Question:

Hi, On September 1st I was transferred from Chicago to NYC for my job and while I have had asthma my entire life it seems to be much worse here. I do not live near ground zero and although it could be due to the stress I have experienced I was wondering if anyone had any scientific studies of asthma rates comparing various cities etc.

A city the size of New York is a big place, and the air quality varies. If you want to check your specific neighborhoods where you live and work, try www.scorecard.org Just enter your Zip Code where it tells you to (on the right side of the page), and it will report on air pollution levels in that area. Besides the outdoor air pollution level, you also need to think about the indoor air pollution levels in the buildings where you now live and work.  Different buildings have different levels of dust, mold, fumes, etc. — Steven D. Litvintchouk                  

Response:

Hi, On September 1st I was transferred from Chicago to NYC for my job and while I have had asthma my entire life it seems to be much worse here. I do not live near ground zero and although it could be due to the stress I have experienced I was wondering if anyone had any scientific studies of asthma rates comparing various cities etc. Thanks! Meg

Response:

Hi, On September 1st I was transferred from Chicago to NYC for my job and while I have had asthma my entire life it seems to be much worse here. I do not live near ground zero and although it could be due to the stress I have experienced I was wondering if anyone had any scientific studies of asthma rates comparing various cities etc.

I would recommend not looking at the city but at your home and work place.  What is different? "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan

Response:

Question:

There is no code for "prescription renewal." The code would be for the diagnosis. — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe it’s because that many asthmatics now have freer and faster access to repeat prescriptions? This article does not delineate between "new cases" and "people seeking medical help for asthma". Also it could relate to the way that doctors are coding the visits "asthma" or "prescription renewal". perhaps something to look into..some reports can be misleading. IMO J BBC News Asthma rates ‘falling steadily’ Wednesday, 19 July, 2000 The number of people seeking medical help for asthma is decreasing and has fallen steadily for the past seven years, according to doctors. A study carried out by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) found that incidence of asthma peaked in 1993. However, researchers are at a loss to explain the reasons behind the trend. The finding appears to contradict the widely held theory that asthma rates in the UK have been rising steadily for years. However, it did not measure the total number of people who suffer from the disease. The study examined the number of people attending GP surgeries with new episodes of asthma between 1989 and 1998. The RCGP research unit in Birmingham analysed information supplied by 92 general practices across England. Doctors found that the incidence of asthma, bronchitis and respiratory illnesses in general increased between 1989 and 1993. However, their figures showed that cases actually fell after 1993 and have fallen steadily since then. They said the reversal could not be associated with changes to the management of asthma by GPs or to environmental changes. Writing in the latest issue of Thorax, they state: "The occurrence of downward trends in asthma and bronchitis cannot be linked to changes in factors which have previously been considered responsible for the increase in the community burden of asthma. ‘Less passive smoking’ "Increased exposure to allergens, petrochemical polution, and dietary factors did not suddenly change for the better in 1993." Dr Douglas Fleming, from the RCGP research unit in Birmingham, said the fall could not be attributed to just one factor. "We think the reduction may be related to a reduced increased in the number of respiratory infections while clement weather, and less passive smoking, for instance, may have contributed." Dr Martyn Partridge, chief medical adviser to the National Asthma Campaign, said the fall could be a result of asthma reaching its natural peak. "Most studies have shown a steady increase in the number of people with asthma over the period of the mid 1980s to early 1990s. "Clearly that was unlikely to go on increasing, for it is unlikely that the whole population would be genetically susceptible to the disease." He added: "If true, this is good news but it still leaves 3.4m people in the UK suffering from the condition." Thorax 2000;55:657-661 ( August ) Declining incidence of episodes of asthma:  a study of trends in new episodes presenting  to general practitioners in the period 1989-98 D M Fleming a, R Sunderland b, K W Cross a, A M Ross a a Royal College of General Practitioners, Birmingham Research Unit, Birmingham B17 9DB, UK, b Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham B4 6NH, UK Correspondence to: Dr D M Fleming email: Received 13 August 1999; Returned to authors 27 October 1999; Revised version received 2 May 2000; Accepted for publication 17 May 2000 BACKGROUND A study was undertaken to determine trends in the incidence of new episodes of asthma presented to general practitioners participating in the Weekly Returns Service of the Royal College of General Practitioners, comprising 92 practices with a registered population of approximately 680 000 persons well distributed throughout England and Wales. These practices monitor the morbidity presented at every consultation, distinguishing between new episodes of illness and ongoing consultations. METHODS Age specific weekly rates of new episodes of asthma (and of acute bronchitis) presenting to the general practitioners over the years 1989-98 were examined in four week blocks and analysed by multiple regression, separating secular from seasonal trends. RESULTS Quadratic trends in episodes of asthma were evident in each of the age groups with peaks in 1993/4. Corresponding analyses for acute bronchitis disclosed similar trends generally peaking in the winter of 1993/4. Mean weekly incidence data (all ages combined) decreased in all quarters since 1993. Regional analysis (North/Central/South) showed similar decreases. CONCLUSIONS There has been a gradual decrease in the incidence of asthma episodes and of acute bronchitis presenting to general practitioners since 1993. The trend of an increase before 1993 followed by a decrease cannot be explained by changes in the patterns of health care usage or diagnostic preference of doctors.

Response:

Maybe it’s because that many asthmatics now have freer and faster access to repeat prescriptions? This article does not delineate between "new cases" and "people seeking medical help for asthma". Also it could relate to the way that doctors are coding the visits "asthma" or "prescription renewal". perhaps something to look into..some reports can be misleading. IMO J – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BBC News Asthma rates ‘falling steadily’ Wednesday, 19 July, 2000 The number of people seeking medical help for asthma is decreasing and has fallen steadily for the past seven years, according to doctors. A study carried out by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) found that incidence of asthma peaked in 1993. However, researchers are at a loss to explain the reasons behind the trend. The finding appears to contradict the widely held theory that asthma rates in the UK have been rising steadily for years. However, it did not measure the total number of people who suffer from the disease. The study examined the number of people attending GP surgeries with new episodes of asthma between 1989 and 1998. The RCGP research unit in Birmingham analysed information supplied by 92 general practices across England. Doctors found that the incidence of asthma, bronchitis and respiratory illnesses in general increased between 1989 and 1993. However, their figures showed that cases actually fell after 1993 and have fallen steadily since then. They said the reversal could not be associated with changes to the management of asthma by GPs or to environmental changes. Writing in the latest issue of Thorax, they state: "The occurrence of downward trends in asthma and bronchitis cannot be linked to changes in factors which have previously been considered responsible for the increase in the community burden of asthma. ‘Less passive smoking’ "Increased exposure to allergens, petrochemical polution, and dietary factors did not suddenly change for the better in 1993." Dr Douglas Fleming, from the RCGP research unit in Birmingham, said the fall could not be attributed to just one factor. "We think the reduction may be related to a reduced increased in the number of respiratory infections while clement weather, and less passive smoking, for instance, may have contributed." Dr Martyn Partridge, chief medical adviser to the National Asthma Campaign, said the fall could be a result of asthma reaching its natural peak. "Most studies have shown a steady increase in the number of people with asthma over the period of the mid 1980s to early 1990s. "Clearly that was unlikely to go on increasing, for it is unlikely that the whole population would be genetically susceptible to the disease." He added: "If true, this is good news but it still leaves 3.4m people in the UK suffering from the condition." Thorax 2000;55:657-661 ( August ) Declining incidence of episodes of asthma:  a study of trends in new episodes presenting  to general practitioners in the period 1989-98 D M Fleming a, R Sunderland b, K W Cross a, A M Ross a a Royal College of General Practitioners, Birmingham Research Unit, Birmingham B17 9DB, UK, b Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham B4 6NH, UK Correspondence to: Dr D M Fleming email: Received 13 August 1999; Returned to authors 27 October 1999; Revised version received 2 May 2000; Accepted for publication 17 May 2000 BACKGROUND A study was undertaken to determine trends in the incidence of new episodes of asthma presented to general practitioners participating in the Weekly Returns Service of the Royal College of General Practitioners, comprising 92 practices with a registered population of approximately 680 000 persons well distributed throughout England and Wales. These practices monitor the morbidity presented at every consultation, distinguishing between new episodes of illness and ongoing consultations. METHODS Age specific weekly rates of new episodes of asthma (and of acute bronchitis) presenting to the general practitioners over the years 1989-98 were examined in four week blocks and analysed by multiple regression, separating secular from seasonal trends. RESULTS Quadratic trends in episodes of asthma were evident in each of the age groups with peaks in 1993/4. Corresponding analyses for acute bronchitis disclosed similar trends generally peaking in the winter of 1993/4. Mean weekly incidence data (all ages combined) decreased in all quarters since 1993. Regional analysis (North/Central/South) showed similar decreases. CONCLUSIONS There has been a gradual decrease in the incidence of asthma episodes and of acute bronchitis presenting to general practitioners since 1993. The trend of an increase before 1993 followed by a decrease cannot be explained by changes in the patterns of health care usage or diagnostic preference of doctors.

Response:

BBC News Asthma rates ‘falling steadily’ Wednesday, 19 July, 2000 The number of people seeking medical help for asthma is decreasing and has fallen steadily for the past seven years, according to doctors. A study carried out by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) found that incidence of asthma peaked in 1993. However, researchers are at a loss to explain the reasons behind the trend. The finding appears to contradict the widely held theory that asthma rates in the UK have been rising steadily for years. However, it did not measure the total number of people who suffer from the disease. The study examined the number of people attending GP surgeries with new episodes of asthma between 1989 and 1998. The RCGP research unit in Birmingham analysed information supplied by 92 general practices across England. Doctors found that the incidence of asthma, bronchitis and respiratory illnesses in general increased between 1989 and 1993. However, their figures showed that cases actually fell after 1993 and have fallen steadily since then. They said the reversal could not be associated with changes to the management of asthma by GPs or to environmental changes. Writing in the latest issue of Thorax, they state: "The occurrence of downward trends in asthma and bronchitis cannot be linked to changes in factors which have previously been considered responsible for the increase in the community burden of asthma. ‘Less passive smoking’ "Increased exposure to allergens, petrochemical polution, and dietary factors did not suddenly change for the better in 1993." Dr Douglas Fleming, from the RCGP research unit in Birmingham, said the fall could not be attributed to just one factor. "We think the reduction may be related to a reduced increased in the number of respiratory infections while clement weather, and less passive smoking, for instance, may have contributed." Dr Martyn Partridge, chief medical adviser to the National Asthma Campaign, said the fall could be a result of asthma reaching its natural peak. "Most studies have shown a steady increase in the number of people with asthma over the period of the mid 1980s to early 1990s. "Clearly that was unlikely to go on increasing, for it is unlikely that the whole population would be genetically susceptible to the disease." He added: "If true, this is good news but it still leaves 3.4m people in the UK suffering from the condition." Thorax 2000;55:657-661 ( August ) Declining incidence of episodes of asthma:  a study of trends in new episodes presenting  to general practitioners in the period 1989-98 D M Fleming a, R Sunderland b, K W Cross a, A M Ross a a Royal College of General Practitioners, Birmingham Research Unit, Birmingham B17 9DB, UK, b Birmingham Children’s Hospital, Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham B4 6NH, UK Correspondence to: Dr D M Fleming email: Received 13 August 1999; Returned to authors 27 October 1999; Revised version received 2 May 2000; Accepted for publication 17 May 2000 BACKGROUND A study was undertaken to determine trends in the incidence of new episodes of asthma presented to general practitioners participating in the Weekly Returns Service of the Royal College of General Practitioners, comprising 92 practices with a registered population of approximately 680 000 persons well distributed throughout England and Wales. These practices monitor the morbidity presented at every consultation, distinguishing between new episodes of illness and ongoing consultations. METHODS Age specific weekly rates of new episodes of asthma (and of acute bronchitis) presenting to the general practitioners over the years 1989-98 were examined in four week blocks and analysed by multiple regression, separating secular from seasonal trends. RESULTS Quadratic trends in episodes of asthma were evident in each of the age groups with peaks in 1993/4. Corresponding analyses for acute bronchitis disclosed similar trends generally peaking in the winter of 1993/4. Mean weekly incidence data (all ages combined) decreased in all quarters since 1993. Regional analysis (North/Central/South) showed similar decreases. CONCLUSIONS There has been a gradual decrease in the incidence of asthma episodes and of acute bronchitis presenting to general practitioners since 1993. The trend of an increase before 1993 followed by a decrease cannot be explained by changes in the patterns of health care usage or diagnostic preference of doctors.

Response:

Question:

What the hell do you mean by "lifestyle changes"? Like the fact that my wife and I came damn close to getting divorced from the stress of learning how to deal with an ADHD son that we both love very much?

Hi Christopher.  No, of course not.  I was referring to learning situations that can be better suited to an active, distractable child.  Hands on, less book work, no "busy work." The variety of personality challenges, sometimes including defiance, can cause serious disagreements in homes. Finding working systems is what I was talking about. For example, a reward system can help to establish acceptable behavior.  A great book:  *Positive Discipline*  by Jane Nelson, Ed.D. offers suggestions that can help w/ most kids. I would think every parent would want to read and use some of the tips ( alot of which you are prolly already using.) And some days, Christopher, you know yourself, nothing works.  Not punishment, or rewards, but you and your wife pulling together wanting the best for your son helps you all to win. I hope you are all doing well. Connie

Response:

We are prolly in agreement about several things, Rich.  I just push the alt side of the equation ’cause I like it better. This entire subject bites.  Wish it weren’t so. Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As do we all. All I was asking was for your opinion and you gave it. And other than your estimate of the percentage, we are very much in agreement about this. Aloha, Rich I have my own life experiences to go by. I don’t need to do any math. ka & g

Response:

 Joe – I spent over an hour answering your eloquent post and my computer blinked (darn NETSCAPE!) and lost it.  I’ll have to rewrite it.  Drat, drat, drat.  And other (unprintable) words of frustration.  Is there an emoticon for that??  %^&* Connie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But on the subject of side effects, here are some that I found pretty scary:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes Also cell phone useage has increased dramatically, So has television watching. So has the presence of blenders in the home. You have to be careful with all of these simultaneous increases. These are correlations and that says NOTHING about causation. Yes there is more air pollution today that fifty years ago. In the UK there is *different* air pollution.  50 years ago we had open coal fires heating our homes, and coal-burning kitchen ranges were still used quite a lot.  Then after the smog in London in 1952 (?) during which hundreds of people died the clean air acts were introduced.  Now most of us use mains gas to heat our homes, and we have pollution from cars instead.

The coal polution also contributed to science. It was noticed that certain moth speaces were colored difrintly in cities then in the contry. Camaflage adaptation. What was assumed was that natural selection was selecting difrint indeviduals. Also, coal produces unseen toxins and is the #1 contributer to acid rain. It was killing lakes and streams also – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On difference is that urban roses now get black spot (a fungal infection) – when we were burning all that coal the urban pollution cleared up black spot. I still contend that a lot of people are alive today and are having allergic children today who would have died before reproducing 100 years ago. Linda  As cheese consumption increases, asthma rates soar. Following the reference, it seems that in a large number of countries both cheese consumption and asthma have increased substantially in the last few decades.  So also have vehicle pollution and use of central heating, which have also been blamed.  (The problem with central heating is that dust mites, which are a very common problem for asthmatics, like nice warm homes.)  I don’t think anyone knows why asthma is so much commoner than it used to be. — Surfer!

Response:

Asthma has been correlated to an increase in the number of McDonald franchises, could it be the Cheeseburgers? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also cell phone useage has increased dramatically, So has television watching. So has the presence of blenders in the home. You have to be careful with all of these simultaneous increases. These are correlations and that says NOTHING about causation.  Yes there is more air pollution today that fifty years ago.  I still contend that a lot of people are alive today and are having allergic children today who would have died before reproducing 100 years ago. Linda Linda, You are using your gift of logic here. Too many people try to find bizarre correlation’s to prove a point.  As cheese consumption increases, asthma rates soar. Following the reference, it seems that in a large number of countries both cheese consumption and asthma have increased substantially in the last few decades.  So also have vehicle pollution and use of central heating, which have also been blamed.  (The problem with central heating is that dust mites, which are a very common problem for asthmatics, like nice warm homes.)  I don’t think anyone knows why asthma is so much commoner than it used to be. — Robert Schuh "The Most Trolled Man On The Internet!" Stevie, Trane, Jaco, Jimi and Bird are GODS! Donate your organs. Save a life. Proud Endorser of Spaun Drums

Response:

Yes Linda, I agree with you. I was born 49 years  and 354 days ago (not that I am counting). I never got to a Halloween Party at school until I was in 3rd grade. I was always in the hospital in the fall with pneumonia. I got 4 "D" s in 1st grade because I missed 24 out of 29 days of school. I was raised on penicillin, sulfa, and Benadryl. I was a skinny frail thing (HA…you should see me now!!!!). They actually told my mother to put weight on me or I would never live. Now the Doctors say take it off or I won’t live. To the point however, I was raised in a small town, but in town . Both sides of my family had been farmers and my contention is, if I had been raised on a farm 20 or 30 years earlier than I was I wouldn’t have made it out of childhood. I can go by a field of hat and start to wheeze (as many of you here probably do also). I am thankful that I was born where and when I was, else like I would not have lived to see my 50th birthday in 11 days. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Also cell phone useage has increased dramatically, So has television watching. So has the presence of blenders in the home. You have to be careful with all of these simultaneous increases. These are correlations and that says NOTHING about causation.  Yes there is more air pollution today that fifty years ago.  I still contend that a lot of people are alive today and are having allergic children today who would have died before reproducing 100 years ago. Linda

Linda, You are using your gift of logic here. Too many people try to find bizarre correlation’s to prove a point.  As cheese consumption increases, asthma rates soar. Following the reference, it seems that in a large number of countries both cheese consumption and asthma have increased substantially in the last few decades.  So also have vehicle pollution and use of central heating, which have also been blamed.  (The problem with central heating is that dust mites, which are a very common problem for asthmatics, like nice warm homes.)  I don’t think anyone knows why asthma is so much commoner than it used to be.

– Robert Schuh "The Most Trolled Man On The Internet!" Stevie, Trane, Jaco, Jimi and Bird are GODS! Donate your organs. Save a life. Proud Endorser of Spaun Drums

Response:

I keep telling you guys it’s my waistline.  Thankfully, though, I’ve started going to the gym and have pulled in a couple of inches.  Expect asthma rates to drop accordingly. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also cell phone useage has increased dramatically, So has television watching. So has the presence of blenders in the home. You have to be careful with all of these simultaneous increases. These are correlations and that says NOTHING about causation.  Yes there is more air pollution today that fifty years ago.  I still contend that a lot of people are alive today and are having allergic children today who would have died before reproducing 100 years ago. Linda  As cheese consumption increases, asthma rates soar. Following the reference, it seems that in a large number of countries both cheese consumption and asthma have increased substantially in the last few decades.  So also have vehicle pollution and use of central heating, which have also been blamed.  (The problem with central heating is that dust mites, which are a very common problem for asthmatics, like nice warm homes.)  I don’t think anyone knows why asthma is so much commoner than it used to be.

Response:

Also cell phone useage has increased dramatically, So has television watching. So has the presence of blenders in the home. You have to be careful with all of these simultaneous increases. These are correlations and that says NOTHING about causation.  Yes there is more air pollution today that fifty years ago.  I still contend that a lot of people are alive today and are having allergic children today who would have died before reproducing 100 years ago. Linda – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  As cheese consumption increases, asthma rates soar. Following the reference, it seems that in a large number of countries both cheese consumption and asthma have increased substantially in the last few decades.  So also have vehicle pollution and use of central heating, which have also been blamed.  (The problem with central heating is that dust mites, which are a very common problem for asthmatics, like nice warm homes.)  I don’t think anyone knows why asthma is so much commoner than it used to be.

Response:

writes Also cell phone useage has increased dramatically, So has television watching. So has the presence of blenders in the home. You have to be careful with all of these simultaneous increases. These are correlations and that says NOTHING about causation.   Yes there is more air pollution today that fifty years ago.  

In the UK there is *different* air pollution.  50 years ago we had open coal fires heating our homes, and coal-burning kitchen ranges were still used quite a lot.  Then after the smog in London in 1952 (?) during which hundreds of people died the clean air acts were introduced.  Now most of us use mains gas to heat our homes, and we have pollution from cars instead. On difference is that urban roses now get black spot (a fungal infection) – when we were burning all that coal the urban pollution cleared up black spot. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I still contend that a lot of people are alive today and are having allergic children today who would have died before reproducing 100 years ago. Linda  As cheese consumption increases, asthma rates soar. Following the reference, it seems that in a large number of countries both cheese consumption and asthma have increased substantially in the last few decades.  So also have vehicle pollution and use of central heating, which have also been blamed.  (The problem with central heating is that dust mites, which are a very common problem for asthmatics, like nice warm homes.)  I don’t think anyone knows why asthma is so much commoner than it used to be.

– Surfer!

Response:

Question:

HI, everyone.   About a month ago I posted how I had been sent on the disability path due to my perfume allergy triggering my migraines.  Long story short, I was sharing an office with a woman who, when she heard of my discomfort,  ’upped’ her perfume dosage until I became too sick to stay. Today I discovered that my employers ‘cannot’ make any accomodations for my disability,  and I was fired. believed that they would be sympathetic to this,  but apparently I was mistaken. Monday I begin the process of job hunting. I guess that I just need to share about this;  it is way too absurd to keep inside.  If anyone else out there finds themselves in this condition,  please keep accurate records of the events!             Ricardo in San Francisco

Response:

I’m very sorry Ricardo, but you said your company could "not" make any accomodations for you?  HOGWASH!!! I think you should see an attorney about this.

There is a little matter of this being a FREE COUNTRY!  Perfumes are sold in any drugstore and are not considered substances than endanger the health of others.  Who on earth could he sue?  The perfume makers for making a legal and essentially safe product?  The employer for not attempting to trample all over the Constitution?   Perfumes may cause some people discomfort, such as us (and they get to me too!), but they are totally legal and safe.  They do not even have the potential to cause cancer like cigarettes, so no one has any right to legally force someone to stop wearing them or sue an employer for not accommodating every single personal need!  There are people who suffer multiple chemical sensitivities and cannot be exposed to people with any type of makeup, synthetic clothing, deoderant, etc.  Would any of us like it if we were told that we could not exercise our personal liberties such as wearing Arrid Deoderant or CoverGirl Makeup simply because a minority of the population can’t handle being around it? I’m not trying to be hostile here, but Vikki, your posts today are pretty hostile!  Telling someone "HOGWASH!" because they can’t get basic freedoms limited at their employment is hardly polite or appropriate.  And blaming someone who desperately posts for help and uses all caps did nothing to deserve being accused of being a really abhorrent troll for making one of the most common mistakes that newbies make when first coming online! Please…take a step back and chill!  This is not supposed to be a place where people are put on the defensive over such simple things!  You may just be feeling passionate about your views and about migraineurs’ rights, but it’s not coming off that way!  It’s coming off in a very unflattering way and will only drive people away from here! Jill, etc. No cute quote…deal with it ICQ#9049058 AOL IM ID: jrshmte

Response:

I’m very sorry Ricardo, but you said your company could "not" make any accomodations for you?  HOGWASH!!! I think you should see an attorney about this.  Did they even "ever" once ask this woman to stop wearing her perfume just out of kindness to help you out? This STINKS  literally!!!  Good Luck to you. Lots of Love   Vikki Whoever said "No Pain,No Gain" obviously never had any REAL PAIN !!!

Response:

I am really sorry for your experience, unfortunately it is not unique. Sensitvity to fragrances is a really difficult issue and most employers will not address it unless forced to. This issue is coming up more and more frequently as more people are becoming sensitive to perfumes and fragranced products. It is a very important health issue. I am actively trying to get people to be vocal on this issue and I am asking for help. There are a reason perfumes are so irritating and intrusive. There are some really nasty chemicals in them. I recently had a perfume analyzed and then looked up the available health and safety data on the chemicals in it. There were 41 chemicals identified. The substance at the highest level in the product had no readily available safety data on it. Two were listed as respiratory sensitizers meaning they can cause a person to become allergic to them and develop asthma. At least five had central nervous system effects, At least two were suspected carcinogens and one may cause fetal effects. Virtually all are general irritants and the chemical, physical,and toxicological properties have not been thoroughly investigated. Fragrance chemicals are absorbed through the skin (and via the lungs). Synthetic musk compounds are stored in fat tissue and show up in breast milk. They are also found in waterways and aquatic wildlife as they are not filtered out by sewage treatment. And no one really knows the implications as most of the chemicals do not have adequate safety data. These products are as much, if not more of a threat to health than second hand smoke. Many of the chemicals are the same and more people use fragrances than smoke. They are horrible for those with asthma, sinus problems, and migraine headaches. If you are interested in learning more, go to my website.(URL in my signature line) I have considerable information up. Most of it is from industry, government, or medical sources, so it is reliable. Please check out the petition filed with the FDA and support it by sending in a comment to the FDA. If anyone wants more info, feel free to e-mail me. Thanks!! Betty Bridges, RN Fragranced Products Information Network (FPIN) For information on health effects of fragrances, visit: http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm SUPPORT THE PETITION TO THE FDA http://users.lanminds.com/~wilworks/FDApetition/bkgrinfo.htm http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/petition%20index.htm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – HI, everyone.   About a month ago I posted how I had been sent on the disability path due to my perfume allergy triggering my migraines. Long story short, I was sharing an office with a woman who, when she heard of my discomfort,  ’upped’ her perfume dosage until I became too sick to stay. Today I discovered that my employers ‘cannot’ make any accomodations for my disability,  and I was fired. really believed that they would be sympathetic to this,  but apparently I was mistaken. Monday I begin the process of job hunting. I guess that I just need to share about this;  it is way too absurd to keep inside.  If anyone else out there finds themselves in this condition,  please keep accurate records of the events!            Ricardo in San Francisco

Response:

NO WAY!!!!!! Oh, dear.  Ricardo, i’m so bummed that you are going through this.  And at UCSF, a place considered to be "advanced" in all rights human. You have my banner, cheering you on, Lavon

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -HI, everyone.   About a month ago I posted how I had been sent on the disability path due to my perfume allergy triggering my migraines.  Long story short, I was sharing an office with a woman who, when she heard of my discomfort,  ’upped’ her perfume dosage until I became too sick to stay. Today I discovered that my employers ‘cannot’ make any accomodations for my disability,  and I was fired. believed that they would be sympathetic to this,  but apparently I was mistaken. Monday I begin the process of job hunting. I guess that I just need to share about this;  it is way too absurd to keep inside.  If anyone else out there finds themselves in this condition,  please keep accurate records of the events!            Ricardo in San Francisco

HI Ricardo,     I am so sorry this is happening to you! I can’t believe that they would fire you, instead of telling your co worker to tone down the perfume. I think you should definately go to the labor board and file against your employer firing you, this seems to be so unfair to you. Please keep us posted on how you are doing..                                   Hugs,                                       Tammy

Response:

ARE the safe?  What are in perfumes and fragranced products? Do you know? Does the FDA know? Just because a product is legal does not mean it is safe. Perfumes and fragrances do endanger the health and lives of millions. 1-2% of the population has skin allergies to fragrances.  How many migraine suffers are there? Something like 17 million. I do not know how many are triggered by perfumes and fragrances, but I would guess a sizable number. Fragrance chemicals have the ability to cause blood flow changes in the brain. (Chem Senses 1994 Aug;19(4):359-64 Functional imaging of effects of fragrances on the human brain after prolonged inhalation. Nasel C, Nasel B, Samec P, Schindler E, Buchbauer G) In 1990 there were over 10 million asthmatics, in 1994 there were over 14 million, there are many more now. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 20 years. 72% of asthmatics are triggered by perfumes and colognes. The rates in children are rising more rapidly than that in adults. Over 5000 people die each year from asthma. There are 35 million people with chronic sinusitis. For many with asthma and vasomotor rhinitis avoidance is the only measure that is effective in preventing illness. If such sensitivities cannot be accomadated in the workplace, these people have few choices. The chemicals from these safe products are absorbed through you skin and stored in fat tissue. They are present in breast milk. The effects are not know because they have not be adequately tested. They are also in the water you drink and the food chain. They are not filtered out by sewage treatment. Just how safe are these products and how much are you protected?  AETT was a common fragrance chemical in common use from 1950s until 1978. In 1975, Avon in doing routine skin testing discovered the test animals skin was turning blue and there was severe neurological problems. Further studies were done and it was found this chemical caused damage to the brain and nerves similar to that which occurs with multiple sclerosis. The internal organs were blue with the nerve tissue affected the most. The material was severely neurotoxic. In 1977 the FDA was notified. The fragrance industry said they would not use the chemical anymore, but it was still in some companies products in March of 1978. There was no recall of products already on the shelf and no notification sent out to consumers. In 1985 it was recommended that musk ambrette (in use since 1920s) no longer be used in fragranced products. It was found to be neurotoxic, was absorbed through the skin, stored in fat tissue, and only very slowly excreted through the body. It was still being found in products in 1991. Again there was no recall of products and no notification of the public. In spite of the history of two very common fragrance chemicals being neurotoxic, testing for neurological effects is not part of routine testing by the fragrance industry to determine the safety of fragrance materials. In spite of some materials being used that are known respiratory sensitizers (meaning they can cause asthma) and triggers for respiratory problems, testing for respiratory effects are not done. Testing for systemic effects is not conducted either. These products do not have to be tested before marketing. They do not have disclose ingredients to anyone including the FDA. If you want a clue as to the chemicals used in fragrances there is an analysis of the perfume Eternity up at my website. http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/analysis_summary.htm I always find the referral to fragrances to not having health effects like cigarettes ironic. The additives to cigarettes are fragrance chemicals. If they are harmful in cigarettes, it stands to reason they are harmful in fragrances. There are also chemicals used in fragrances that are thoughht to be carcinogenic based on animal testing. My apologies for intrusion into your group. I fell obligated to educate on the issue of fragrances. I am not suggesting that fragrances should be banned. I am suggesting that activities that endanger others health should have some restrictions and companies need to pinpoint hazardous chemicals in their products and eliminate them from use. Above all I am suggesting that people be courteous in their use of fragrances. Betty Bridges, RN Fragranced Products Information Network (FPIN) For information on health effects of fragrances, visit:  http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm SUPPORT THE PETITION TO THE FDA http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/petition%20index.htm Jill wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -There is a little matter of this being a FREE COUNTRY!  Perfumes are sold in any drugstore and are not considered substances than endanger the health of others.  Who on earth could he sue?  The perfume makers for making a legal and essentially safe product?  The employer for not attempting to trample all over the Constitution? Perfumes may cause some people discomfort, such as us (and they get to me too!), but they are totally legal and safe.  They do not even have the potential to cause cancer like cigarettes, so no one has any right to legally force someone to stop wearing them or sue an employer for not accommodating every single personal need!  There are people who suffer multiple chemical sensitivities and cannot be exposed to people with any type of makeup, synthetic clothing, deoderant, etc.  Would any of us like it if we were told that we could not exercise our personal liberties such as wearing Arrid Deoderant or CoverGirl Makeup simply because a minority of the population can’t handle being around it?

Response:

I just read recently that they are trying to get the perfume "Eternity" off the market because of the dangerous chemicals and effects. Lots of Love   Vikki Whoever said "No Pain,No Gain" obviously never had any REAL PAIN !!!

Response:

Actually the petition to the FDA is to have Eternity declared misbranded or improperly labeled. By law perfumes do not have to be safety tested before marketing. If the ingredients and final product has not been adequately safety tested, the product is supposed to carry a warning label. An analysis was done of Eternity and many of the ingredients had not been adequately safety tested. So Eternity does not carry the proper warning label. The petition asks that the labeling law be enforced so consumers will know products have not been adequately safety tested. Betty Bridges, RN Fragranced Products Information Network (FPIN) For information on health effects of fragrances, visit:  http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm SUPPORT THE PETITION TO THE FDA http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/petition%20index.htm

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I just read recently that they are trying to get the perfume "Eternity" off the market because of the dangerous chemicals and effects. Lots of Love   Vikki Whoever said "No Pain,No Gain" obviously never had any REAL PAIN !!!

Response:

Betty, I really appreciate your efforts and am grateful to you for the info.  I had no idea, but it makes sense that there must be something in there if so many have such strong reactions to it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ARE the safe?  What are in perfumes and fragranced products? Do you know? Does the FDA know? Just because a product is legal does not mean it is safe. Perfumes and fragrances do endanger the health and lives of millions. 1-2% of the population has skin allergies to fragrances.  How many migraine suffers are there? Something like 17 million. I do not know how many are triggered by perfumes and fragrances, but I would guess a sizable number. Fragrance chemicals have the ability to cause blood flow changes in the brain. (Chem Senses 1994 Aug;19(4):359-64 Functional imaging of effects of fragrances on the human brain after prolonged inhalation. Nasel C, Nasel B, Samec P, Schindler E, Buchbauer G) In 1990 there were over 10 million asthmatics, in 1994 there were over 14 million, there are many more now. Asthma rates have doubled in the past 20 years. 72% of asthmatics are triggered by perfumes and colognes. The rates in children are rising more rapidly than that in adults. Over 5000 people die each year from asthma. There are 35 million people with chronic sinusitis. For many with asthma and vasomotor rhinitis avoidance is the only measure that is effective in preventing illness. If such sensitivities cannot be accomadated in the workplace, these people have few choices. The chemicals from these safe products are absorbed through you skin and stored in fat tissue. They are present in breast milk. The effects are not know because they have not be adequately tested. They are also in the water you drink and the food chain. They are not filtered out by sewage treatment. Just how safe are these products and how much are you protected?  AETT was a common fragrance chemical in common use from 1950s until 1978. In 1975, Avon in doing routine skin testing discovered the test animals skin was turning blue and there was severe neurological problems. Further studies were done and it was found this chemical caused damage to the brain and nerves similar to that which occurs with multiple sclerosis. The internal organs were blue with the nerve tissue affected the most. The material was severely neurotoxic. In 1977 the FDA was notified. The fragrance industry said they would not use the chemical anymore, but it was still in some companies products in March of 1978. There was no recall of products already on the shelf and no notification sent out to consumers. In 1985 it was recommended that musk ambrette (in use since 1920s) no longer be used in fragranced products. It was found to be neurotoxic, was absorbed through the skin, stored in fat tissue, and only very slowly excreted through the body. It was still being found in products in 1991. Again there was no recall of products and no notification of the public. In spite of the history of two very common fragrance chemicals being neurotoxic, testing for neurological effects is not part of routine testing by the fragrance industry to determine the safety of fragrance materials. In spite of some materials being used that are known respiratory sensitizers (meaning they can cause asthma) and triggers for respiratory problems, testing for respiratory effects are not done. Testing for systemic effects is not conducted either. These products do not have to be tested before marketing. They do not have disclose ingredients to anyone including the FDA. If you want a clue as to the chemicals used in fragrances there is an analysis of the perfume Eternity up at my website. http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/analysis_summary.htm I always find the referral to fragrances to not having health effects like cigarettes ironic. The additives to cigarettes are fragrance chemicals. If they are harmful in cigarettes, it stands to reason they are harmful in fragrances. There are also chemicals used in fragrances that are thoughht to be carcinogenic based on animal testing. My apologies for intrusion into your group. I fell obligated to educate on the issue of fragrances. I am not suggesting that fragrances should be banned. I am suggesting that activities that endanger others health should have some restrictions and companies need to pinpoint hazardous chemicals in their products and eliminate them from use. Above all I am suggesting that people be courteous in their use of fragrances. Betty Bridges, RN Fragranced Products Information Network (FPIN) For information on health effects of fragrances, visit:  http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm SUPPORT THE PETITION TO THE FDA http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/petition%20index.htm Jill wrote There is a little matter of this being a FREE COUNTRY!  Perfumes are sold in any drugstore and are not considered substances than endanger the health of others.  Who on earth could he sue?  The perfume makers for making a legal and essentially safe product?  The employer for not attempting to trample all over the Constitution? Perfumes may cause some people discomfort, such as us (and they get to me too!), but they are totally legal and safe.  They do not even have the potential to cause cancer like cigarettes, so no one has any right to legally force someone to stop wearing them or sue an employer for not accommodating every single personal need!  There are people who suffer multiple chemical sensitivities and cannot be exposed to people with any type of makeup, synthetic clothing, deoderant, etc.  Would any of us like it if we were told that we could not exercise our personal liberties such as wearing Arrid Deoderant or CoverGirl Makeup simply because a minority of the population can’t handle being around it?

Response:

enough already – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In case you missed my post, please read this website.  It is about what chemicals are in perfumes, colognes and other fragranced products.  This information may very well help you with your lawyer. http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm We need to get this information out to the media.  Any help will only help yourself, as well.  People who get headaches from perfumes are often forced to stop work, stay housebound, move to the moutains, etc.  How could such a innocent sounding word, like (perfume, fragrance, etc.) be harmful?  Wait until you learn why? LOL, Connie

Response:

In case you missed my post, please read this website.  It is about what chemicals are in perfumes, colognes and other fragranced products.  This information may very well help you with your lawyer. http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm We need to get this information out to the media.  Any help will only help yourself, as well.  People who get headaches from perfumes are often forced to stop work, stay housebound, move to the moutains, etc.  How could such a innocent sounding word, like (perfume, fragrance, etc.) be harmful?  Wait until you learn why? LOL, Connie

Response:

If what you say is true, you should sue your employer for wrongful dismissal. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – HI, everyone.   About a month ago I posted how I had been sent on the disability path due to my perfume allergy triggering my migraines.  Long story short, I was sharing an office with a woman who, when she heard of my discomfort,  ’upped’ her perfume dosage until I became too sick to stay. Today I discovered that my employers ‘cannot’ make any accomodations for my disability,  and I was fired. believed that they would be sympathetic to this,  but apparently I was mistaken. Monday I begin the process of job hunting. I guess that I just need to share about this;  it is way too absurd to keep inside.  If anyone else out there finds themselves in this condition,  please keep accurate records of the events!            Ricardo in San Francisco

Response:

Question:

My wife developed adult-onset asthma a few years ago…. one of the allergens which trigger her attacks is mould. I read an interesting article in "Toronto Life" magazine back in Feb ‘97 – did anybody else see this ? One thing the author pointed out is that pollution is causing the level of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere to rise, as years go by. The level of CO2 is 30% higher than what it was 200 years ago. And this in turn is greatly promoting the growth of certain types of leaf mould (airborne spores), which can trigger asthma attacks. This is a type of fungus which grows on the backs of leaves. The author was Elaine Dewar, and some of the research on fungi growth rates had been done by Dr. John Klironomos (U of Guelph). Aside from wearing a surgical mask, I’m not sure what could be done about these tiny invisible spores which float through the air and deep into the lungs of people like my spouse…. There was another interesting thing in the article, about "the lake effect". The worst case scenario for asthma might be in a big city like Toronto, which sits next to a large body of water, and is not especially far from a major agricultural area (Western Ontario). You get the smog i.e. acidic sulfate emissions from the big-city pollution, plus you get the daily boost in ground-level ozone from the lake. Finally you get the organo-nitric compounds from the nearby farms. Sounds like quite a cocktail to me… Also – why are asthma rates going up faster in the southern hemisphere ?           I heard that New Zealand, which is not especially polluted, has           a very high rate of asthma. Is it related to fertilizer, spores, ozone, etc ? Finally – why is it that the majority of adult-onset asthma is among women ?              Is it also true that the majority of childhood asthma, the kind you              outgrow, is among boys ?

Response:

Also – why are asthma rates going up faster in the southern hemisphere ?          I heard that New Zealand, which is not especially polluted, has          a very high rate of asthma. Is it related to fertilizer, spores, ozone, etc ?

The rate of asthma increase appears to be somehow connected with a decline in infant mortality. The important thing is that the rate of asthma is climbing worldwide (or at least the rate of asthma diagnosis is increasing). Finally – why is it that the majority of adult-onset asthma is among women ?             Is it also true that the majority of childhood asthma, the kind you             outgrow, is among boys?

Well, for one thing you never ‘outgrow’ asthma.  It can go into remission, but it will never go away.  Also, I have seen no real research that indicates that women are more prone to adult onset asthma than men.

Response:

"…you never "outgrow" asthma. It can go into remission, but it will never go away." This raises an empirical question: how do you distinguish between a person who has not suffered from asthma since, say, the age of 10, and someone who has never suffered from asthma? (And I mean in terms of their current state of health) If your childhood asthma stops and never returns until you die at a ripe old age, was that a lifelong "remission", or did the asthma "go away"? And what difference does it make? Oliver

Response: