Anaphylaxis: It impairs multiple body systems in one systemic
fashion, and it has been triggered by a number of chemicals at
ambient levels. The chemicals which have thus far been docu-
mented as having triggered anaphylaxis at nontoxic levels include:
[01] the hair bleaching agent, Ammonium Persulfate.
[02] the antimicrobial agent, Chlorhexidine (0.05%).
[03] the medical disinfectant, Ortho-phthalaldehyde.
[04] the fungicide, Chlorothalonil (0.01% aqueous).
[05] the analgesic ingredient, Polyvinylpyrrolidone.
[06] the diagnostic agent, Isosulphan Blue Dye.
[07] the dialysis ingredient, Ethylene Oxide.
[08] the additive, Sodium Benzoate.
[09] the analgesic, Acetaminophen.
[10] the xanthine dye, Flourescein.
[11] the food coloring, Tartrazine.
[12] common aspirin.
[13] formaldehyde.
[14] nitrites.
[15] sulfites ... etc.
The existence of Systemic Chemical Sensitivity has already been
documented under the name, anaphylaxis and even urticaria. It
is not a proposed hypothesis yet to be proven.
An Assertion Negated by Evidence Gathered
in the Field of Occupational Medicine
An objection to the recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
consisted in the assertion that a chemical, whenever encountered
at a nontoxic level, can not impair more than one body system in
the same one person. However, chemicals have individually done
this during anaphylaxis. In fact, there are documented instances in
the world of occupational medicine where the same one chemical,
at an ambient level, has impaired two body systems in the same one
worker (or subset of workers.) This phenomenon can be regarded
as Dual Chemical Sensitivity, and it has thus far involved the integu-
mentary system (the skin) in combination with the respiratory system
in the following forms:
[1] airborne irritant urticaria (hives) accompanied by rhinitis.
[2] asthma and rhino-conjunctivitis accompanied by dermatitis.
[3] asthma accompanied by dermatitis.
[4] asthma accompanied by urticaria.
Dual Chemical Sensitivity has already been documented, and it ap-
pears in documentation under the name "co-morbid conditions," as
well as under "coexisting conditions." Thus, it is not a hypothesis
yet to be proven. The chemicals which have thus far been document-
ed as having induced it, within the world of Occupational Medicine,
include:
[1] dental acrylates;
[2] dusts of persulfate salts;
[3] epoxy resin diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A;
[4] leather tanning ingredient potassium dichromate;
[5] spray paint additive, polyfunctional aziridine cross-
linker CX-100.
The coexistence of different forms of localized chemical sensitivity
entirely negates the assumption that a chemical sensitivity reaction
can only impair one body system in any one person. Clicking on
each of the following titles will connect you to the documentary
evidence, concerning dual chemical sensitivity:
Occupational allergic airborne contact dermatitis and delayed bronchial asthma from epoxy resin revealed by bronchial provocation test.
Occupational Asthma and Contact Dermatitis in a Spray Painter after Introduction of an Aziridiine Cross-Linker.
Occupational asthma and dermatitis after exposure to dusts of persulfate salts in two industrial workers (author's transl).
Dentist's occupational asthma, rhino-conjunctivitis,
and allergic contact dermatitis from methacrylates.
Pronounced Short-term Chemical Exposure
Causing Long-term Illness in Dual Body Systems
Then there are cases where pronounced chemical exposure (such
as in the case of chemical spills) has resulted in adverse affects to
dual body systems. It has furthermore resulted in hypersensitivity
to a number of chemicals other than that which was encountered
during the chemical overexposure. One case study involves a tank
truck hauler who developed symptoms during and after an eight and
a half hour stay around an alleged tank of paraffin, due to the fact
that he experienced a tire blowout while driving and had to wait for
a road crew to get him back on the road.
Within one hour of the blowout, the driver underwent racking cough,
a severe headache, and an irritated throat. Within forty hours, his
feet, hands, and abdomen started to swell. The swelling continued
to the point where it even triggered shortness of breath and chest
pains. The physical examination of the driver resulted in the follow-
ing objective medical findings:
[1] an elevated CD 26 cell count;
[2] a protuberant/distended abdomen;
[3] a decreased T-suppressor cell count;
[4] the presence of the antinuclear antibody;
[5] and the presence of the anti-thyroid antibody.
[6] the presence of the anti-smooth-muscle anti-body;
[7] liver function test results consistent with hepatotoxic
injury.
When the driver was examined a year after the blowout, he stated
that exposure to chemical agents resulted in his suffering gastro-
intestinal distress, fatigue, weakness, arthralgia, and irritability.
Now, this is a description of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and
this is pertinent to note in light of the fact that detractors of MCS
have repeatedly claimed that persons manifesting signs of MCS
have no objective medical findings to support their reported symp-
toms. This one driver had seven objective medical findings at the
outset of his illness placed in his record.
In meeting rooms where position statements are drafted, the name
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity was changed to that of Idiopathic En-
vironmental Intolerance. This substitute title is an entirely erroneous
title in the case of the tank truck hauler, being that "idiopathic" means
"of unknown origin," and the hauler's ills originated at a known time
and a known place.
That case study and seven other ones are described in medical article
titled, Reactive Intestinal Dysfunction Syndrome Caused by
Chemical Exposures - RIDS.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920920118~frm=titlelink
An Assertion in anti-MCS Literature Negated by
Evidence Gathered in the Field of Occupational Medicine
Needless to say, anti-MCS literature asserts that persons suffering
from MCS are merely mentally ill, despite the fact that there is no
consensus as to what particular type of mental illness this might be.
Nonetheless, a few propagandists assert that persons suffering from
MCS are merely phobic of chemical exposure, and therefore, the fear
of chemicals causes them to imagine illness. However, a number of
persons suffering from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are those who
worked in chemically laden environments. If such persons were pho-
bic of chemical exposure, they would have never taken the chemically
laden jobs they took. They would have never even applied for those
jobs.
