  Not when it's invading an asthmatic's respira-
tory tract, suffocating that person, in his own car.  You're invading some-
one's personal space and injuring his health.  There is also the matter of
exposing gluttonous amounts of chemically-laden fragrance products to
children and small animals.  Remember:  The asthma rate is on the rise,
and has been so for years. 

Why would you want to have your car smell like a child molester's
car, with a sugary sweet lollipop odor?

Some of your cars smell as if you are trying to attract children to your
car,  with the now-familiar sickeningly sweet smell encountered time
and time again.  Why would you want your car to smell like a molester
mobile? 

Everyone needs air.  
No one needs a gluttonous amount of chemical fragrance products.

Asthmatics have the inalienable right to be on State and Federal roadways.
Today, a person can't even sit at a red light without being assailed by one
or more cars that contain obnoxiously high levels of chemical fragrance
products.  This noxious fad began in the summer of 2012.

If you ever have had an asthmatic attack triggered while sitting at a red
light, day after day, you would understand.  Why do you insist on having
two, three, four, and even seven of  these things in your car?   Do you know
that chemicals in America do NOT have to be tested for safety, in order for
them to be marketed?

Putting four clip-on "air fresheners" on the dashboard of one car is chemi-
cal assault, via Saturation Point ==> Leakage ===> Reeking Auto.  This is
four times the recommended dose.  I literally witnessed the four clip-on ha-
bit, as much as I repeatedly witnessed up to seven pine tree fragrance pro-
ducts hanging from a single rear view mirror.  There were even automobile
fragrance products encountered by me this past summer on a hand grenade
template.  Each one was especially odorous, and thus, especially chemical.

These things are not air fresheners.  Nature is the air freshener ... not a
chemist's lab.  The other thing which helps one's auto is the heater and
air condition, due to their ability to dry the air in your vehicle's cab.  Dry
air stops the molding and mildewing.

Have not you heard of the "Trade Secret Law?"  If not, the following can
educate you.  However, if you are a person who does the seven pine tree
thing, the probability is that you are too lazy to read.  In fact, it's unlikely
that this is being read by anyone to whom it's addressed:

http://www.bluemarblealbum.com/2015/05/toxic-america.html

Triggering respiratory ills isn't the new cool.  Thus, when it comes to assault-
ing an asthmatic's respiratory tract with a reeking vehicle carrying two, four,
and even seven fragrance products, something needs to be understood:

1}  Nuisance Law.
2} Aggravating a pre-existing condition.
3} The Americans with Disabilities Act,
      concerning those persons who have a right to be on a State road with-
      out being suffocated by gaudy amounts of chemicals reeking from 
      cars that have far too many fragrance products in them.

4} Cars have license plate numbers on them, and trucks have the employ-
     er's name written on them ... and sometimes the phone number. 
     __________________________________________________