DRAGONFLY KINGDOM NTERNATIONAL SERVICE AGENCY

Abstract

Disturbed epigenetic mechanisms, which developmentally regulate gene expression via modifications to DNA, histone proteins, and chromatin, have been hypothesized to play a key role in many human diseases. Recently it was shown that engineered nanoparticles (NPs), that already have a wide range of applications in various fields including food production, could dramatically affect epigenetic processes, while their ability to induce diseases remains poorly understood. Besides the obvious benefits of the new technologies, it is critical to assess their health effects before proceeding with industrial production. In this article, after surveying the applications of NPs in food technology, we review recent advances in the understanding of epigenetic pathological effects of NPs, and discuss their possible health impact with the aim of avoiding potential health risks posed by the use of nanomaterials in foods and food-packaging.

Keywords: Epigenetic effects; Impact on health; Nanomaterials in food; Nanoparticles; Risk assessment.

Indexed for NIH Pubmed by Dragonfly Kingdom Library

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25554528/

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights

Journal of Bioelectricity

Volume 10, 1991 - Issue 1-2

Original Article

Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity

William J. Rea,Yagin Pan,Ervin J. Fenyves,Iehiko Sujisawa,Hideo Suyama,Nasrola Samadi & show all

Pages 241-256 | Published online: 07 Jul 2009

https://doi.org/10.3109/15368379109031410

Abstract

A multiphase study was performed to find an effective method to evaluate electromagnetic field (EMF) sensitivity of patients. The first phase developed criteria for controlled testing using an environment low in chemical, particulate, and EMF pollution. Monitoring devices were used in an effort to ensure that extraneous EMF would not interfere with the tests. A second phase involved a single-blind challenge of 100 patients who complained of EMF sensitivity to a series of fields ranging from 0 to 5 MHz in frequency, plus 5 blank challenges. Twenty-five patients were found who were sensitive to the fields, but did not react to the blanks. These were compared in the third phase to 25 healthy naive volunteer controls. None of the volunteers reacted to any challenge, active or blank, but 16 of the EMF-sensitive patients (64%) had positive signs and symptoms scores, plus autonomic nervous system changes. In the fourth phase, the 16 EMF-sensitive patients were rechallenged twice to the frequencies to which they were most sensitive during the previous challenge. The active frequency was found to be positive in 100% of the challenges, while all of the placebo tests were negative. we concluded that this study gives strong evidence that electromagnetic field sensitivity exists, and can be elicited under environmentally controlled conditions.

Indexed for Taylor and Francis and Journal of Bioelectricity by Dragonfly Kingdom Library

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368379109031410

It is rare to find a patient with electrical sensitivities who does not already have multiple on-

going sensitivities to chemicals, volatiles and particulates.

ELECTRICAL SENSITIVITIES

and the

ELECTRICAL ENVIRONMENT

Cyril W. Smith, Ph.D.

E:mail: cyril.smith@which.net

A shortened and edited version of notes written for and in cooperation with The

Breakspear Hospital, Hemel Hempstead, HP2 4FD, U.K. The writer has been helping

their electrically hypersensitive patients since 1982

.

What are Electrical Sensitivities?

Many persons suffer from sensitivities to certain foods and environmental chemicals which

cause them discomfort, or even in extreme cases prevent them from functioning in any

effective manner. Even the most minute amounts of these substances may on occasions

‘trigger’ reactions which are specific to each individual. Warnings regarding nuts, peanuts or

gluten are commonly found displayed on food products. When a sensitivity reaction occurs,

some regulatory system within the body has ceased to function properly and gives alarm

signals, calling for an unjustified panic reaction. Usually, it is the autonomic nervous system

(ANS) which is the first to become compromised in this way. This system controls all the

involuntary body functions. Thus, any part or function of the body might become affected by

the same allergen acting in different people which is why such effects do not show up in

medical statistics.

Those who have already acquired several chemical hypersensitivities and which are ‘on-

going’, are at particular risk of acquiring electrical sensitivities as an additional problem. The

allergen ‘triggering effect’ may transfer from a minute amount of some chemical in the

environment to some patient-specific frequency of an electromagnetic field in the

environment. Usually, it is the same patient symptoms that continue to be ‘triggered’. It is

the frequency of the electromagnetic field that matters, once some patient-specific threshold of

intensity or field strength has been exceeded. The range of effective coherent frequencies

extends from below a thousand seconds per cycle (circadian rhythms) through audio- and

radio- and microwave-frequencies to visible light. All these effects are ‘non-thermal’: the

electrical power is insufficient to produce any significant heating. It is the frequency that

matters. In technical terms, it is the spectral power density or the watts per cycle of bandwidth

of the radiation which matters. The more precise the frequency – the less power is needed to

produce an effect.

Germany has introduced the WHO International Classification of Diseases Code T78.4 for

‘Chemical-Sensitivity Syndrome Multiple’, against which this can be reported and statistics

collected. There is no electrical equivalent WHO Classification to date but it would seem

reasonable for these cases to be recorded as a complication of the multiple chemical

sensitivities which precede the electrical sensitivities. Sweden regards electrical sensitivity as

a disability with the implication that all public places must be fit for the electrically sensitive

disabled person to be in.

The Electrical Environment

Such persons may experience problems from the natural electrical environment beyond what

is normal such as the influence of light on melatonin levels. Electrical or acoustic (even sub-

audio) frequencies from approaching weather fronts or thunderstorms may become

troublesome. Eventually, there may be a hypersensitivity to sunlight.

Fluorescent lighting and lasers at check-outs may make shopping difficult, particularly if

inhalants such as chemicals on in-store fabrics provide an initial chemical sensitisation. The

patient may experience problems when near any electrical equipment such as power lines,

radio- TV- or mobile phone transmitters, tape or DVD-recorders, computers, mobile phones,

satellites or in fact any one of the multitude of electronic devices in the modern environment.

It is not necessary for an electrical device to be active, any passive resonant circuit may

suffice; this could be the resonant frequency of a row of metal railings in the street. Persons

may become aware of actually having electrical devices malfunction when they handle them

or, even when in their vicinity.

The female characteristic is towards chronic sensitivities appearing at an early stage, resulting

in being labelled as “over-anxious”; the male characteristic is for no reaction until the onset of

a sudden and disabling crash which may result in the person becoming completely unable to

function normally.

The hazard of chronic over-exposure to electrical frequencies is one of adaptation to

symptoms triggered by a particular pattern of frequencies until they become indistinguishable

from a disease condition. The problem seems to arise when the frequency pattern of a toxic

chemical in the body matches that of the person’s electrical environment. It is the frequencies

in the electrical environment which makes the body think it is under chemical attack

Typical Subjective Symptoms Relating to Electrical Sensitivities

Drowsiness, malaise and headache, mood swings, tearfulness and eye pain, poor

concentration, vertigo and tinnitus, numbness and tingling, nausea and flatulence,

convulsions, noise sensitivity, alteration in appetite, visual disturbances, restlessness,

blushing.

Clinical Observations Relating to Electrical Sensitivities

Changes in respiration, heart rate changes (heart rate variability analysis is a good indicator of

the status of the ANS), eye pupil dilation, perspiration or lack of it, muscular weakness, loss

of visual acuity, speech or writing difficulties, loss of consciousness, convulsions.

At the Breakspear Hospital, about 10% of all patients with chemical, nutritional or particulate

sensitivities had acquired electromagnetic sensitivities. Tests often showed stress coming

from some common environmental frequency such as the power supply (50Hz in UK, 60 Hz

in North America) or the 2.45 GHz frequency of microwave cookers and other devices using

this frequency.

Patients’ reactions were triggered over a very wide range of frequencies for which at first

there was no recognisable pattern. Then it was realised that 7.8 Hz often appeared.

Measurements quickly revealed that 7.8 Hz was the endogenous frequency of the heart

acupuncture meridian. The endogenous frequencies of other acupuncture meridians also

appeared when these were under stress. The frequencies on acupuncture meridians are very

precise; for 53 heart meridian frequencies from 38 patients, the mean was 7.788 Hz (standard

deviation ± 0.92%). This frequency is used in some therapeutic or environment protection

devices and it occurs in radiation from the Schumann Bands in the upper atmosphere to

which we are all exposed.

Sensitivities to Foods and Chemicals

About 1-in-6 of a ‘population’ is usually considered to have some degree of impaired function

due to an allergic reaction to the environment or to food. Repeated exposure to a frequency

while a person is reacting to some other allergic trigger may link that specific sensitivity

pattern to that frequency, so that the same reaction is triggered on encountering either the

frequency or the allergen on a subsequent occasion. In general, the patient’s pattern of

response is the same whether the trigger is chemical, biological, particulate, nutritional or

electrical – it is characteristic of the patient.

Exposure to pesticides or herbicides seems to enhance or even create electrical sensitivities.

Formaldehyde is a very good sensitizer. Ionising radiation exposure (e.g. long-haul flights)

represents an additional stress factor. A few persons may become hypersensitive to light,

some to sunlight, or to the light of the mercury vapour spectrum, which is superimposed on

the emission from fluorescent tubes and energy-saving lamps.

Dental fillings may cause problems due to electrolytic currents between amalgam fillings containing different mixtures of metals or, between fillings and surrounding tissue. Patients

have been seen with black stains on the palate due to the electrolytic transport of mercury.

Amalgam-to-tissue contacts may detect environmental frequencies such as radio transmissions

just like a cat’s-whisker crystal set. There has been a case where a dentist heard music coming

from a patient’s mouth. The mercury toxicity frequency and a mobile phone frequency

unfortunately happen to stress the parasympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system.

A common feature of electrical hypersensitivity is that its sufferers complain vigorously that

nobody does anything for them, such as turning off an electrical source which they know is

“triggering” their reactions but, which seems to have no effect on anyone else. When a

hypersensitivity to sunlight is acquired, the futility of this approach is realised but perhaps not

before the sufferer has become almost paranoid about these problems.

Treatment

When patients have acquired a high degree of sensitivity to many factors in foods and/or the

chemical environment (multiple-sensitivities), they are very likely to have acquired an

abnormal sensitivity to their electrical environment as a part of this ‘package’ of symptoms.

It is rare to find electrical sensitivities without on-going chemical sensitivities. This electrical

sensitivity can become so severe that a person becomes incompatible with technology and

unable to function in the modern environment. Electrical sensitivity is not mutually exclusive

of other clinical conditions; it can co-exist with and even trigger physical or mental illness.

Electrical sensitivities make diagnosis and therapy more difficult. Medications may produce

abnormal responses or side effects, even chronic sensitisation to the electrical environment.

A therapy for alleviating allergic reactions is called provocation/neutralisation

therapy. It was developed from earlier work in the USA by Dr. Joseph Miller of Mobile,

Alabama, and further developed at the Environmental Health Center, in Dallas, Texas, by Dr.

W. J. Rea and at the Breakspear Hospital, Hemel Hempstead, England by its Medical

Director, Dr. Jean Monro. This therapy relies on successive serial dilutions of the substance

having in sequence the effects of stimulating and/or quelling the reactions that they produce.

This therapy is not a substitute for eventually reducing the total body loading of triggering

substances to a level that the individual can cope with which can be done by simultaneously

increasing the rate of detoxification and reducing the rate of toxin intake until the body can

function normally, assuming that the enzyme systems for detoxification are still intact.

However, while this can produce an alleviation of the symptoms and thereby assist achieving

eventual normalisation, it may not be possible to achieve this without some change in the

patient’s lifestyle. It is also labour-intensive and therefore expensive.

The general concept introduced by Dr. W. J. Rea is to seek to reduce the total body load of

stressors. Which stress factors one seeks to reduce may be a matter of choice although some

stresses are involuntary through exposure to the general environment. Dr. Rea has

demonstrated the reality of electrical sensitivities in double-blind trials1

. The equivalent

therapy for alleviating reactions to electrical frequencies involves trying to find one or more

frequencies which will turn-off the body’s abnormal frequency sensitivity. This is not a

cure but it can help stabilise the body for more effective allergy therapy. As foods and

chemicals sensitivities are brought under control and the body detoxifies itself, the electrical

sensitivities usually disappear as well. Symptoms usually disappear in the reverse order to

their appearance. However, it is worth noting that if a person is working or sleeping in a zone

of ‘geopathic stress’, which may be electrical in origin, then their problems may persist and

resist therapies.

Reducing the Impact of the Electrical Environment

The sensitive person is best able to determine what affects them. It is impossible to get away

from the natural electromagnetic radiation from the sun, the ionosphere, the weather and the

geomagnetic field. It is almost impossible to get away from man-made electromagnetic radiation. Persons who find a deep canyon or go to the ‘out-back’ still get zapped when a

satellite comes over the horizon. The best indicators for safer places are – mobile phones do

not work, TV reception is poor and there are no overhead lines.

In the home, electricity supply meters emit large fields and may be located in a passage on the

other side of the wall from a bed-head. From where the power supply reaches the house, its

cable may run on an outside wall but, close to a bed. Power lines on overhead poles may act

as antennae for radio and microwave transmissions and channel them into the house wiring. It

is good practice to turn off all non-essential electrical circuits at night. Power frequencies

may have the same effect as daylight in the arctic summer depressing the level of melatonin

(an anti-cancer agent). Some biologically based shielding may be provided by pine trees

which have terpene problems, cacti or spider-plants.

The power supply frequencies are in effect impossible to shield with any practical measures.

Higher frequencies can be shielded by metal wire mesh, metallised fabric or aluminium foil,

although these may act as mirrors to reflect the radiation elsewhere. They can also reflect

self-radiation emitted by a person having an allergic reaction making it even worse. A very

sensitive person may react to a quantum component of the electromagnetic field called the

magnetic vector potential and this cannot be shielded2

.

It is rare to find electrical sensitivities without previous and ongoing chemical sensitivities. If

a person is sensitised chemically, the electrical sensitivity can be enhanced. Remember that

electronic equipment emits chemical fumes and as these may be a trigger for reactions so they

need to be ventilated. For example, a person may tolerate the electromagnetic radiation from

a television set if it is enclosed in a glass-fronted box ventilated to the outside keeping fumes

from the hot plastic out of the room.

Computers have different clock frequencies usually specified in terms of their speed of

operation. These frequencies will be sub-divided in the process of carrying out the various

computational functions. It may be possible to find a model/manufacturer whose equipment is

tolerated. The flat screen displays are likely to have less emission. The pulses emitted when a

mobile phone dials-up a number can imprint frequencies into the head if it is held against the

ear before dialling is complete.

The eye can also be a pathway for frequencies to enter the body such as when viewing TV or a

computer. Most acupuncture meridians are stimulated/stressed while viewing a light source

flashing at a frequency equal to the endogenous frequency of the meridian. Frequencies

greater than 0.05 Hz and less than 47 kHz have this effect as do strong visual patterns and

colours. The body as a whole is sensitive to resonances in its environment, so metal structures

or even electronic equipment which is not switched on may cause problems.

Computer keyboards can have a long cable or an infrared optical link to the computer unit

enabling the latter to be kept at a distance. A whole building or public area may be fitted out

with a wire-less internet link which cannot be avoided. There is software which enables one to

dictate to a computer, so that the process of typing in a lot of text can be circumvented; only

error correction and editing need be done at the keyboard.

Conclusion

It is rare to find a patient with electrical sensitivities who does not already have multiple on-

going sensitivities to chemicals, volatiles and particulates. To avoid becoming electrically

sensitive, one must be careful about acquiring a body load of chemicals which happen to be

toxic to you because your body cannot get rid of them quickly. Then, if the frequency pattern

of such substances happens to match a pattern of frequencies in your electrical environment

this will make the body think it is under further chemical attack. That is why only some

people are affected by their electrical environment. Engineers (chemical or electrical) work to

specifications, unless they are told that certain environmental frequency patterns cause. 

1. For evidence that electromagnetic field sensitivity actually does exist and can be elicited under

environmentally controlled double-blind conditions with 100% reactions to an active frequency and 0% to

the placebos, see: Rea WJ. Pan Y. Fenyves EJ. Sujisawa I. Suyama H. Samadi N. and Ross GH.

“Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity”, Journal of Bioelectricity 10(1&2): 241-256 (1991).

 2. Smith C.W. Is a living system a macroscopic quantum system? Frontier Perspectives, 7(1), 9-15 (1998),

(Temple University, Philadelphia, 1997 lecture to Frontier Sciences Department).

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]

[Extensions of Remarks]

[Pages E1992-E1994]

From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MULTIPLE CHEMICAL SENSITIVITY

______

HON. BERNARD SANDERS

of vermont

in the house of representatives

Thursday, October 8, 1998

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity as it relates to both our civilian

population and our Gulf war veterans.

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or MCS is a chronic condition marked by

heightened sensitivity to multiple different chemicals and other

irritants at or below previously tolerated levels of exposure.

Sensitivity to odors is often accompanied by food and drug intolerance,

sensitivity to sunlight and other sensory abnormalities, such as

hypersensitivity to touch,

[[Page E1993]]

heat and-or cold, and loud noises. MCS is often accompanied by impaired

balance, memory and concentration.

As a member of the Human Resources Subcommittee, which has oversight

jurisdiction for the Veterans' Affairs, I have been involved in the

issue of Gulf war illness and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. I have

been concerned for many years about the role that chemicals may be

playing on human health, not only in Gulf war veterans and their

families, but in civilian society as well. I have talked to many people

who are suffering symptoms not dissimilar from the symptoms that our

Persian Gulf veterans are experiencing because of chemicals in their

homes or workplaces.

As has been well-documented, the military theater in the Persian Gulf

was a chemical cesspool. Our troops were exposed to chemical warfare

agents, leaded petroleum, widespread use of pesticides, depleted

uranium and burning oil wells. In addition, they were given a myriad of

pharmaceuticals as vaccines. Further, and perhaps most importantly, as

a result of a waiver from the FDA, hundreds of thousands of troops were

given pyridostigmine bromide. Pyridostigmine bromide, which was being

used as an anti-nerve agent, had never been used in this capacity

before. In the midst of all this, our troops were living in a hot,

unpleasant climate and were under very great stress.

The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have

downplayed the presence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity in Gulf war

veterans. In the very beginning, the Defense Department and Veterans'

Affairs actually denied that there was any problem whatsoever with our

veterans' health. Then, after finally acknowledging that there was a

problem, they concluded that the problem was in the heads of our

soldiers--of psychological origin. The DOD and the VA responded very

poorly to our veterans' concerns. Tragically, our veterans were

discounted. They were called malingerers.

Ever so slowly, the truth about chemical exposure in the Persian Gulf

has begun to surface. On July 24, 1997, the Defense Department and the

Central Intelligence Agency gave us their best estimate--that as many

as 98,910 American troops could have been exposed to chemical warfare

agents due to destruction of ``the Pit'' in Khamisiyah, an Iraqi

munitions facility.

Not waiting for the DOD and VA, many other Federal, State, and local

government agencies have recognized the existence of Multiple Chemical

Sensitivity. I want to submit for the Record the latest ``Recognition

of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity'' newsletter which lists the U.S.

Federal, State, and local government authorities, U.S. Federal and

State courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent

organizations that have adopted policies, made statements, and-or

published documents recognizing Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

disorders.

Recognition of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity or MCS is a chronic condition

marked by heightened sensitivity to multiple different

chemicals and other irritants at or below previously

tolerated levels of exposure. Sensitivity to odors is often

accompanied by food and drug intolerances, photosensitivity

to sunlight and other sensory abnormalities, such as

hypersensitivity to touch, heat and/or cold, and loud noises

and impaired balance, memory and concentration. MCS is more

common in women and can start at any age, but usually begins

in one's 20's to 40's. Onset may be sudden (from a brief

high-level toxic exposures) or gradual (from chronic low-

level exposures), as in ``sick buildings.'' The syndrome is

defined by multiple symptoms occuring in multiple organ

systems (most commonly the neurological, gastrointestinal,

respiratory, and musculoskeletal) in response to multiple

different exposures. Symptoms may include chronic fatigue,

aching joints and muscles, irritable bowel, difficulty

sleeping and concentrating, memory loss, migraines, and

irritated eyes, nose, ears, throat and/or skin. Symptoms

usually begin after a chronic or acute exposure to one or

more toxic chemical(s), after when they ``spread'' to other

exposures involving unrelated chemicals and other irritants

from a great variety of sources (air pollutants, food

additives, fuels, building materials, scented products,

etc.). Consistent with basic principles of toxicology, MCS

usually can be improved, although not completely cured,

through the reduction and environmental control of such

exposures. Many different terms have been proposed in medical

literature since 1869 to describe MCS syndrome and possibly

related disorders whose symptoms also wax and wane in

response to chemical exposures.

Alternate Names Proposed for MCS

Acquired Intolerance to Solvents, Allergic Toxemia,

Cerebral Allergy, Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome,

Chemical-Induced Immune Dysfunction, Ecological Illness,

Environmental Illness or ``EI,'' Environmental Irritant

Syndrome, Environmentally Induced Illness, Environmental

Hypersensitivity Disorder, Idiopathic Environmental

Intolerances or ``IEI,'' Immune System Dysregulation,

Multiple Chemical Hypersensitivity Syndrome, Multiple

Chemical Reactivity, Total Allergy Syndrome, Toxic Carpet

Syndrome, Toxin Induced Loss of Tolerance of ``TILT,'' Toxic

Response Syndrome, 20th Century Disease.

Disorders Associated With Single or Multi-Organ Chemical Sensitivity

Akureyri Disease (coded as EN), Asthma, Cacosmia, Chronic

Fatigue Syndrome, Disorders of Porphyrin Metabolism, [Benign

Myalgic] Encephalomyelitis, Epidemic Neuromyastenia (EN),

Fibromyalgia Syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome, Icelandic Disease

(coded as EN), Mastocytosis, Migraine, Neurasthenia, Royal

Free [Hospital] Disease, Sick Building Syndrome, Silicone

Adjutant Disease, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Toxic

Encephalopathy.

Listed alphabetically below are the U.S. Federal, State,

and local government authorities, U.S. Federal and State

courts, U.S. workers' compensation boards, and independent

organizations that have adopted policies, made statement,

and/or published documents recognizing MCS disorders under

one name or another as a ligitimate medical condition and/or

disability. An introductory section summarizes recognition or

MCS in peer-reviewed medical literature, and the last section

lists upcoming MCS conferences as well as past conferences

sponsored by Federal Government agencies.

The exact meaning of ``recognition'' varies with the

context as each listing makes clear. Recognition by a court

of law, for example, usually refers to a verdict or appeal in

favor of an MCS plaintiff, while recognition by government

agencies varies tremendously--from acknowledgement of the

condition in publications and policies to research funding

and legal protection of disability rights.

Recognition of MCS by 25 Federal Authorities

U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry in a

unanimously adopted recommendation of the ATSDR's Board of

Scientific Counselors, which calls on the ATSDR to ``take a

leadership role in the investigation of MCS'' [1992, 24

pages, R-1]. To coordinate interagency research into MCS,

the ATSDR co-chairs the Federal Work Group on Chemical

Sensitivity, which it convened for the first time in 1994

(see below). The ATSDR has helped organize and pay for

three national medical conferences on MCS: sponsored by

the National Academy of Sciences in 1991, the Association

of Occupational and Environmental Clinics in 1991, and the

ATSDR in 1994. The combined proceedings of these three

conferences are reprinted in Multiple Chemical

Sensitivity, A Scientific Overview, ed. Frank Mitchell,

Princeton NJ: Princeton Scientific Publishing, 1995 (609-

683-4750 to order). ATSDR also contributed funding to a

study conducted by the California Department of Health

Services to develop a protocol for detecting MCS outbreaks

in toxic-exposed communities via questionnaires and

diagnostic tests (see entry below on California Department

of Health Services). Officially, however, ATSDR has not

``established a formal position regarding this syndrome''

[1995, 1 page, R-2].

U.S. Army, Medical Evaluation Board on US Army Form 3947

(from the U.S. Army Surgeon General), Army Medical Evaluation

Board certified a diagnosis of ``Multiple Chemical

Sensitivities Syndrome'' for a Persian Gulf veteran on 14

April 1993 [1 page, R-3]. MCS is defined on this form as

``manifested by headache, shortness of breath, congestion,

rhinorrhea, transient rash, and incoordination associated

with exposure to a variety of chemicals.'' The Board's report

further recognizes that this patient's particular MCS

condition began approximately in April 1991 (while the

patient was serving in the Gulf and entitled to base pay),

that the condition did not exist prior to service, and that

it has been permanently aggravated by service. At least five

other active duty Persian Gulf veterans have been diagnosed

by the Army with MCS, as reported by the Persian Gulf

Veterans coordinating Board in ``Summary of the Issues

Impacting Upon the Health of Persian Gulf Veterans,'' [3

March 1994, 4 page excerpt, R-4]. The Army Medical Department

also has requested funding for a research facility to study

MCS (reported in an Army information paper on ``Post Persian

Gulf War Health Issues,'' 16 November 1993).

U.S. Congress in a VA/HUD Appropriations Bill for FY1993

signed by President Bush in 1992 appropriating ``$250,000

from Superfund funds for chemical sensitivity workshops.''

These funds were used by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry (see above) to co-sponsor scientific

meetings on MCS with various other organizations [1992, 3

page excerpt, R-5] and support an MCS study (see California

State Department of Health Services below). For FY 1998,

Vermont Congressman Bernard Sanders proposed and Congress

appropriated $800,000 to start a new 5-year civilian agency

research program into MCS among Gulf War veterans. Congress

also requested that the administration report back by January

1998 on how it planned to spend the funds (text of

appropriations is quoted in report; see below: U.S.

Department of Health Services, Agency for Health Care Policy

and Research).

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, American Lung Association, and American

Medical Association (jointly) in a jointly published booklet

entitled Indoor Air Pollution

[[Page E1994]]

An Introduction for Health Professional [US GPO 1994-523-217/

81322] under the heading ``What is `multiple chemical

sensitivity' or `total allergy'?, these organizations state

that ``The current consensus is that in cases of claimed or

suspected MCS, complaints should not be dismissed as

psychogenic, and a thorough workup is essential.'' The

booklet is prefaced by the claim that ``Information provided

in this booklet is based upon current scientific and

technical understanding of the issues presented . . .``

[1994, 3 page excerpt, R-6]

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service in its Final

Environmental Impact Statement on ``Gypsy Moth Management

in the United States: a cooperative approach'', people

with MCS are mentioned as a ``potential high risk group''

who should be given advance notification of insecticide

treatment projects via ``organizations, groups and

agencies that consist of or work with people who are

chemically sensitive or immunocompromised.'' MCS also is

discussed in an appendix on Human Health Risk Assessment

(Appendix F, Volume III of V) under both ``Harzard

Identification'' and ``Groups at Special Risk'' [1995, 11

page excerpt and 1 page cover letter from John Hazel, the

USDA's EIS Team Leader, to Dr. Grace Ziem of MCS Referral

& Resources, R-130].

U.S. Department of Education in the enforcement by its

Office of Civil Rights of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973 which requires accommodation of persons with

``MCS Syndrome'' via modification of their educational

environment, as evidenced by several ``agency letters of

finding'' (including San Diego (Calif) Unified School

District, 1 National Disability Law Reporter, para. 61, p.

311, 24 May 1990; Montville (Conn.) Board of Education, 1

National Disability Law Reporter, para. 123, p. 515, 6 July

1990; and four letters (along with an individualized

environment management program) in the case of the Arminger

children of Baltimore County, MD [in 1991, 1992, 1993 and

1994; 20 pages total, R-7]. These accommodations also are

required under the terms of Public Law 94-142, now known as

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (CFR34 Part

300). The Department of Education as a whole, however, has no

formal policy or position statement on the accommodation of

students with MCS.

U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory in

being the lead sponsor of the 11th Annual Life Sciences

Symposium on ``Indoor Air and Human Health Revisited.'' This

1994 conference was co-sponsored by the US Environmental

Protection Agency and Martin Marietta Energy Systems'

Hazardous Waste Remedial Action Program. The proceedings are

published in Indoor Air and Human Health (Gammage RB and

Berven BA, editors, Boca Raton FL: CRC Lewis Publishers,

1996) and contain several peer-reviewed papers of critical

relevance to MCS by DoE, EPA and other federally funded

researchers. (4 page excerpt with table of contents, R-175)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Agency

for Health Care Policy and Research in a ``Report to Congress

on Research on Multiple Chemical Exposures and Veterans with

Gulf War Illnesses'' by agency administrator Dr. John

Eisenberg (who is also the acting Assistant Secretary for

Health). Dr. Eisenberg proposes spending $300,000 in 1998 for

a ``consensus building'' and research planning conference,

$400,000 for research into the health effects of chemical

mixtures, and $100,000 for an Interagency Coordinator in the

Office of Public Health and Science [January 1998, 7 pages

including MCS R&R press release, R-168]. Congress requested

the report in 1998, as part of an $800,000 appropriation for

a new civilian research into MCS (see U.S. Congress, above).

U.S. Dept. of HHS, National Institute on Deafness and Other

Communication Disorders in the funding of MCS-related

olfactory research by its Chemical Senses Branch since

NIDCD's creation in 1988; including $29,583,000 in fiscal

year 1998. The Chemical Senses Branch supports both basic and

applied research, with most of its funds going to just five

``chemosensory research centers'': the Connecticut

Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (860-679-2459), Monell

Chemical Senses Center (215-898-6666), Rocky Mountain Taste

and Smell Center (303-315-5650), State University of New York

Clinical Olfactory Research Center (315-464-5588), and

University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center (215-662-

6580). Free information is available from NIDCD Information

Clearinghouse, 800-241-1044.

U.S. Dept. of HHS, National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences in ``Issues and Challenges in Environmental

Health,'' a publication about the work of NIEHS, research

priorities are proposed for ``hypersensitivity diseases

resulting from allergic reactions to environmental

substances'' [NIH 87-861, 1987, 45 pages, R--8]. It is not

clear from the context if this statement was meant to include

or exclude MCS, since the condition was still thought by some

at the time to be an allergic-type reaction. In 1992, the

director Dr. Bernadine Healy responded in detail to an

inquiry from Congressman Pete Stark about the scope of NIEHS

research into MCS: ``It is hoped that research conducted at

NIEHS will lead to methods to identify individuals who may be

predisposed to chemical hypersensitivities. . . . NIH

research is directed toward the understanding of the effect

of chemical sensitivities on multiple parts of the body,

including the immune system.'' [1992, 3 pages, R-9]. In 1996,

director Dr. Kenneth Olden wrote US Senator Bob Graham that

``NIEHS has provided research support to study MCS. . . .

NIEHS has also supported a number of workshops and meetings

on the subject.'' [15 April 1996, 2 pages, R-101]. Dr. Olden

also states that ``Pesticides and solvents are the two major

classes of chemicals most frequently reported by patients

reporting low level sensitivities as having initiated their

problems.''

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National

Library of Medicine . . . in the 1995 Medical Subject

Headings (MESH) codes used to catalog all medical references,

which started using Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (and its

variations) as a subject heading for all publications indexed

after October 1994 [3 pages excerpt, R-10].

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for

Civil Rights (OCR) . . . in the final report by the Regional

Director (of Region VI) regarding OCR's investigation of an

ADA-related discrimination complaint filed by a patient with

MCS against the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer

Center for failing to accommodate her disability and thereby

forcing her to go elsewhere for surgery. Prior to completion

of the investigation and the issuance of any formal

``findings,'' the OCR accepted a proposal from the Univ. of

Texas to resolve this complaint by creating a joint

subcommittee of the cancer center's Safety and Risk

Management committees. This subcommittee's three tasks (as

approved by the OCR) are to ``identify a rapid response

mechanism which could be triggered by any patient registering

a complaint or presenting a special need which is environment

related; develop a `protocol' outlining steps to be taken to

resolve environmental complaints by patients . . . ; and

inform the medical staff through its newsletter of the

mechanism and the protocol so that they will better

understand how to address such questions or concerns.'' The

OCR has placed the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center ``in

monitoring'' pending completion and documentation of these

changes, but it may initiate further investigation if M.D.

Anderson fails to complete this process within the 13 months

allowed. [27 March 1996, 11 pages, R-99]

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Social

Security Administration . . . in enforcement of the Social

Security Disability Act (see Recognition of MCS by Federal

Courts, below), and in the SSA's Program Operations Manual

System (POMS), which includes a section on the ``Medical

Evaluation of Specific Issues--Environmental Illness''

stating that ``evaluation should be made on an individual

case by case basis to determine if the impairment prevents

substantial gainful activity'' [SSA publication 68-0424500,

Part 04, Chapter 245, Section 24515.065, transmittal #12,

1998, 1 page excerpt, R-11]. In 1997, the U.S. District Court

in Massachusetts required Acting SSA Commissioner John

Callahan to spell out the agency's position on MCS in a

formal memo to the court (31 October 1997, 2 pages, R-164;

see Creamer v. Callahan below, under Recognition of MCS by US

Federal Court Decisions). With this memo, SSA now officially

recognizes MCS ``as a medically determinable impairment'' on

an agency wide basis. MCS is also recognized in several

``fully favorable'' decisions of the SSA's Office of Hearing

and Appeals: in case #538-48-7517, in which the

administrative law judge, David J. Delaittre, ruled that

``the claimant has an anxiety disorder and multiple chemical

sensitivity,'' with the latter based in part on the fact that

``objective [qEEG] evidence showed abnormal brain function

when exposed to chemicals'' [1995, 7 pages, R-12]; in case

#264-65-5308, in which the administrative law judge, Martha

Lanphear, ruled that the claimant suffered severe reactive

airways disease secondary to chemical sensitivity and that

this impairment prevented her from performing more than a

limited range of light work [1996, 8 pages, R-120]; in case

#239-54-6581, in which the administrative law judge, D. Kevin

Dugan, ruled that the claimant suffered severe impairments as

a result of pesticide poisoning, including ``marked

sensitivity to airborne chemicals,'' which prevent her from

``performing any substantial gainful activity on a sustained

basis [1996, 4 pages, R-135]; in case #024-40-2499, in which

the administrative law judge, Lynette Diehl Lang, recognized

that the claimant suffered from severe MCS and could not

tolerate chemical fumes at work (as a result of overexposure

to formaldehyde in a state office building), as a result of

which he was awarded both disability benefits and

supplemental security income [1995, 8 pages, R-140]; in case

#184-34-4849, in which administrative law judge Robert Sears

ruled that the claimant suffered from ``extreme environmental

sensitivities,'' and particularly ``severe intolerance to any

amount of exposure to pulmonary irritants'' [11 June 1996, 7

pages, R-156]; and in case #256-98-4768, in which the

administrative law judge, Frank Armstrong, classified the

claimant's ``dysautonomia triggered by multiple chemical

sensitivities'' as severe and said it ``prevents the claimant

from engaging in substantial gainful activity on a sustained

basis'' [18 March 1997, 8 pages, R-157].

____________________

William J. Rea Alfred R. Johnson, Gerald H. Ross, Joel R. Butler, Ervin J. Fenyves, Bertie Griffiths, and John Laseter

Introduction

The study of the effects of the environment upon the individual is now feasible due to new technology developed in the construction of environmental units.1,2,3. Our observations reveal that individual or multiple organs may be involved. The brain is the target organ in only a subset of chemically sensitive patients, and its involvement should not be confused with psychosomatic disease.

Over the last 16 years physicians and scientists at the Environmental Health Center in Dallas have had an opportunity to observe over 20,000 patients who had chemical sensitivity problems. These patients were studied under various degrees of environmental control. This experience is unique in the world and has resulted in numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles, chapters in books, and books on this subject.

Studies have resulted in over 32,000 challenge tests by inhalation, oral, or injection methods, of which 16,000 are double-blind. Blood chemical levels and fat biopsies for organic hydrocarbons number over 2,000, while the measurement of immune parameters are over 5,000 tests. Objective brain function tests have been accomplished in over 5,000 patients. Other objective tests, like computerized balance studies, depollutant enzyme levels, and autonomic nervous system changes as measured by the Iriscorder, number near 1,000.

We wish to share our findings with the participants of the National Academy of Sciences Committee for the study of chemical sensitivity.

Definition and Principles

Chemical sensitivity is defined as an adverse reaction to ambient doses of toxic chemicals in our air, food, and water at levels which are generally accepted as subtoxic. Manifestation of adverse reactions depend on: (1) the tissue or organ involved; (2) the chemical and pharmacologic nature of the toxin; (3) the individual susceptibility of the exposed person (genetic make-up, nutritional state, and total load at the time of exposure); (4) the length of time of the exposure; (5) mount and variety of other body stressors (total load) and synergism at the time of reaction. (6) the derangement of metabolism that may occur from the initial insults.

To demonstrate cause-and-effect proof of environmental influence on an individual's health, one must understand several important principles and facts. These principles involve those of total body load (burden), adaptation (masking, acute toxicological tolerance), bipolarity, biochemical individuality. Each principle will be discussed separately.........

Indexed for NIH by Dragonfly Kingdom Library

Full document at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234807/

(MCS), including the recently proposed "evolutive framework."

Discuss the findings of the present review of recent research on MCS, including the types, characteristics, and findings of the studies identified.

Discuss the implications for patient evaluation and further research on MCS.

Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is currently included in the broader definition of idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI), which also includes physical risk factors such as electromagnetic fields. It is a complex disease, a multisystem disorder that manifests as a result of exposure to various environmental contaminants (solvents, hydrocarbons, organophosphates, heavy metals) at concentrations below the “Threshold Limit value” (TLV) that are considered toxic doses for the general population.1–4

At the beginning of the ’50, the allergist Theron G. Randolph5 was the first to note that some patients became sick after exposures to a wide range of substances, either job-related, either, broadly speaking, environmental, in concentrations below those considered toxic for most individuals. Dr. Randolph and his colleagues speculated the possibility of allergic reactions and maladjustment to explain the symptoms that are attributed to MCS. It is considered that chronic exposure to subtoxic doses, as well as any acute exposures, can, in some people with, perhaps, a particular metabolic and genetic predisposition, lead to a gradual process of substance sensitization.

However, because of the difficulty of finding unique and incontrovertible diagnostic markers, from the ‘60 to date, the syndrome was analyzed in its different aspects: metabolic, genetic, immunological, epidemiological, etiological, symptomatic, therapeutic, and the criteria for case definition were gradually revised. Currently, the Cullen criteria,6 with or without Lacour revision,7 and the year 1999 criteria of the consensus8 are the most accepted. To perform an initial screening, different questionnaires are used: “Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Intolerance” (EESI) or its short version “Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory” (QEESI),9–11 “Huppe questionnaire,”12 “Chemical sensitivity scale for sensory hyperreactivity” (CSS-SHR),13 German questionnaire on chemical and environmental sensitivity (CGES)..............

Indexed for NIH by Dragonfly Kingdom Library 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC5794238/

Author(s)

G. Latini, G. Passerini, R. Cocci Grifoni & M. M. Mariani

Abstract

To understand the relationship between health and the environment, we must study a series of events that might begin with the release of pollutants into the environment and might end with the development of disease in an individual, or a population. Noticeably, many studies have demonstrated an association between environmental exposure and certain diseases or health problems. Amongst all pollutants, Cadmium, Mercury, Arsenic, Nickel and Lead are emitted from several industrial processes, energy production processes and most vehicles. Methyl-Mercury is a poisonous industrial derivative of Mercury, enters the food chain and is toxic to the nervous system. Cadmium, Arsenic, Nickel and Lead are considered carcinogenic. Lead also causes digestive problems and damage to the nervous systems, especially in children. Assessing the relationship between exposure to air pollutants and disease is complicated by the problem of multiple exposures to multiple pollutants. In fact, a controversial condition, known as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), is thought to arise only through the combined effects of a number of chemicals in concentrations that might not be harmful on their own. In this first Italian pilot study, sufficiently large population groups have been considered to evaluate levels of toxic trace metals stored in the body by means of a hair analysis technique. For a majority of toxic trace metals the hair analysis technique has proved to be a well-suited biological marker of environmental exposure of general population to such toxic metals. The results suggest that there is an explicit correlation between exposure to air pollutants and high levels of toxic metals in the body with consequent development of diseases.

Keywords: immune system, vitamin D, vitamin E, n-3 PUFA, probiotics, green EGCG, zinc

Introduction

The main functions of body's immune system are to protect the host against infection from pathological microorganisms, to clear damaged tissues, and to provide constant surveillance of malignant cells that grow within the body. Additionally, the immune system develops appropriate tolerance to avoid unwanted response to healthy tissues of self or harmless foreign substances. There is considerable heterogeneity among individuals in the vigor of their immunological function, largely owing to factors such as genetics, environment, lifestyle, nutrition, and the interaction of these factors. Nutrition as a modifiable factor in impacting immune function has been studied for several decades, and the research in this field has developed into a distinguished study subject called nutritional immunology. As with other bodily systems, the immune system depends on adequate nutrients to function properly. It is well-documented that nutritional status is closely associated with immunity and host resistance to infection. There is little argument that deficiency in both macronutrients and micronutrients causes immune function impairment, which can be reversed by nutrient repletion. Nutritional deficiencies are still prevalent in less developed regions and are a main contributor to a high incidence of morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. Even in developed countries where general nutritional deficiencies are rare, nutrition issues such as specific nutrient deficiencies, less ideal diet composition, and excess calorie consumption are still a challenging reality......

Indexed for NIH by Dragonfly Kingdom Library

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC6340979/

Abstract

Yoga has proven beneficial effects on various health domains including musculoskeletal conditions, cardiopulmonary conditions through the practice of asana and pranayamas as well as on mental health, as it is known to enhance the body-and mind coordination. There is paucity of data on the effect of yoga on functional capacity in literature using 6 min walk test. The present study aims to look at the effect of yoga on 6-min walked distance, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), recovery time following the walk and state of well being. This is a hospital-based longitudinal study where 30 physiotherapy students of the age group 18 - 22 years of either sex were enrolled.

Subjects having musculoskeletal problems, cardio respiratory disease and those who were not willing to volunteer were excluded They received Yoga intervention in form of Yogic practices which included a combination of asanas, pranayamas and omkar chanting for 1 h for 30 sessions. A baseline 6-min walk test was conducted on subjects and the 6-min walked distance, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) on modified Borg's scale were recorded. The baseline state of well-being was noted using the Warwick- Edinburgh mental well-being scale and similar recording was done post intervention after 30 sessions.

Of the 30 subjects, there were no drop outs as these were committed college students. Of them, 24 were females and 6 were males with a mean age of 21.5 years SD 2.38. Statistically significant improvements were observed in 6-min walk distance (P value = 0.000), RPE (P value < 0.000), recovery time (P value < 0.000) and sense of well being score (P value < 0.000). Yoga practices are beneficial in improving the functional capacity in young healthy adults.

Yoga can very well be incorporated in medical practice for increasing the patient's functional capacity, for those who have limitations in performing aerobic training due to various health reasons. The improved state of well being motivates the patients to adhere to yogic practices.

Indexed for NIH Pubmed by Dragonfly Kingdom Library 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23439856/