Research | The Canary Report

Tag Archives: Research

A toxic emissions spill at a BP refinery in Texas makes area residents ill; a $10 billion class-action lawsuit is filed

Posted on Aug 30, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Susie Collins

The New York Times reports while the world was focused on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a BP refinery in Texas released huge amounts of toxic chemicals into the air that went unnoticed by residents until many saw their children come down with respiratory problems.

While we were busy paying attention to the health affects of the BP oil well blow out in the Gulf, a community in Texas was dealing with the aftermath of a BP refinery spewing out huge amounts of toxic chemicals into the air during an accident.

The New York Times reports With Neighbors Unaware, Toxic Spill at a BP Plant.

For 40 days in April-May, 538,000 pounds of toxic chemicals poured out of the refinery following an equipment failure. Environmentalists say the release of toxic gases ranked as one of the largest in the state’s history. Most households in one area close to the spill had at least one family member fall ill during the month of the accident, including many children. Residents are so angry, they’ve filed a $10 billion class-action lawsuit against BP.

[The] final report said the release of chemicals had gone on for 959 hours, until May 16. Among other pollutants, the plant had released 17,000 pounds of benzene; 37,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides, which can cause respiratory problems; and 186,000 pounds of carbon monoxide. Another 262,000 pounds of various volatile organic compounds also escaped.

“The state’s investigation shows that BP’s failure to properly maintain its equipment caused the malfunction and could have been prevented,” the attorney general’s office said in a statement.

Of interest to Canary Report readers is that current research shows both carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds or VOCs can initiate Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in susceptible individuals. (The seven main classes of chemicals that can initiate cases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity include three classes of pesticides: organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides, the organochlorine pesticides and the pyrethroid pesticides. Other types of chemicals reported to initiate cases of MCS include organic compounds, mercury, hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide. See the peer-reviewed MCS research of biochemist Martin Pall for further information.)

How many new cases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity have been initiated through the negligence of BP in these recent accidents in the Gulf and in Texas is anyone’s guess at this point.

Continue Reading

Tags: Air, Canary's Cry, Chemicals, Children's Health, Environment, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Pollution, Research, Toxic

MCS activists in Denmark report their alarm about the Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities

Posted on Aug 24, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Guest Bloggers, MCS, Research

Alert! The Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities is striving to clearly influence the international science of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Among its activities, the Centre is on the lookout for “psychological factors” in MCS patients.

By guestblogger Silvia K. Müller, Chemical Sensitivity Network, Germany.

Artist's rendering of Dänemark flagge.

Dear Friends,

Silvia Müller

In January 2006, at the initiative of the Ministry of the Environment, a Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities was founded in Denmark. The Center was designed to offer treatments to those with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and research fragrance sensitivities in more detail. The initial hope that originally flowed through this center, funded by the Ministry, was to benefit MCS sufferers and to delve into medical science for those affected. Unfortunately, this hope has been shattered by recent publications from the Centre.

Environmental health professionals and organizations must be well informed about the events in other countries and it appears that the Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities is striving to clearly influence the international science of MCS.

The following series is written by Danish MCS Activists.

“The Danish MCS Research Centre in the International Field of Vision”

Part I: MCS – Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: A Report from Denmark.

The Danish Research Center for Chemical Sensitivities is on the lookout for “psychological factors” in MCS patients:

In 2006, The Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities was established on the initiative of the Danish Ministry of the Environment. It soon became evident that the purpose of this research center was to have the environment acquitted, so to speak, of the charge of causing MCS. Time and again patients heard the then Head of Research Jesper Elberling, MD, PhD, announce that the environment should probably not be blamed for the problems.

The Research Center has no experts of toxicology or environmental medicine among its staff. Instead, the new Head of Research Sine Skovbjerg, MSc, PhD, a former nurse, and her staff, focus on counting and documenting various “psychological factors” among patients. Her view is that MCS should be studied as a somatoform disorder and that MCS can be cured by so-called mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.

Part II: Changes of the international science of chemical sensitivity at the Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities?

In April 2010, an independent group of Italian scientists (De Luca et al.) published their research results, “Biological definition of multiple chemical sensitivity from redox state and cytokine profiling and not from polymorphisms of xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes.”

In July 2010, the Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities and Fragrance Sensitivity reported on their website, (which in the opinion of many Danish MCS sufferers is very questionable research, with the main emphasis on mental health):

“As the Italian findings are the first of their kind, it is necessary to verify the results in other studies before drawing a conclusion on immunological factors in MCS.

“The Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities therefore plans to study levels of transmitter substances in patients with MCS, independent of contact allergy” (emphasis added).

Part III: Paradox – Danish MCS sufferers are denied help because of the lack of scientific documentation – which nobody wants to obtain!

Until 2008, it was a common practice in Denmark for local authorities to grant severe MCS sufferers free aid under the service law, section 122, by giving them half mask respirators with activated charcoal filters. In 2008, a severe female MCS sufferer had her application rejected by the local authorities for this respirator. This case ended at the Danish appeals board.

To the MCS sufferer’s great astonishment and despair, the MCS Research Center, however, published on its homepage that they were not going to research the effects of half mask respirators with activated charcoal filters on the MCS population. Their arguments, were among others, was that an investigation into the effects of mask respirators on MCS sufferers would require a clinically controlled study, and such a study must be both placebo-controlled and double-blind in order for the results to become reliable and useful.

Instead, the Research Center regards electroconvulsive therapy of MCS sufferers as interesting.

Best regards from Germany,

Silvia K. Müller

CSN – Chemical Sensitivity Network

Continue Reading

Tags: MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Research

Life with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Denmark

Posted on Aug 13, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Guest Bloggers, MCS

In Denmark, as in many other countries, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is not yet recognised as a true physical disease caused by toxic chemicals. The Danish National Board of Health maintains that MCS is not a disease, but a “situation” where people “believe” or “feel” that various airborne chemicals are making them ill.

By Guestblogger Mette Toft, Denmark.

International MCS Awareness Day event, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Mette Toft

Hi, my name is Mette Toft. I’m 53 years old, married and blessed with two grown-up children. I have a university degree (MA) in Japanese and Danish and was teaching these languages, at universities and language schools, for many years. Inspired by my diligent students, I even came up with a new, simple way of teaching Danish pronunciation and had teaching material for students and teachers published. I always thought I hated phonetics, but this project was great fun!

Increasingly, though, I had health problems that no doctor could explain: headaches, rashes, fatigue and malaise.

Perfume allergy, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and lupus

In 1999, a patch test showed that I was highly allergic to perfume. My dermatologist told me to take this very seriously. If not, it might progress to a point where I couldn’t be in the same room with people who were wearing perfume, she explained. From that day on, our home was completely fragrance free. At work, however, and everywhere else I went, I was still surrounded by perfume and scented products of all kinds. So, alas, the dermatologist’s prediction came true, with a vengeance.

In 2005, I became seriously ill with what turned out to be MCS and lupus (a really troublesome and potentially fatal autoimmune disease) – simultaneously. It soon became clear that I would have to stop working. Nevertheless, for four years, I was denied any kind of social benefits. This is a pretty common practice in Denmark, I’m sorry to say.

The Danish Research Center for Chemical Sensitivities on the lookout for ”psychological factors” in MCS patients

In Denmark, as in many other countries, MCS is not yet recognised as a true physical disease caused by chemicals. The Danish National Board of Health maintains that MCS is not a disease, but a “situation” where people “believe” or “feel” that various airborne chemicals are making them ill. Accordingly, MCS patients are sometimes referred to psychiatrists to be misdiagnosed with a psychiatric diagnosis, typically “somatoform disorder” which means “all in the head.”

In 2006, the Danish Research Centre for Chemical Sensitivities was established on the initiative of the Danish Ministry of the Environment. It soon became evident that the purpose of this research center was to have the environment acquitted, so to speak, of the charge of causing MCS. Time and again patients heard the then Head of Research, Jesper Elberling, MD, PhD, announce that the environment should probably not be blamed for the problems.

The Research Center has no experts of toxicology or environmental medicine among its staff. Instead, the new Head of Research, former nurse Sine Skovbjerg, MSc, PhD, and her staff focus on counting and documenting various ”psychological factors” among patients. Her view is that MCS should be studied as a somatoform disorder and that MCS can be cured by so-called mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.

-Which psychological factors do you have? -None. I have MCS.

Shocking news about electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) as a treatment for MCS

I think it is fair to say that the international MCS community was shocked when the aforementioned Jesper Elberling published an article in which he concluded that: “Electroconvulsive therapy should be considered an option in severe and socially disabling MCS.” Elberling has elsewhere stated that: “If the observations concerning ECT are correct, then it means that we can be VERY (sic) optimistic about a future treatment for MCS.” Obviously, not many Danish MCS patients share this view. An abstract of the article and international reactions to it is found at The Canary Report: Psychiatrists propose induced convulsions as treatment for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.

International MCS Awareness Day event, Copenhagen, Denmark. A lot of people took our MCS information sheets home to read.

Counter action: A happy happening in a sad setting

In an attempt to cheer ourselves up a bit in the midst of this depressing madness, we decided to celebrate The International MCS Awareness Day on May 12 with a colourful and festive happening in the heart of Copenhagen.

One concerned politician dropped by for a serious chat.

Unfortunately, the rain was pouring down all day long and a few of our attractions – a couple of spectacular canary costumes among them – had to be left out of the programme and saved for a hopefully sunnier MCS Awareness Day next year. Our MCS lottery and free samples of fragrance free skin cremes did appeal to quite a lot of people, though, and each and everyone of them took a copy of our information sheet and MCS folder home to read.

Our MCS lottery and free samples of fragrance free skin cremes did appeal to quite a lot of people.

A student who had decided to do a paper on MCS came early to ask questions. And one concerned politician (of the 60 or so who were invited) dropped by for a serious chat.

Continue Reading

Tags: MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Research

Ask the Canary

Posted on Jul 08, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, MCS, Research, Susie Collins

Does Multiple Chemical Sensitivity have anything to do with the sense of smell?

What role does the sense of smell play in MCS?

What role does our sense of smell and the olfactory system play in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity? Do people with MCS have a heightened sense of smell?

Thank you,
A Nosy Canary

Aloha Nosy!

I am often asked these questions. The first point I always clarify is that MCS does not center on our sense of smell or an olfactory response. To understand this better, let’s review the cause of MCS.

Current research shows that MCS is initiated by a previous toxic chemical exposure from one or more of seven classes of chemicals, notably organic solvents (volatile organic compounds or VOCs), three classes of pesticides, mercury, and/or carbon monoxide. Toxic mold exposure also is reported to initiate MCS, and we find this cause most often in people with MCS who have lived or worked in “sick buildings” that have a toxic mold infestation (Pall, 2009).

So the first thing to understand is that despite many descriptions of MCS that you may find on the Web and elsewhere saying that the olfactory system has a central role in MCS, there is no evidence supporting that claim and in fact, there is considerable evidence against such a role. There are cases of MCS in people with no sense of smell– in fact we have several members of our community who have no sense of smell and also have severe cases of MCS.

Many people with MCS report symptoms of a chemical exposure without any chemical odor. I personally have had this happen: while sitting in my livingroom one day I was overcome with feeling ill, dizzy with loss of cognitive ability, only to discover the neighbor was spraying some sort of herbicide that had no odor.

There are three studies of MCS patients where a nose clip was used to block off access of odors and the MCS patients still reacted to toxic chemicals (Joffres et al, 2005; Millqvist and Lowhagan, 1996; Millqvist et al, 1999).

This is not to say that the olfactory system is never impacted in people with MCS, but rather that it does not play a central role in cause.

To explain this, I’d like to refer to the work of MCS researcher Martin Pall, professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University. Pall’s research on MCS is widely published in books and articles, the most recent of which is a chapter in the authoritative international reference manual for professional toxicologists, General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition, 2009.

Pall’s review of the literature and other research he’s conducted over the past eleven years show the probable cause of MCS is a biochemical mechanism involving nitric oxide (NO) and peroxynitrite (ONOO-), what Pall calls the NO/ONOO- cycle. Pall describes MCS, also known as chemical sensitivity and toxicant-induced loss of tolerance (TILT), as a disease initiated by toxic chemical exposure, leading to brain injury that produces high level sensitivity to the same set of chemicals that cause the disease. To get a little deeper into the science: all seven classes of chemicals mentioned at the top of my answer are thought to act indirectly to increase the activity of NMDA receptors, which are glutamate receptors for controlling synaptic plasticity and memory function. This activity, in turn, leads to rapid increases in intracellular calcium (Ca2+), nitric oxide, and peroxynitrite (ONOO-), acting to greatly stimulate the NO/ONOO- cycle. That cycle is what causes our myriad symptoms.

So how does this impact our olfactory system? Do people with MCS have a heightened sense of smell? Let’s ask Martin Pall.

“MCS is not primarily a defect in the olfactory system,” Pall says. “But when the olfactory system is impacted by the NO/ONOO- cycle it will impact the sense of smell. This is because both the NMDA receptors and nitric oxide have roles in the olfactory mechanism. However what impact the cycle has, varies from person to person, possibly depending on the severity of the cycle in that region of the body. Some people report being much more sensitive to odors but others are anosmic, completely devoid of the sense of smell.”

Aloha,
Susie

Photo credit.

Continue Reading

Tags: Air, Chemicals, Indoor Pollution, MCS, Mold, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Research

Predictions of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity mechanism confirmed by Roman study

Posted on Jul 05, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, MCS, Research, Susie Collins

A recent study conducted by a research group in Rome is significant in regard to Martin Pall’s NO/ONOO- cycle theory on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity because it shows that three elements of the cycle are elevated in MCS patients.

Martin L. Pall, Ph.D.

Portland, OR – July 5, 2010 – The physiological mechanism for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity proposed by biochemist Martin L. Pall has been confirmed with the recent findings of an independent research group in Rome.

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), also known as chemical sensitivity and toxicant-induced loss of tolerance (TILT), is a disease initiated by toxic chemical exposure, leading to toxic brain injury that produces high level sensitivity to the same set of chemicals that are implicated in initiation of the disease. Sensitivity responses in other areas of the body are also often seen.

“Epidemiological studies show that MCS is a stunningly common disease, even more common than diabetes,” said Pall, professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University. “My review of the literature and other research I’ve conducted over the past eleven years shows the probable central mechanism of MCS is a biochemical vicious mechanism, known as the NO/ONOO- cycle.”

Pall’s work is widely published in books and articles, the most recent of which is a chapter in the authoritative international reference manual for professional toxicologists, General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition, 2009 (chapter 92).

The NO/ONOO- cycle, pronounced no-oh-no, is named for the chemical structures of nitric oxide (NO) and peroxynitrite (ONOO-). This biochemical vicious cycle mechanism predicts that each of the elements linked together in the cycle are elevated in patients suffering from MCS and related diseases. Most of the elements of the cycle have been shown to be elevated in such related diseases as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia and also in animal models of MCS. However, several cycle elements have never been measured in MCS patients.

The recent study conducted by the research group in Rome is significant in regard to the NO/ONOO- cycle theory because it shows that three elements of the cycle are elevated in MCS patients (De Luca et al, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2010, April 27 Epub ahead of print). Those elements are the inflammatory cytokines, nitric oxide, and oxidative stress. Each of these measurements provides important confirmation of the disease mechanism proposed by Pall.

The inflammatory cytokines and nitric oxide elevation have never before been measured in MCS patients, although they have been shown to be elevated in animal models of MCS. Oxidative stress has been reported in two earlier studies of MCS patients, but the data provided in the De Luca et al study are much more extensive than are the earlier data. Consequently, these new data all provide important confirmation of the NO/ONOO- cycle as the central disease mechanism in MCS.

The NO/ONOO- cycle also is useful in understanding the role of toxic chemicals in MCS and the role of treatment. Each of the seven classes of chemicals implicated are thought to act indirectly to increase the activity of the NMDA receptors, which are glutamate receptors for controlling synaptic plasticity and memory function. This activity, in turn, leads to rapid increases in intracellular calcium (Ca2+), nitric oxide and peroxynitrite (ONOO-), acting to greatly stimulate the NO/ONOO- cycle.

“Many of the agents used by environmental medicine physicians to treat MCS patients can be viewed as lowering different parts of the cycle, and thus are validated in part by this mechanism,” Pall said. “Consequently, the NO/ONOO- cycle mechanism can be viewed as validating therapeutic approaches used in environmental medicine in the U.S., in Germany and some other areas of Europe and in some other countries.”

Contact:
Martin L. Pall, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences
Washington State University
503-232-3883
martin_pall@wsu.edu
thetenthparadigm.org

###

Here is the abstract of the Roman study:

PMID: 20430047 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

1: Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010 Apr 26; [Epub ahead of print]

Biological definition of multiple chemical sensitivity from redox state and cytokine profiling and not from polymorphisms of xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes.

De Luca C, Scordo MG, Cesareo E, Pastore S, Mariani S, Maiani G, Stancato A, Loreti B, Valacchi G, Lubrano C, Raskovic D, De Padova L, Genovesi G, Korkina LG.

Laboratory of Tissue Engineering & Skin Pathophysiology, Dermatology Institute (IDI IRCCS), Rome, Italy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a poorly clinically and biologically defined environment-associated syndrome. Although dysfunctions of phase I / phase II metabolizing enzymes and redox imbalance have been hypothesized, corresponding genetic and metabolic parameters in MCS have not been systematically examined.

OBJECTIVES: We sought for genetic, immunological, and metabolic markers in MCS.

METHODS: We genotyped patients with diagnosis of MCS, suspected MCS and Italian healthy control&n bsp;s for allelic variants of cytochrome P450 isoforms (CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, and CYP3A5), UDP-glucuronosyl transferase (UGT1A1), and glutathione S-transferases (GSTP1, GSTM1, and GSTT1). Erythrocyte membrane fatty acids, antioxidant (catalase, superoxide dismutase (SOD)) and glutathione metabolizing (GST, glutathione peroxidase (Gpx)) enzymes, whole blood chemiluminescence, total antioxidant capacity, levels of nitrites/nitrates, glutathione, HNE-protein adducts, and a wide spectrum of cytokines in the plasma were determined.

RESULTS: Allele and genotype frequencies of CYPs, UGT, GSTM, GSTT, and GSTP were similar in the Italian MCS patients and in the control populations. The activities of erythrocyte catalase and GST were lower, whereas Gpx was higher than normal. Both reduced and oxidised glutathione were decreased, whereas nitrites/nitrates were increased in the MCS groups. The MCS fatty acid profile was shifted to saturated compartment and IFNgamma, IL-8, IL-10, MCP-1, PDGFbb, and VEGF were increased.

CONCLUSIONS: Altered redox and cytokine patterns suggest inhibition of expression/activity of metabolizing and antioxidant enzymes in MCS. Metabolic parameters indicating accelerated lipid oxidation, increased nitric oxide production and glutathione depletion in combination with increased plasma inflammatory cytokines should be considered in biological definition and diagnosis of MCS. Copyright (c) 2010.
Published by Elsevier Inc.

Continue Reading

Tags: MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Research

CNN investigative report Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta to rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow

Posted on Jun 05, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Media/Videos, Products, Susie Collins

The two-part CNN investigation “Toxic America” with Dr. Sanjay Gupta will rebroadcast tonight and tomorrow night, Sat & Sun, June 5 & 6, at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Check listings in your area to confirm times. Don’t miss it!

I was hesitant to recommend the CNN special Toxic America with Dr. Sanjay Gupta until I saw the first airing. It’s pretty good actually, although if you look at it through the lens of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity you may feel that it falls short in many areas. Still, it’s heartening to see this topic and type of investigative reporting on mainstream media. Dr. Gupta does a good job of presenting the problems of toxic chemicals in our environment and our homes, and he shows genuine concern, repeating over and over the fact that out of the 80,000 chemicals put into consumer goods, only 200 have been tested for safety.

Click here for dates and times of ONLINE replays June 7, 8, & 9.

Also, for those of you so inclined, CNN is inviting you to “Share Your Story” through video or photos:

Put yourself on video and document conditions in your area, or take photos of what’s around you. Tell us what industrial or chemical pollution may be contributing to health problems for you and those you love, and be sure not to put yourself in a dangerous situation.

Continue Reading

Tags: Air, Asthma, Children's Health, Environment, EPA, Home, Indoor Pollution, Policy, Products, Research, Sick Building, Toxic, Video

Setting the record straight about Linda Sepp’s housing situation

Posted on May 09, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Disability Rights, MCS, Susie Collins

A recent article in The Toronto Star is full of misinformation and inaccuracies about Linda Sepp’s housing problems. I’d like to clear things up.

Linda Sepp

The Star reports on Linda Sepp’s house hunting and eviction in an article by Theresa Boyle entitled Can Linda Sepp possibly be helped? The article is full of inaccuracies about Linda’s situation that I’d like to clear up.

Before I pick apart the points, I’d like to make clear that I am a friend of Linda’s. No, we have never met, but we have emailed with each other daily for almost two years. We’ve laughed together, cried together, spent New Year’s Eve together, helped many people with MCS together, hunted for informational materials together, and built The Canary Report together into what it is today. She’s been my research assistant, and truth be told, she’s been my mentor as I learned the ropes about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and the problem of toxic chemicals in the marketplace and the environment. Linda is very smart. The information that she shares with others is solid; I never have to worry about checking her sources, she always backs up her claims with data and reports, and she’s thorough with her critical thinking.

But Linda is also very ill and completely disabled by chemical sensitivities, fibromyalgia, and electro hypersensitivity. The old house she was living in prior to eviction on May 5, her home of 19 years, was full of mold, and she also was frequently exposed to toxic fumes wafting in from the outside. She was living in a precarious, unsafe housing situation. And as her eviction date neared, she was becoming more and more ill in my opinion, as her emails became less frequest, less engaged and sometimes merely fragments of thoughts peppered with uncertainty about her future.

The process of house hunting for Linda as her eviction date of April 4 loomed was complicated and fraught with difficulty. She is what is known in the world of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as a universal reactor, meaning she is uber sensitive to toxic chemicals, and the smallest quantity of exposure to VOCs, pesticides, laundry products and modern fragrance (which contains known toxic chemicals), among myriad other chemicals, make her very ill very quickly. Recovery is difficult. This health problem complicates house hunting, complicates finding a safe place to live. Housing opportunities that might seem a godsend to someone who is healthy or has a less serious case of MCS, cannot work for someone as ill as Linda.

So let’s look at the article written in The Star by Ms. Boyle. First up, Ms. Boyle’s description of what Linda was asking for, which the reporter couched in an incredulous tone that says to the reader “Look at what this woman is demanding!”:

The woman, who survives on an Ontario disability cheque, said she would like a “modest” three-bedroom house on three acres of land, surrounded by trees and fresh air. It should include a sauna and a sunroom, porch, patio or gazebo for reading and artwork. There should be a small barn for chicken, goats and an animal rescue. And for guests, a bunkie and detox shower.

Except that is NOT and never was Linda’s criteria for finding safe housing. That was Linda’s dream house list (every person with MCS has a dream house in mind, am I right?), that list was never the working list that her landlord nor her housing team was using as criteria, it never was what Linda was asking for. Basically, Linda was asking for a nontoxic two bedroom with clean water and fresh outside air. Period.

But skeptics question the existence of MCS. They acknowledge that people can have chemical sensitivities and allergies, but wonder if it is a stretch to say these can be a debilitating syndrome. A June 2008 article in the Journal of Environmental Science notes that there is “considerable doubt” about the condition “from the scientific community, political leadership and many in the general public who claim that it is psychological.” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do not recognize it, the article notes. But it goes on to say that it would be irresponsible of public health officials not to explore the possibility of MCS.

Who cares what the “the scientific community,” politicians or the general public think about MCS? What kind of reporting is that? Linda has sent Ms. Boyle copies of the current peer reviewed research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which clearly shows that MCS is a physiological illness of toxicological origin. Linda is not pulling that info out of her hat, this is the peer reviewed research of Martin Pall recently published as Chapter 92 in the prestigious international reference work for professional toxicologists, General and Applied Toxicology, 3rd Edition (2009, John Wiley & Sons). Further, and just for the record, here’s a list of research on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity compiled by Professor Anne C. Steinemann and Amy L. Davis at University of Washington Seattle; this document lists about 100 citations for peer-reviewed journal articles that support a physiological basis for MCS. And I will note, the Centers for Disease Control just issued a chemical- and fragrance-free policy in all their offices nationwide because of the negative effect of those products on the health of their employees– the very products that make people with MCS ill.

Before forcing her out, W.J. [Linda's landlord] made the unheard of offer of buying a $200,000 house anywhere in the province and renting it to her for $500 a month. Her wish-list to the landlord was more reasonable than what she had provided to the city. She asked for wood floors, few stairs and access to a source of organic food. A house fitting the bill was found in Lindsay in February 2008, but after visiting it Sepp turned it down. It smelled of baby powder and made her feel sick.

W.J. proposed other homes, one in Huntsville and another in Lanark. The landlord offered to buy a Solo home, a prefabricated building that could be adapted to someone with allergies. All offers were nixed.

Although such an offer can seem above and beyond anything due Linda by her landlord, and although it can seem that Linda was unreasonable in refusing all offers, anyone with MCS knows that this deal is fraught with peril. At the most basic of levels, we all know the perils involved with a house that has been contaminated with products made from toxic chemicals like air fresheners and personal care products. I know dozens of cases of people with MCS renting homes that they thought they could decontaminate, only to be made sick for a year or longer until their lease ran out.

But Linda’s situation is more complicated than even people with MCS seem to understand. Linda was living in Toronto, unable to leave her house, and had people to shop for her. Part of her decision on taking the houses offered by the landlord was that she had to gamble that she would be able to move to the house and recover enough very quickly to be able to drive at least once a week, perhaps an hour away, to do her own shopping at organic markets. If she moved to a rural place in Ontario, not only would she have to be able to shop for herself, but also she would have to be able to handle the winters in Ontario alone in a rural setting. These are both huge responsibilities to take on if you are housebound and have been depending on people doing your errands for you. You can’t just “get it delivered.” The truth is that Linda had to take under consideration whether or not she could manage living alone rurally. That is a legitimate concern. Who knows if there would have been people locally that could help her after the move?

Friends and staff from the city’s shelter support office pored over real estate listings and thought they found the perfect solution: a $200,000 home in Bobcaygeon that had been built for someone with MCS. But Sepp turned it down because W.J. refused to pay an extra $45,000 to have a couple of extra walls installed. Besides, it had bad feng shui, she said.

This is by far the most egregious of errors in the article because it makes Linda look very bad when in fact Linda did no such thing as stated. The landlord refused to purchase that house based on it being LISTED at $245,000, which was over the landlord’s cap of $200,000. The extra $45,000 had NOTHING to do with Linda asking for any walls to be built. The comment about the “bad feng shui” had NOTHING to do with Linda refusing an offer; at the most it was an off-handed remark made by Linda way after this house was discussed and rejected BY THE LANDLORD. In fact, had the landlord said okay to buying that house, Linda would have accepted it– I have the emails from her saying that she was ready to accept that house before she heard the landlord’s refusal to buy it.

I have received many negative emails and comments on both my blog and Linda’s blog (for which I am the admin) from people who think Linda is acting unreasonable. All the comments were generated because of this article by Theresa Boyle. I have not released any of them because I can’t see how they add anything valuable to the discussion, given that they were generated by misinformation.

To Ms. Boyle: Please be very careful about how you report on this story. Check your facts. Be open to exploring current research on MCS. Cross reference your information on Linda’s situation from two primary sources, as is your responsibility. This is a drama playing out in public about a woman whose housing problem represents the housing problems of thousands of people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Please do not add to the din of misinformation that hurts our community and adds to our struggle for full recognition, full health care, and full social services.

And to those of you getting mad at Linda for her not accepting so many offers of housing: Please try to use this as an opportunity for practicing love and compassion. Judge not lest you be judged. Linda is a member of our community, a valuable member, and this is a time when we can open our hearts and do nothing but love each other. Anger serves no purpose whatsoever. Our job, as human beings on this blessed Earth, is to be kind and to love. Just do it.

Continue Reading

Tags: Chemicals, Environmental Illness, Home, Indoor Pollution, Law, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Research, Support, Toxic

The President’s Cancer Panel releases report: We must eliminate environmental carcinogens from our workplaces, schools, and homes.

Posted on May 06, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, Policy, Research, Susie Collins

Report to the President concludes that the nation needs a comprehensive, cohesive policy agenda regarding environmental contaminants and protection of human health. The main problem they say? Toxic chemicals in the environment.

The President's Cancer Panel releases their 2008-2009 report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now." The report emphasizes prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention.

The U.S. President’s Cancer Panel released their 2008-2009 report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now. As a person with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity who has survived breast cancer, I’m pleased to see the panel addressed myriad health problems associated with toxic chemicals in the marketplace; the panel extended it’s opinion beyond carcinogens to include “other toxins” as well such as endocrine disruptors.

From the report’s introduction:

The Administration’s commitment to the cancer community and recent focus on critically needed reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act is praiseworthy. However, our Nation still has much work ahead to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our workplaces, schools, and homes [emphasis added]. [...]

The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. [...]

The American people—even before they are born—are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures. The Panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.

I’m really impressed with the report’s emphasis on prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention. The report also emphasizes the fact that most people are unaware “that children are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation than adults.” They recommend that this perpetual state of ignorance be corrected by increasing efforts “to inform the public of such harmful exposures and how to prevent them.” Doesn’t that sound just like what most of us with MCS do on a regular basis? It’s so nice to see this prestigious panel catch up with us!

I also was very impressed with their conclusion, where they end with an emphasis on prevention:

The Nation Needs a Comprehensive, Cohesive Policy Agenda Regarding Environmental Contaminants and Protection of Human Health.

Environmental health, including cancer risk, has been largely excluded from overall national policy on protecting and improving the health of Americans. It is more effective to prevent disease than to treat it, but cancer prevention efforts have focused narrowly on smoking, other lifestyle behaviors, and chemopreventive interventions. Scientific evidence on individual and multiple environmental exposure effects on disease initiation and outcomes, and consequent health system and societal costs are not being adequately integrated into national policy decisions and strategies for disease prevention, health care access, and health system reform.

Use this document to your full advantage. Share it with employers, family, friends, members of your church, administrators at your kid’s schools, and other people that need an education about the risks of toxic chemicals in everyday life.

What do I keep telling you? Trends are moving in our direction.

Here’s the link to the full report.

Here’s a link to an article about the report from Environmental Health News. Thanks, Roslyn!

Here’s a link to column about the report by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.

Continue Reading

Tags: Cancer, Chemicals, Environmental Health, Policy, Pollution, Research, Toxic

Psychiatrists propose induced convulsions as treatment for Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Posted on Apr 26, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Guest Bloggers, MCS

A recent study published in the psychiatric Journal of Electroconvulsive Therapy proposes to treat Multiple Chemical Sensitivity with electroconvulsive therapy or ECT, originally known as electroshock therapy.

By guestblogger Lourdes Salvador, MCS America.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) was originally known as electroshock therapy and was widely used to treat depression before the development of psycho pharmaceutical drugs such as antidepressants and anxiolytics.

A study published in February in the Journal of Electroconvulsive Therapy, by Jesper Elberlinig MD, Nils Gulmann, and Alice Rasmussen, has declared that “a substantial, positive effect on symptom severity and social disability related to MCS was obtained by an initial ECT course and maintenance treatment. Electroconvulsive therapy should be considered an option in severe and socially disabling MCS.”

The researchers of this study claim that “no effective treatment has been reported” for MCS. This is clearly untrue, which leads one to wonder what the ulterior motives of the researchers are. Avoidance and safe housing have both been reported as effective treatments with a statistically significant success ratio of over 95% improved. Everything industry does to discredit people with MCS completely ignores that safe environments alleviate symptoms. It is simply not true that “nothing works.”

Abstract

Electroshock therapy originated in Berlin in 1927 when Manfred J. Sakel accidentally overdosed a diabetic patient with insulin, leading to convulsions and a sudden improvement in the patient’s schizophrenia. Sakel proceeded to treat schizophrenics with what came to be known as “Sakel’s Technique.” Eventually, it was realized that insulin therapy was dangerous, oftentimes resulted in the death of the patient, was temporary, and thus was not a real cure.

In 1934, Ladislaus J. von Meduna developed another method of inducing convulsions with a drug called Metrazol. The convulsions induced by this drug were so dramatic that they resulted in spinal fractures in nearly half the patients. The treatment was considered far too dangerous and was stressful for psychiatrists to perform while the patient screamed and convulsed wildly on the table.

Lobotomies became popular in 1935. A method called the “ice-pick lobotomy” was popularly used on over a million people. The lobotomy involved inserting an ice pick under the eye and moving it around to damage and chop up the pre-frontal cortex of the brain and then retracting it. This left patients a permanently brain damaged zombie state, a benefit for psychiatric hospital staff. But, it was not a cure either.

Electroconvulsive therapy came on the scene in 1937 and was developed by Ugo Cerletti and Lucio Bini after they discovered that shocking animals temporarily stunned them without killing them. They soon turned to administering electroshock therapy to human subjects. ECT was marketed as a more acceptable form of electroshock therapy because patients were restrained and sedated with anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control their screams and movement. This “more pleasant” way of damaging and numbing the brain with electroshock was used to mislead people to believe it was a new, pleasant, and safe method of effective psychosurgery.

However, many report that ECT is a barbaric process of inducing seizures and convulsions. A few people who have undergone ECT later committed suicide as a result. Others have lived to post their horrific tales of hurt in videos on YouTube. Many have permanent brain damage. Some have died.

In the new MCS study by Elberlinig, Gulmann, and Rasmussen, ECT was performed on a single subject with MCS. This is not scientifically valid in terms of findings. Those familiar with science and statistics will be familiar with the bell curve. If you take one hundred people and plot their test values on a line, you will usually discover a bell curve. The bell curve has most of the subjects at its highest point, roughly 90–95%. A few subjects will fall on either side of the bell and are known as outliers. With a study on a single subject, there is no valid way to determine whether the subject was an average person at the top of the bell, or an outlier.

The results were described in terms of the perceived improvement of “symptom severity and social disability.” This is quite different from measured improvements such as reduced hepatic toxicity and better liver function. The abstract does not even provide the diagnostic criteria used to determine the diagnosis; therefore, it can not be determined whether the subject truly had MCS.

In the study, the patient had to undergo ECT eight times and then have bi-weekly ECT treatments to maintain the “improvement.” We must consider that more and more people are being injured and developing MCS. If people can’t live without going in for bi-weekly ECT, something is wrong with the larger picture of toxic environmental exposures. In nature, we are supposed to be able to survive without being hooked up to machines and drugs. In nature, we DID and DO survive without being hooked up to these things. A safe, clean environment alleviates symptoms and PREVENTS injuries leading to MCS in the first place.

In another study, Resertson and Pryor emphasize the important truth that “clinicians should fully inform patients of the possible permanent adverse effects of the treatment, which include amnesia, memory disability, and cognitive disability” (Robertson, H. & Pryor, R. 2006. Memory and cognitive effects of ECT: informing and assessing patients. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 12,228-237).

A journal such as this study was published in, which is dedicated to ECT, isn’t going to do anything other than find and support ways to use ECT for everything and anything. Even psychiatry has largely abandoned it in favor of psychiatric drugs. If psychiatric drugs don’t cure MCS, why would ECT?

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights has some eye opening videos of the true history of psychiatry with their own inadvertent capability of numbing one from the horrors of what psychiatry is really about. Be patient while the site loads and then go to the “museum” on the top menu. This video covers the history of ECT specifically.

No matter how you look at it, ECT is not a cure and certainly not an ideal thing to keep doing to the sensitive brain, particularly if one is electrosensitive.

Lourdes Salvador is the founder of MCS America, a science writer, and a social advocate for the greater awareness of environmental contamination and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).

Photo credit

Continue Reading

Tags: MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Research

Film: Submission

Posted on Apr 22, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Media/Videos, Susie Collins

SUBMISSION: In defence of the unborn. A film by Stefan Jarl.

This documentary film, a rebuke on the chemical industry, will have its premier in Sweden on April 23, and in Denmark on May 5.

A documentary by Stefan Jarl featuring Eva Röse and 23 professors.

Thirty years ago I began shooting a documentary, which came to be called Nature’s Revenge (Naturens hämnd). It was about how humans manipulate nature and how nature strikes back. Since that day I have been continuously collecting material for a new film on the same theme; however, much more than a “Nature’s Revenge, part 2”.

Submission is a documentary about the ‘chemical society’ – the society we have been building since the Second World War. Back then, humans used 1 million tonnes of chemicals per year; the figure today is 500 million tonnes. The chemical industry is the fastest-growing industry in the world. The film is about the 100,000 chemicals we use every day, what they’re used for and what they do to us and our health. And I don’t mean food additives – I’m talking about chemicals we are exposed to in our daily environments: softeners (phthalates), flame retardants (PBDE), surfactants (PFOS, PFOA) and so on.

Professor Åke Bergman at Stockholm University is my guide throughout the film, analysing the chemicals in my blood and explaining what they are. It turns out I’m carrying several hundred foreign chemicals. I can’t hide my shock.

After discovering the huge number of chemicals in my blood, I turn to my friend Eva Röse and ask if she would like to test her blood as well. She’s 35 years younger than me; surely she couldn’t have picked up as many chemicals as I have? Eva is pregnant at the time and has her baby while the film is being made.

Consulting a wide range of scientists from the United States, the UK, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Finland, Denmark and Sweden, I seek answers: What problems can these chemicals cause? These are some of the world’s foremost experts, and they explain what we currently know about effects and risks, the cocktail effect, hormone disruptors and the vulnerability of unborn children.

As I considered the format for my film, I thought of Claude Lanzmann’s documentary Shoah, which is based solely on interviews. I decided to put my faith in the close-up, the candid testimony of the human face. Rather than travelling to developing nations and bringing home terrifying images, I chose a different path.

But why the title, Submission?

Over the years I have grown to realise how willing we humans are to submit to others’ terms. It’s a holdover from our earliest childhood. And commercial interests in society are quick to make use of it. This interests me from a philosophical viewpoint. Just as Nature’s Revenge showed that Mother Nature doesn’t take kindly to manipulation and strikes back at us, I now understand that humankind is prepared to submit to whatever consequences our manipulations of nature throw our way.

The American musician Adam Wiltzie from the band Stars of the Lid made the music. He calls the film “a horror movie for the 21st century”.

I am aware that this popular science essay film asks a lot of the audience, but like most of my other documentaries, Submission is, at the core, about what kind of society we want to live in.

This is the most important film I’ve ever made. Ever.

Stefan Jarl

Continue Reading

Tags: Chemicals, Children's Health, Environment, Environmental Illness, Indoor Pollution, Pollution, Research, Toxic, Video

Open tabs

Posted on Mar 12, 2010 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, Government Regulation, News, Susie Collins

More from my series Open Tabs, sharing links to the pages I have open on my browser.

I’m sorry I don’t always remember where the links come from, many are sent to me through Facebook or email. I try to give credit when I can. I’m not working in a vacuum, most info I find is sent to me in one way or another and I thank all of you for taking the time to share. xoxo

Clean, Green, and Lean: Get Rid of the Toxins That Make You Fat by Dr. Walter Crinnion

My online friend, Missy, sent me this link to a book about losing weight, Clean, Green, and Lean: Get Rid of the Toxins That Make You Fat by Dr. Walter Crinnion. Before you get the wrong idea, this book is not about another fad diet so your can fit into your Gucci pants, this is serious information of value to people who have a weight problem due to toxic chemical or mold exposure. It’s also available on Kindle.

A renowned naturopathic doctor shows you how to get lean and be green while helping to save the planet.

Now you can lose weight and be good to the environment, too-without starvation diets, calorie counting, complicated meal plans, or even having to exercise. Dr. Walter Crinnion, a naturopathic doctor and environmental medicine physician, shows you how to clean up your diet and clear out your body and home to eliminate unwanted pounds and toxins from your life. You’ll be able to get rid of nagging health problems such as allergies and fatigue and enjoy greater energy and a greener planet. Clean, Green, and Lean:

* Shares an effective program to shed pounds and stay healthy by getting rid of toxins in your body and your life in just four weeks
* Combines losing weight with being good to the environment
* Can help reduce aches and pains, depression, and other health problems
* Is written by one of the country’s foremost authorities on environmental medicine who has appeared on The View and other programs

If you’re serious about losing weight and safeguarding your health, follow the expert advice of Dr. Crinnion and start getting clean, green, and lean today.

Here’s an enlightening essay by Helen Larkin on Women and the Environment: Understanding Connections.

America was created, designed, and governed by men, yet now we are one of the most violent Westernized countries, infested with cancer, and have the greatest disconnection from our ecological impacts. Young women today need to enter into the sciences with a vengeance studying toxicology, agriculture, biomimicry, conservation, green chemistry, alternative energy, health, nutrition, and ecological dynamics. Women today must enter all realms of governance. We need to preserve the best of modern living while walking as gently as possible on the planet. We must educate and KNOW that female is creation, female is nature, and female is the future. Most important: Female is Life.

The Environmental Working Group has an excellent page on Scented Secrets: Fragrances Hide Toxic Chemical Ingredients. It was produced as guidance for Valentine’s Day presents, but can be applied any day. The Environmental Working Group is one of the best places on the web to get information about toxic chemicals in consumer goods, it’s info you can trust.

Take a quick look at a personal care product label, and you’ll nearly always find a long list of chemical ingredients in tiny print. Chances are, somewhere in the midst of these technical chemical terms, is the simple word “fragrance.” Although companies are required by law to list all chemicals ingredients in a product, a special loophole allows them to hide what’s in the “fragrance” component[1]. And what’s hidden in that simple word can include complex mixtures of up to hundreds of chemicals that studies show may be linked to a variety of health problems, including allergies, skin reactions, endocrine/hormone disruption, and possibly even birth defects. Companies are not required to test cosmetics for safety before they are sold. The label is the primary protection we have to make decisions about products we rub, pour, and lather on our skin and hair. Yet when it comes to fragrances, we don’t even have this simple protection.

An online friend asked me to share some info about burn pits. I’ve covered this story previously on The Canary Report, but here’s a recent report in the New York Times: Veterans speak out against burn pits, a range of health problems are linked to the pits on military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, toxic substances have been found in the smoke.

On the website Fragrance Free Living, Bonnie tells her story about losing her job and almost her house due to her Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. I’m pleased to see my online friend Roberta Bradley, vice president at the Environmental Health Association of Alberta, leave a comment for Bonnie with links and information.

Common Dreams reports Cities Sue Manufacturer of Weed-Killer Found in Tap Water: Federal Lawsuit Seeks Funding to Remove Atrazine from Water Supply. This story is interesting because the states are arguing that they shouldn’t have to pay for filtering out the contaminant that the chemical company is responsible for manufacturing and selling as safe. I would argue the federal government is equally to blame for this problem, having not done their job of protecting public health before protecting corporate interest.

Annie Bond writes about toxic teeth, BPA and dental bonding materials. This is a product about which every canary should be aware.

Okay, that’s enough, that should keep you busy for awhile! Thanks to everyone who sent me the links!