In the past few years, an ocean of research regarding dangers from second hand smoke has been compiled, the overwhelming majority of which regards even small amounts of second hand smoke as a significant danger to human health.

MCS sufferers on the other hand all too often run into a brick wall when they claim low level VOC is making them sick. Toxicologists always quote OSHA/PELs (permissible exposure levels) as the \"proven\" and well researched standards as to what levels of VOC are harmful to human health.

An interesting conflict appears when OSHA was asked by a group called ASH, or \"Action on Smoking and Health\" (an anti-smoking group) to set a PEL for second hand smoke... It seems all of the harmful VOCs in second hand smoke were already regulated by OSHA, but their PELs were so high, even in a small room, with many people smoking at the same time, OSHA PELs would not even come close to being breached for any of the VOCs in second hand smoke!

Here is the OSHA opinion: \"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standards. . . . It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.\"- Greg Watchman, acting assistant secretary of OSHA, to Leroy J. Pletten, PhD, July 8, 1997.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs. The following excerpt is directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

\"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
\"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published \"danger\" threshold for each of these substances. \"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

\"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published \"danger\" threshold.

\"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

\"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

\"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

\"For Hydroquinone, \"only\" 1250 cigarettes are required.

---------------------------------------------------

This clearly illustrates how chemical companies, who fund and do much of the research regarding \"safe levels\" of environmental chemicals have greatly underestimated the effect low level VOC may have on human health, and how uninformed many toxicologists are regarding low level VOC and human health.

I feel linking second hand smoke research and low level VOC to MCS is the key to making our case in getting MCS recognized as a legitimate medical condition, as well as getting OSHA PELs lowered to more realistic levels. A long and tough road ahead, but this is the way!

Next time a doctor tells you low level VOC simply can't hurt you, ask him if he feels the same way about second hand smoke... Then show him the government/OSHA studies on just how low the VOC in second hand smoke is and ask him to explain his reasoning.

Google: OSHA PEL second hand smoke. A lot of the data you will find has been compiled by \"smokers rights\" groups. Hold your nose, click on the sites and print out the data... A lot of it is well referenced and accurate.

Bottom Line: ANYONE WHO BELIEVES SECOND HAND SMOKE IS HARMFUL, MUST ALSO BELIEVE/CONCEDE LOW LEVEL VOC CAN ALSO BE HARMFUL!

How do you know you were only exposed to low levels of VOCs in your working environment. Did they regularly check the air quality? did you have personal monitoring?
Have any of your colleagues had symptoms?

I only ask because they cannot say you haven't been over exposed without the evidence to the contrary.

Hi Helen,

My employer hired a private Industrial Hygienist to evaluate the drain where the detergent dumps... It's an open circuit \"floor sink\" type drain open to room air. The hygienists' report said \"non detected\" for TVOC (total volatile organic compounds). Problem is... No one who cleans the machines saw hide nor hair of the fellow who was supposed to have done the testing.

In an investigation that took over a year, the truth finally came out. The hygienist had not even shown up when the problem occurs! The machines are cleaned in the evening... The hygienist showed up in the morning, and tried to do some kind of re-creation of the event when no one was looking. He took a snapshot reading with a \"direct read\" hand held device. Turns out he took his reading during the cleaning cycle, BEFORE the detergent dumped to the drain (eye witness statement). The detergent is sealed in the machine during the cleaning cycle, and the vapor comes off the drain after the detergent dump at the end of the cycle.

The eye witness (who's statement was in support of the hygienist) said the amount of VOC the instrument read was \"infinitesimal\" (understandable, as they took the reading at the wrong time!). Still the hygienist failed to document this infinitesimal amount they read in his report. Management doesn't like to see even low level VOC in their reports, and they are the ones who pay the hygienists fee. So... A little (harmless?) fudging went on.

Industrial Hygiene reports are legal documents, and one would think fudging the numbers might be a serious event. Turns out, it's not!

Bottom line is... Don't trust any Industrial Hygiene air study you don't witness with your own eyes... A lot of them may be SHAM SHOWS!