Having problems with message search?
A New Hampshire reporter puts the word out about the dangers of fragrances.
N.H. Smoking ban is only first step.
A Telegraph Column By Joe Konopka
Published: Sunday, February 11, 2007
A Telegraph Column By Joe Konopka
Published: Sunday, February 11, 2007
So then, a new law creating a smoking ban in New Hampshire
Now that passage is a foregone conclusion, it’s only logical to start working on the next phase, which is scent control. For those who don’t know, this is a smoldering problem.
For too long now, individuals who pollute the air with fragrance have discriminated against chemical-sensitive people. These victims need relief. The anti-smoking law is the starting point; it sets the precedent.
Surely, if the government can protect people from tobacco smoke, it can do the same for those who suffer from fragrance harassment. That’s only fair, isn’t it?
Now that passage is a foregone conclusion, it’s only logical to start working on the next phase, which is scent control. For those who don’t know, this is a smoldering problem.
For too long now, individuals who pollute the air with fragrance have discriminated against chemical-sensitive people. These victims need relief. The anti-smoking law is the starting point; it sets the precedent.
Surely, if the government can protect people from tobacco smoke, it can do the same for those who suffer from fragrance harassment. That’s only fair, isn’t it?
Consider for a moment the grief through which chemical-sensitive people go. The sickness from exposure to scents sometimes lasts for days. These effects can be so debilitating that the medical establishment is finally taking multiple-chemical sensitivity seriously. It had previously considered the condition a mental disorder. Now, it’s been recognized and established as an illness under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Allergic reactions, migraines and asthma attacks can be triggered by chemical compositions in scented products. Indeed, the Asthma Society of Canada has listed perfumes as a symptom trigger for asthma. Some studies indicate scents can trigger asthma attacks in 72 percent of sufferers.
Certainly, the problem is being addressed in other vicinities.Halifax , Nova Scotia
Constable Scott Manning, the RCMP officer investigating criminal charges warned him, “If her [the teacher’s] reaction was severe enough, you could actually even look at an assault charge.”
The teenager was stunned. However, charges were dropped after the story became national news inCanada
Regardless, inOttawa City , Ottawa St. John’s , Newfoundland
In theUnited States , the city counsel of Berkley , Calif.
Undoubtedly, some people still may wonder about medical evidence for chemical sensitivity. After all, there’s no direct proof that scented products cause the problems observed in victims. No one can point to a person and say for sure that a specific scented product triggered his or her asthma or allergic attack. The evidence is all statistical and circumstantial, but that’s no longer a disqualifier.
Claims against second-hand tobacco smoke are based on the same type of evidence. Anyone at the Cancer Society can tell you that evidence of its dangers is statistical. No one has ever provided empirical evidence conclusively proving that the death of any one individual was directly caused by second-hand smoke.
Instead, evidence was derived from studies of non-smokers who contracted smoking-related illness while extensively in the presence of someone who did smoke. With no other causation, the conclusion that second-hand smoke is to blame is based on scientific probability. Thus, in all fairness, that standard should be applied to chemical sensitivity.
Unfortunately, some of the same people who ardently pursue a smoking ban are dubious about chemical sensitivity. That may be attributable to the probability that they’re perfume abusers. It’s not so easy accepting responsibility for a health risk when it’s one’s own behavioral preference that must be eliminated.
Nevertheless, how would you like to be the person who goes into a restaurant and gets sick because a perfume abuser is in denial about chemical sensitivity? What about service industry employees who suffer from reactions to fragrance? Shouldn’t they be given the same consideration as those whom we protect from tobacco smoke?
Government should also protect those who walk by perfume counters, those who are victimized by odors of supermarket cleaning-supply isles, those office workers who are forced to tolerate the perfume abuse of their co-workers, and restaurant personnel who must endure combined odors. Aren’t these people entitled to equal protection under the law?
Thanks to the precedent set by the anti-smoking bill andADA ADA
Let’s face the truth. Many airborne elements have the same carcinogenic properties as tobacco smoke. Yet, none spark condemnation more vociferously than tobacco smoke. Why?
Although supporters won’t admit it, I suspect the real reason tobacco smoke is being banned is because it stinks. Then again, if ban proponents really are driven by health concerns, why not be consistent and clear the air completely?
Joe Konopka is a technical writer who lives inHudson
Allergic reactions, migraines and asthma attacks can be triggered by chemical compositions in scented products. Indeed, the Asthma Society of Canada has listed perfumes as a symptom trigger for asthma. Some studies indicate scents can trigger asthma attacks in 72 percent of sufferers.
Certainly, the problem is being addressed in other vicinities.
Constable Scott Manning, the RCMP officer investigating criminal charges warned him, “If her [the teacher’s] reaction was severe enough, you could actually even look at an assault charge.”
The teenager was stunned. However, charges were dropped after the story became national news in
Regardless, in
In the
Undoubtedly, some people still may wonder about medical evidence for chemical sensitivity. After all, there’s no direct proof that scented products cause the problems observed in victims. No one can point to a person and say for sure that a specific scented product triggered his or her asthma or allergic attack. The evidence is all statistical and circumstantial, but that’s no longer a disqualifier.
Claims against second-hand tobacco smoke are based on the same type of evidence. Anyone at the Cancer Society can tell you that evidence of its dangers is statistical. No one has ever provided empirical evidence conclusively proving that the death of any one individual was directly caused by second-hand smoke.
Instead, evidence was derived from studies of non-smokers who contracted smoking-related illness while extensively in the presence of someone who did smoke. With no other causation, the conclusion that second-hand smoke is to blame is based on scientific probability. Thus, in all fairness, that standard should be applied to chemical sensitivity.
Unfortunately, some of the same people who ardently pursue a smoking ban are dubious about chemical sensitivity. That may be attributable to the probability that they’re perfume abusers. It’s not so easy accepting responsibility for a health risk when it’s one’s own behavioral preference that must be eliminated.
Nevertheless, how would you like to be the person who goes into a restaurant and gets sick because a perfume abuser is in denial about chemical sensitivity? What about service industry employees who suffer from reactions to fragrance? Shouldn’t they be given the same consideration as those whom we protect from tobacco smoke?
Government should also protect those who walk by perfume counters, those who are victimized by odors of supermarket cleaning-supply isles, those office workers who are forced to tolerate the perfume abuse of their co-workers, and restaurant personnel who must endure combined odors. Aren’t these people entitled to equal protection under the law?
Thanks to the precedent set by the anti-smoking bill and
Let’s face the truth. Many airborne elements have the same carcinogenic properties as tobacco smoke. Yet, none spark condemnation more vociferously than tobacco smoke. Why?
Although supporters won’t admit it, I suspect the real reason tobacco smoke is being banned is because it stinks. Then again, if ban proponents really are driven by health concerns, why not be consistent and clear the air completely?
Joe Konopka is a technical writer who lives in
Offline 
Send Email