Editor perpetuates myth about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (+more arcticles)

[Guest guest]

Editor perpetuates myth about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Posted: 06 Apr 2009 05:18 PM PDT

Says professional editor Jon Vara: “I believe that there’s a substantial

body of evidence suggesting that multiple chemical sensitivity DOES exist but

that it’s a psychosomatic problem, not a physiological one.â€

Let’s get the facts straight right off the bat: There is NOT a substantial

body of evidence suggesting Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is psychosomatic. In

fact, quite the opposite is true: A substantial body of peer-reviewed studies

show MCS is real and the result of toxic chemicals harming people

physiologically and neurologically.

The discussion starts here:

The Green Builder reports on toxic and nontoxic houses.

There’s no reason to believe that homes built from conventional materials are

“toxic homes.†Every American has every reason to expect that all of the

building materials sold in a conventional lumberyard are non-toxic. If any

builder has evidence that a specific building material is actually toxic, the

solution is regulatory, not architectural. In other words, it’s time to write

a letter to your representative, print up some leaflets, or lobby the government

for tighter regulations.

It’s not the job of architects or builders to provide homeowners with advice

on obscure chemicals that may or may not affect asthma sufferers, and builders

shouldn’t be making health claims about their homes. A builder who repeats

unscientific information picked up on the Internet ends up sounding like a

snake-oil salesman — or like a weapons dealer who exaggerates the threat of

terrorism in order to justify preparations for war.

To wax philosophical, there’s an additional problem with the “toxins,

toxins, everywhere†mindset: it generates fear, and fear is corrosive to

spiritual health.

But the first commenter to the article, professional writer and editor Jon Vara,

says:

Excellent piece about toxics and one that will probably stir up a hornet’s

nest for you. When I worked at a builder’s magazine, I regularly (and

unsuccessfully) proposed that we do a story looking into the phenomenon of

multiple chemical sensitivities, where people need to live in special houses

with unpainted plaster walls, no carpeting, etc. I believe that there’s a

substantial body of evidence suggesting that multiple chemical sensitivity DOES

exist but that it’s a psychosomatic problem, not a physiological one.

As I understand it, the key distinction is that just because a problem is

psychosomatic doesn’t mean it’s imaginary — maybe there’s no direct

physical cause, but it can make you very sick. In other words, a person with MCS

probably isn’t imagining their illness or making it up in the sense that a kid

pretends to be sick to get out of going to school — the MCS sufferer may

actually be running a fever, vomiting, etc. It’s just that it’s not directly

caused by the outgassing from the plywood sheathing, but rather by the

sufferer’s fear and concern about the outgassing from the plywood. You can

probably even cure it by getting rid of the plywood, but it was never really the

plywood’s fault.

That’s all loose talk on my part. But I think it would be useful and

interesting to get the straight story from medical/public health experts. Surely

there are some actual studies about this, as opposed to mushy anecdotal stuff?

And my response, which I also left as a comment to the article:

The toxicity of modern building materials is a health issue for everyone, not

just people with Environmental Illness and/or Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

(MCS). I agree that the regulation needs to be done at the point of origin of

the products, and that the government should be overseeing the regulatory

process.

To commenter Jon Vara: saying MCS is psychosomatic is 15-20 years behind the

times. In fact, the DSM-IV, the manual of the psychiatric profession, does not

recognize MCS as a psychological disorder. Good article here. Further, as a

point of clarification, MCS is not an allergy either.

Also, as another point of clarification, “toxin†is a poison produced by a

living organism. “Toxic†is poison by chemical means. People tend to mix up

the terms. People with MCS have adverse reactions when exposed to certain toxic

chemicals not necessarily toxins (an exception may be with something like toxic

mold). If people with MCS have allergies to toxins or toxics, it is a separate

health issue.

It may interest you to know that Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is recognized as

a disability by the Social Security Administration, HUD and the Americans with

Disabilities Act, among others. For a list of published peer-reviewed articles

documenting the “realness†of MCS, go to The Chemical Sensitivity Foundation

and MCS America.  This chemical sensitivity condition is not rare and the

numbers of people who have it are growing.

I agree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the government to regulate

toxic chemicals in building materials at the point of origin. But changing the

laws governing corporations is a slow process, even when in the best interest of

public health. Changes to public health policy often start at the local level,

as has been the case with smoking, and is often sparked by concerned mothers,

the scientists who are doing the research, and those of us who are ill from the

offending products. My hope is that green architects and builders will also do

their homework and chose to use nontoxic materials. Unfortunately, among green

building trends, which are most often linked to global warming issues, indoor

air quality tends to be ignored.

Clean air is everybody’s business, and seeing this issue as a fundamental

health issue is the only way we will ever get consensus on taking the necessary

action to protect everyone.

Dangers in low levels of toxic chemicals

Posted: 03 Apr 2009 07:05 PM PDT

Expert says there may be no safe dose of certain chemical compounds.

60 Second Science reports some chemicals may be more dangerous at low doses.

Critics site bad science on this issue, but the assertion that there is danger

in low doses of toxic chemicals, and in the mixing of low doses of certain

chemicals, is not news to people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. While

people with MCS can have dangerous physical reactions to an exposure of any

amount of a toxic chemical, what makes us the “canaries†in our toxic

environment is that we often have adverse reactions to extremely low levels of

toxic chemicals; in fact you could argue this is the signature mark of MCS.

It’s nice to see toxicology finally catching up with us.

60 Second Science reports:

The basic premise of safety testing for chemicals is that anything can kill you

in high enough doses (even too much water too fast can be lethal). The goal is

to find safe levels that cause no harm. But new research suggests that some

chemicals may be more dangerous than previously believed at low levels when

acting in concert with other chemicals.

“Some chemicals may act in an additive fashion,†Birnbaum said this

week at a conference held at the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental

Health at Columbia University. “When we look one compound at a time, we may

miss the boat.â€

Birnbaum, director of both the National Institute for Environmental Health

Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program in Washington, D.C., noted

that some chemicals, such as those that mimic human hormones, may combine with

other hormonelike chemicals  at low doses to produce big effects.

Link to full report.

Thanks, !

Scent product masks mold and mildew smells

Posted: 03 Apr 2009 05:46 PM PDT

Fragrance added to paint is said to cover up “musty or mildew smell.â€

mlive.com reports on a new fragrance product targeted to people taking over

homes that have been closed up for some time and become “musty†: before you

paint, add the packet of scent and it will remove “even a musty or mildew

smell.â€

How many levels of wrong is this? Adding any chemical scent product to your home

is compromising the Indoor Air Quality right off the bat– for example, home

scent products such as air fresheners contain many toxic chemicals. But to sell

a toxic product to cover up mold or mildew, which itself may be toxic, is

unconscionable. Any indoor air quality expert will tell you mold growth indoors

can and should be prevented and removed if present, not masked with a toxic

scent product. And what adds insult to injury with this scent product is that

the targeted consumers are people taking over homes that have fallen to

foreclosure.

It’s sickening.

“It’s fantastic,†said Shore, who added a packet of “Fresh Air†in a

gallon of taupe-colored paint when she painted the walls in her home’s

family room.

“It’s light and has altered the smell of the house. And I enjoy the

fragrance,†said Shore about the Paint SCENTsations.

People like Shore, who recently bought a home that had been closed up for at

least two years, are turning to scents ranging from citrus to lavender to cut

odors.

The scents can remove even a musty or mildew smell.

And if previous owners smoked, they also will help remove the lingering odors

from cigarettes and cigars.

Typically, the scents last from six months to a year.

Link

Monsanto, nanoparticles, and greenwashing

Posted: 03 Apr 2009 05:06 AM PDT

Canary’s Cry for Friday, April 3

Monsanto wants to play with us on the interwebs. The darling kids at

Monsanto’s public relations department have started a cute little blog, where

they write about their adorable co-workers and how they are all just like us.

Oh, and also about how green Monsanto is.

Related: WebEcoist reports on the world’s 10 worst greenwashers. Oh look,

there’s Monsanto:

Monsanto, the world’s largest seed and pesticide company, is working to

convince us that they are supporters of sustainable agriculture – all while

monopolizing and homogenizing the world’s food supply. Hardly sustainable.

Monsanto, the maker of toxic pesticide RoundUp, has a long history of producing

genetically modified seeds, including ‘terminator’ seeds that cannot

reproduce on their own, forcing farmers to go back to Monsanto again and again

for more seeds.  They’re also the creators of rGBH (recombinant bovine growth

hormone), which is given to cows to increase production and often ends up in our

water supply.

Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetics Database reports on What Not

To Buy when shopping for cosmetics:

Major gaps in public health laws allow cosmetics companies to use almost any

ingredient they choose in everything from sunscreen and mascara to deodorant and

baby shampoo, with no restrictions and no requirement for safety testing. To

help you navigate your store’s aisles, Environmental Working Group researchers

have scoured thousands of ingredient labels to bring you our top recommendations

for what not to buy — products with worrisome or downright dangerous

ingredients that don’t belong in your shopping cart or on your skin. Read more

about why this matters.

Environmental Health News reports nanoparticles in sunscreens, cosmetics and

other consumer products may pose risks to the environment by damaging beneficial

microbes.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports on the latest information on toxic

chemical releases. Releases are down overall, but mercury and PCBs are up.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reports on contaminants in children’s bath and

personal care products.

Green Directory Montana reports on non-organic panic.

Litigation and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Posted: 02 Apr 2009 01:32 AM PDT

Litigation, as used here, refers to lawsuits against individuals or corporate or

governmental entities that may be responsible for inflicting some insult that

triggered or aggravated an MCS/EI condition.

This is the fourth post of an ongoing series on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

and disability rights written by Walkup, attorney at law.

specializes in disability claims, and is a regular contributor on The Canary

Report about disability law in relation to Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS),

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS).

would be happy to answer any questions in the comment section of this

post.

In my previous articles in this series, I discussed disability insurance plans

and workers compensation benefits claims for people who have developed Multiple

Chemical Sensitivity/Environmental Illness (MCS/EI). Before going into a

detailed discussion of Social Security Disability, I wanted to touch on one more

potential option for recovery, namely litigation.

Litigation, as used here, refers to lawsuits against individuals or corporate or

governmental entities that may be responsible for inflicting some insult that

triggered or aggravated an MCS/EI condition. These would be similar in concept

to suing the person who rear-ended your vehicle while you were stopped for a

traffic signal. What you are trying to show is that you were injured because the

other party was “negligent.†Negligence means the doing of something that a

reasonable person would not have done under the circumstances, or the failure to

do something that a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances.

There is also another concept known in the products liability field of “strict

liability†where a maker of an “unreasonably dangerous†product may be

responsible regardless of actual negligence. Governmental bodies, such as

municipalities, state governments, the federal government, on the other hand,

have “qualified immunity†in which they are immune from liability unless

they have acted with “gross negligence†or were “willful and wanton.â€Â 

This can also mean that they acted with a “reckless disregard†of the

consequences of their actions or inactions.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as someone being liable

automatically if there is an injury “on their property.†You still have to

prove that they were negligent.

Finally, in order to become liable for an injury, the other party has to have

owed a “legal duty†to the person who was injured to avoid injuring them. If

you produce or sell a product, sell or rent a house to someone, or take your car

out on the roadways, you owe a duty to anyone who might reasonably be expected

to become injured if you are negligent.

One question I hear a lot is, “Can I sue the doctor that the insurance company

sent me to for an examination?†Basically, no. A doctor who examines you for

the purpose of a claim or lawsuit, or to qualify you for insurance, does not owe

you a “duty†in terms of medical malpractice or negligence and cannot be

sued by you if he/she, for example, exposes you to something to which you are

sensitive and makes you worse. The insurance company that sent you there might,

if they know about your condition, be liable, but not the doctor. If you were

sent to the doctor by the government, such as for a Social Security Disability

claim, the government is immune and cannot be sued.

You also can’t file a lawsuit for anything that is covered under the workers

compensation laws of your state. What this means is that if you were injured or

exposed at work, you cannot sue your employer in court. You are limited to going

through the workers compensation system in your state and are limited to the

types of benefits that are payable there. The up side to this is that you

don’t have to prove negligence in a workers compensation claim. More is

covered on this in my previous article.

You may, however, be able to sue a third party even if your injury or exposure

was work related. A third party would be someone other than your employer who

may have been negligent and whose negligence may have caused or contributed to

the problem. An example of this would be if your employer rents space in a

building but does not own the building, and you develop problems associated with

sick building syndrome. You can then sue the owner of the building. Even if your

employer does own the building, you might be able to sue the builder or the

architect, or both. This is what happened in the county courthouse building I

described in the last article.

Such a suit would be in addition to any workers compensation claim you may have.

There would also not be any offset of the settlement per se but the responsible

party would have to reimburse the workers compensation carrier for a portion of

the benefits paid which can reduce your end of the recovery.

Mold Cases

Mold cases have been more successful but you may have difficulty tying the mold

exposure to a more global sensitivity to general environmental exposures or

proving that you became completely disabled from the mold exposure. I will be

taking up the medical/legal issues further in a later article.

Product Cases

There have been a lot of cases involving various products, especially

pharmaceuticals. Usually these are done as class actions so that the huge expert

witness expenses can be spread out over a large number of cases. Again, good

luck in showing that you have developed a sensitivity to perfumes from a pill

you took, and which prevents you from working for the rest of your life and

forces you to live in a tent in the desert, but some type of recovery may be

possible on at least a limited basis.

Federal Court

You want to stay completely out of federal court if you have MCS/EI that you are

trying to tie to something to which you were exposed.

The issues of what causes what, and whether you can develop a more generalized

impairment from exposure to some particular thing, are hard enough, but the

federal courts impose an evidentiary rule which they made up a few years ago

that makes it virtually impossible to do anything on a chemical sensitivity

case.

The rule to which I am referring came out of a case in which the plaintiff’s

name was Daubert and is therefore now called the Daubert Rule. The purpose of

this was to limit what was referred to as “junk science†from the federal

courts, and requires that before any expert evidence is admissible; it has to be

shown to be generally accepted in the medical or scientific community. It is

very easy for people defending these cases to find an expert who will say that

MCS/EI is not generally accepted, and that anyone who attempts to treat it and

says otherwise is a quack and charlatan. Once this happens, the case pretty much

is over unless you can bring in other types of evidence from other sources or

call the condition something else.

Again, it is important that you consult with an attorney in your state on any

particular litigation case you think you may have as these are often matters of

state law which may vary. There have been some success stories in recent years,

so there may be some hope.

Walkup is an experienced disability practitioner with more than 25 years

experience in the disability law field. In 2001, he became disabled due to

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and

Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS). He now provides a service to advise clients with

potential disability claims who have MCS, CFS and/or FMS. As these programs and

law are usually federal, he is able to practice in all 50 states and, therefore,

represent clients regardless of location.

is a long time Sustaining Member of the National Organization for Social

Security Claimants’ Representatives, the only national body for disability

representatives. He is also certified as a Federal Trial Lawyer and is admitted

to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims.

would welcome the opportunity to possibly help with disability claims.

For more information, visit his website MCS Legal Help at walkuplaw.com. Contact

info: email MJWalkup@... or call 866-880-4878.

[Guest guest]

Who says new building products are not toxic? When I was building my addition on

my home I had a load of pine boards delivered by the lumber company that were

COVERED with black mold. These boards sat in my garage for one day until they

could come back and pick them up. Next day my garage walls were growing mold on

them and it went downhill from there. The man that delivered those mold boards

recently died of cancer, he was 56. Coincidence, I dont think so.. D

In , dana dana <gsgrl2000@...> wrote:

>>

> Editor perpetuates myth about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

> Posted: 06 Apr 2009 05:18 PM PDT

>

> Says professional editor Jon Vara: “I believe that there’s a substantial

body of evidence suggesting that multiple chemical sensitivity DOES exist but

that it’s a psychosomatic problem, not a physiological one.â€

[Guest guest]

This notion of " psychosomatic " is the most infuriating. When the " defense " has

nothing else or knows they are wrong, they go for the " insanity defense " and I

don't mean that in the criminal context (although it is " morally criminal, "

insulting and demeaning, in my opinion.)

There is also a sexist undertone as it is a " man-driven " industry for the larger

part. Female Hysteria was a common medical diagnosis. Sound like

" hysterectomy. " Because they can't get away with the term " hysteria " because of

its connotation and background, " psychosomatic " will also fit a man who is sick

from the workplace.

When I first reported being sick from mold in my class, it was said that it was

because of " stress, " " loss of a sibling, the prior year "

" divorce " or " pre-menopause " - so, take your pick of " defenses "

and employer or landlord could use.

Because the Department of Defense has " weaponized " these toxins since before

WWII, they have an enormous amount of information about " what they are " and

" what they do " to the human body. Even the Geneva Convention of 1924-5, banned a

lot of the toxins for war purposes because they cause catastrophic damage to the

human body.

When someone needs a " defense " and doesn't have a leg to stand on, out comes the

predictable assault of " it is all in her/his head. "

Taking " samples " and having them " speciated " out, with pictures of where the

mold was, by a competent and respected scientist is the only way to shut them

up! Good science, which has not " tampered with, "

is the best way.

And, you cannot beat finding a doctor who is " Board Certified. "

There are some buildings which I cannot enter, since my exposure. I am not as

bad off as other people and for that I am very grateful.

" Unpainted plaster walls " - what a concept. One, we can " live with. "

No wonder they did not want to hear what you had to say. It would be in direct

conflict with those who wanted to advertise or promote their products.

>

> Editor perpetuates myth about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

> Posted: 06 Apr 2009 05:18 PM PDT

>

> Says professional editor Jon Vara: “I believe that there’s a substantial

body of evidence suggesting that multiple chemical sensitivity DOES exist but

that it’s a psychosomatic problem, not a physiological one.â€

[Guest guest]

'Somataform Disorder " is the term our defense cronies used.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:51 PM, ginloi <ginloi@...> wrote:

>

>

> This notion of " psychosomatic " is the most infuriating. When the " defense "

> has nothing else or knows they are wrong, they go for the " insanity defense "

> and I don't mean that in the criminal context (although it is " morally

> criminal, " insulting and demeaning, in my opinion.)

>

[Guest guest]

I absolutely agree, this editor is obviously uneducated when it comes to mold

and needs to do a lot more research! This just goes to show you that there are

still those out there who don't want to believe or except that mold is dangerous

or they are being paid off!

> >>

> > Editor perpetuates myth about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

> > Posted: 06 Apr 2009 05:18 PM PDT

> >

> > Says professional editor Jon Vara: “I believe that there’s a substantial

body of evidence suggesting that multiple chemical sensitivity DOES exist but

that it’s a psychosomatic problem, not a physiological one.â€

>

[Guest guest]

It absolutely infuriates me as well... because you are right, they have known

about the damages of a lot of these toxins for years, like you stated.....

even reading this article was infuriating because how long are these people

going to get away with denying people good health and in a sense killing us

off!?

Judges and doctors have got to start standing up to the system and doing what is

right for people's health instead taking hush money... I believe this would be a

good place to start.

bottom line: stop with all the cover-ups!

>

> This notion of " psychosomatic " is the most infuriating. When the " defense " has

nothing else or knows they are wrong, they go for the " insanity defense " and I

don't mean that in the criminal context (although it is " morally criminal, "

insulting and demeaning, in my opinion.)

>

> There is also a sexist undertone as it is a " man-driven " industry for the

larger part. Female Hysteria was a common medical diagnosis. Sound like

" hysterectomy. " Because they can't get away with the term " hysteria " because of

its connotation and background, " psychosomatic " will also fit a man who is sick

from the workplace.

>

>