October 22, 2024

The Real Health Hazards : Petro & synthetic chemicals : the sensitizers : bioaccumulative ones : the PAH's : PB residue ... and all the Hysteria.

Geometric marvels can be found in the smallest places.

Let's review:  CO2 is the big bad wolf of a con artist's design.  In reality, it is the unlocking key to photosynthesis which enables life to flourish throughout Planet Earth.  It's radiative forcing is a mild 3.7 watts per meter squared.  It's presence in the atmosphere no greater than 0.042%.  In contrast, Nitrogen is 78%, Oxygen is 21%, and Argon is .93%.  Those three elements, alone, take-up 99.93% of the Troposphere's space.

In addition, CO2 exists in three individual types of vibration modes.  In one of those modes of vibration, CO2 is incapable of retaining infrared heat.  And in the vastest regions of the oceans (9,000 ft downward for the Atlantic, Pacific, & Indian Ocean --- and 7,000 ft downward for Southern Ocean) CO2 is incapable of heating the ocean's water, which, at those depths, is a constant 39F.   

Plus, tremendous storms and long droughts have occurred throughout the past, when CO2 levels were much lower than today's 421 ppm.  These weather catastrophes occurred when CO2 was 280, 300, and 320 ppm.  

In fact, Al Gore predicted that hurricanes would get much worse in the years to come.  Well, here's a newsflash:  Ever since record-keeping on cyclone wind speed began, the number of Category 5 hurricanes to make landfall in the United States was a grand total of . . .  4.  Four.  No more than four.  Al Gore was significantly wrong.  They were the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Camille (1969), Andrew in 1992, and Michael, in 2018.  Therefore, only ONE Category 5 hurricane made landfall in the United States, since Al Gore's 2006 movie which predicted many more higher-windspeed hurricanes.  Gore was once again wrong.

==>    "If you are an environmentally conscientious person, and if you are radically set on diagnosing the Earth's health, based on CO2 levels, then you are a dog chasing its tail.  So, if you want to end the production of all gasoline and diesel fuel, on account of CO2, then you have been hideously deceived, by very unconscionable people who want to use the youth's absence of experience, to make a lot of money." 

===> "However, if you want to end the common use of the gasoline and diesel engines, on account of their proliferation of petrochemicals and similar antagonists to health, then you are in the correct lane.  In fact, you're at least half right to two-thirds right.   You need to understand the concept of filtration.  Secondly, you need to understand that any transition must be done in phases, and NOT all at once.  Plus, the corporations being phased-out must be given accommodations to also change into the replacement technology."

You exhale about 2.3 lbs of carbon dioxide per day.  Now, I don't see your classrooms catching on fire.  I don't see your home burning down.  In fact, you exhale CO2 at least 6 million times a year.  So, what are you going to do about leaving behind a carbon footprint every time you exhale?  Are you going to stop breathing?  Or are you going to realize that you're being punked by scientists looking for lucrative taxpayer dollar funding?

Now remember, if you are overjoyed over the $370 BILLION "climate assistance" that the Congress appropriated to the Michael Mann People, Al Gore People, etc, know that your generation is the one who is going to have to pay for the $370 billion.  When, you get older, you're realize how much of a con game this was ... just like the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction alarm.  Everyone but a handful believed every false thing the media was telling us about post-millennia Iraq.

The New Form of Energy & Transportation.  This will be followed by the rainbow colored unicorn.

Oh, and even at that, there is one big question which first needs to be answered:  Q:  What is going to be the replacement energy?  

~Wind, so that birds can get axed by windmill blades, by the million?  Wind dies down very often.  

~Would the replacement energy be Sunlight?  Well, clouds and night time are an impediment to solar energy.  

~How about nuclear?  Uhhhm, are you aware of the half-life issue?  And even if you go nuclear, there is preparation time which needs to be done by complete professionals, and NOT by well-meaning laymen volunteers.

So, you want electric cars everywhere?  Well, do you know how much electricity today comes from the burning of coal, and how much more coal must be burnt to have a highway full of electric cars?  And, are you aware of the amount of mercury released when coal is burnt?  This would mean necessary filtration technology.   That takes time.  In fact, if you want nothing but electric, then the new infrastructure to support it will be beyond expensive.

************************************************************************

BTW, natural gas is the way to go. ✅✅✅ Methane only exists at 1.9 parts per million.

Only a congress full of imbeciles would resist the fuller implementation of this technology.

*************************************************************************

The other form of excellent energy is Tidal Energy.  This is literally high-tide water power.  It would require a new infrastructure which would be moderately expensive, and and and it can only serve coastline populations where hurricane season isn't too busy.   So, this matter of replacement energy is something that takes time and mature individuals; NOT fanatical activists or anti-activists.

If you're not informed about basic tide science, click here:  A Tutorial on Ocean Tides

Now, CO2 is NOT going to cause the world to end in 12 years .... or in twelve hundred years.  You are being duped by some of the lowest intelligence con artists yet to come on to the American scene.  BTW, the American scene included the United Nations, being that it's headquartered in NYC.  The trick is for these con artists to create a sense of urgency amongst their potential customers.  It's all a matter of hysterics.  Today's climate con artists think that you are stupid and easy to dupe.

At this point, you need to understand that CO2 is NOT the grand enemy.  It's your friend.  Your danger is the glut of synthetic chemicals in today's society.  That's the sick joke of society.  Let us go to the original starting point of this post:

Years ago, there were  assumptions, and then insinuations, that people presenting the counterpoint on the climate issue were payed-off by Big Oil.  The accusers were first-generation-thoroughly-obsessed.  

These accusers were the ones who used to call their monster-in-the-closet Global Warming.  Then, in the middle of the SIXTEEN YEAR warming pause (1999-2016), they were told to call their closet monster the vague title, "Climate Change."

None the less, the Thoroughly Obsessed became emboldened without evidence to be so.  As an example, a less-than-stellar guy walked up to a debate table where sat the Princeton-associated inventor of the Sodium Star.  The phantom activist acted absolutely assured that the Princeton scholar was in the deep pockets of Big Oil.  He had ZERO evidence, being that none existed.  But, he was utterly assured of himself.  Arrogant buffoon.

Well, here's another clue for you all, aside of the fact that the Walrus was Paul (Beatle's Magical Mystery Tour reference, as a satirical joke):

Big Oil was more than willing to concede to the extremely asinine assertion that CO2 was destroying the planet.  This is because Big Oil wanted to protect its lucrative petrochemicals which don't grow on trees.  So, Big Oil was willing to use CO2 as a diversionary tactic ... as a smokescreen ... so done with the hope that the Public would forget about the petrochemicals that really can hurt you.  As a result, the thoroughly obsessed "climate activists" who believed themselves to be the most enlightened beings on Earth got easily duped.

The Necessary Thesis Statement

The true problem with the present environment is the plurality of petrochemicals & synthetic chemicals which flood society and which are associated with ~asthma, ~endocrine disruption, ~urticaria, ~digestive problems, ~chemical allergy sensitization and chemical allergy reactions, ~irritant-induced reactions, ~nervous system inflammation, ~kidney problems, and . . . . . .  ~~~cancer.  CO2 does NOT cause cancer.  In fact . . .

. . . There are several types of asthmatic conditions.  One is known as Small Airways Disease, where the asthmatic actually "traps air" within himself.  One sign is that a stethoscope will detect wheezing at his sides (bi-lateral wheezing), but not on the front of his chest.  Plus, such patients have "prolonged expiratory phases." They exhale exceedingly.  Well, these Small Airways Disease patients do wonderfully in air-spaces that have elevated levels of CO2 ... as long as there are no airborne allergens present, to trigger their asthma.

All in all, CO2 is your friend.  It is the key to Photosynthesis, and therefore greenery.  So, if you really do want to go green, then increase the CO2 levels ... without simultaneously increasing harmful gases such as sulfur dioxide ...  polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ...  black mold mycotoxins  ... volatile organic compounds which very effectively trigger asthma ... and anything that appears in the Toxic Release Inventory.  

Workplace chemicals are of importance, because of the repeated exposure to them, followed by the process of sensitization which has occurred in a percentage of workers.  Example:

Perchloroethylene:  It's used in the dry cleaning business.  It can be an eventual nightmare for the employees of that industry.  But, what about the customers?  ANS: Nowhere nearly as much, if at all.  In workplace cases, it's a matter of sensitization, as opposed to toxicity.  For the record, there is a difference between being poisoned and being allergic.

None the less, the really dangerous chemical compounds are known as biopersistent. 

                                    See:  Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals 

Another Example:

One of the major ingredients of combustible fuel production is none other than ===>  Benzene.  Ambient benzene levels have been linked to the rise of certain cancers, as far as goes correlation.  This was affirmed statistically in Western India, for starters. 

Plus, certain types of cancer have high rates amongst those Canadians who live in the wind direction of the Alberta Tar Sand Fields.  Yet, who amongst the "Woke, Going-Green People" mentions this? ... or cares about this? ... or even knows about this?  And then comes the other chemicals to which the "woke" people seem absolutely clueless.

Qualifying Statement of one type of pollution:

Diesel Particulates (micrometer-sized grains):  Aside of coming from the soot and ash of incompletely burnt fuel, diesel particulates are also the result of engine part ABRASION.  If they are larger than 10 micrometers, then they easily find their ways to the ground, due to their weight.  If they are as small as 2.5 micrometers, they find their way to your lungs, sometimes for six consecutive months.  

This is one example which shows that the Al-Gore-induced obsession with CO2 is an utter waste of time that takes away the time needed for addressing true pollution.  Without CO2 ... and without chlorophyll ... and without bees ... life of Earth eventually ceases.   CO2 is NOT pollution. 

You have to "get with it," in life.  The CO2 obsession is a money-grabbing con game.  The synthetic chemical issue is what needs to be addressed ... and what needs your help.  Quit being Michael Mann's dupe.  He NEVER won any Nobel Prize, and Al Gore did NOT win the Nobel Science Prize.

In fact, you need to talk to guys/gals who worked outdoors for the past 30 years ... even if it were on-and-off employment.  You have to quit relying on "doctored" graphs that "hide the decline."  (That is done by "smoothing out" a data set, in order to remove the jagged edges of a graph.)

Concerning the infamous (and intelligence-insulting) hockey stick graph that portrayed the Years 1000 to 1999, the decline was hidden in the background - - - in the "bar of uncertainty" --- in the "error margin" or "error bar."  The background of the original 1999 climate hockey stick graph is super jagged.  Anyone with an open mind instantly perceives it.  The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are in that "Error Bar."  Let us resume with the topic at hand:

Are you aware of the thousands of chemicals used in modern society?  I would set forth the approximate number, but I don't even believe it . . . without first doing hours of fact checking.  Well, whatever be the true number, it's irresponsibly high, and it's the reason for the:

Frank  R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, as well as the 2016 laws thereof.

   See:  Key provisions of the Lautenberg Safe Chemicals Act of 2021.

   There is : OSHA guidance for hazard determination of chemicals

The other significant danger to human and mammalian health is PM2..5.  That's Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns.  Anything bigger succumbs quickly to gravity and falls to the ground/floor.



   Also take a look at:   Chemical respiratory allergens

October 21, 2024

'Air Freshener' ingredients turn testosterone into estrogen via aromatase


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?"  

Those "air fresheners" are 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 turning 
you into women; or at the least, the Tooth Fairy & every other kind of fairy.

You call yourselves Metrosexual, as if you are the most suave and alluring
of men.  But, your cars smell like sissified Fairyville.   Hello?   

Is there anyone 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

October 20, 2024

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:


    Chemical Anarchy and Modern Society

Estrogenized 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 review how estrogenized 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.




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


Hormone Disruptor chemical pollution even European coastal waters


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.



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


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.



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.


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.


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."


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.


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.



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


(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.

A review of State laws which banned chemicals is here: 

October 19, 2024

The Diversionary Tactic


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

            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)
_____________________________________________
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.
___________________________________________________

October 18, 2024

Chemical Allergies Were Proven to Exist Long Ago

Stephen Barrett "MD" is an outspoken individual who retired from
psychiatry in 1993 and then proclaimed himself  "the media" in 2001.
He was never board-certified in psychiatry, and he was never board
certified in any other discipline.   He has zero experience as a practit-
ioner in every form of internal, dermatological, and dental medicine.
He was not a researcher in any capacity, either.   Neither was he a
biochemist nor a vaccinologist nor a pharmacologist nor a medical
technologist nor anything similar.  He spent inordinate amounts of
time suing people, including a disabled woman to whom he lost.

In the late 1980s he wrote an article titled, "Unproven Allergies."  Big
problem with that title, though.  Those allergies were proven to exist,
in the world of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, even during
the writing of the deceptive text.  Take note of the following:

       * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
       The testing for IgE-mediated chemical allergies has been con-
       ducted via mainstream medical RAST testing.   The specific
       chemicals tested are found in the OCCUPATIONAL PANEL
       of a  RAST TEST order form.   This means that mainstream
       medical science recognizes the existence of chemical allergies.
       Case closed.  
        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

An Allegation of  Stephen Barrett that Calls for a Response:

Stephen Barrett alleged, throughout his anti-MCS literature, that
a primary test for chemical sensitivities consists in ...

(I)   ... a very subjective and non-quantitative form of testing ...

(II)  ... by which a diluted chemical solution is placed under ...
           the tongue of a patient (or injected through his skin), ...

(III) followed by nothing more than the patient reporting if whether or
       not he experiences any symptom from the administered chemical
       solution.

       This allegation, in combination with numerous omissions of  fact,
       can easily deceive a beginner into assuming that there has never
       been a test to prove the existence of chemical sensitivities.  This
       allegation, therefore, calls for a response.

The Response:

(1)  The testing for chemical sensitivities has included, but has not been
       limited to, ...

(I) ... the traditional skin prick test, otherwise known as the SPT.

(II)  In skin prick testing, a test-subject is regarded as having  tested
       positive when a visible and measurable wheal, equal to or larger
       than a designated size, appears as a result of the skin test.

(III) The size of  the wheal is then recorded in numerical form, and
        numerical measurement constitutes objectivity.       

IgE-mediated Chemicals, via the Process of Haptenation

(2)  The purpose for the SPT is to test for immediate onset hyperreac-
       tivity.  This is a Type I reaction, and such a reaction occurs within
       one hour of  exposure.

(I)   IgE stands for Immunoglobulin E, and an immunoglobulin is a pro-
       tein produced by plasma cells & lymphocytes, serving the function
       of  an antibody.

(II)  A number of chemicals have been found to trigger immediate on-
       set reactions, and a subset of  those have been discovered to be
       IgE-mediated, via a process known as "haptenation."

(III) Haptein is a greek word which means "to fasten," and a hapten is
        a low weighted molecular agent that reacts with an antibody, but
        cannot induce the formation of an antibody until it is fastened to
        either a carrier protein or to a large antigenic molecule.  Chemi-
        cals happen to be agents of  low molecular weight.     

Type IV Hypersensitivity Reactions

(3)  In addition, there are a significant number of chemicals that have
       been found to induce the Type IV, cell-mediated hyperreactivity.
       This is known as "delayed allergic reactivity," and this type hyper-
       sensitivity results in dermatitis or anaphylaxis.

(I)  Concerning the Type I and Type IV hyper-reactivity, the Practice
      Parameter for Allergy Diagnostic Testing, as is issued by the Joint
      Council of Allergy Asthma and Immunology, states:          

       "Many chemicals (e.g., sulfonechloramides, azo dyes, par-
        abens, fragrances) used as additives in foods, drugs, and
        cosmetics may induce either IgE-mediated reactions or
        contact dermatitis, or both." Ann Allergy 1995; 75:543-625      

Non-immunological Chemical Sensitivity Reactions,      
Including Anaphylaxis

(4)   In addition, a number of chemicals have been identified as irritants,
        being that they trigger "nonimmunological" responses.  There is ev-
        en a nonimmunolgical form of  anaphylaxis, known as the "anaphy-
        lactoid reaction."   Such a reaction produces the same final result
        as doe an immunologic anaphylactic reaction.  The only difference
        between the two types of  reactions is in the triggering mechanism
        of them.  That is to say:             

      "An anaphylactoid reaction is another type of immediate 
       reaction that mimics anaphylaxis.  While symptoms and 
       treatments are the same the reason for the reaction is not.  
       An anaphylactoid reaction doesn't involve IgE antibodies' 
       immune system and is not considered a true allergic reac-
       tion.  Even so, the reaction can be just as serious."  [Amer-
       ican College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology]  See:


(I)    Thus, there is Allergic Asthma, and then there is Irritant-induced
        Asthma. One type of asthma is immunologic, while the other type
        is not. You are not inclined to run a 26 mile marathon whenever
        you are exposed to your asthma triggers.      

Allergic Sensitization, Direct Irritation, 
and Pharmacological Reactions

(5)  Hypersensitivity reactions can be triggered via:

(a)  Allergic Sensitization.   This is induced by repeated exposure to
       a sensitizing agent such as formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, or phenyl
       isocyanate.  Then, upon becoming sensitized, further exposure to
       the same agent results in an antibody release or an inflammatory
       chemical release.

(b)   Direct Irritation.   This is induced in those who are "atopic," in
        person who possess chronic vulnerabilities aand/or pre-existent
        conditions.   Such persons develop "symptoms immediately af-
        ter exposure to substances such as chlorine, ammonia, sul-
        fur dioxide, and environmental smoke."

(c)   Pharmacological Reaction.   This comes as a result of the fact
        that some chemicals and nonchemical agents elevate the produc-
        tion of chemicals that naturally exist in the body.  An example of
        a naturally existent chemical in the body, able to have its level ele-
        vated by nontoxic chemical exposure, is acetylcholine.   A case
        in point is the organophosphate/carbamate class of pesticide.  At
        nontoxic levels, it can elevate the level of acetylcholine in the lungs,
        because that class of  pesticide inhibits acetylcholinesterase, the
        enzyme which displaces/dissolves acetylcholine.

        For further understanding on this, see the Mayo Clinic's teaching
        on Occupational Asthma.   It is found at:


A Sample of IgE-mediated Chemicals

(6)   For confirmation purposes, examples of IgE-mediated chemicals
        which can be involved in skin testing, include the following:

(a)   The disinfectant Ortho-phthalaldehyde.        

        It has even resulted in anaphylaxis, via "Cidex OPA." See:

<>  Nine episodes of anaphylaxis following cystoscopy caused by 
       Cidex OPA (ortho-phthalaldehyde) high-level disinfectant in 
       4 patients after cystoscopy.  {J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004 Aug;
       114(2): 392-7}


(b)  Formaldehyde.

        It is masked behind a number of aliases, and it outgases from the
        shampoo and liquid soap ingredients, imidazolidinyl urea, DMDM
        hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, and quaternium-15.   See:

<>   IgE-mediated urticaria from formaldehyde in a dental root 
        canal compound.  (The full text describes 28 cases of Formalde-
        hyde Sensitivity.  {J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol., 2002;12(2):
        130-3}


<>   Exposure to gaseous formaldehyde induces IgE-mediated 
        sensitization to formaldehyde in school children. {Clin Exp
        Allergy, 1996 Mar;26(3): 276-80}


<>   IgE allergy due to formaldehyde paste during endodontic
        treatment.  Apropos of 4 cases:  2 with anaphylactic shock 
        and 2 with generalized urticaria. {Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac.
        2000 Oct;101(4):169-74}


(c) Vinyl Sulphone Reactive Dyes.

       They are also known as fiber-reactive dyes, as well as azo dyes.
       They include Remazol Black B.   See:

<>   Roll of skin prick test and serological measurement of  
        specific IgE diagnosis of  occupational asthma resulting 
        from exposure to vinyl sulphone reactive dyes.  {Occup
        Environ Med. 2001 Jun;58 (6):411-6}


<>   Asthma, rhinitis, and dermatitis in workers exposed to re-
        active dyes. {Br J Ind Med. 1993 Jan;50(1):65-70}


(d)  Cyanuric Chloride.

     It is used in the production of  plastics, herbicides, pharmaceuticals,
     and fiber-reactive dyes.  It is also a structural component of mono-
     chlorotriazine and dichlorotriazine dyes. See:<>   Immunologic cross-reactivity between respiratory chemical
       sensitizers: reactive dyes and cyanuric chloride.    {J Allergy
       Clin Immunol. 1998 Nov;102(5): 835-40}


(e)  The disinfectant Chlorhexidine.  It even triggered anaphylaxis:<>   
       FDA Public Health Notice:  Potential Hypersensitivity Re-
        actions to Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Medical Devices


<>   Immediate hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine: literaure re-
        view. {Allerg Immunol (Paris) 2004.  Apr;36(4):123-6}


(f)   Phthalic Anhydride.

       Nail polish ingredient, ingredient in specific spray paints, and
       an agent used in the making of  unsaturated polyester resins,
       alkyd resins, polyester polyols, and insect repellents.     

<>   Detection of specific IgE in isocyanate and phthalic anhy-
        dride exposed workers:  comparison of RAST RIA, Im-
        muno CAP System FEIA, Magic Lite SQ.  {Allergy. 1993
        Nov;48(8);627-30}


<>   In vitro demonstration of  specific IgE in phthalic anhydride 
        hypersensitivity.  Am Rev Respir Dis, 1976 May;113(5):701-4


(7)  The test which Barrett condemns in his anti-MCS literature is the
       provocation-neutralization test.  In fact, the only type of medical
       practitioner that he mentions in the same literature is the so-called
       clinical ecologist.  Barrett inaccurately explained the provocation-
       neutralization test, in his omitting of pivotal fact, and he additional-
       ly gave the illusion that the only people on earth who test for chem-
       ical sensitivity are the so-called clinical ecologists.

(I)   Firstly, the diagnosing of  the various forms of chemical sensitivity
       has been occurring in the worlds of the Nose, Throat, & Allergy
       Specialist, the Occupational and Environmental Health Specialist,
       the Dermatologist, and even the Chest Physician.   In fact, from
       the world of  the chest physician came the golden rule for diag-
       nosing Irritant-associated Vocal Cord Dysfunction.  In addition,
       two pivotal papers on chemical sensitivity were produced by the
       head of  the department of  emergency medicine of an American
       university.  Yes, Emergency Medicine.      

(II)  Secondly, Stephen Barrett failed to mention that the provocation-
       neutralization test has included the measuring of objective skin
       wheals, and it was also used to detect allergies to insect stings.

Barrett Failed to Mention that it is an Offshoot
of  the Serial Endpoint Titration Skin Testing
Procedure, Covered by Aetna Insurance

(8)   The provocation-neutralization test is actually an offshoot of the
        serial endpoint titration skin testing procedure, covered by Aetna
        Insurance.  This is pertinent to note in light of the observation that
        Stephen Barrett has repeatedly stated what Aetna covers, as if
        Aetna alone is the ultimate benchmark in diagnostic testing.

(I)    Now, the Skin Endpoint Titration seeks to first identify a patient's
        allergens or hymenoptera venom hypersensitivities (such as to that
        of hornets, bees, wasps, fire ants, and/or yellow jackets.)   That is
        to say, the Skin Endpoint Titration first seeks to find the triggering
        dose of  a hypersensitivity reaction.

(II)   The same testing then seeks to find the neutralizing dose of the
         same allergen or venom.  Now, this is done for immunotherapy
         purposes and the neutralizing dose is found in a series of skin
         prick tests.  The dose at which a patient no longer experiences
         a hypersensitivity reaction is the "endpoint."   It constitutes the
         neutralizing dose.    It then becomes the "safe starting dose" for
         immunotherapy.   Thus originates the name "neutralization" in the
         provocation-neutralization test.  The set goal of a provocation-
         neutralization test is to identify the "neutral dose."

(III)   In summary, the provocation-neutralization test looks for 
         objective skin wheals, while simultaneously asking the pa-
         tient how he/she feels when, of  course, such testing involves
         skin prick testing.  The appearance of wheals have been docu-
         mented in such testing.

(IV)  The diagnostic parameters become exceeded when the testing is
         considered positive on an either/or basis; on the basis of either
         the appearance of an objective skin wheal or the subjective re-
         porting of a symptom.  However, this is test concerns itself with
         prognostic parameters, also.

(V)   Nonetheless, to consider a test positive exclusively on the merits
         of an objective skin wheal is to keep the diagnostic part of skin
         prick testing within acceptable parameters.  It's the sublingual
         drops version of such testing which raises eyebrows.

Wheal Reactions Showed a Distinct Pattern

(9)   Objective skin whealing was consistently documented
        during a research undertaking that tested the reliability
        of the provocation-neutralization test.   The result of
         the research goes as follows:            

       "Reaction by symptoms to foods, chemicals, and normal sa-
        line solution showed a random pattern, although wheal
        reactions showed a distinct pattern."

(I)   Thus, in the skin test version of the provocation-neutralization
       test, "wheal reactions showed a distinct pattern."

(II)   The conclusion of that research undertaking goes as follows         

         "Skin response alone may be a more reliable indicator
          and require cross-validation with other tests, such as
          oral and inhalation challenges and comparison with 
          a control population." See:

<>    Intradermal skin testing for food and chemical sensitivities:  
         a double-blind controlled study.  J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999
         May;103(5 Pt 1): 907-11}


(III)  Concerning the prognostic aspect of the provocation-
         neutralization test, the Aetna Insurance Company states:

        "Since provocation-neutralization requires the provoking 
         and neutralizing of symptoms to a single item at a time, 
         a patient could be required to undergo hundreds of indi-
        idual tests requiring weeks or months of full-day testing."
         (Well, this is what Aetna states and its bottom line is money.)

(IV)   The bottom line is that skin testing has been used to identify indi-
          vidual chemical sensitivities to chemicals such as formaldehyde
          and phenyl isocyanate, and phthalic anhydride.  Tested patients
          produced the objective medical finding of visible and measurable
          wheals.  This has included forms of testing other than that of the
          neutralization-provocation test.  In fact, this has included RAST
          Testing.

(V)   Chemically sensitive patients have tested positive in inhalation
         challenge testing, as well as in patch testing (the testing which
         seeks to detect delayed hypersensitivity responses.)  Chemical-
         ly sensitive patients were also documented as having objective
         medical findings via the fiberoptic rhinolaryngoscopy and even
         the fine needle biopsy.  Some chemically sensitive patients were
         found to have inflamed air sacs of the lungs, while other patients
         were found to have hepatic injury in the absence of viral infection.
         Other ones were found to have upper-respiratory erythema and
         swelling.

         Chemical Sensitivity exists in a number of forms.   It's very real,
         and it can be quite brutal.   It has been repeatedly documented
         that chemicals, at ambient (nontoxic) levels, are not universally
         harmless.
        ________________________________________________