Systemic and Co-existing Forms of Chemical Sensitivity, along with some of the chemicals which triggered them

Anaphylaxis:   It impairs multiple body systems in one systemic fashion,
and it has been triggered by a number of chemicals at ambient (nontoxic)
levels.   The chemicals which have thus far been documented as having
triggered anaphylaxis at nontoxic levels include:

[01] the hair bleaching agent, Ammonium Persulfate.
[02] the antimicrobial agent, Chlorhexidine (0.05%).
[03] the medical disinfectant, Ortho-phthalaldehyde.
[04] the fungicide, Chlorothalonil (0.01% aqueous).
[05] the analgesic ingredient, Polyvinylpyrrolidone.
[06] the diagnostic agent, Isosulphan Blue Dye.
[07] the dialysis ingredient, Ethylene Oxide.
[08] the additive, Sodium Benzoate.
[09] the analgesic, Acetaminophen.
[10] the xanthine dye, Flourescein.
[11] the food coloring, Tartrazine.
[12] common aspirin.
[13] formaldehyde.
[14] nitrites.
[15] sulfites ... etc.

The existence of Systemic Chemical Sensitivity has already been docu-
mented under the name, anaphylaxis and even urticaria.   It is not a pro-
posed hypothesis yet to be proven.

An Assertion Negated by Evidence Gathered
in the Field of Occupational Medicine

An objection to the recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity exist-
ed in the assertion that a chemical, whenever encountered at a nontoxic
level, cannot impair more than one body system in the same one person.
However, chemicals have individually done this during anaphylaxis.

In the world of occupational medicine there have been DOCUMENTED
instances where the same one chemical, at an ambient level, has impaired
two body systems in the same one worker (or subset of workers.)   This
phenomenon can be regarded as dual chemical sensitivity.  It has thus far
involved the integumentary system (the skin) in combination with the re-
spiratory system in the following forms:

[1] airborne irritant urticaria (hives) accompanied by rhinitis.
[2] asthma and rhino-conjunctivitis accompanied by dermatitis.
[3] asthma accompanied by dermatitis.
[4] asthma accompanied by urticaria.

Dual Chemical Sensitivity has already been documented.  It appears
in documentation under the title "co-morbid conditions," as well as
"coexisting conditions."   It is a documented phenomenon and not a
hypothesis yet to be proven.  The chemicals which have thus far been
documented as having induced it, in the world of Occupational Medi-
cine, include:

[1] dental acrylates;
[2] dusts of persulfate salts;
[3] epoxy resin diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A;
[4] leather tanning ingredient potassium dichromate;
[5] spray paint additive, polyfunctional aziridine cross-
linker CX-100.

The coexistence of different forms of localized chemical sensitivity en-
tirely negates the assumption that a chemical sensitivity reaction can
impair no more than one body system in a person at a time.  Clicking
on each of the following titles will connect you to the documentary evi-
dence, concerning dual chemical sensitivity: 

Occupational allergic airborne contact dermatitis and delayed bronchial asthma from epoxy resin revealed by bronchial provocation test.

Occupational Asthma and Contact Dermatitis in a Spray Painter after Introduction of an Aziridine Cross-Linker.

Occupational asthma and dermatitis after exposure to dusts of persulfate salts in two industrial workers (author's transl).

Dentist's occupational asthma, rhino-conjunctivitis, and allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates.

Pronounced Short-term Chemical Exposure 
Causing Long-term Illness in Dual Body Systems

Then there are cases where pronounced chemical exposure (such as
in the case of chemical spills) has resulted in adverse affects to dual
body systems.   It has furthermore resulted in chronic hypersensitivity
to a number of chemicals other than that which was encountered dur-
ing the chemical overexposure.

One case study involves a tank truck hauler who developed symptoms
during and after an eight and a half hour stay around an alleged tank of
paraffin, due to the fact that he experienced a tire blowout while driving,
and had to wait for a road crew to get him back on the road.

Within one hour of the blowout, the driver underwent racking cough,
a severe headache, and an irritated throat.  Within forty hours, his feet,
hands, and abdomen started to swell.  The swelling continued to the
point triggering shortness of breath and chest pains.  The medical ex-
amination of the driver resulted in the following objective findings:

[1] an elevated CD 26 cell count;
[2] a protuberant/distended abdomen;
[3] a decreased T-suppressor cell count;
[4] the presence of the antinuclear antibody;
[5] and the presence of the anti-thyroid antibody.
[6] the presence of the anti-smooth-muscle anti-body;
[7] liver function test results consistent with hepatotoxic
      injury.

When the driver was examined a year after the blowout, he stated that
exposure to chemical agents resulted in his suffering gastrointestinal dis-
tress, fatigue, weakness, neuralgia, and irritability.  This is a description
of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and this is pertinent to note in light of
the fact that the detractors of MCS have repeatedly claimed that persons
manifesting signs of MCS have no objective medical findings to support
their reported symptoms.  This driver had seven objective medical find-
ings at the outset of his illness.

In meeting rooms where position statements are drafted, the name
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity was changed to that of Idiopathic En-
vironmental Intolerance.   This substitute title is an entirely erroneous
title in the case of the tank truck hauler, being that "idiopathic" means
"of unknown origin," and the hauler's ills originated at a known time
and a known place.

That case study and seven other ones are described in medical article
titled,  Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome Caused by 
Chemical Exposures - RIDS.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920920118~frm=titlelink 

An Assertion in anti-MCS Literature Negated by
Evidence Gathered in the Field of Occupational Medicine

Needless to say, anti-MCS literature asserts that persons suffering from
MCS are merely mentally ill, despite the fact that there is no consensus
as to what particular type of mental illness this might be.  Nonetheless,
a few propagandists assert that persons suffering from MCS are mere-
ly phobic of chemical exposure, and that the fear of chemicals causes
them to imagine illness.   However, a number of persons suffering from
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are those  who worked in chemically lad-
en environments for extended periods of time.   If such persons were
phobic of chemical exposure, they would have never taken the chemi-
cally laden jobs they took.   They would have never even applied for
those jobs.  The propagandists' assertion completely falls apart.
===============================================

Endocrine Disruptors in Consumer Products

Water, water, everywhere.  Nor any drop to drink developed an entirely different meaning
since the time Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner was first published.  There are 
eight principle endocrine disruptors in America's water supplies. Hermaphrodite frogs have 
been found here, and this is attributed (allegedly) to Monsanto's Roundup.

Posted below is the link to the U.S. government's mainstream medical site which
is an absolute must-read that dispels the defamatory writings of all of the Stephen
Barretts of this world who seek to deceive humanity into believing that chemicals,
at ambient levels, are entirely harmless.

Ironically, after all of his damning literature, Stephen Barret spent a total of one
sentence ... toward the end of an article ... stating that there are legitimate cases
where people who have had long-term exposure to low levels of chemicals or
short-term exposure to high levels of chemicals have had their health compro-
mised ... have been injured.

All in all, Barrett did admit to the valid existence of chemical sensitivity.  Such
chemical sensitivity comes in diagnostic names such as Occupational Asthma due
to Low-Weight Molecular Agents and Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome,
as well as other ones.  The problem is that those who are supportive of chemically
sensitive persons bull-headedly use the phrase, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, only.
So, the Stephen Barretts attacked that one phrase and ignored the undebated chemi-
cal sensitivity diagnoses such as Irritant-induced Asthma.

Multiple Chemical Sensitvity, incidentally, refers to chemical sensitivity affecting
multiple body organs.  A person sufferring from a single illness such as Irritant-
induced Asthma might be reactive to four dozen chemicals or three and four dif-
ferent categories of chemicals.  The stubborn bull-headedness of those writing
on behalf of the chemically sensitive have been sabotaging the cause, all along.
They did much more harm than good in obsessing themselves in a semantics
game.  They are too lazy or stubborn to type-out the various mainstream med-
ical diagnoses that spell chemical sensitivity  in specificity.  This includes the
aforementioned diagnosies and Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction,
Airborne Irritant Dermatitis, and other ones.

Anyway, the article linked below is a mainstream, peer-reviewed paper posted
on the United States' government site run by the National Institute of Health.
It's technically known as the National Center for Biotechnological Informat-
ion.  That one government entity trumps all of the Stephen Barretts of this world,
combined.  So, go ahead and read what mainstream medical science actually says
about Chemical Sensitivity.

The paper is titled, Endocrine Disruptors and Asthma-Associated Chemicals
in Consumer Products.  It's the work of six authors.  This denotes diligence
in the writing thereof.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404651/

A Sample of the paper goes as follows:

Abstract

Background: Laboratory and human studies raise concerns about endocrine disruption and asthma resulting from exposure to chemicals in consumer products. Limited labeling or testing information is available to evaluate products as exposure sources.

Objectives: We analytically quantified endocrine disruptors and asthma-related chemicals in a range of cosmetics, personal care products, cleaners, sunscreens, and vinyl products. We also evaluated whether product labels provide information that can be used to select products without these chemicals.

Methods: We selected 213 commercial products representing 50 product types. We tested 42 composited samples of high-market-share products, and we tested 43 alternative products identified using criteria expected to minimize target compounds. Analytes included parabens, phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), triclosan, ethanolamines, alkylphenols, fragrances, glycol ethers, cyclosiloxanes, and ultraviolet (UV) filters.

Results: We detected 55 compounds, indicating a wide range of exposures from common products. Vinyl products contained > 10% bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and could be an important source of DEHP in homes. In other products, the highest concentrations and numbers of detects were in the fragranced products (e.g., perfume, air fresheners, and dryer sheets) and in sunscreens. Some products that did not contain the well-known endocrine-disrupting phthalates contained other less-studied phthalates (dicyclohexyl phthalate, diisononyl phthalate, and di-n-propyl phthalate; also endocrine-disrupting compounds), suggesting a substitution. Many detected chemicals were not listed on product labels.

Conclusions: Common products contain complex mixtures of EDCs and asthma-related compounds. Toxicological studies of these mixtures are needed to understand their biological activity. Regarding epidemiology, our findings raise concern about potential confounding from co-occurring chemicals and misclassification due to variability in product composition. Consumers should be able to avoid some target chemicals—synthetic fragrances, BPA, and regulated active ingredients—using purchasing criteria. More complete product labeling would enable consumers to avoid the rest of the target chemicals.

Keywords: alkylphenols, asthma, bisphenol A, consumer products, cyclosiloxane, endocrine disruptors, fragrance compounds, parabens, phthalates, UV filters

Chemicals contained in consumer products are ubiquitous in human tissues, sometimes at high concentrations [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2009] and in household air and dust (Rudel and Perovich 2009; Rudel et al. 2003, 2010; Weschler 2009).   Studies of pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in homes provide some information about sources, exposure pathways, and exposure reduction options (Dodson et al. 2008; Lorber 2008; Rudel et al. 2008; Zota et al. 2008).   However, for many common commercial chemicals, limited information is available about how specific consumer products contribute to exposure. In particular, little information is available about exposures from personal care and cleaning products.

Many of these products may be sources of chemicals that have a diverse spectrum of health effects, including endocrine disruption and associations with asthma.  Endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) are chemicals that can alter hormonal signaling and have potential effects on developing reproductive and nervous systems, metabolism, and cancer (Colborn et al. 1993).

Some phthalates inhibit testosterone synthesis (Howdeshell et al. 2008), and antimicrobials such as triclosan suppress thyroid hormone (Paul et al. 2010) and are estrogenic (Stoker et al. 2010) in mammalian models. Some parabens, alkylphenols, cyclosiloxanes, ultraviolet (UV) filters, and synthetic musk fragrance compounds are weakly estrogenic in a variety of experimental models (Bitsch et al. 2002; Bonefeld-Jørgensen et al. 2007; Quinn et al. 2007; Routledge et al. 1998; Schlumpf et al. 2004; Schreurs et al. 2005).   Factors related to home environments are associated with asthma, although there has been limited study of the role of chemical contaminants (Douwes and Pearce 2002). 

Fragrances have been shown to exacerbate asthma (Kumar et al. 1995).   The phthalate bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) in dust was associated with asthma and wheezing in children (Bornehag et al. 2004), and several phthalates show an adjuvant effect in animal studies (Bornehag and Nanberg 2010).   The sum of propylene glycol and glycol ethers was associated with increased asthma prevalence in preschool-age children (Choi et al. 2010).   The ethanolamines monoethanolamine and diethanolamine are occupational asthmagens (Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics 2010).

For convenience sake, here is the link once again:
        
                       http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404651/
                       **********************************************
Long overdue has been the movement to end the flooding of the human body with harmful
chemicals.  We have to keep the bull-headed out of it, because they come off as bulls in
China shops.  They come-off as laughing stocks.  This is serious matter, and needed are
people who can be taken seriously.

The first thing is to stop limiting chemical exposure concerns to cancer only.  This is be-
cause cancer is seen as a roulette wheel in your probability of developing it.  When you
mention chemicals causing the development of asthma and triggering the asthm which
was already developed, then there is a more proximate sense of urgency.  After all, there
are millions of asthma sufferers in American, alone.

'Air Freshener' ingredients turn testosterone into estrogen via aromatase

Your chemically laden "air fresheners" are the chemical industry's way of  dumping its 
toxic wastes for profit.  It's major stockholders thank you for being so incredibly dimwitted

Why do 20-something year old males want their cars smelling like a sicken-
ly sweet child-molester-mobile, as in "Hey there little boy.  Do you want 
some candy?"  Very non-masculine and very much a trigger of asthma to
those passer-byers with chemical allergies.  That alone makes today's
American millennial male look distinctively out of touch with nature
and human decency, as well as being completely out of touch with
reality.  Your air fresheners are literally turning you into women;
or at the very least, the Tooth Fairy and every other kind of fairy.

You call yourselves Metrosexual, as if you are the most suave and alluring
of men.  But, your cars smell lie sissified Fairyville.   Hello?   Is there any-
one among you with brain cells and who can read anything further than
140 character tweets?  I ask this, because you're all killing us who have
allergic asthma.  Thus, you ARE the sphincter muscles of the universe.
___________________________________________________________

We live in the era of the Great American Glutton ... of the supersizer who
consumes things as if he/she were a bottomless pit.   A number of Ameri-
cans are seen with gluttonous outlays of tattoos speckled  on them to the
point where the natural contour of the human physique is distorted.

In sequence, America is the 2nd most obese nation on Earth, where the
obesity also distorts the natural contour of the human physique, amidst
the inordinate consumption of sugar.    Plus, Americans  emit gluttonous
amounts of asthma triggering fragrance products which serve the function
of endocrine disruptors, thereby disrupting the natural flow of the human
body.

Concerning this, take note of the occasional "Johnny Cool" car owner who
has four, six, eight, and even ten "air fresheners" in his car.  One type is call-
ed Da Bomb, indicating that it emits a high level of fragrance chemicals that
trigger asthma attacks in susceptible persons, such as those who suffer from
Irritant-induced Asthma, Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, and sim-
ilar respiratory injuries.  Well, the Johnny Cools need to be informed of some-
thing which deletes, step by step, their testosterone machismo.

Air Fresheners are known as XENOESTROGENS which "activate" the enzyme
AROMATASE and turn a man's testosterone into estrogen.  This means that, if
the Johnny Cool Macho Car Guy with his half dozen auto air fresheners thinks
that the air fresheners are making him the epitome of manhood, then he is fool-
ing himself.   He is turning himself into the opposite of a man, via the action of
xenoestrogen-induced endocrine disruption.  So, their greatest accomplishments
in life has thus far been committing assault by menace upon asthmatics whose
airspace are violated by their air fresheners and by causing havoc on their own
endocrine system.

And the ladies who glut-up their cars with air fresheners are emasculating
their men.  Also, Estrogen is well known to be cancer fuel.

Great play, Shakespeares.     Nice shot, Arnold Palmers.    Cool move,
Bobby Fishers.     Smooth landing, Neil Armstrongs.  Nice discovery,
Columbuses.  

For those of you who are sensible, please spread the word . . . concerning
the subject matter appearing in the articles linked below.  Please help save
America from its own idiocy and self-centered inconsiderateness, as well
its corporate greed.  Fragrance products are the chemical industry's ever-
so-convenient way to dump their toxic wastes and get paid while doing
so.  The fragrance gluttons of today have made their cars & homes toxic
dump sites without even realizing it.

You cannot deny that Americans are embarrassingly gullible on a mass
scale.  The 2003 Weapons of Mass Destruction Scam is an example on
how the American People live in a Barnum & Bailey Circus Scenario,
in "Suckers. There's one born every minute."

Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals:
Associated Disorders and Mechanisms of Action

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3443608/

Plus:

http://www.virginiahopkinshealthwatch.com/2011/06/5-ways-men-can-reduce-estrogen-levels/

http://acaai.org/news/unplug-indoor-pollutants-breath-fresh-air

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018511/

 http://www.lifestylebypoliquin.com/Lifestyle/StayHealthy/393/Is_Estrogen_Dominance_Making_You_Fat.aspx?_.aspx

Staudenmayer's erroneous test conclusion, concerning Multiple Chemical Sensitivity patients

Whenever you scald your tongue on
hot tea, your tongue will still feel the
scalding sensation, even if you drink
cool water shortly after having been
scalded.  Well, there is a very similar
phenomenon in the lives of chemical
sensitivity patients. It's called masking.

The failure to consider this phenome-
non was the fatal error in a 1980s test
that ended up being obsessively used
in the anti-MCS propaganda of retired
psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett, MD.  He
once said that he was the media,  even
though he was never a household name.

It's important to keep in mind that the blatant attack dog of Big Pharma,
namely retired psychiatrist Dr Stephen Barret, MD, never worked in the
field of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.  Therefore, he has no
professional experience with those suffering from Chemical Allergies
and/or Irritant-induced illnesses.  Such conditions include Reactive Air-
ways Dysfunction Syndrome, Occupational Asthma due to Low Weight
Molecular Agents, Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, etc.  In-
cidentally, low-weight molecular agents are more commonly known as
chemicals.
_________________________________________________________

In his attempt to convince mankind that Chemical Sensitivity is merely
a mental illness, the Stephen Barrett who never examined any chemical
sensitivity patient repeatedly cited a "research undertaking" which was
conducted in Denver during the 1980s.  The test is formally titled:

Double-blind provocation chamber challenges in 20 patients presenting 
with "multiple chemical sensitivity."   The article which detailed the re-
search undertaking was published on August 18, 1993.

The research team who conducted that test consisted in psychologist
Herman Staudenmayer (Ph.d),  allergist John Selner (MD), and chem-
ist Martin P. Buhr (Ph.d).  I was told by someone very well known in
the Chemical Sensitivity world that Herman Staudenmayer appeared
as a brooder, to state it politely.

The title of the test is misleading, in that it was not based on standard
challenge testing, such as the methacholine challenge test which mea-
sures changes in  FEV1.   Rather, the Staudenmayer test was subject-
ive testing;  the type of testing that Barrett condemned as invalid.   So,
we see another instance of hypocrisy in the psychiatrist of early retire-
ment.

Incidentally, FEV1 is the measurement of Forced Expiratory Volume
after one second of exhaling.  In addition, pulmonary experts, from my
experience, will not allow severely sensitive people to take the metha-
choline challenge test, in fear that they "might not recover" the ability
to breath.  For example, an Ivy League trained pulmonary expert for-
bid me to take the test.  In the State where I was at the time, the law
only permitted pulmonary specialists to order methacholine testing.    

Background in Brevity

1) The test consisted in 145 occasions where a test subject had sent in-
     to into his/her chamber an injection of air.  The test subject was then
     instructed to discern if whether or not the injected air was accompa-
     nied by a chemical agent.  Each of the twenty test subjects participat-
     in at least one "provocation challenge." 

2) The challenges were divided into two types:

a) active challenges, 
b) sham challenges. 

Eighty-eight of the provocation challenges were categorized as "sham"
challenges, and they were recorded as injections of chemical-free air.
The other fifty-seven challenges were defined as "active" challenges,
each of which was recorded as the injection of chemical-bearing air.

3) The sham challenges came in two forms:

a) clean air injected alone,
b) clean air accompanied by an aromatic agent.

4) The active challenges also came in two forms:

a) the injection of an airborne chemical alone,
b) an airborne chemical accompanied by an aromatic agent.

5) The aromatic agents were called "maskers."

Maskers used in the "Staudenmayer Test" included:

a) anise oil,
b) cinnamon oil,
c) lemon oil,
d) peppermint spirit (10% oil and 1% leaves.)

4) The overall result of the test, as recorded by the research team, goes
     as follows:  "Individually, none of these patients demonstrated a re-
     liable response pattern across a series of challenges."  The conclu-
     sion was that persons diagnosed with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
     are merely psychologically ill.

The Invalidating Feature of that Test

The maskers that Barrett cited in his anti-MCS propaganda as having
been used in the "Herman Staudenmayer Test" are known triggers of
adverse reactions in susceptible persons.   That is to say, the maskers
were chemical-bearing agents.

Concerning anything aromatic, keep in mind that the AMA, the world-
renown Mayo Clinic, the American Lung Association, and the Ameri-
can Academy of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology each recognize, in
publicly accessible print, that "strong odors" can be triggers of adverse
upper and/or lower respiratory reactions in susceptible people, simply
because they are strong odors.   This has included anise oil, cinnamon
oil, lemon oil, and peppermint spirit.

The Chemical Ingredients in the Sample List of Maskers
Used in 'the Staudenmayer Test' that were Alleged to be
Chemical-free

Concerning the sample list of maskers used in the "Staudenmayer Test,"
observe the following:

Anise Oil:

- An active ingredient in it is anethole.
- Anethole's chemical composition is C10H12O.
- Its CAS No. is 104-46-1.
- It is a known trigger to those adversely reactive to it.
- In fact, Anethole is known as p-1-propenylanisode.
- It is also known as 1-methoxy-4-(1-propenyl)benzene.
- Thus, anise oil is a chemical-bearing agent.

In all occasions where anise was used as a masker in a clean air inject-
ion, a chemical-bearing agent was being injected into the test subject's
chamber.   Therefore, to have recorded such an injection as one of
chemical-free air was to have recorded a falsehood.

Cinnamon Oil:

Along with being a "strong odor," cinnamon oil is a bearer of aldehyde.
In fact, the naturally occurring trans-cinnamaldehyde unassistedly be-
comes benzaldehyde in the presence of heat.

In as much, to have recorded a cinnamon oil air injection as a chemical-
free one was to have recorded yet another falsehood.  Cinnamon oil is
a chemical-bearing agent.

Lemon Oil:

The most prevalent constituent in lemon oil is the monoterpene, limo-
nene, aka 4-isopropenyl-1-methyl-cyclohexene.   Limonene de-
velops a potent sensitizing capacity when oxidized, and it's a reputed
skin sensitizer.   In addition, a Swedish research undertaking record-
ed the following:   "Bronchial hyperresponsiveness was related to in-
door concentrations of limonene, the most prevalent terpene."  Lemon
oil also includes the same alpha-pinene that was implicated in oil of
turpentine allergy.

Peppermint:

This aromatic agent is the bearer of Methyl Salicylate, and as is shown
below, it is among the salicylate allergy triggers.   It's also the bearer of
the following sensitizing agents:   (a) alpha-pinene, (b) phellandrene,
and (c) limonene.   It's also the bearer of (d) methone, (e)  mentho-
furane, (f) and methyl acetate.

Now, as far as concerns methyl salicylate, Supplement 5 of the Journal
of the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, 1999 / Vol. 14,
states:

"Of note, methyl salicylate carries the same warnings as oral 
salicylates and has the potential to cause Reye's Syndrome in 
children with flu-like symptoms, as well as adverse reactions in
those with aspirin allergy, asthma, or nasal polyps."

In as much, to record an airborne injection of peppermint spirit as a
chemical-free one, is to record yet another falsehood.

Dephosphorylation

The research team gave no consideration to the the masking of sensi-
tivity responses; a phenomenon attributed to the involvement of Ca2+
calmodulin phosphatase calcineurin and the ensuing dephosphorylation
that it induces.  Phosphorylation is explained in the following text:

http://www.chemicalsensitization.com/2011/01/proposed-mechanism-for-mcs.html

Barrett's Predictable Response to the Test

As is to be expected, in an article written by him, Barrett recommended
that clinical researchers conduct more tests likened to the one conduct-
ed by Staudenmayer and his colleagues; anise oil, cinnamon oil, and all. 

You should be able to conjecture why he advocated Kangaroo Court
research.
_____________________________________________________

A List of Single System & Systemic Forms of Chemical Sensitivity

Identified & Defined Forms of Chemical Sensitivity

The forms of chemical sensitivity listed below are those which have al-
ready been identified and defined by mainstream medical science.  The
list automatically illustrates that nontoxic\ambient levels of chemicals
are not universally harmless.  The list, therefore, illustrates the need for
a plurality of people to avoid pertinent chemical exposures.  In main-
stream medical science, environmental illness conditions are diagnosed
in the world of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.  Pulmonary
specialists and dermatologists have confirmed chemical sensitivity con-
ditions.

The bottom line is this:  There exist chemical sensitivity conditions that
are not called "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity," and which involve sensi-
tivity to numerous chemicals and irritants.  Reactive Airways Dysfunction
Syndrome and Occupational Asthma due to low weight molecular agents
are two examples.

The Merit in Making the List Known

    The list serves to counter that which anti-MCS literature serves
     to provoke.  Needless to say, anti-MCS literature serves to:

   1] provoke the powers-that-be into depriving chemically sensitive
       persons of reasonable accommodation;

   2] provoke the powers-that-be into depriving severely impaired
       chemically sensitive persons of disability compensation;

   3] persuade marketers into declining to provide consumer product
       lines free of those chemical-bearing agents which are known to

       trigger adverse reactions such as asthma.

When you illustrate that there are forms of chemical sensitivity that have
already been proven to exist, you illustrate the need of an entire class of
people to avoid ambient levels of those chemical-bearing agents that are
known to harm them.  You don't have to wait for the universal recogni-
tion of  MCS, in order make this illustration.  The recognition of irritant-
induced asthma alone, along with its subset condition, Reactive Airways
Dysfunction Syndrome, is all that is needed to accomplish this.

Even if  MCS comes to be declared a non-reality, there will still exist
the ethical requirement to consider the needs of those who suffer from
the case-specific, systemic, and localized forms of  chemical sensitivity.
Matters involving formaldehyde-releasing agents, the organophosphate-
carbamate class of pesticide, as well as perfume ingredients, additives,
and reasonable accommodation will have to be addressed.  Here is the
list, constructed in two parts:

             Generalized\Systemic and Localized Forms

                               Irritant-induced Asthma
                            Irritant Rhinitis\Rhinosinusitis
                           Halothane-induced  Hepatitis
                         Photoallergic Contact Dermatitis
                        Benzene-induced Aplastic Anemia
                       Airborne Irritant Contact Dermatitis
                       Formaldehyde-induced Anaphylaxis
                   (chlorhexidine-induced & other forms)


                   Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome

                  Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction
                   (symptoms include shortness of breath)

                 Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosi
                               Chemical Worker's Lung
                    (a type of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis) 
       Occupational Asthma due to low-weight molecular agents

     Occupational Urticaria (due to low-weight molecular agents),
                      as well as systemic forms of urticaria
              _____________________________________

                            Chemical-specific Forms

            Pine Resin/Rosin Allergy Albietic Acid Sensitivity

               Peruvian Lily Allergy (Tuliposide A Sensitivity)

                Red Cedar Allergy (Plicatic Acid Sensitivity)

                 Methyltetrahydrophthalic Anhydride Allergy

                   IgE-mediated Triethanolamine Sensitivity

                      Phthalic Anhydride Hypersensitivity

                       (Acetylated) Salicylate Sensitivity

                          Cyanuric Chloride Sensitivity

                           Ethylene Diamine Sensitivity

                            Acetaminophen Sensitivity

                            Glutaraldehyde Sensitivity

                             Chlorhexidine Sensitivity

                             Methacrylate Sensitivity

                              Sulfite Hypersensitivity

                               Isocyanate Sensitivity

                                Chromate Sensitivity

                                  Paraben Sensitivity

                                  ...  etc., etc., etc.

Note 1:  The list of chemical-specific forms is long.  None the less,
              the subset provided should suffice in proving a point.

Note 2:  Sick Building Syndrome was not listed because it is not ex-

              clusively caused by ambient chemical  exposure.  It can also
              be caused by viral and mold exposure.

Note 3:  Reactive Upper-Airways Dysfunction Syndrome doesn't ap-

              pear in the list, being that Irritant Rhinitis was listed.  None
              the less, RUDS is the subset of irritant-induced rhinosinusitis
              or rhinitis that works on the upper-respiratory tract the same
              way that RADS works on the lower respiratory tract.

Note 4:  Small Airways Disease was not listed.  Yet, it was found to

              exist in some of  the WTC clean-up crew members who be-

              came ill during or after the clean-up.  See: CT helps find
              cause of puzzling cough in WTC Rescue workers.  It's
              found at:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17093

Note 5:  There are a multiplicity of contact sensitivity conditions that
              were not posted.  They were omitted, in order to avoid the
              appearance of redundancy.
          
Note 6:  The diagnostic title, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome
              (RIDS), has been proposed.   See: Reactive intestinal dys-
              function syndrome caused by chemical exposure - RIDS.
             It is found at:

              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9766481

200+ chemicals found in umbilical cord blood samples ... 80,000 on U.S. market without being proven safe

... was the reason for the introduction of the Safe Chemicals Act.  If the
    Republicans truly cared about curtailing medical costs, they would have
    championed the original Safe Chemicals Act.  In that way, a multitude
    of people would have been spared of the ill effects of untested synthetic
    chemicals, ranging from asthma attacks to endocrine disruption to head-
    aches to dermatitis to sinusitis to inflamed nerve endings to cancer.

The 2015-2016 (114th Congress) version of the proposed bill is found at:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/697/text

    Chemical Anarchy and Modern Society

Estrogenated chemicals have been allowed to be dispersed throughout water,
air, land without the rule of law protecting life on earth.  We can begin with
the effect of the hormone disrupting herbicide atrazine upon hermaphrodite
frogs and proceed to the phenomenon of the feminizing of the younger males
of America.  We can then reiview how etrogenated chemicals are a fuel for
cancer and a catalyst for widespread obesity in the United States & Mexico,
accompanied by 80,000 chemicals on the U.S. market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103469.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/8/5476.abstract

http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_news/2010/03/common-ag-chemical-feminizes-male-frogs-.html

The Chemical Age in General is discussed at the following link:

 http://www.nrdc.org/health/toxics.asp

Hormone Disruptor chemical pollution even European coastal waters

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24458306

Update:  It appears that the 2013 version of the proposed Safe Chemicals Act
is a compromised product, an very ineffective watered-down version thereof.
This is the assessment of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, an affiliate
of the Nobel Prize winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nu-
clear War.

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/federal-chemical-policy-reform.html

http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/confronting-toxics/cancer-and-toxic-chemicals.html

Plus, in sweatshop China, cancer rates among children have been on the rise.
A child is defined as anyone under the age of 14.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-01/14/content_11850124.htm 

Irresponsibility Squared and Cubed:  
Getting wealthy while harming others.

To start, what point is there being the richest of the rich, if your home is on an
earth which has been flooded with noxious chemicals which even disrupt the
natural equilibrium of hormones?  What point is there being wealthy in a world
of chromosome breakers, liver cell killers, neurotoxins, etc?  What point is there
in being rich in a chemically induced freak show caused by the greed of a few?

Hundreds of chemicals found in umbilical cord blood samples

The Safe Chemicals Act was first introduced in the US Senate in 2011, by the
late Frank Lautenberg.  The 2013 revised edition thus for has 29 co-sponsors.
The motive for the bill was the quantitative fact that laboratory testing detect-
ed hundred of chemicals in umbilical cord blood samples.

In case you are unfamiliar with United States Law, chemicals in household pro-
ducts do not have to be proven harmless, in order to appear in the products that
Americans take home from the store.  This includes previously the mentioned
hormone disruptors, sensitizers, and irritants, as well as those chemicals listed
amongst the Genotoxic/Mutagenic class, the Hepatotoxic Class (liver cell kill-
ers,) the Cell-mediated allergens, Reproductive Toxins, Bronchoconstrictors,
Neurotoxins, Respiratory Irritants, and those oxidative chemicals which pro-
duce allergenic compounds whenever exposed to air.

Out of 80,000+ chemicals listed in the United States EPA's Toxic Substance
Control Act list, a grand total of FIVE chemicals were banned.  Yet, asthma
and cancer rates have been rising as a matter of course,  and hermaphrodite
aquatic life has been discovered.  Keep in mind that household chemicals
end up in land fills, eventually to leak into ground water via cracks in the
landfills and even via rain water.

The endocrine disruptors also end up in drinking water supplies.  In as much,
no water treatment plant extracts the estrogen from the eight primary sources
of it, the "pill" being one of the eight.

http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2013/04/gearing-tsca-reform

http://www.ewg.org/research/pollution-5-extraordinary-women

Concerning the Trade Secret law by which fragrance product ingredients
do not have to be made known to the public:

1] It was an abuse of power, on behalf of those who arranged the law.
2] It's a pointless law, being that scientists can analyze fragrance pro-
    ducts and discern their ingredients. 

Hormone disruptors permitted in American water supplies and
the ever so coincidental discovery of hermaphrodite aquatic life

Enter April 10, 2013.  This was the date when the 2013 Safe Chemicals Act
was introduced into the U.S. Congress by the late senator, Frank Lautenberg
and New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand.  The bill has 27 other co-sponsors.
The bill's number is S.696.

Between the Years 2011 and 2013, due to the obstructionist nature of the Re-
publican Party, and their glut of filibusters, a grand total of 2% of the laws in-
troduced in the Senate were enacted.  The Safe Chemicals Act was assessed
at having an  8% chance of becoming law.  Yet, S.696 has an 84% chance of
getting past committee.  In this instance, it's the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.  Incidentally, between 2011 and 2013, only 12% of the bills
introduced  in the Senate made their ways past any committee.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s696

1] We live in an era where it has been 100% proven that chemical allergies exist,
as does Occupational Asthma due to Low-weight Molecular Agents and irritant-
induced diseases such as Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction, Reactive
Airways Dysfunction Syndrome, and Irritant-induced Asthma.  Such patients
have the right to avoid the chemicals which trigger their fight to breath.  Such
chemicals go unchecked, unregulated, and unbridled.

2] Present U.S. law on chemicals is so unjust that, in the past 37 years, only
five chemicals have been banned.  Yet, numerous ones were proven to trigger
asthma, kill liver cells, break chromosome chains, disrupt hormonal balance,
have a neurotoxin effect, and qualify as threats to health.  There exists 84,000
chemicals in the EPA inventory.

3] The Center for Disease Control and Prevention found 212 chemicals in the
modern human body.  The Republican Party, in its pathological greed, and the
chemical industry, in its predatory greed, turned the human body into a toxic
waste dump.

http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/SafeChemicals2013-Summary.pdf

4] The Safe Chemicals Act would:

• Allow the EPA to have a health and safety information data base that can be applied to the assessment of new chemicals, thereby bypassing redundant testing.

• Screen chemicals for safety by means of a priority scale, gauged according to risk, so that EPA can focus allotted dollars on evaluating chemicals most likely to cause harm,  while simultaneously attending to a backlog of untested chemicals.

• Automatically assigns risk management requirements for any chemical which cannot be proven safe.  This can include restricting the use of the chemical, placing a warning label on the chemical, mandating disposal protocol upon the chemical, and even banning the chemical.  

• To provide a public catalog of chemicals, comprising the health and safety information submitted by chemical manufacturers and the findings of the EPA, while protecting trade secrets.

• Provide incentives and means for the invention of safe chemical alternatives.

Since 1976, numerous chemicals have been identified as sensitizers. A sensitiz-
er is that which becomes an allergen, after a period of repeated exposure to it.
Thus, it was not fair for the government to let society be exposed to sensitizing
agents.

In like fashion, we were also shown the statistical nexus between chemical ex-
posure and the rise of the rate of autism.  Simultaneously, hermaphrodite aquat-
ic life, apparently due to the heavily estrogenated water supplies, was located.
This shows that the Toxic Substance Control Act 1976 has near zero effective-
ness.

In a 2012 poll ...  done by a Republican firm ... showed that American voters
"overwhelmingly support reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, with 
half saying that they would strongly support reform for the regulation of 
chemicals produced and used in the United States." ... "Support for reform-
ing the law is widespread and broad-based."

http://pos.org/documents/12368_national_key_findings_final.pdf

Three-quarters of small business owners polled by the American Sustainable
Business Council believe that there should be stricter regulation on chemicals
used in everyday life.  Furthermore, 87% of the small business owners polled
support government regulation of chemicals used in growing food.  In similar
fashion,  73% of those polled support government regulation to ensure that the
products which companies buy and sell are non-toxic.

http://asbcouncil.org/sites/default/files/files/tscaslides.pdf

In as much, all indication is that the American people are behind this bill.  The
only antagonists to it are the Republicans in the House of Representatives who
kowtow to any corporation or industry which funds the politicians' re-election
campaigns.

The late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the original
bill in 2011.  It was re-introduced shortly before his death.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/25/us/politics/lautenbergs-chemical-safety-bill-gains-momentum.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.saferchemicals.org/safe-chemicals-act/

Drawing people's attention to the millions of respiratory patients who are sen-
sitive to modern chemicals would be a start.  Pointing out the liver cell killing
capacity of other ones, as well as the neurotoxic effect of yet more, along with
the endocrine disrupting capacity of yet other ones would be a good follow-up.
Add to this those chemicals which break chromosome chains.

The Safe Chemicals Act (S.696) is found here: 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s696/text

(Note:  The number 113 refers to the 113th Congress.)

The American Academy of Pediatrics speaks of the necessity
to enact a Safe Chemicals Act, whatever be it's name.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/5/983.full

A review of State laws which banned chemicals is here: 
http://www.saferstates.com/2011/08/2011-state-victories-for-environmental-health.html