Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: What it is
Question:
Murray: Thatcher: simple tests for immune system reactions due to formaldehyde from the 11% methanol in aspartame: Tholen 9.17.2 rmforall http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/867 Aspartame reactors have often asked about whether there exist medical tests for their vulnerability. I want to assemble funding and a team to replicate Thatcher’s study, testing aspartame reactors for immune system reactions, triggered by exposure to formaldehyde. Any aspartame reactor can probably get these tests prescribed by their doctors, and insurance may well pay for them. The results, along with their case histories, can be immediately posted on the Net. This will be of immense interest to patients, medical professionals, and lawyers. We should find that aspartame reactors also react to formaldehyde and to methanol exposures, while people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and the like also react to aspartame and methanol. For a longer discussion: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/866 Murray: TestAmerica.com: only 0.0960 ppm formaldehyde in Diet Coke: but the 11% methanol in aspartame supplies far more: Monte: Brent: Thrasher 9.16.2 rmforall Many sources agree that it is possible to use a lot of aspartame daily, particularly from diet soda, and that the methanol component, exactly 11% by weight, is quickly released in the GI tract, metabolized into the about same weight of formaldehyde, then subsequently and quickly into formic acid, and thence to carbon dioxide and water. The question is: how much of this formaldehyde, a deadly, potent, cumulative toxin with complex multiple effects, as much as 20 mg from the 200 mg aspartame in a 12-oz can of diet soda, results in various toxic processes in humans? Bear in mind that the EPA limit [see below] for formaldehyde in drinking water is 1 ppm, or 2 mg daily for a typical daily consumption of 2 L of water. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/835 RTM: ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July 1999 5.30.2 rmforall Thatcher’s report about symptoms from long-term, low-level exposure to formaldehyde gives much the same litany of complex symptoms as aspartame reactors, who often report using 2-4 L daily of diet soda, providing 112-224 mg methanol, resulting in some probable chronic formaldehyde toxicity. The most common symptoms are, in rough order of occurence: * headaches * many body and joint pains (or burning, tingling, tremors, twitching, spasms, cramps, or numbness) * fever, fatigue * "mind fog", "feel unreal", poor memory, confusion, anxiety, irritability, depression, mania, insomnia, dizziness, slurred speech, ringing in ears, sexual problems, poor vision, hearing, or taste * red face, itching, rashes, burning eyes or throat, dry mouth or eyes, mouth sores * hair loss * obesity, bloating, edema, anorexia, poor or excessive hunger or thirst * breathing problems * nausea, diarrhea or constipation * coldness * sweating * racing heart, high blood pressure, erratic blood sugar levels * seizures * birth defects * brain cancers * addiction * aggrivates diabetes, autism, ADHD, allergies, and interstitial cystitis (bladder pain). http://www.drthrasher.org/formaldehyde_1990.html [Extracts} Inhalation exposure to formaldehyde (HCHO) is associated with symptoms of irritation to mucous membranes, (1,2) chronic health problems (e.g., asthma, (2) nasopharyngeal cancer, (3) and multiple subjective health complaints. (4,5) ) Recent observations have shown that both humoral-and cell-mediated immunologic mechanisms occur in humans with long-term HCHO exposure. Antibodies of all isotypes to HCHO conjugated human serum albumin (HCHO-HSA) are demonstrable in HCHO anaphylaxis, (6) hemodialysis patients, (7) mobile home residents, (4) persons with occupational exposures, (5,8) office workers, (9) and in persons in other environments. (4) In addition, changes in cell-mediated immunity include increases in eosinophils, basophils, and T-suppressor cells following acute exposure of patients with HCHO asthma. (10) Moreover, individuals with multiple subjective health complaints associated with long-term HCHO inhalation have evidence of immune activation and the presence of autoantibodies. (4,5) The patients in our study had symptoms and complaints related to several organs, as described previously, (4,5,9) which were similar to symptoms of workers with multiple chemical sensitivity,(11) cacosmia,(12) and other chemical exposures. (13-15) We report on the differences in humoral and cell-mediated immunity in humans with long-term inhalation exposure to HCHO vs. asymptomaticstudents (controls) who experienced short-term, periodic exposure to the chemical. [ http://lassesen.com/cfids/cacosmia.htm Cacosmia (a.k.a. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) Details: * Chemical odour intolerance induced headache, itching eyes, irritated or congested nose, dry and/or sore throat, cough, dizziness, and itching or rash. * Cacosmics reported increased prevalence of physician-diagnosed nasal allergies, breast cysts, hypothyroidism, sinusitis, food sensitivities, irritable bowel, and migraine headache. Resource: http://www.mcsrr.org ] Materials and Methods Controls and patients. Five groups of subjects exposed to HCHO, who gave informed consent, were included in this study. (1) Controls consisted of students of chiropractic medicine (16 males, 12 females), mean age = 29 +- 9 y) exposed to HCHO for 13 h/wk for 28 wk while studying human anatomy. Immunologic tests were performed 12 mo following the last classroom exposure. No measurements of HCHO concentrations were made. It is assumed that classroom ambient concentrations were at least 0.43 ppm. [1.] The students stated that during exposure they experienced eye, nose and throat irritation and that there was a pungent odor of HCHO. They did not have residual health complaints (symptoms), and they were asymptomatic at the time blood was taken. [2.] Mobile home residents consisted of 19 patients (6 males, 13 females), mean age 41 +-20 y) who currently lived in mobile homes. The patients had lived in their environments for 2-7 y and reported multiple symptoms. (4,9) Measured HCHO concentrations ranged from 0.05 to 0.5 ppm at the time blood samples were taken. [3.] Office workers included 21 patients (5 males, 16 females, mean age of 40 +-10 y) who worked in new office buildings where there was inadequate ventilation (closed buildings). The patients had multiple health complaints. (9) It was determined from medical histories that their symptoms commenced with employment, waned when away from work (i.e., weekends, holidays, vacations) and became worse upon return to work. No HCO measurements were done; however, closed buildings have ambient concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 0.77 ppm. (1,16) [4.] This group included 21 patients (10 males, 11 females, mean age of 35 + -17 y) who had multiple symptoms and who had been removed from their original sources of HCHO exposure (mobile homes and/or particleboard subflooring) for at least 1 y. The HCHO concentrations measured during their exposures ranged from 0.14 to 0.81 ppm. [5.] Occupationally exposed patients (6 males, 2 females, mean age of 45 + -11 y) had HCHO exposures from the following: biology and human anatomy classes, mortuary, pathology, physical therapy, formica furniture (particleboard), and carbonless copy paper. Information on six of these patients was previously published. (5) Symptoms. All patients in this study had sought continuous medical attention because of multiple organ symptoms involving the central nervous system (CNS) (headaches, memory loss, difficulty completing tasks, dizziness), upper- and lower-respiratory symptoms, skeletal-muscle complaints, and gastroenteritis. Three common symptoms were expressed: [1.] and initial flu-like illness from which they had not fully recovered; [2.] chronic fatigue; and [3.] an olfactory sensitivity to ambient conditions containing low concentrations of chemicals. (4,9,11) One of the students smoked cigarettes (1 pack/d), whereas the remainder and all patients were nonsmokers. No attempt was made to correlate the immunological data with histories of allergies and/or atopy. Previous efforts to make this correlation have led to negative findings. (4,5,9)…. Higher anti-HCHO-HSA isotypes (i.e, 1:16 or greater) are present in the patients v. controls. One explanation for this difference is simply the lag time between the last exposure v. the time of antibody detection. However, the higher titers of IgE and IgM isotypes in the patients suggests that a more recent exposure has occurred, particularly if the higher IgG titers are considered also. In this vein, the patients complain of a sensitivity (both olfactory and respiratory) to environments containing low concentrations of HCHO and other chemicals. Thus, the higher titers may indicate that their immune systems are on constant alert, undergoing continuous activation upon encountering and recognizing environmental haptens. (4-6,8,9) It would be of interest to examine for other haptens to which the patients may be responding. (9) The higher antibody titers and the larger proportion of individuals with anti-HCHO isotypes in the removed patients v. controls merit comment. Both groups were at least 1 y removed from their original source of exposure. However, the controls were asymptomatic, whereas the patients experienced ongoing health problems associated with environmental exposures, e.g. new carpets, fresh paints, new furnishings, diesel exhaust, and perfumes. Thus, it appears that long-term low-level exposure to HCHO, and possibly other haptens, lead to immunological recognition and immune activation in sensitized individuals. Apparently, shorter periodic exposure to HCHO may lead to recognition but not necessarily immune activation. Moreover, chronic low-level exposures to HCHO appear to effect a sensitivity … read more »
Response:
Murray: Wilson: CIIN: EPA: Gold: Thrasher & Kilburn: Shaham: formaldehyde toxicity 8.22.2 rmforall Part 2 http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/fm.html http://www.HolisticMed.com/aspartame 603-225-2100 Aspartame Toxicity Information Center Mark D. Gold http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html "Scientific Abuse in Aspartame Research" How a Public Relations Campaign Deceives the Public About Formaldehyde Poisoning From Aspartame October 15, 2000 I have recently been sent some information about aspartame and formaldehyde that looks like it might be part of one last public relations campaign to claim the chemical is ’safe’. The formaldehyde exposure number cited in the text is off by a factor of over 400,000 and would not be taken seriously by knowledgable scientists. The scientific literature cited has clearly not been read by the author. However, since a few consumers might inadvertently take the text seriously, I have chosen to point out some of the more obvious problems with the text. A simple MEDLINE search reveals that the levels of formaldehyde they are talking about (30 micrograms after the ingestion of 200 mg/kg/day of aspartame for 11 days) are well within ’safe’ levels, even though 200 mg/kg is equal to about 60 Diet Cokes per day(!).
The truth is that there is no MEDLINE summary showing an exposure to or an accumulation of 30 micrograms (ug) of formaldehyde in humans after ingestion of 200 mg/kg/day of aspartame. This figure appears to be either fabricated or caused by some serious math errors. The actual figure can be calculated quite easily and is approximately 61.3 milligrams (mg) for ingestion of one liter of diet soda. The actual measured amount of aspartame in one liter of diet soda is approximately 600 mg. [Ref. 1]. If a 60 kg (132 lbs) woman ingested one liter of diet soda, she would be ingesting 10 mg/kg of aspartame: 600 mg aspartame / 60 kg body weight = 10 mg/kg Aspartame breaks down into 10.9% methanol by weight [Ref. 2]. So that the amount of methanol obtained from 600 mg of aspartame is: 600 mg aspartame * 10.9% = 65.4 mg of methanol Methanol converts to formaldehyde in the body. [Note: Methanol from fruit and alcoholic beverages does not convert to formaldehyde because of protective factors/chemicals in the foods. See: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html#fruit.] Methanol [CH(3)OH] has a molecular weight of approximately 32.0. Formaldehyde [HCHO] has a molecular weight of approximately 30.0. Therefore, 65.4 mg of methanol converts to: 65.4 mg methanol * ( 30.0 / 32.0 ) = 61.3 mg of formaldehyde. If we had used a dose mentioned by the author in the industry public relations (PR) article of 200 mg/kg instead of an easily-obtainable dose of 10 mg/kg, the formaldehyde exposure would be 20 times greater or 1,226 mg of formaldehyde. If we used the length of exposure mentioned in this PR article of 11 days, the exposure to formaldehyde would be a further 11 times greater or 1,226 * 11 = 13,486 mg of formaldehyde. The author of the PR article was off by a factor of: (13,486 mg * 1,000 micrograms/mg) / 30 micrograms = 449,533 ! Some scientists might argue that only 70 – 75% of the methanol from aspartame is absorbed and of that amount, approximately 90% is converted into formaldehyde during the metabolic process [Ref. 3]. Even if true, it is clear that the exposure to formaldehyde is somewhere from 283,000 to 449,533 times what was mentioned in the PR piece. Using these figures, the exposure to formaldehyde from a 600 mg dose of aspartame would be: 61.3 mg * 72.5% * 90% = 40 mg of formaldehyde Rather than discussing an unobtainable daily dose of 200 mg/kg, it is preferable to discuss a very easily obtainable dose of 10 mg/kg of aspartame. Actually, a large number of people have reported to this author ingesting far in excess of this amount on a daily basis. Even the industry’s own research shows that higher dosages are easily-obtainable by consumers [Ref. 4]. An exposure to a daily dose of 40.0 mg to 61.3 mg of formaldehyde is clearly enough to cause gradual damage (without even considering aspartame’s excitotoxin that would likely worsen the damage as discussed at: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html#discussion ). The daily dose of airborne formaldehyde exposure that was shown to cause irreversible genetic damage [Ref. 5] was: 2.25 ppm formaldehyde (average) ~= 3.375 mg/m3 3.375 mg/m3 * 10 m3/workday = 33.75 mg/day (for a workday/schoolday) The genetic damage from formaldehyde exposure at approximately 33.75 mg/day was seen after many years of exposure. The longer the exposure, the more genetic damage. It is important to keep in mind that the health effects of methanol are different in humans as compared to rodents and non-human primates [Ref. 6], so experiments of the health effects of aspartame in rodents and non-human primates might not apply readily to health effects in humans. Methanol is many times more toxic to humans than to rodents. Exposure to formaldehyde at levels much lower than the 33.75 mg per day (that causes irreversible genetic damage) has been shown to cause musculoskeletal problems, cardiovascular symptoms, gastrointestinal problems, and a wide range of other chronic toxicity symptoms. Formaldehyde exposure, especially in the presence of co-exposure to an excitotoxin from aspartame appears to cause gradual neurological damage and immunological system changes. Please see discussions at both: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html#discussion and http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/methanol.faq for details and scientific references related methanol and formaldehyde toxicity. The study by Trocho et al. [Ref. 7] showed that exposure to a single dose of 10 mg/kg of aspartame led to the accumulation of formaldehyde in the body. The accumulation of formaldehyde was seen throughout the body, in the organs (liver, kidneys, brain) and tissues. (See: http://www.presidiotex.com/barcelona/SUMMARY/summary.html. ) The level of formaldehyde accumulation was calculated by Trocho et al. to be from 5% of the total methanol levels of aspartame given. For every 600 mg of aspartame (a 10 mg/kg dose in a 60 kg woman), the amount of formaldehyde estimated to accumulate is: 61.3 mg of formaldehyde * 5% = 3.065 mg of formaldehyde The research on formaldehyde toxicity and damage is based upon exposure only. If formaldehyde from aspartame accumulates in organs and tissues as the Trocho et al. experiment appears to demonstrate, then it is like a ticking time bomb for those who ingest aspartame (even if they have not yet experienced symptoms). Well, this published MEDLINE study states that the safe level of formaldehyde consumption for humans is 3 mg/kg/day. So someone who weighs 70kg (154 pounds) can safely consume 70 x 3 = 210 milligrams of formaldehyde per day.
This is a complete misrepresentation of the formaldehyde research. Formaldehyde is not readily abosrbed from foods [Ref. 8]. But the methanol in aspartame is readily and quickly absorbed and then converted into formaldehyde once in the body [Ref. 9, Ref. 10]. (Methanol in fruits has protective factors/chemicals to prevent conversion into formaldehyde.) "Ingestion represents a minor route of [formaldehyde] exposure because the dilution factor and the binding to the macromolecules present in food reduce substantially the [formaldehyde] concentration that enters into contact with the gastrointestinal mucosa" (Restani 1991) [Ref. 8] Therefore, any comparison to formaldehyde in foods, is useless. A closer comparison (but still not ideal) is a comparison to the inhalation toxicity of formaldehyde since formaldehyde is easily introduced into the bloodstream through inhalation or from methanol derived from aspartame ingestion. The toxicity differences between inhalation of formaldehyde and formaldehyde derived from aspartame appear to relate to: 1.Aspartame also breaks down into an excitotoxin that would be expected to increase the toxicity of the formaldehyde and its metabolite, formic acid. Please see discussions at both: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html#discussion and http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/methanol.faq. 2.Inhalation exposure to formaldehyde likely leads to a greater exposure of formaldehyde to organs other than the liver. But the Trocho et al study makes it clear that at least some of the formaldehyde derived from aspartame is distributed to other organs and tissues. To conclude, the 30 microgram figure was obviously off by a factor of over 400,000. The amount of formaldehyde exposure is more than what has been seen to cause chronic toxicity in independent formaldehyde exposure research. When one considers 1) the total formaldehyde exposure, 2) the long term exposure to and accumulation of formaldehyde, 3) the excitotoxin obtained from aspartame that would likely increase the toxicity of the formaldehyde, 4) the permanent damage that can result from chronic formaldehyde poisoning, 5) the huge numbers of people reporting serious health problems from long-term aspartame use (http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/suffer.faq), and 6) the fact that independent controlled human studies nearly always find problems with aspartame (even though the experiments are quite short), it is a good idea to avoid any aspartame ingestion. References [1] Tsang, Wing-Sum, et al., 1985. "Determination of Aspartame and Its Breakdown Products in Soft Drinks by Reverse- Phase Chromatography with UV Detection," Journal Agriculture and Food Chemistry, Vol. 33, No. 4, page 734-738. [2] Aspartame is composed of: C(14) O(5) N(2) H(18) [See Journal of AOAC International, Volume 76, No. 2, 1993: "Determination of Aspartame and Its Major Decomposition Products in Foods."] The … read more »
Response:
August 22 2002 Hello, I hope this is helpful– a review of recent research on the multiple effects of formaldehyde. 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 505-986-9103 Murray: Wilson: CIIN: EPA: Gold: Thrasher & Kilburn: Shaham: formaldehyde toxicity 8.22.2 rmforall Part 1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/863 Chemical Injury Information Network P.O.Box 301 White Sulphur Springs, MT 59645 406.547.2255 fax 2455 Chemical Exposure and Human Health; Cynthia Wilson, covers 314 chemicals in an easy-to read format. $55.00 US plus $2.00 shipping to McFarland and Company Ltd.; P.O. Box 611; Jefferson NC 28640, 800-253-2187. The Human Consequences of the Chemical Problem by Cindy Duehring and Cynthia Wilson, $7.20, TT Publishing, PO Box T, White Sulphur Springs MT 59645 Formaldehyde (From "Chemical Exposure and Human Health") SYMPTOMS/DAMAGE: Eye, ear and throat irritation; Acidosis; Acute sense of smell; Altered tissue proteins; Anemia; Antibodies formation; Apathy; Blindness; Blood in urine; Blurred vision; Body aches; Bronchial spasms; Bronchitis; Burns, nasal and throat; Cardiac impairment, palpations, and arrhythmias; Central nervous system depression; Changes in higher cognitive functions ; Chemical sensitivity; Chest pains and tightness; Chronic vaginitis; Colds; Coma; Conjunctivitis; Constipation; Convulsions; Corneal erosion; Cough; Death; Depression; Dermatitis; Diarrhea; Difficulty Concentrating; Disorientation; Dizziness; DNA damage; Drowsiness; Ear aches; Eczema; Emotional upsets; Ethmoid polyps; Fatigue; Fecal Bleeding; Fetal asphyxiation; Flu-like or cold like illness; Frequent urination with pain; Gastritis; Gastrointestinal inflammation; Headaches; Hemolytic anemia; Hoarseness; Hyperactive airway disease; Hyperactivity; Hypomenstrual syndrome; Immune system sensitization; Impaired attention span; Impaired capacity to focus attention; Inability or difficulty swallowing; Inability to recall words and names; Inconsistent IQ profiles; Inflammatory diseases of the reproductive organs; Intestinal pain; Intrinsic asthma; Irritability; Jaundice; Joint pain, aches and swelling; Kidney pain; Laryngeal spasm; Loss of memory; Loss of sense of smell; Loss of taste; Malaise; Menstrual and testicular pain; Menstrual irregularities; Metallic taste; Muscle spasms and cramps; Nasal congestion, Crusting and mucosa inflammation; Nausea; Nosebleeds; Numbness and tingling of the forearms and finger tips; Pale, clammy skin; Partial laryngeal paralysis; Pneumonia; Post nasal drip; Pulmonary edema; Reduced body temperature; Retarded speech pattern; Ringing or tingling in the ear; Schizophrenic-type symptoms; Sensitivity to sound; Shock; Short term memory loss; Shortness of breath; Skin lesions; Sneezing; Sore throat; Spacey feeling; Speaking difficulty; Sterility; Swollen glands; Tearing; Thirst; Tracheitis: Tracheobronchitis; Vertigo; Vomiting blood; Vomiting; Wheezing; Suspected of causing cancer (see comment from NIOSH). Genetic mutations; Chromosomal damage; Metabolized as formic acid. Note: Will cross sensitize to formic acid. Comparison of ciliostatic effects showed formaldehyde to the most toxic of the aldehydes. EPA estimates that 15 people in 1 million will get cancer from lifetime exposure of 1 ppb. Neurotoxin. Trade Names/synonyms: Quaternium-15; Metanal; Meltyl aldehyde; Methylene oxide; Formalin; Formic aldehyde; Formalith; Fyde; BVF; Morbicid; Oxymethylene; Oxomethane; Lysoform; Superlysoform; Fannoform; Ivalon. NIOSH: Carcinogen at any exposure level; NIOSH REL: 0.016 ppm (10 hr/day 40 hr. wk); 0.100 ppm (ceiling limit to not exceed 15 minutes): OSHA: PEL: 0.750 ppm (8 hr/day-40 hr/wk-PP/S); 2000 ppm (exposure to not exceed 15 min); NAS: There is no (constant) population threshold for irritation effects; NRC: Fewer than 20% but perhaps no more than 10% of the general population may be suspectable to formaldehyde and may react acutely at any exposure level; ACGIH: Suspected human carcinogen; IDLH: 30 ppm; Chemical Exposure and Human Health: Page 182; References: 84,17,18,30,31,129,278,279,285, 88,290,297,299,300,304, 305,309,388,389,394,416,417a,421,423,426,457. 8. Berthold-Bond, A., Clean & Green, Woodstock, NY: Cress Press, 1990. 14. Chesebrough-Ponds USA Co., product label for Rave All in One hair spray 1992. 17. Concrete Facts, "99.99 Percent?" March 1991, Vol.1 no.1 and/or Rachel’s Hazardous Waste News #207, "Hardardous Waste Incineration- Part 4; Real Alternatives to Incinerations," November 14, 1988. 18. "Congress: HR 1066 Needed to Turn Heat Up on Employers, Regulators, Congress Told", Indoor Air Pollution News, Washington, DC: Buraff, August 22, 1991. 30. Lander Co., product label for Rose Scented Skin Cream, ca. 1992. 31. Lander Co., product label for Vitamin E Lotion, ca. 1992. 129. "National Library of Medicine’s Toxicology Information Program, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Hazardous Substances Data Bank, "Formaldehyde", as of January 11, 1992. 279. National Research Council, Assembly of Life Sciences, Committee on Aldehydes, Based on Toxicology and Environmental Health Hazards, Formaldehydes and other Aldehydes, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1981. 285. New Jersey Department of Health, "Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet "Formaldehyde", 1986. 288. Proctor and Gamble Co., label for Ivory Free Conditioner, U.S. patent pending. 290. Redmond Products, product label for Aussie Mega Shampoo with Papaya, 1986. 297. Swanson, J.R., "Formaldehyde: The Psychological and Educational Implications of Formaldehyde Toxicology," Seattle, WA: University of Washington, College of Education, 1984. 299. Thomas, C.L., editor, Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, 16th Edition, Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company, 1989. http://biz-comm.com/CIIN/who.htm A History of the Chemical Injury Information Network PO Box 301, White Sulphur Springs, MT 59645; (406) 547-2255 Founded in 1990, the Chemical Injury Information Network (CIIN) is a 501(c)3, tax-exempt, non-profit support, advocacy organization run by the chemically injured primarily for the benefit of the chemically injured. Its primary focus is on education, credible research on multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), and the empowerment of the chemically injured. CIIN publishes the monthly newsletter Our Toxic Times and has over 5,000 members in 35 countries.* CIIN merged with Cindy Duehring’s Environmental Access Research Network (EARN) in 1994. EARN now serves as the research division of CIIN and is responsible for the administration of one the largest private libraries on chemical health issues in existence. Its primary focus is to make scientific, medical, legal, and government literature available to health care professionals, expert witnesses, attorneys, and lay persons. EARN publishes Environmental Access Profiles and the semi-monthly newsletter Medical & Legal Briefs. In 1996, CIIN formed a new division to raise money to fund research into MCS. The MCS Research Fund has a medical advisory board that peer reviews and prioritizes research proposals for funding. Considered one of the leading organizations in the world for chemical health problems, CIIN/EARN receives hundreds of requests each month for information on toxic health problems. They regularly work with health care professionals in Algeria, Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, India, Sweden, Venezuela, United Kingdom, and the United States. They have worked with universities in Australia, Canada, Germany, Philippines, Mexico, and the United States. CIIN/EARN have also provided information not only to the US government, but to the European Union and the governments of Canada, Costa Rica, Finland, New Zealand, and Venezuela. CIIN has received recognition for its work on chemical health issues from the United Nations’ Environmental Programme and from the European Union. In 1991, CIIN was accepted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as a clearinghouse for information on the adverse health effects of chemical exposures. CIIN/EARN have also earned the respect of legislators with over 100 US Senators and Representatives referring their chemically injured constituents to them. In addition, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the ATSDR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and several divisions of the Environmental Protection Agency refer people who have been chemically injured to CIIN/EARN. Cindy Duehring, EARN’s director, and Cynthia Wilson, CIIN’s executive director, were commissioned by the Chemical Impact Project to write a "white paper" in 1994. The 65-page report, The Human Consequences of the Chemical Problem (available from TT Publishing, PO Box T, White Sulphur Springs MT 59645 for $7.20), was presented to Vice President Al Gore, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of the National Institutes of Health Donna Shalala, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC had the paper peer reviewed and it was found to have "merit". A conference was convened to discuss the health issues raised by the paper. The ATSDR called it "powerful and well researched." The Special Assistant to the President requested extra copies to distribute, and Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) requested an extra copy to present to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. From March 1993 to April 1994, Ms. Wilson served as a public
liaison officer and a member of the planning committee for the ATSDR sponsored Conference on Low-Level Exposure to Chemicals … read more »
Response:
Elevated iron levels in the body are now being recognized as a .. bad .. thing. Toxicology 2001 Nov 30;168(3):223-230 Release of iron from ferritin by metabolites of benzene and superoxide radicalgenerating agents. Agrawal R, Sharma PK, Rao GS Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, PO Box 80, M.G. Marg, 226 001, Lucknow, India [Record supplied by publisher] The release of iron from ferritin in the presence of benzene metabolites, viz. phenol (P), catechol (CT), hydroquinone (HQ) and superoxide radical generating compounds, viz. pyrogallol (PL), phloroglucinol (PG), phenylhydrazine (PH) or phenylenediamine (PD) was studied in acetate buffer, pH 5.6. Monitoring the formation of the iron-ferrozine complex quantitated the release of iron from ferritin. The presence of P (125 mM) did not result in the release of iron from ferritin, whereas the same concentration of CT, HQ, PL, PH or PD resulted in the release of significant amounts of iron from ferritin and a marginal amount of iron in the presence of PG, CT, HQ, PL, PH or PD concentration and time-dependent increase in iron release from ferritin were observed although the increase was not linear as a function of time and concentration of the compounds studied. The presence of superoxide dismutase inhibited significantly the release of iron from ferritin by CT, HQ, PL, PH or PD. The iron released from ferritin by CT, HQ, PL, PH or PD enhanced lipid peroxidation in rat brain homogenate and released aldehydic products from bleomycin-dependent degradation of DNA and also caused single strand nicks to pUC18 DNA. These studies indicate that CT and HQ, the two principal polyphenolic metabolites of benzene and PL, PH or PD, the superoxide radical generating compounds were capable of reducing ferric iron from ferritin and also mobilizing and releasing iron from ferritin core. The release of iron from ferritin by these compounds is a result of direct reduction of ferritin iron by electron transfer and also reduction via superoxide radical. The release of iron from ferritin by CT and HQ may have toxicological implications in relation to benzene toxicity. The release of iron by superoxide radical generating agents suggests that oxidative stress may play a role as this could lead to disruption of intracellular iron homeostasis. PMID: 11684319 Who loves ya. Tom http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/watchman Jesus was a vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman Moses was a mystic! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman/light.html
Response:
Am I to understand that this is peer reviewed literature, or is our time and bandwidth being wasted with mere opinion in a book?
Yeah, your time is wasted, so find something else better to do. Jan
Response:
: Sure, chemicals cause the symptoms, but the question is : why? Is it a physiological reaction, or a psychological : reaction. Miller has developed her own theory called : Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT). Her theory : is that the nervous system is becoming sensitized by a : learning process that may be the same mechanism : by which drug addicts develop addiction. The nervous system is certainly getting sensitised. I expect in most cases it’s simply a case of the blood-brain barrier becoming compromised, in the face of chemical attack. Formaldehyde will be a common culprit there. With a damaged blood-brain barrier, you’ll be "sensitive" to practically anything. —
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS): What It Is, What It Is Not, And How It Is Manifested. SHEILA BASTIEN, Ph.D. (Neuropsychologist) Excerpts (link below) From Intro: We now know that many of these chemicals can be toxic. Some harmful exposures are from ignorance, some from oversight, some from complacency, and some are from criminal negligence. The result on individuals, certain groups (like the Gulf War veterans), and entire communities is toxic injury. Toxic exposure, whether acute or long-term, creates an overload on the individual which can result in serious health problems, including multiple chemical sensitivity, other illness referable to many organ systems, and in some cases, cancer. Insidious breakdown in resistance mechanisms takes place; individuals are often unaware of their developing sensitivity. What is multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS)? Cullin, M.R. ed. (1987) "Workers with multiple chemical sensitivities" Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, defines multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) as an acquired disorder characterized by recurrent symptoms referable to multiple organ systems, occurring in response to demonstrable exposure to many chemically unrelated compounds at doses far below those established in the general population to cause harmful effects. The National Research Council, 1992 Workshop on Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (a group working on research protocols for clinical evaluation) reported in Toxicology and Industrial Health [Vol.10 number 4/5 July - October, 1994 Pg. 259 in Claudia Miller's article] the definition of MCS by the National Research Counsel. 1992: 1. Sensitivity to chemicals. By sensitivity we mean symptoms or signs as related to chemical exposures at levels tolerated by the population at large, that is distinct from such well recognized hypersensitivity phenomenon as IgG-mediated immediate hypersensitivity reactions, contact dermatitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. 2. Sensitivity may be expressed as symptoms and signs in one or more organ systems. 3. Symptoms and signs wax and wane with exposure. It is not necessary to identify a chemical exposure associated with the onset of the condition. Preexisting or concurrent conditions, e.g. asthma, arthritis, somatization disorder, or depression, should not exclude patients from consideration. Ashford N.A. and Miller, C.S. [1991. Chemical Exposures; Low-Level and High Stakes: (Van Nostrum Reinhold, New York)]. Their definition is: "The patient with multiple chemical sensitivities can be discovered by removal from the suspected offending agent and by rechallenge, after an appropriate interval, under strictly controlled environmental conditions. Causality is inferred by the clearing of symptoms with removal from the offending environment and recurrence of symptoms with specific challenge." We finally discovered that the organochlorines, such as DDT and Chlordane, were dangerous, cancerous and deadly, so along came the organophosphates…The so-called safe alternative has now been documented to cause a multitude of problems including very serious central nervous system problems. [See Ecobichon, Donald J., and Joy, Robert N. "Pesticides and Neurological Disease, Second Edition 1994; CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.] The long-term effects from these organophosphates, in the cognitive realm include impaired vigilance and reduced concentration, reduced information processing, and psychomotor speed, memory deficits, linguistic disturbances, depression, anxiety and irritability. Auditory attention problems, visual memory problems, speech problems, sequencing problems and problem solving difficulties are also seen. Problems with motor steadiness, reaction time and dexterity have also been documented. (Ecobichon, Pg. 227.) After organophosphate exposure, electrocephalograms (EEG) are found to be abnormal and have persisted for one year in studies of primates, (p.231). Psychological symptoms such as anxiety, psychomotor depression, intellectual impairment, and unusual dreams, were observed in human exposure. The organophosphate class, which is the most commonly used pesticide and termiticide, can induce slow onset (pesticide induced) neuropathies, including Guillain-Barr
