It was with no small amount of trepidation that I decided to go public with my chemical hypersensitivity problems as they relate to computer plastics in my Moore's Views & Reviews column this week on Applelinks, and a column earlier this year on MacOpinion.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity is a controversial topic, and claiming to be affected by it tends to draw a barrage of contemptuous patronization from certain elements in the medical profession, industry advocates, and from individuals who desperately want to believe that MCS sufferers are a bunch of psychologically unstable whiners and malingerers.

For example, here is one typically supercilious and dismissive put-down from a medical professional MCS skeptic:

"The expression "multiple chemical sensitivity" ("MCS") is used to describe people with numerous troubling symptoms attributed to environmental factors. Many such people are seeking special accommodations, applying for disability benefits, and filing lawsuits claiming that exposure to common foods and chemicals has made them ill. Their efforts are supported by a small cadre of physicians who use questionable diagnostic and treatment methods."

A chemical industry financed propaganda agency called the Environmental Sensitivities Research Institute (ESRI) characterizes people who think they are suffering from MCS as irrationally frightened by technology and chemicals ('enemies of progress' if you will), and further maintains that any professional who supports belief in MCS is promoting "junk science." "[MCS] exists only because a patient believes it does and because a doctor validates that belief," ESRI declares. In other words, if you exhibit MCS symptoms, you are probably crazy, and if your doctor thinks otherwise, he or she is probably a quack or a charlatan.

For an articulate and thorough discussion of what MCS sufferers have to put up with in this vein, written by a licensed physician who is afflicted with MCS himself, visit this URL:

http://www.mcsrr.org/fedmcscommentsam.html

Over the past 15 years I have encountered many people who either suffer from and/or treat MCS, and very few of them seemed to be neurotic or hysterical. There is a district court judge who collects special interest automobiles, but has trouble working on them or even driving them. He also wilts from heavily scented individuals in his courtroom. There was a professional boatbuilder in New Brunswick who became so sensitized to fiberglass chemicals used in his business (a well-ventilated, brand new, state-of-the-art operation) that he couldn't even stay in his home if the wind was blowing from the direction of the plant next door.

Another fellow I know is a car and computer freak who works in a university science department. I know physicians who have received hate mail and public ridicule from their colleagues over the MCS issue. One has been subjected to what can only be described as a full-blown inquisition by his provincial medical association, and ruined financially by the cost of his defense.

Personally, I am a lifelong car-nut, have worked in the automotive repair field, and was for several years a retail marine paint and chemicals specialist. I now make a portion of my living writing about computers -- hardly fitting the profile of someone "frightened by technology and chemicals."

One can only surmise that the astonishingly vicious (not too strong a word) attacks mounted on both MCS patients and the minority of physicians who try to treat them (usually with little or no support from the medical and research establishments) are at least partly motivated by the fact that chemical companies are spooked, because the bottom- line stakes associated with MCS being "real" are potentially enormous. The industry knows that if a clearly-defined disease emerges from research on MCS, with chemical causes that are understood, chemical corporations could face liability and compensation claims from millions of victims harmed by their products.

Because MCS sufferers react to chemicals at levels hundreds or thousands of times lower than allowable occupational exposures, traditional toxicology thinking dictates that their symptoms can't be caused by chemical exposures. Nor is MCS a true allergy because there are no IgE-mediated reactions involved, so conventional allergists don't acknowledge it either. Because MCS fits none of conventional medicine's accepted mechanisms of disease, medical "experts" often label it "psychogenic" or "stress-related"-- originating in the patient's mind.

More often than not conflicted interests taint such so-called expert opinion. Most scientific research is conducted by laboratories whose funding comes either directly or indirectly from business -- often business with chemical- related activities. University boards are heavily populated with corporate executives. Corporations contribute heavily to most political parties, and expect back-scratching in return. On health and environmental issues, information is filtered through institutions and government agencies that have a financial and philosophical predisposition to produce data congenial to their business benefactors, with no incentive to engage in research or produce results that could potentially harm corporate balance sheets.

I am not anti-business, anti-science, or anti-technology, but I do believe that the millions of people struggling to get through the day handicapped by acquired sensitivity to the products of industrial society deserve better treatment than to be stigmatized as shirkers and nut-cases, simply because their illness may prove inconvenient and/or expensive to industry and society.

With the above in mind, I have been pleasantly surprised on both occasions that I've written about this issue by the thoughtful, helpful, and kindly-spirited responses from most readers who responded. Mac folks are a special breed, it seems. Thanks all.

Charles

From: Bob Shapka:

Charles;

Thanks for raising the issue of odoriferous electronics so eloquently. Congrats for hanging in there through all your trials; anyone of lesser stamina would likely have retired to other pursuits long ago.

I thankfully don't suffer as you but I did notice a particularly strong electronic odor from a new TV receiver we purchased recently.

Hopefully your article will spur Apple at least to pursue the issues you've raised.

Sincerely;

Bob

.

November 21, 2008