Scent allergy limits lives

Nebraskan women ‘overjoyed’ with campus attention to scent allergy

By Kenny Sharpe

Dodie Herrmann lives a life unlike most others, constantly worrying that the next time she ventures into a public area could be her last. She shops at a specific time, avoids elevators with strangers, and has watched her husband enjoy quality time with their children, while she sits protected in her home.

Herrmann, who lives in Nebraska, is among an estimated 15 million Americans who suffer from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS).

According to Allergy UK, an allergy charity, MCS is a condition whereby the individual suffers from mild to severe hypersensitivity to chemical compounds, often petroleum based, which are found in everything from hand soap, perfumes, and laundry detergent.

The allergy affects individuals differently and entails a wide range of reactions. For Herrmann, these reactions meant migraines, rashes, and an overall sense of ill health into her early teens, which eventually progressed into the seizures and cardiac arrest that she can experience today, if around any offensive smell for an extended period of time.

“I remember in general that my health as a child was not that good,” she said.

“I always noticed that I was more affected by the smell of car exhaust and scented products such as soaps and perfumes, something which I would later learn in life to be an allergy to petroleum-based products.”

Not fully aware at the time what was responsible for this constant sickness, Herrmann decided to live her a healthier, more active lifestyle in her 20s, hoping to rid herself of whatever was ailing her.

While her health kick showed signs of promise, Herrmann says an incident involving an exterminator escalated her condition and shadowed any advancement she had made from eating well and exercising.

“It was one time after we had our house fumigated that things really started to go downhill,” she said.

“From that time on … I noticed that I was actually reacting to fragrances. I would sit in a room with people who had used something with fragrance [and] notice that my arms would go weak, and my legs would no longer be able to carry my weight.”

Herrmann attributes her condition worsening from a minor allergy to a severe allergy to the chemicals in the pesticide used in her home, along with painting a room in her home with an oil-based paint on a separate occasion.

From this her condition progressed from minor reactions such as headache or confusion, to more life-threatening reactions such as seizures or her even her heart stopping.

“To some people it may seem like a nuisance problem, but the problem will escalate in time. I remember just having headaches, but the more people with the allergy are put in contact with [scented products], the faster it will progress, snowball even,” she said.

Herrmann added that from this time on her sensitivity to perfumes, soaps, and detergents also increased, resulting in her having to become more conscious of her surroundings, as she was experiencing an increased number of reactions, more violent than before.

“[My condition] finally got to the point where I would watch my husband take my children to the movie theatre or out to eat at a restaurant, and I would actually have to stay home. This lasted for a period of five or six years, where I was missing out on hanging out with my children,” she said.

Herrmann says it was her realization that she no longer wanted to miss her children’s youth that resulted in her return to public life.

Still susceptible and at risk, Herrmann says that she has certain things she does to limit her exposure to scented products.

“I now shop at certain times, when there is hardly anyone else shopping. I avoid closed, confined spaces with little room, and try to find myself in situations where there are high ceilings … because there is more room for the scented product to diffuse, lessening my chance of a reaction,” she said.

Herrmann contacted the Muse in response to a story regarding Memorial’s scent-free policy [“MUN says there’s no sense in wearing scents” The Muse, Vol. 58, Issue 18].

She was forwarded the story by a moderator of a Yahoo group for people with MCS. Herrmann says she was overjoyed at the fact that people living without the problem were taking the time to acknowledge those who live with it everyday.

She was equally surprised at the steps that Canadian universities and employers have taken to ensure a scent-free environment for those living with MCS within Canada, and not to expect any such progress in the near future from our neighbors down south.

“Here in the States we are so far behind when compared to Canada when it comes to [MCS]. Only within the last six months has there been the implementation of a partial smoking ban in some restaurants and public places, and there was sort of an uproar over that,” she said.

“I thought, ‘My goodness, what would they do if somebody said something about perfume?’ People are very ignorant about topics like that here,” said Herrmann. “People who still put on a fragrance or use heavily perfumed products need to realize that they are going to take away the life of someone little by little.

“The person with MCS may literally lose their life, and will at least have to limit themselves in what they do, affecting and altering normal daily activities.”

American Chemical Society News Release
ORLANDO, FL — Natural killer cells are like the Marines of our immune system; they have the capability to defend us against a lot of different threats. But researchers have uncovered a potential counter-threat to this front-line protection. Our body’s natural killer cells could be rendered irreversibly powerless to guard against invading tumors and viral onslaughts after only a brief exposure to a compound found in some agricultural pesticides and fungicides.
The findings were presented at the 223rd national meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS), the world’s largest scientific society.
Triphenyltin (TPT) is a compound used in fungicides to protect pecan, potato and sugar beet crops and in pesticides to guard against Colorado potato beetles. In tests at Tennessee State University in Nashville, TN, researchers have found an apparent irreversible inhibition of natural killer cell function after as little as a one-hour exposure to TPT.
The laboratory tests were the first to ever examine TPT specifically in human natural killer cells, according to chemistry professor Margaret Whalen, Ph.D., who oversaw the work. Most other studies involved animal cell lines, she said during a telephone interview. It’s also the first time the irreversible effect has been shown, she added.
The findings were presented by one of the contributing researchers, Sharnise Wilson, a chemistry major and one of Whalen’s undergraduate students.
"The results indicate that brief exposures to TPT can cause persistent suppression of human immune system function," Whalen emphasized.
Although Whalen thinks that most of the TPT levels that agricultural workers are exposed to in the field are probably below what her group tested in the lab, "It’s hard to know what real-life levels for phenyltins are," she noted.
In the near future, Whalen, in collaboration with Bommanna Loganathan, Ph.D., of Murray State University in Kentucky, hopes to test blood samples of agricultural workers who have been exposed to TPT to see whether significant quantities of the compound can be measured in their blood.
A type of lymphocyte cell found in the immune system, natural killer cells aggressively "fight a viral infection or destroy a cancer cell before other immune system cells recognize that they are there," Whalen pointed out. "They are quite important." A one-hour exposure to TPT "causes about a 50 percent to 60 percent loss of the tumor killing function of the natural killer cell," according to Whalen.
Even after the TPT is removed, the natural killer cells are unable to regain their strength, as evidenced by tests by Whalen’s group with human leukemia cells.
"Despite the fact that the compound is no longer there, they are still unable to kill the leukemia cell," Whalen said.
Whalen believes the findings "could explain to some extent why compounds like this seem to increase cancer risks." The researchers are currently investigating whether interleukin-2 — a protein produced by other immune system cells — might help reverse the inhibitory effect of TPT. "It looks like it can to some extent," according to Whalen, but she quickly points out that the study is still ongoing and there is no conclusive data.
The research is primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health’s Minority Biomedical Research Support (MBRS) program.

http://www.naturalnews.com/z022976.html

(NaturalNews) The concept of home is universal, shared among not only the cultures of the world but much of the animal world as well, from nesting birds to burrowing rodents, to sea creatures to snails that are born with a home on their back. For most of us, animals included, home is a place to rest our weary heads, raise our young, and stay protected from the elements.

It is human nature to create a sense of home, even when transient or homeless. When I backpacked the world, a photo from home, a colorful scarf, and a small cup with a flower were enough to mark my new territory as home. Our sense of home makes us feel safe, comfortable, and grounded in our identity. Without it, we can feel uncertain, vulnerable, uncomfortable, unsettled. Nothing in life will feel exactly right if we don’t have that home base to start from.

So what about the growing sector of our population - now estimated to be between 12.6 percent and 33 percent¹ - that suffers from some form of environmental illness, which can include sensitivities to chemicals found in everyday products and building materials, mold, sound, light, electricity, vibrations, and extremes of temperature? Reported as the "new homeless," ² those with severe chemical sensitivity often find themselves living on the fringes of a chemically addicted society - in refurbished Airstream trailers, tents, and cars, in long-forgotten fields, miles from civilization.

What most people don’t realize, unless they get sick themselves and feel the effects firsthand, is that the typical American home is built with materials laden with toxic chemicals. The most common are formaldehyde (found in plywood, particle board, and other pressed wood products that are used to make furniture, cabinets, shelves, and counter tops) and solvents (used in oil-based paints, stains, wood preservatives, carpet glue, and other adhesives that release dangerous fumes containing volatile organic compounds). Many homes are full of electrical pollution caused by problems with wiring, large appliances, cordless phones, and the now-ubiquitous WiFi and other computer and cable TV transmission systems. Homes that are designed to be hermetically sealed trap indoor pollutants and create an environment ripe for mold growth.

Even if a person with chemical sensitivities were to have sufficient resources - the finances, knowledge, energy, time, and wherewithal - to build a "safe" house for him- or her-self, there is the persistent problem of neighbors. Wafts of their fabric softeners, air-polluting particulates in smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves, ambient pesticide drifts, gas-powered exhaust-spewing lawn appliances, and those Sunday barbecues all threaten the safety and health of those with allergies and other environmental sensitivities.

What others may perceive as mere complaining is, to a person with chemical and environmental sensitivities, an actual physical - and, for that matter, emotional - threat to their well-being with each exposure to someone else’s chemicals. Reactions can range from the uncomfortable - fleeting headaches, nausea, and/or dizziness - to the near fatal. Some even go into seizure, others experience a profound brain fog that can last for days, weeks, or even months, and still others have suffered heart failure when exposed to a specific trigger. We are not talking about simple allergies here; we are talking about brain inflammation, failure of enzyme detoxification systems, and profound immune-mediated responses.³ There are some who have even died from the progression of chemical sensitivity,^{4, 5, 6} which typically affects several organ systems and can eventually lead to organ failure.

The most common response from individuals when told that their universally accepted actions (using fabric softener, wearing perfume, having a summer barbecue) are harming someone else is anger and defensiveness: "That’s their problem, not mine. I’m not going to change my actions. They need to move or protect themselves better." This is the same type of thinking that allows wealthier folks to feel smug and protected in their gated communities, while outlying districts wallow in their higher crime rates; that self-important "It’s your problem not mine" attitude. What many fail to see is that we are always part of a larger community. If we choose not to take everyone’s needs in our community into consideration, it will come back to us eventually.

All language is a longing for home -Rumi

If individuals are not willing to curb their use of toxic chemicals and EMF-emitting devices, the growing ranks of the chemically and electrically sensitive will be forced out of the workplace and onto disability benefits, where they will burden the community as a whole. If individuals are not willing to curb their use of toxic chemicals and EMF-emitting devices, animals and plant life will continue to bear the toxic brunt, resulting in more species’ mutations and extinctions, imbalances of our precious biodiversity, and pollution of our food sources. If individuals are not willing to curb their use of toxic chemicals and EMF-emitting devices, their children will continue to suffer from early exposure to estrogen-mimicking chemicals implicated in a host of childhood illnesses⁷ and low-level radiation, which has been thought to be linked to childhood leukemia and other diseases.⁸ If we choose not to take the needs of everyone in our communities into consideration (human and nonhuman, adult and child, rich and poor, powerful and vulnerable, alike), it will come back to us eventually.

The truth is that industry’s use of chemicals is on the rise, as is our own use of chemicals in home and personal care products, triggering a rise in environmental illnesses. The issue of a safe home will continue to be a problem - and might even become your problem. We are in need of a complete overhaul of the architecture and design industries, including how these subjects are taught in our schools. Even the "green" bandwagon many have jumped on does not completely address the issue of toxicity when it comes to building materials. Ask any person with environmental sensitivities who has tried to build green.

In an effort to better understand the basic housing needs for those with environmentally based sensitivities, I surveyed eighteen families who had built housing for someone with moderate to severe chemical and/or electrical sensitivities.⁹ What became clear was that what was good for the environment (using sustainably managed woods, renewable energy sources, etc.) was not necessarily good for people.

Case in point: Wood-burning stoves are commonly used in sustainable residential projects, making use of a local, renewable resource, and yet wood is one of the most polluting sources of heat. Gerd Oberfeld, M.D., an epidemiologist from the public health office in Salzburg, Austria has said, "I saw very strong and significant associations between tonsillitis, frequent cough, pseudo-croup, exercise-induced wheeze, food allergies and wood smoke exposure in our school children. I think that wood smoke is one of the most harmful air pollutants we have on earth."¹⁰

Many eco-villages require chemical-free lifestyles of their members and would make ideal communities for those with chemical sensitivities; however, their frequent choice of wood-burning stoves as a heat source unfortunately removes them as a housing option. It’s my hope that the designers, builders, and community planners of this world take heed of this discrepancy between green and non-toxic and start changing the way our homes are built.

The health effects of today’s common construction materials on those with environmental sensitivities are not to be taken lightly. This is a serious issue affecting millions of people worldwide, and the numbers are growing. Not just affecting those with asthma, respiratory disease, and environmental sensitivities, or vulnerable populations like the elderly and children, the toxic burden created by indoor air pollution impacts us all. The issue isn’t just about assisting those with special needs. This is really about building the kind of world we all want to live in.

There is one thing we can be sure of: if we do not start cleaning up our world, nature will do it for us in the form of an unpleasant - to put it lightly - collapse of our ecosystem. All the signs are pointing in that direction. It’s imperative also that we stop further polluting our planet. I would love to see a proliferation of chemical-free, electrical-free, pedestrian-based communities that return to an agrarian way of life using natural farming methods, providing for the needs of all their members, including the non-human ones. Only then can we ensure that all of us sharing this planet will have a safe place to call home.

This essay was first published in the November/December 2007 issue of DESIGNER/builder: A Journal of The Human Environment (http://www.designerbuildermagazine.com) , an independent and nontraditional magazine that brings social justice and issues of equity to the debate over the built and human environments.

Notes:

1 Pamela Reed Gibson and Amanda Lindberg, "What Do We Know About Multiple Chemical Sensitivity?" ((http://www.mcsresearch.net/Conferencepa…) .

2 Rhonda Zwillinger, "No Safe Haven," E: The Environmental Magazine, Volume IX, Number 5, September/October 1998, (http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1003) .

3 William J. Rea, M.D., "The Environmental Aspects of Chemical Sensitivity," Japanese Journal of Clinical Ecology, 3.1 (1994): pp. 2-17, ((http://www.aehf.com/articles/env_aspect…) .

4 Kim Palmer, (http://www.alerg.com/kimpalmerstory.html) .

5 Cindy Duerhing, (http://www.ciin.org/pages/04-fund.html) .

6 Dan Allen, (http://www.wtv-zone.com/infchoice/mcs/allen.html) .

7 Jennifer Bogo, "Children At Risk: Widespread Chemical Exposure Threatens Our Most Vulnerable Population," E: The Environmental Magazine, Volume VII, Number 5, September/October 2001, (http://www.emagazine.com/view/?1074) .

8 National Safety Council, "Sources of Non-Ionizing Radiation," (http://www.nsc.org/issues/rad/nonioniz.htm) .

9 Julie Genser with Melinda Honn and Greg Conrad, "Safer Construction Tips for the Environmentally Sensitive," 2007, ((http://planetthrive.com/cgi-bin/members…) .

10 Gerd Oberfeld, M.D., "International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood," ((http://burningissues.org/car-www/medica…) .

About the author
Julie Genser is the founder and director of www.PlanetThrive.com , a grassroots community for personal wellness with a focus on the health-environment connection.

July 10, 2002

By JILL CARROLL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON — Three consumer and environmental groups released a study showing that certain chemicals linked to birth defects in animals are present in high levels in a number of toiletries, and called for banning their use in cosmetics.

The three organizations — the Environmental Working Group, Health Care Without Harm and Coming Clean — tested 72 products, including nail polish, hairspray, perfume and deodorant, for the chemicals, known as phthalates, and found that 52 products contained them at varying levels.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have said that there’s no evidence that phthalates in cosmetics present a health risk, but that more research needs to be done. In animals, phthalates (pronounced THA-layts) have been linked to birth defects of the male reproductive system.

The three advocacy groups called on the government to study the effects of exposure to phthalates , particularly in women. "We don’t have a regulatory system that has ever considered those cumulative exposures," said Charlotte Brody, a nurse and head of Health Care Without Harm, a Washington-based consumer-health advocacy group.

A panel of experts funded by the cosmetics industry is examining phthalates and will decide in about a year if they believe the chemicals pose a health hazard.

The cosmetics industry said it believes phthalates in cosmetics pose no problems. "There is no public-health concern [relating to] its use in cosmetics," said Gerald McEwen, vice president of science for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. "We think they are safe as we are using them in our products."

But if phthalates were found to be dangerous, companies would remove products containing them without government intervention, he said.

Phthalates have been used for decades in a wide variety of products from toys and medical equipment to making sure perfumes have the right smell. The biggest cosmetic product containing phthalates is nail polish. In the past phthalates were used extensively as plastics softeners in children’s toys and teethers. But manufacturers largely stopped using them for that purpose after pressure from consumer groups.

In 2000, a CDC report showed surprisingly high levels of certain types of phthalates in the population, despite the fact that the specific types aren’t used much in consumer products.

Exclusive from New Scientist magazine

Gender-bending chemicals that mimic the effect of estrogen are common in sunscreens, warns a team of Swiss researchers who have found that they trigger developmental abnormalities in rats.

"We need to do more tests to see how they might be affecting people," says Margaret Schlumpf from the Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Zurich, Switzerland.

Researchers know that chemicals which behave like estrogen can cause health problems. They can have a dramatic effect on animals, for example turning fish into hermaphrodites.

Some researchers claim that hormonally active chemicals from the urine of women taking the birth control pill are already swamping the environment, and may be causing a decline in sperm counts.

Uterine growth

Schlumpf and her colleagues tested six common UV screening chemicals used in sunscreens, lipsticks and other cosmetics. All five UVB screens -benzophenone-3, homosalate, 4-methyl-benzylidene camphor (4-MBC), octyl-methoxycinnamate and octyl-dimethyl-PABA - behaved like estrogen in lab tests, making cancer cells grow more rapidly.

Three caused developmental effects in animals. Only one chemical - a UVA protector called butyl-methoxydibenzoylmethane (B-MDM) - showed no activity.

One of the most common sunscreen chemicals, 4-MBC, had a particularly strong effect. When the team mixed it with olive oil and applied it to rat skin, it doubled the rate of uterine growth well before puberty. "That was scary, because we used concentrations that are in the range allowed in sunscreens," Schlumpf says.

Nobody knows if doses are high enough to create problems for people, says Schlumpf.

Low levels

"Evidence that they’re a real health concern is still lacking," says Richard Sharpe from the Medical Research Council’s Reproductive Biology Unit in Edinburgh. But he adds, "It’s not good news that we are lathering ourselves with creams with hormonal activity."

The Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association, which represents sunscreen manufacturers in Britain, replies that the levels found by Schlumpf are well below anything that would cause an effect after a single application.

A study by the association, not yet published, shows no effect from these chemicals in rats. But, it adds, "If levels are increasing [in the environment] then we’re aware something would have to be done soon."

Breast milk

That day may be here since 4-MBC and other sunscreen chemicals have been shown to accumulate in fish from lakes where people swim.

More worryingly, they have been found in breast milk at levels of nanograms per kilogram of fat - about the same as other known environmental contaminants. Schlumpf worries that the large amount of sunscreen used by bathers, especially children, could dramatically increase this exposure.

Schlumpf says the other 25 or so chemicals used in sunscreens should also be tested for hormonal activity, and she will be looking more closely at 4-MBC to see if the offspring of exposed rats develop health problems.

For the moment, she isn’t advising people to ditch sunscreens completely, but suggests that sunblocks like zinc oxide might make a healthier alternative.

More at: Environmental Health Perspectives (vol 109, p 239)

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=526366

By Severin Carrell
The Independent
30 May 2004

Children are at greater risk of cancers and fertility problems in later life because of the growing use of their cosmetics and toiletries, health experts are warning.

Adolescents and the parents of young children are buying more beauty products made for adults and toiletries such as baby wipes and bubble baths than ever before.

Fertility experts, cancer specialists and environmentalists are becoming alarmed by evidence that most of these products use potentially dangerous chemicals linked to breast cancer, falling sperm counts and hormonal damage.

The World Health Organisation and European health and environment ministers are to issue a stark warning next month. Ministers from all 25 EU member states, including the Evironment minister Alun Michael and Health minister Melanie Johnson from the UK, will sign a declaration calling for action to cut children’s exposure to these chemicals.

Their warnings will be backed by initiatives by Friends of the Earth and the Women’s Environmental Network.

A report by Friends of the Earth this week will accuse the UK’s largest retailers of failing to take effective action to cut down on these chemicals in their products.

The ingredients of greatest concern include chemicals called parabens which can affect the hormone oestrogen and were recently found in breast cancer tissues. They are routinely used as preservatives in body lotions such Johnson’s "baby softwash" and Kandoo toilet wipes.

Other suspect additives are known as phthalates, used to soften plastics and help carry scents in cosmetics. Banned for use in baby toys, they are linked to lower sperm levels in men, premature breast development and allergies.

Cosmetics companies such as Boots and Johnson & Johnson insisted all their products were very carefully formulated within strict health guidelines. But the Cosmetics, Toiletries and Perfumes Association admitted it was likely to phase out the use of all phthalates because of consumer concerns.

Skin cancer is now the number one diagnosed cancer in men and women in the world. Squamous cell and basal cell carcinomas make up the majority of skin cancers, while melanoma contributes to 75% of all skin cancer deaths according to WebMD.

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics — Important information from the Breast Cancer Fund about dangerous chemicals in cosmetics, plus a list of companies including Canary Cosmetics that have signed the pledge not to use those toxic ingredients in their products.

Cosmetics Informational Resources, a health information resource.

TheGroovyMind.com — Great socially responsible and environmentally sustainable personal and business gifts. Delicious organic, Fair Trade gourmet coffee, tea, chocolate, handmade gifts, and cool eco-accessories.

The Safer Travel Directory — Travel accommodation guide for the chemically-sensitive.

MCS-Global — Global Campaign for Recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.