What do you think of “multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome"? And how much will you change your way of life to help out a neighbor who says she's got it?
Movie recommendation: "Safe."
१९ ऑक्टोबर, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३७ टिप्पण्या:
I would not change.
There is a 90% chance that this woman has schizophrenia. She obviously suffers from paranoiac delusions. Only drugs used to treat schizophrenia will help her.
sounds like a dubious euphemism for 'hypochondriac'.
I think she is nuts, but in the interest of being a good neighbor I would probably let her know when I am going to spray any herbicide or other chemical outdoors and avoid doing so on a windy day when it might blow over onto her property.
If that is not enough, she should move somewhere secluded with a lot of property between her and any neighbors.
Ah, here's what happens when we let "diversity" and nonjudgementalism infect our way of life. Crazy people and their imaginary diseases get to rule the behavior of others.
Not schizophrenic.
More likely post-truamatic stress disorder, but I'd have to know more.
I would build a geodesic dome in Alaska and hope to make the acquaintance of a cute bush pilot.
The ability to borrow a spacesuit would also be nice.
It would be hard to be a good neighbor to her, I suspect, because her life is all about her ailments. I've met people like that (not in my neighborhood, thank goodness) and they are exhausting to be around. Neighborliness would be very 1-sided.
Re: "Maybe she's a hypochondriac, but what would be so hard about notifying her?"
As is common to folks claiming MCS, her sensitivities will escalate, as will her demands. Her neighbors have no doubt encountered this.
Like any delusion, it's an itch that cannot be scratched.
Hypochondriac? This is pretty simple to test.
If I were her neighbor, I would use her organic-whatever-herbicide, and on certain days, switch to regular chemical herbicide (being careful to pretend that it is organic), and track her symptoms.
If her symptoms bear no correlation to my pesticide usage, I would increase the concentration - I'd start spraying 2 or 3 times the recommended dosage on my driveway, mixed with solvents to drive up the rate of evaporation, and see if there was any reaction.
If she had no reaction, I would call BS, send an email to the neighbors, use whatever the hell I want, and have a good laugh at the government and assorted experts for giving her free money.
As is common to folks claiming MCS, her sensitivities will escalate, as will her demands. Her neighbors have no doubt encountered this.
That's exactly what has been happening in this specific case. The neighbors went out of their way to accomodate her, but it has only exacerbated the situation.
What about the general ethical question? Maybe she is a crackpot, but there may be health risks to using chemicals on lawns that some people would choose not to take. Can we claim a libertarian "right" to do what we want on our lawn, if our "doing" leaks into other people's property?
It's nice that there's a new boogeyman in "chemicals." After all, we're surrounded by "chemicals." We can just blame all our issues on the ones produced by those eeeeevil multinationals!
What these so-called sufferers fail to explain is how man-made chemicals, but not naturally occurring chemicals, affect them
I'm not going to take a stand on whether or not MCS is real -- I've no idea. But there's an easy answer to your question: we've been regularly exposed to naturally-occuring chemicals for as long as life has existed on Earth, whereas we've only been exposed to most manmade chemicals for a few centuries or less. It would not be shocking if we had more resistance to the former than the latter.
Anyway, we do know that there are genes which can cause some people to be strangely reactive to certain chemicals -- there is one related to alcohol that is common in Asians, though I forget the name of it. So MCS *could* exist -- whether it *does* exist, I do not know.
She completely lost any sympathy I might have had for her when she called herself and fellow sufferers "the new homeless." She's got a detox room in her safe house and she's "homeless."
My sympathy is now with her (very cooperative, exceptionally kind) neighbors.
Heh.
Why can't we just go back to calling it what we used to call it?
Neurasthenia.
The "reality based" community is based in the kind of reality that all effete hypochondriacal paranoid self-absorbed persons have always inhabited. They just change the curtains in their double-wide trailer in the John Jacques Rousseau trailer park every twenty five years or so by giving it a new name.
You're paranoid cranks. Deal with it.
I'm glad to see that my initial answer to both questions ("Go to hell. Thanks.") is not an outlier.
Her neighbors should claim to have MCSSS: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Sensitivity Syndrome.
Whenever the neurasthenic neighbor comes near, it makes you feel ill. So she should never ever talk to you.
My current neighbor is in this realm of disorders. Horrific abuse history. Now completely unsalvageable, taking to bouts of self-imposed silence, piercings, drawing in the dirt, and irritable bowel. Ambulances are not infrequent, followed by immediate returns home.
And don't try to wave 'hello' to her. Just don't.
And how much will you change your way of life to help out a neighbor who says she's got it?
I would just ignore her requests and otherwise treat her as a regular neighbor. I wouldn't want to further enable her physical manifestations of a psychiatric problem. People, including the government workers who approved her disabled status, catering to her imaginings are just making her condition worse.
It seems like a "half libertarian" position-which is not libertarian at all-to say that I have a right to use a chemical that spills over into your property and that since I decide it isn't a risk, that is the end of the story. Don't both people have property rights here? What if you don't want to assume the risk I am willing to assume so that I can have a grass lawn?
But when doctors say they can't demonstrate a link between exposure to chemicals and this woman's symptoms, what are we to conclude? That she is correct where people with medical degrees are not?
No doctor in the cited article claims that MCSS doesn't exist; no doctor in that article claims that it DOES exist. Several of them note that individual chemical sensitivites DO exist.
In short, they completely agree with what I said in my post -- it is possible, but unproven, and we don't know whether or not to think it exists.
You're making the common mistake of equating "no link has been found" with "we've found that there is no link". Smarten up.
Just don't play Trivial Pursuit with her.
It is not up to her neighbors, shops, and the entire city she lives in to accomadate her sensitivities. It's why the Disabilities act is so outrageous: it assumes an endless capacity by citizens to absorb the costs of meeting a complainer's needs, ans assumes that all complaints are valid simply on their say-so.
She can live that way alls he wants. But when she wants me to pay for it, forget it. Your belief in unicorns doesn't mean I have to buy you a saddle.
She can live that way alls he wants. But when she wants me to pay for it, forget it. Your belief in unicorns doesn't mean I have to buy you a saddle
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that your neighbor was storing leaky barrels of benzene on his property. Would your belief that this stuff is a carcinogen that endangers your health be "your problem, not his"?
Some libertarians would say "yes", but the government would generally say "no". There is a lot of law backing up the idea that if you're doing something that endangers people's health, they can make you stop, or even sue you.
It isn't quite the bright line that you suggest. We accept that things that are dangerous to 100% of the population can be restricted, and that things dangerous to 0% of the population generally cannot be... but there are a lot of things in the middle, dangerous to 100 > X > 0% of the population, that get banned or restricted too. If your behavior is only dangerous to 0.05% of people, can we make you behave differently? 5%? 50%? 95%? It is a tricky question.
Of course, all this begs the question of whether she's chemically sensitive or just crazy. Personally I'm really sensistive to new paint and carpet (as I discovered to my dismay when I had my house remodelled), so I'm less skeptical than many of the people here. Sure, she *acts* crazy, but being sick from something beyond your control can do that.
Her nuttiness is only exacerbated by her neighbors, who are wimps and enablers. To Hell with her and with them.
In environmental analysis of risk, it is "unacceptable" say in the case of drinking water, to have a chemical above a concentration, two orders of magnitude below a level that a person drinking two liters a day for 70 years, would incur a increased cancer risk of 1 in a million.
Worry destroys more people than chemicals
Re: "Sure, she *acts* crazy, but being sick from something beyond your control can do that."
Revenant, I take care of people like this frequently. The patholgy is far more complex and enveloping than can be described in a simple article.
Medical craziness evolves with testing. When simple tests were able to refute neurasthenic paralysis and hysterical blindness, those symptoms became rare. When chronic yeast infections were proven false, it became rare. Same for chronic hypoglycemia and Epstein-Barr.
I repeat: believe in unicorns all you want, just don't expect me to pay for the saddle. Sometimes people who act crazy are, in fact, crazy.
“multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome"
more like "anything for attention syndrome"
I worked with a woman who had chronic fatigue/fybromyalgia, among other things. She called in sick constantly but couldn't be fired, of course. It was lovely having to cover for her all the time. Then when she did come in, there was a litany of every ailment.
Revenant, I take care of people like this frequently. The patholgy is far more complex and enveloping than can be described in a simple article.
And yet, a simple article is enough for you to diagnose them. Amazing.
Maybe the fact that my sister had to try three different doctors before one of them noticed her health problems were due to a tumor-induced hormonal imbalance and another friend had to try two doctors before her initial diagnosis of "oral herpes" was correctly identified as a peppermint allergy makes me a little reluctant to accept these casual "trust me, I'm an expert, I've seen this a zillion times before" diagnoses. Medical professionals are often skilled, but they are even most often arrogant and convinced of their own inability to be wrong.
"I would build a geodesic dome in Alaska and hope to make the acquaintance of a cute bush pilot.
The ability to borrow a spacesuit would also be nice."
Ha! Hooray for Northern Exposure fans!
For what it's worth, we have an old friend who came down with a diagnosed viral infection that led to a long period of multiple chemical sensitivities. She was also a nurse. She worked in pediatric intensive care and picked up a virus (I don't remember which one, specifically), which led to a longish flu-like illness. In the aftermath of the illness, she became extremely sensitive to quite a few common chemicals and some natural substances. Again, this was all tested and diagnosed at a major teaching hospital on the West Coast (sneer if you like, Harvard-types).
Unlike our Colorado complainer, she took her own situation in hand and moved to Hawaii. She stayed in an isolated upwind location far from Honolulu, and got better after a couple of years. She then moved back to California and did fine.
Was she stressed out or otherwise suffering psychological problems? Perhaps, but her medical doctors didn't think so. They were of the opinion that her immune system had been affected, and although her condition was rare, it was legitimate.
Now, of course, these were West Coast doctors dealing with her case. We all know they're a bunch of hippies, too, eh?
The one thing I can say about this for sure was that she didn't whine or complain or expect anyone else to accomodate her condition. She did what she had to do to get better. This is, I think, good advice for anyone.
According to Staudenmayer, the symptoms are real, but they're cognitive in origin.
That is, indeed, a theory. Emphasis on "a". Other theories include that it is caused by some other physical ailment or that it really is caused by exposures to toxins. There is no definitive answer yet. Besides, given that the physical mechanism involved in psychosomatic illnesses isn't understood yet either, saying "it is all in your head" isn't much better than saying "we've no idea what the hell's going on here".
Again, I'm not saying this really is caused by chemical sensitivity. But a lot of people here are rushing to a judgement that science itself has yet to reach. There is NO consensus thus far that the illness is psychological in origin. Theo's got it right -- the situation's more complex than many of you seem to think.
Re: "And yet, a simple article is enough for you to diagnose them. Amazing."
From the same simple article, you were able to conclude that she does not in fact have MCS as she believes, but perhaps a brain tumor or peppermint allergy. Amazing.
In contrast, I am assuming that someone who has gone to the trouble of building an infrared detoxification room to combat MCS has done her research and had multiple evaluations at leading medical centers, having come to the diagnosis of MCS.
Your scenario is less compelling, but possible. But you appear to know so little about MCS as to be unaware of the enormous amount of research available on it, yet nonetheless confident of your own abilities to sniff out unwarranted arrogance to pronounce me guilty. Amazing.
You seem rather susceptible to the "trust me, I'm an expert, I've seen this a zillion times before" sort of rush to faulty diagnosis yourself.
And "no consensus"? Consensus is worthless in science. Facts and reproducability make science. I happen to think MCS is far more complex than you realize, and its origins fascinating. Not "cognitive" the way you'd think, but neuroendocrine, genetic, and nigh uncontrollable ...but not a hypersensitivity to chemicals.
But you'd rather insult me.
And "no consensus"? Consensus is worthless in science. Facts and reproducability make science.
Semantic quibbling. Once you have the latter, you get the former.
I happen to think MCS is far more complex than you realize
Um, I'm the one saying the cause of MCS is not definitely known and that this is a more complicated question than most people in this thread will admit to. You're the one who is saying the woman's just crazy.
Since you now agree with the position I've been advocating all along, I guess the argument's over.
From the same simple article, you were able to conclude that she does not in fact have MCS as she believes, but perhaps a brain tumor or peppermint allergy. Amazing.
Pogo, I know you're not stupid. Go back and read what I wrote. I did NOT say that the woman might have a brain tumor or a peppermint allergy. As I clearly stated, those were *different* women that I knew who had suffered from misdiagnosis -- the effects of a tumor were misdiagnosed as stress, and the blisters and inflamation around the mouth caused by an allergy to peppermint were dismissed as obviously being herpes.
The point I was making -- which, ironically, your misguided reponse helps illustrate -- is that medical professionals can make snap judgements that are completely wrong and are often resistant to investigating further.
You know, I was going to post a long (and I hope better) second comment based on the the experience of our friend with MCS. She was examined and treated at Stanford, and her case made it into the literature. I think it would have been an interesting addition to this discussion. However, given how the tone of comment on this thread has developed, it would be a waste of perfectly good electrons.
Gots, Staudenmayer, Fumento . . . is Barrett in there as well? These people are tools of the chemical industry. If you'd really like to understand an illness that defies current knowledge, as germ theory and allergies once did, then read the people who are actually studying the illness as opposed to those who made up their minds before they knew anything about it. Martin Pall has developed a theory about how it starts and how it perpetuates. His work has been published in a major toxicology text and has also published a separate text on the subject. His theory has also now been confirmed in a recent study. There are reams of data that prove a physiological origin for the illness. It's time to have some compassion for these people as someone you love could be the next victim.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा