Environmental Sensitivities: Prevalence of Major Symptoms in a Referral Center: The Nova Scotia Environmental Sensitivities Research Center Study

Abstract

Environmental sensitivities (ES) are still considered by many to be an enigmatic health concern. Within the medical community, disparate views on the origins and pathophysiology abound (1-15). Nevertheless, individuals continue to experience symptoms that produce varying degrees of disability. The most frequently cited term to describe this clustering of medically unexplained symptoms has been multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), originally coined by Cullen in his initial paper on workplace health risks (16). Several theories have been advanced to explain the diverse symptoms occurring after exposure to low-level irritants, foods, or electromagnetic radiation (1,3,4,5-15). In the 1995 Nova Scotia Health Survey, 3% of the population reported being environmentally sensitive (17). A more recent study conducted by Kreutzer et al. (18) stated that 16% of Californians reported being "allergic or unusually sensitive to everyday chemicals." There were no specific questions on symptoms other than a list of products or situations "bothering" or making individuals "sick." In a telephone survey conducted in North Carolina, Meggs et al. found that 33% of those surveyed reported sensitivity to chemicals (19), and 4% of the total population reported daily or almost daily frequency of their symptoms. The most common symptoms among individuals with chemical sensitivity were nausea (47%), headache (33%), and eye irritation (16%). There was no detailed evaluation of symptoms in this phone interview survey. Kipen et al. (20) found a prevalence of sensitivity to chemicals of 13% among Gulf Registry Veterans (20). Common within all these reports was the need to explore further and more accurately describe this phenomenon. To answer this need, we used a symptom-based questionnaire to explore the frequency, severity, and type of symptoms experienced by a Canadian patient population referred to a specialty center for environmental sensitivities.

Asthma Prevalence and Severity in Arab American Communities in the Detroit Area, Michigan

“…About 77% of the respondents were married, 85% had a regular family doctor, and 75% had health care coverage for themselves (Table II). Health care coverage rates were considerably higher than previously reported estimates (21); the reason for this disparity is unclear.…”

Adaptation to low levels of chemical exposure in individuals with multiple chemical sensitivity in a controlled indoor environment

“…Outcome measures Symptom rating. Before and after each booth session subjects answered a questionnaire on symptoms reported by Joffres et al 9 as the top symptoms were experienced by this patient population after an exposure. The questionnaire measured irritation on an ordinal scale of 0-10, with 0 being barely detectable and 10 being the strongest.…”

Effects of information and 50 Hz magnetic fields on cognitive performance and reported symptoms

“…Seventy-four male volunteers (no women to avoid interference of the hormonal fluctuations of the menstrual cycle) aged between 40 and 60 years (mean age of 48.5 AE 6.2 years) (higher prevalence of EHS people and people with environmental sensitivities in this age group) [Hillert and Kolmodin-Hedman, 1997;Joffres et al, 2001] in good physical and mental health (minimum score 24 in Mini Mental State, MMSE) were included in the study. Criteria for exclusion were checked by biological examination and a health questionnaire and were the following: poor health, neurological or psychiatric diagnosis, chronic illnesses, central nervous disorders, epilepsy, claustrophobia, daily intake of medication (such as antidepressant, benzodiazepine, hypotensive), alcohol intake higher than four glasses per day, drug intake, smoking over 20 cigarettes per day, having previously taken part in studies involving magnetic field exposure or in pharmacological studies 2 months previously, having a pacemaker, a cerebral metallic implant, intracerebral prothesis, auditory apparatus, and a Body Mass Index higher than 30.…”