My own struggles with multiple chemical sensitivities led me to purchase Chemical Exposures, hoping to glean some helpful info. There may be helpful info; unfortunately the book is printed on such a toxic paper and/or ink that merely opening it makes me sick. Not much help there for the people who need it most. Too bad.

excellent review of the available data on this difficult subject. Lots of evidence based data and peer reviewed literature is used as the basis of discussion of this controversial subject. Highly recommended although it may also raise more questions that it answers. The authors are highly qualified (Prof at MIT with experience in environmental affairs and practicing MD allergist)

Ashford and Miller don't care what is politically incorrect. They are after facts and facts alone.

When the authors wrote the book they felt that a single case definition of MCS may be premature, if not unscientific. They felt that perhaps MCS is part of a new, poorly-understood mechanism of disease-- in other words, a whole new class of disease.

They accept that some people who react to fragrances may be experiencing a somatization disorder. "Etiologies for these conditions can be wholly physical, wholly psychological, or varying combinations of the two", write Ashford and Miller (pgs. 221-222). But the majority of such sufferers appear to have an actual sensitivity to chemicals. Since MCS sufferers are frequently intolerant of various foods, drugs (medicines), alcohol, and caffeine, they feel that "MCS" is not the best term. They propose the term "Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance" (TILT).

According to authors' research, the bodies of MCS/TILT sufferers become, in essence, addicted to the substances they're intolerant of. Thus, not only do they experience symptoms from exposures to substances they're intolerant of/ sensitive to, but then also from withdrawl from such exposures. It is a truly remarkable aspect of the condition(s?).

The authors thoroughly examine the writings of anti-MCS authors, including Gots (whose 96 work was labeled by the authors as "recycled opinion"). The authors severely criticize the notion that "the dose makes the poison", and make Gots look like an uninformed- or dishonest-- fanatic; and he is.

Ashford and Miller are the ideal for objective scientists. Their rigorous analyses of data in regards to chemical sensitivity are inspiring. They also expose the politics surrounding the MCS "debate", why [biological] recognition has been slow and unjustifiably challenged.

This book is an excellent scientific resource for those who are seriously interested in obtaining [factual] knowledge about chemical sensitivity. If you are one such person and you choose to not own a copy of this book, you will be making a huge mistake.