The Pulitzer Prize-winning publication ProPublica drew attention in May to the lack of centralized data on implanted medical devices. Where can patients find out when a pacemaker, breast implant or artificial hip, for example, goes bad?

Not from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as ProPublica’s story describes. Prescription drugs have unique codes the government can use to track problems. But implanted devices? No such luck.

And there’s an unexplored dimension to the implant question: Implants are “xenobiotics,” petrochemical products that pose particular concern for people who may be more chemically susceptible.

I testified before the FDA in 2005 about the dangers of implants, and cited evidence from my own research.

Over a decade ago, in 1999, along with co-author Thomas J. Prihoda, PhD, I reported on a group of patients who received implants and subsequently developed chronic health problems and chemical intolerances that they had never experienced before.

Although inserting implants certainly differs from inhaled exposures to pesticides or air contaminants in a sick building, for susceptible individuals it seems like the body doesn’t care whether the exposure is exogenous (like air pollutants) or endogenous, like an implant. The consequences can be similar — chronic, multi-system symptoms and intolerances for foods, alcoholic beverages, caffeine, everyday chemicals like cleaning agents, engine exhaust, fragrances, and even medications like antibiotics or antidepressants. Once people become ill, not just the implants, but everyday exposures like these can trigger symptoms and perpetuate illness.

We obtained exposure histories from patients who became ill following an “exposure event” — ill veterans from the first Gulf War in Iraq, people exposed to pesticides or remodeling chemicals, and patients who had received an implanted medical device. The groups shared illnesses marked by multiple symptoms and new intolerances — the hallmark symptom of the illness process Toxicant-induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT).

Patients with implants reported symptoms affecting multiple organ systems which frequently involved cognitive and mood difficulties.

The implant group included 87 individuals, 97 percent women, mean age of 50. Most had received breast implants or temporomandibular joint (TMJ or jaw) implants. Two-thirds said their device had ruptured. Nearly all of those reporting difficulties said their illnesses had affected their ability to work. Their most pervasive symptoms involved muscle and joint problems.

TILT is often overlooked in implant patients when doctors don’t recognize it. There is a saying in medicine: You can’t make the diagnosis you don’t think of. And many doctors don’t know that multiple symptoms and intolerances point to TILT. In medical school, we are often taught that the more symptoms a patient reports, the less likely there is anything to them — in other words, the problem is psychogenic. While many patients suffer from psychological symptoms such as depression, anxiety and cognitive difficulties, even confusion, it is important to remember that psychological symptoms are not necessarily psychogenic. Many physical illnesses can cause similar symptoms, for example, autoimmune diseases, multiple sclerosis and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS).

As I wrote in the 1999 study, “The fact patients reported such diverse symptoms led some physicians to conclude that none of them rises to the level of a medically identifiable syndrome. Nor are these conditions explained by current, generally accepted mechanisms for disease.”

I developed the QEESI, or Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory, several years ago to help doctors and patients make sense of multiple symptoms and measure the potential for chemical intolerance.

Persons who score high on the QEESI, a validated and published screening instrument, may be at greater risk if they receive an implant or have other exposures, e.g., anesthetics, drugs, pesticides, remodeling of their home or workplace, etc. To determine whether you may be at increased risk of developing TILT, you can take the QEESI to gauge your own susceptibility or to document changes in your symptoms and intolerances as a consequence of an implant or its removal. Many individuals do report improvement in symptoms once their implants are removed.

As for the FDA, the regulatory agency has done poorly in its role of gathering scientific data about the safety of implants. Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, a research and education group, told an expert panel of the FDA in 2011 that some breast implant manufacturers had failed to carry out the FDA’s own recommended studies of post-implant patients. One of the FDA’s chief scientists, Dr. William Maisel, later acknowledged shortcomings when questioned by the New York Times.

Commenting on breast implants in her blog, Dr. Zuckerman added, “Silicone implants are considered biocompatible, which means that most patients won’t have an allergic or autoimmune response. But, that doesn’t mean that nobody will. In fact, the implant companies intentionally excluded women with autoimmune histories from their studies because of concern that the women would have medical complications that would jeopardize getting FDA approval.”

When I’ve testified before the FDA on the results of our study, I’ve been concerned with the fact that parents may purchase implants for their daughters for their “Sweet 16” or high school graduation. Adverse events include scarring as well as chemical intolerances in a subset of individuals. The problem is, that before an implant, there is currently no way of knowing who may be more susceptible to developing health problems or disfigurement. The QEESI might at least make women more aware if they are susceptible to petrochemical exposures, including implants. I’ve heard of women who already had been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease going to see a doctor to get implants. No doctor should agree to place breasts implants in women with this history.

Also, I’m aware of young women borrowing money to get an implant. However, if they become ill, insurers may not pay to have them removed. So it’s not just the cost of the implant, but the unplanned costs if removal becomes necessary.

Is there a way to make “green” buildings as friendly to people as they are to the environment?

I had the opportunity to discuss indoor air quality and chemical susceptibility with some of the nation’s leading architects and building technologists at a recent conference about building standards. I was one of 13 guest speakers at the conference hosted by the School of Architecture at the University of Texas in Austin.

Indoor air has a profound effect on people’s health, and my goal was to persuade the group that poor quality air makes some people sick. My message was simple: If you protect the most vulnerable people, you will protect everyone.

I suggested adding a new level to the coveted LEED building certification. The new certification level would recognize buildings that assure excellent indoor air quality.

Certification under LEED, short for “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,” reflects a rating system for the design, construction and operation of green buildings. Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council, it is intended to provide building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. Buildings receive LEED certification based on five categories of construction quality. I proposed a sixth: indoor air quality. A building can be LEED certified and yet have indoor air exposures that pose major health problems for a building’s most susceptible occupants, such as the chemically intolerant, those with asthma, pregnant women, etc.

Americans spend 90 percent of their day indoors so architects and builders bear a major responsibility for the quality of indoor air.

Who is most vulnerable? Children, pregnant women, and more susceptible adults (people with asthma, allergies, or chemical intolerance). At any given time, of 100 people, 3 are pregnant or will become pregnant within a year, 7 are children under the age of 5 (another 17 are still under the age of 18 and the brain continues to develop into the early 20s!), 7 have asthma, 20 have
allergies, and 15 are chemically intolerant.

LEED certification does not protect the most vulnerable building occupants from indoor air contaminants such as chemicals, particles, allergens, and microbes. Although indoor environmental quality requirements are part of LEED certification and builders and owners can earn points by taking additional measures that can improve indoor air quality, the levels of certification such as “silver,”"gold,” or “platinum” are insufficient to protect the most vulnerable building occupants. A new designation, perhaps “LEED Diamond,” should be introduced with mandatory criteria to ensure excellent indoor air and protect all building occupants.

My presentation is available in .pdf and PowerPoint.

I have been invited to present at the upcoming National Academy of Sciences Workshop “Biological Factors that Underlie Individual Susceptibility to Environmental Stressors and Their Implications for Decision-Making.”

The proceedings will be available live by webcast so you can attend online. You may also register to attend in person in Washington, D.C., or listen online once the proceedings are posted.

The title of my presentation is “Human Variability in Chemical Susceptibility (Intolerance/Sensitivity): Research Findings to Date and Their Implications for Future Study Design.”

Here are details about the event:

• WHAT: The presentation is part of a workshop hosted by the National Academy of Sciences’ Standing Committee on Emerging Science for Environmental Health Decisions, sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS/NIH).
• WHEN: 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. (EDT) on Wednesday, April 18, and 8:30 a.m.-noon (EDT) on Thursday, April 19.
• WHERE: The National Academies’ Keck Center, 500 Fifth St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20001

Other key information:

• Register for the webcast
• Overview of the workshop and list of speakers

I have been asked to describe our findings from the QEESI, the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory, and to discuss the use of EMUs, environmentally-controlled medical units, for research. Here is a synopsis:

“The QEESI is a validated research tool widely used to identify and characterize chemically intolerant individuals and groups. Results from these studies provide evidence for broad endogenous variability in susceptibility and point to the complex nature of susceptibility in humans, with susceptible persons generally reporting adverse responses to chemically diverse substances, including foods and drugs. Future investigations to assess human variability that is ‘endogenous or biological’ will benefit from the use of EMUs. Such studies will enable us to correlate symptoms and clinical measures (such as pulmonary function and EEG measures) with changes in the ‘-omics’ in real time at key points, i.e., when subjects enter the EMU, once they have achieved a clean baseline, and pre- and post- low level challenges.”

The QEESI is available free for download.

Scientists, healthcare professionals and especially people with chemical intolerance have achieved a victory that took years to win. In a nutshell: High-level U.S. policymakers now say chemical intolerance needs serious investigation.

The recently concluded “National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures,” sponsored by several government agencies, issued a detailed statement in October 2011 that summed up two years of deliberation among hundreds of experts. The statement, in brief, calls for intensified work to understand chemicals and their health effects.

I think the statement will influence health policy and promote new research and clinical inquiry. Progress in the science, diagnosis and treatment of chemically-induced illness has been painfully slow. I’m excited to see this new development.

The National Conversation, in its final statement, urged intensified study of:

• Health effects of chemicals, including low-dose, multiple and cumulative exposures
• Individual susceptibility, including the interplay between genes and environment
• Community vulnerability and disproportionate effects from past exposures
• Effectiveness of interventions to protect public health

To me, one of the most important recommendations called for human studies using environmentally controlled research units. It said: “Studies of variation in susceptibility as manifested by chemical sensitivity/intolerance, including clinical studies conducted in facilities adequate for this purpose, are needed.”

This recommendation for research facilities first appeared in a report commissioned by the State of New Jersey that I co-authored in 1989 with Nicholas A. Ashford, Ph.D., J.D., professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as in subsequent editions of our book Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes.

Here is an excerpt from recommendations in the National Conversation’s report “Chapter 3: Achieve a More Complete Scientific Understanding of Chemicals and Their Health Effects”:

“Recommendation 3.5: Improve understanding of individual susceptibility to chemical exposures.”

“Those seeking to protect the public from the adverse effects of chemical exposures need a better understanding of variations in individual susceptibility to help prioritize prevention and treatment efforts. Some individuals in certain groups (e.g., developing fetuses, children, pregnant women, the elderly, disabled persons, persons with chronic diseases, persons with previous heightened sensitivity to chemical exposures) exhibit unique susceptibility to chemical exposures. Some of this variability in susceptibility may be related to genetic variation, acquired epigenetic changes, health effects from previous exposures, or nonchemical stressors. To improve the understanding of these variations, funding agencies should continue to support research into mechanisms of variation in individual susceptibility and the role of such variations in the observed burden of environmentally related disease. Studies of variation in susceptibility as manifested by chemical sensitivity/intolerance, including clinical studies conducted in facilities adequate for this purpose, are needed. Population-based studies of exposed groups may yield additional insights.”

“Further, the federal government should support an existing working group or convene an interdisciplinary group of scientists and clinicians from federal agencies, NGOs/public interest groups, industry, academic institutions, and representatives of affected patient communities to develop a research agenda on chemical sensitivity/intolerance.”

The National Conversation was a two-year collaborative process that produced an action agenda in June 2011 on new ways to protect the public from harmful chemical exposures. In October 2011, the leadership issued its final recommendations at an implementation strategy session in Washington, D.C., hosted by the American Public Health Association (APHA).

I chaired the National Conversation’s subgroup on Individual Susceptibility, and served as a member of the larger Scientific Understanding Work Group, one of six working groups assigned to various aspects of chemical exposure. The work group issued a full-text action agenda.

As part of their mission to advance the public’s health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry supported the National Conversation. Dozens of government agency, nonprofit and industry experts and thousands of members of the public were involved in developing the recommendations.

Flight delays, missed connections, stuffy cabins, narrow seats, screaming children. As if commercial air travel isn’t hard enough, now comes evidence that it could be harmful to your health.

In recent lawsuits and public complaints, dozens of passengers and airline personnel report inflight chemical exposures that triggered serious illnesses. The illnesses are similar to those associated with “Toxicant-induced Lack of Tolerance,” or TILT, a clinical condition that breaks down a person’s natural resistance to chemical compounds.

The Boeing Co. recently settled a suit out of court in Seattle with a former American Airlines flight attendant. She alleged that contaminated cabin air in an MD-82 jetliner caused her to have tremors, memory loss and severe headaches. US Airways pilots and flight attendants have filed a similar suit involving a Boeing 767. They reported headaches, sore throats, eye irritations, dizziness and nausea.

At issue are so-called “fume events” where petroleum smells enter the aircraft cabin. Commercial airliners routinely pump, or “bleed,” compressed air to the cabin from outside. Nearly all airliners use this “bleed-air” ventilation system. The airline industry and government regulators say the system is safe, and has been in use since the 1950s. The industry says the number of reports of illness is minuscule compared to the thousands of people who fly each day.

Critics say bleed-air systems draw a substantial amount of air past the engine, thus raising the risk that petroleum fumes can enter the cabin. Loose engine seals and poor aircraft maintenance raise the chances that air can become contaminated on its way to the cabin.

Air travel is difficult for people with chemical intolerances, but until recently no one suspected that taking a flight might trigger illnesses in otherwise healthy people. Finding solutions is urgent because the sheer volume of passenger traffic may leave hundreds of thousands of people exposed and vulnerable to a new sickness.

On any plane, the people most affected by a lack of fresh air usually have asthma, suffer migraines, or are already chemically intolerant. It’s fortunate that the largest amount of fresh air is sent to the flight deck, where the pilot and co-pilot fly the plane. But even pilots and co-pilots have reported illnesses and, in a few cases, even impaired cognitive function.

Even under normal conditions, an air traveler’s “breathing zone” is frequently violated on flights. Some examples:

• Boarding the plane, passengers sometimes enter a hot plane with little fresh air. Some of them get headaches or have difficulty breathing. Crews often turn off the PAC, or air-conditioning system, to save fuel. My advice: Ask the crew to turn it on.
• Once seated, passengers encounter unpleasant odors — from perhaps from a cigar smoker seated nearby, those wearing fragrances, or others using nail polish. Again, as a passenger, your breathing zone is violated, and you’re stuck for the duration of the flight.
• Waiting for takeoff, passengers sometimes breathe exhaust from other planes lined up ahead of them.
• Also, the fragrance from restroom deodorizers can cause problems. I was on a recent flight and the odor was intense. Putting potent deodorizers in tiny spaces can cause a very high concentration of fragrance. Passengers also carry the fragrance back to their seat. Recommendation: Sit in the middle of the plane. That way fewer passengers will drag their restroom fragrance vapor trails past your aisle.

Facts and narratives about airplane illnesses are becoming more widely known. MSNBC.com reporter Jim Gold has written an excellent article about the situation.

Passengers may have few defenses, but scientists are working to minimize exposures aboard airplanes. In his article, Gold describes efforts to develop a biomarker for TCPs, or tricresyl phosphates, one of the suspected contaminants in fume events. One key researcher, Dr. Clement Furlong of the University of Washington, said the goal is to better understand the chemistry of the incidents so refiners can develop less-toxic engine fluids. This might improve the bleed-air system, or at least minimize its potential risks to health.

TCP is the cause of numerous poisonings and is a neurotoxin, in part via organophosphate-induced delayed neuropathy. It has been responsible for many deaths. The most serious incidents occurred in the 1920s when TCP was used to adulterate Jamaica Ginger, and in Morocco in 1959 when cooking oil was adulterated with jet-engine lubricant containing TCP.

TCP’s mechanism of action is similar to other organophosphates in that it can inhibit the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, leading to a buildup of acetylcholine in the synaptic space. This can lead to hyperactivity in cholinergic neurons in the brain, and at neuromuscular junctions in the peripheral nervous system resulting in apoptosis of those cell types. This is the reason for paralysis and other irreversible neurological problems seen in the “Gingerjake” syndromes during Prohibition, when TCP was added to gingerjake moonshine.

Dr. Furlong is working to develop a blood test to prove with a biomarker that someone aboard an aircraft during a fume event was exposed to TCPs. A reliable test would dispel the uncertainty now in the air for air travelers.

TCP is one of many substances capable of initiating TILT. However chlorpyrifos, or Dursban, is one of the most common causes. Why has chlorpyrifos initiated so many illnesses? You may want to review a paper I co-authored in the Archives of Environmental Health about initiators. Note mention of TCP on page 121.

Symptoms and health effects of TILT often accumulate over time. People can gauge their sensitivities using the free QEESI questionnaire. It is a clinical tool to evaluate whether someone has TILT or is acquiring intolerances.

     
Illustrations depict chemical structures of TCP, left, and chlorpyrifos, or Dursban, which is one of the most commonly reported initiators of TILT.

Medical researchers are finding that children with autism and their parents suffer in some of the same ways when they encounter certain chemicals in everyday products.

Recently, at the invitation of the Autism Society of America, I presented a national webinar describing how children with autism and their parents often share certain intolerances, and may react in similar ways. Why? I think it’s a case where “Genetics loads the gun, and the environment pulls the trigger.”

We know, for example, that in adults certain acute or chronic chemical exposures sometimes can initiate a process that has come to be known as “Toxicant-induced Loss of Tolerance,” or TILT. TILT may develop after a workplace exposure or remodeling of a home or exposure to petrochemicals or combustion products from a fire. Thereafter, everyday exposures to common chemicals, foods, medications, and even caffeine, can trigger cognitive and mood difficulties, as well as a host of baffling symptoms that can affect the nervous system, digestive tract, airways, and skin.

Notably, many of the same environmental exposures, e.g., certain pesticides, that initiate TILT in adults can also interfere with neurodevelopment in a fetus, starting as early as the first month of pregnancy when the neural tube forms and before the mother even knows she is pregnant!

And, as for chemically intolerant adults, we should make every effort to prevent suspected initiating exposures as well as minimize exposures that can continue to trigger autistic behaviors and other symptoms throughout the lifespan. This also means that continued avoidance of even low-level exposure triggers may be important for treating children and adults with autism.

These differences in susceptibility to environmental chemical exposures, which may predispose to TILT in adults and autism in children, are the consequence of normal human genetic diversity — a good thing! My concern, as we learn more about the important relationships between autism, genes and exposures, is that differences in our genetic susceptibility not be viewed as a defects, but rather normal individual differences. These differences are not new. What is new are our exposures. Since World War II, the petrochemical era has ushered in myriad chemical exposures, exposures unprecedented in human history. There can be as much as a 10,000-fold difference, from person to person, in our ability to detoxify and eliminate substances from our bodies. Currently we are unable predict which exposures can cause TILT or autism in which persons.

Other shared features of autism and chemical intolerance include food cravings (mimicking addiction) and intolerances including gluten (wheat) and milk. From our own studies, mothers of children with autism, compared to mothers of “neurotypical children’” were much more likely to report that common chemical exposures make them sick. These included household cleaners, fragrances and pesticides. We used the validated “Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory” or QEESI, questionnaire to gauge chemical, food and other environmental intolerances in the mothers. You too can use the QEESI questionnaire to gauge sensitivities.

The underlying causes for autism and the reasons why it now affects a staggering 1 in 110 babies born in the United States — a national epidemic according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — continue to elude the medical and scientific communities. There are many clues, and theories. The webinar I presented on behalf of the Autism Society of America, which is available to you free of charge, focuses on the striking and often overlooked parallels between autism and chemical intolerance. The increased use of petrochemically based household products and recent emphasis on greener, more energy efficient homes with little fresh air to dilute contaminants in the United States parallels the rise in autism over the past few decades. Globally, autism has been on the rise in every industrialized nation.

During medical school, my colleagues and I learned that children are not just little adults! There are obvious size and many metabolic differences between children and adults. At the same time, children with autism and chemically intolerant adults are strikingly similar in important ways: They share exposures to petrochemicals, indoor air pollutants and pesticides, and both experience chemical and food intolerances. A crucial difference in the case of autism is timing: Exposures that occur during pregnancy or early childhood have the potential to alter neurodevelopment. One tool that is urgently needed in medicine is an Environmental Medical Unit, or EMU, which would allow physicians and families to determine whether and to what extent autism might be reversible if chemical and food triggers could be avoided systematically for a few weeks. Here is a paper I wrote about EMUs.

Here is the webinar presentation to the Autism Society of America.

To follow the proceedings, you will need to install the Cisco Webex browser software. You will be prompted at the website. Adding the software only takes a few seconds.

Fragrances are among the most frequent and potent symptom triggers for people who report developing chemical intolerances following an acute or chronic exposure such as to pesticides or indoor air pollutants. Sometimes specific formulations (air fresheners, fabric softeners, etc.) or brands are especially problematic, with individuals reporting headaches, impaired concentration, confusion, sudden mood changes, fatigue, etc.

Anne Steinemann at the University of Washington and her colleagues recently analyzed 25 top-selling fragranced consumer products. The paper, which can be accessed here, is an eye-opener. Using GC/MS (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry), Steinemann found that these products contain an average of 17 chemicals each, almost all of which do not appear on any label, and many of which are known to be toxic. A single fragrance may contain 100 or more VOCs. This strongly suggests that we need to find unscented alternatives for cleaning our homes, our laundry and ourselves.

Q: Why don’t the names of these chemicals at least appear on the product labels? A: Manufacturers are not required to disclose fragrances in cleaning supplies, air fresheners or laundry products. These are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates personal care products, does not require listing of ingredients used in fragrances, “even though a single “fragrance” in a product can be a mixture of up to several hundred ingredients.” Ms. Emily Sohn, writer for Discovery News, asked me to comment on the significance of this new study. Read the article here.

As an allergist, I know that individuals’ responses to exposures vary widely. The problem is, we can’t know a priori whether or in whom a scent is going to cause nasal congestion, a headache or impair the ability to concentrate-at home, at work, at school or while driving. We do know that a sizable percentage of the population responds adversely to various fragrances and other low-level exposures.

Fortunately, there is something we can do. We can stop buying fragranced products, instead choosing those that are clearly labeled “fragrance-free.” Tell the managers at places you and your family frequent, from the grocery store to restaurants to your child’s school, that you want fragrance-free products used because of the hazardous chemicals found in many fragranced products. There is no way to know how toxic a specific fragranced product may actually be, and as Steinemann found, simply choosing products that are “green” or “natural” is no guarantee of their safety. Fragranced “green” products, she reported, also emitted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which can irritate the airways and cause multi-system symptoms in susceptible individuals.

Individuals with chemical intolerances can benefit greatly from fragrance-free policies at school or work and from eliminating fragrances at home. Unfortunately, while fragrance-free policies can help protect building occupants and custodial staff from harmful chemicals, one of the greatest sources of fragrances indoors is other people. Many people start off their day by applying a variety of fragranced products, which then volatilize into the air throughout the day. This personal “out-gassing” is worst in the morning, and it can be debilitating for chemically intolerant individuals if they must start their day sitting next to someone at a meeting or in class, inhaling complex mixtures from fabric softeners, personal care products, and cologne.

Fragrance intolerance may be an important sentinel symptom for Toxicant-induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT). There is a close anatomical relationship between the nose and the limbic (mood and memory) part of the brain. People tend to notice when a fragrance that was once loved now makes them feel ill. In my work with Gulf War I veterans, I met a soldier who sent his spouse their favorite fragrance while still he was overseas. After he returned from Iraq, she went to pick him up from the airport wearing that special scent. During the several-hour drive back home, he became so sick that he begged her never to wear it again.

I firmly believe that “Your right to wear fragrance ends at my nose,” a phrase adapted from the days when smoking indoors was still common. But, regardless of who is right, the best strategy when seated next to a heavily fragranced person is to move. It is tiresome to feel you are “on the run,” from invisible vapors of fragrance, but as more people gently explain that fragrance causes headaches, asthma, burning eyes, or nausea, perhaps both policies and personal choices will change.

One woman I know has recently been trying a new approach. When she sits next to individuals who aren’t wearing discernible fragrances, she thanks them, saying, “I want to thank you for not wearing fragrance. I often have to get up and move because other people’s perfume and laundry products can give me a headache.”

It’s a great conversation starter.

Remember: Fresh air is the best air freshener, and the best smell is no smell!

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Newswise — Swimming in indoor chlorinated pools may induce genotoxicity (DNA damage that may lead to cancer) as well as respiratory effects, but the positive health effects of swimming can be maintained by reducing pool levels of the chemicals behind these potential health risks, according to a new study published in a set of three articles online September 12 ahead of print in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP). This study is the first to provide a comprehensive characterization of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in an indoor pool environment and the first to study the genotoxicity of exposure to these chemicals among swimmers in an indoor chlorinated pool.

DBPs form in pool water from reactions between disinfectants such as chlorine and organic matter that is either present naturally or is introduced by swimmers, such as sweat, skin cells, and urine. Previous epidemiologic studies have found an association between exposure to DBPs in drinking water and risk of bladder cancer, and one such study has found this association for dermal/inhalational exposure such as occurs during showering, bathing, or swimming.

Chemicals in Indoor Swimming Pools May Increase Cancer Risk

Share your story of chemical exposure and loss of tolerance by responding to this post. If we feel your story may be helpful to others learning about TILT, Dr. Miller will re-post your story with her comments. Be aware that you are posting your story in a public forum. Do not include identifying information unless you are comfortable with it being available to anyone on the web, and please do not post your story if you are pursing any legal action regarding your exposure or TILT-related illness. We also ask that you do not name any third parties including doctors, coworkers or family members. We will remove any postings that are not appropriate to this forum and the topics we address.

Following is a format you may wish to follow in describing your experiences. Specific information is most helpful.

Initiating exposure(s): What was it? Which year did it occur?

How many others were exposed and did they develop TILT?

Fill out the QEESI – what are your scores on the 5 scales, both now and when you were at your worst?

After the initial exposure, how soon did your intolerances begin? Which did you notice first? Which caused the most severe symptoms?

Please indicate if you have experienced the following types of intolerance, and describe your principal reactions/symptoms.
Chemical intolerances:
Food intolerances:
Caffeine intolerance:
Alcoholic beverage intolerance:
Adverse drug reactions or drug intolerance:

What medical diagnoses have you or other affected family members received since developing TILT?

How many doctors did you see before you figured out what had happened to you?