Re: Mycotoxins and Ammonia-

[Guest guest]

Rosie,

I agree with your assessment of 's statement. It started back in

the '50s with the advertising compaign of " Better Living Through

Chemistry " and has continued through to today.

Chemical exposures are particularly troublesome, especially with

frequent or daily use of cleaning products and personal care

products, due to " masking. " Masking could also be called " blocking, "

meaning the bodys normal negative reaction stops despite the

continued harm.

One reason Dr was able to attain statistical

significance for her Quick Environmental Exposure Sensitivity

Inventory (QEESI) when all others failed was because she accounted

for masking.

This is one time when our direct experience with exposure cannot be

solely relied on. For example, those of you who do not detect a

reaction to ammonia may be experiencing " masking. " Therefore, I would

suggest caution with ammonia, a known reactant. Perhaps an occasional

specific use is effective, as with solvents, but I would never

recommend frequent use for any of my clients.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> On Behalf Of erikmoldwarrior

> >>I now use an only an absolute minimum of soap.

> For moderately contaminated clothing, nothing more seems to be

> necessary for me.>>

>

> Same here, my favorite detergent is All Free & Clear (safe for most with

> chemical sensitivities and fragrance free which is healthier4all

> (smiles). For tough stains I like sodium percarbonate (Oxyclean Baby

> Formula).

>

> I refuse to use fabric softeners nor fabric dryer sheets (not healthy

> for most really) and found 'dryer balls " to work well fluffing up the

> towels. To reduce static clean I separate synthetics from cotton, etc.

> Even aluminum foil rolled up into balls will help. I and hubby like

> the scent of pure lavender oil on our bedding and will add a few drops

> while drying.

>

> >>>> The thing that concerns me is that our society has been educated

> >>>> to

> resort to chemicals as solutions. This is so deeply ingrained that

> many people actually think that plug in " air fresheners " create

> healthier air.>>>

>

> ERIK I'm totally impressed with your statement. Am seeing a side of

> you that is refreshingly wonderful! Bravo and I applaud you for being

> concerned about our environment and the indoor safety. I've been

> teaching for decade if not longer to eliminate all " air fresheners "

> etc and teaching people non-toxic lifestyles.

>

> Rosie

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Behalf Of erikmoldwarrior

>>I now use an only an absolute minimum of soap.

For moderately contaminated clothing, nothing more seems to be

necessary for me.>>

Same here, my favorite detergent is All Free & Clear (safe for most with

chemical sensitivities and fragrance free which is healthier4all (smiles).

For tough stains I like sodium percarbonate (Oxyclean Baby Formula).

I refuse to use fabric softeners nor fabric dryer sheets (not healthy for

most really) and found 'dryer balls " to work well fluffing up the towels. To

reduce static clean I separate synthetics from cotton, etc. Even aluminum

foil rolled up into balls will help. I and hubby like the scent of pure

lavender oil on our bedding and will add a few drops while drying.

>>>> The thing that concerns me is that our society has been educated to

resort to chemicals as solutions. This is so deeply ingrained that

many people actually think that plug in " air fresheners " create

healthier air.>>>

ERIK I'm totally impressed with your statement. Am seeing a side of you

that is refreshingly wonderful! Bravo and I applaud you for being concerned

about our environment and the indoor safety. I've been teaching for decade

if not longer to eliminate all " air fresheners " etc and teaching people

non-toxic lifestyles.

Rosie

[Guest guest]

" Carl E. Grimes " < wrote:

Chemical exposures are particularly troublesome, especially with

frequent or daily use of cleaning products and personal care

products, due to " masking. " Masking could also be called " blocking, "

meaning the bodys normal negative reaction stops despite the

continued harm.

One reason Dr was able to attain statistical

significance for her Quick Environmental Exposure Sensitivity

Inventory (QEESI) when all others failed was because she accounted

for masking.

>

This is one time when our direct experience with exposure cannot be

solely relied on.

> Carl Grimes

Carl, mycotoxin " chemical " reactivity is no different.

" Getting clear " by going to a pristine location allows you to perceive

hits from contaminated objects you brought along. When you return to

an zone of ambient contamination which doesn't appear to be " all that

bad " , it is amazing to observe masking in action as the " lesser hits "

you could so clearly feel while out in nature suddenly become

imperceptible.

Once you have seen masking in action, the difficulty in controlling

cross contamination takes a quantum leap in complexity.

It cannot be effectively accomplished without understanding and

compensating for the suppression of the ability to perceive lesser

mold hits.

Masking is so difficult to explain in a way that creates a " workable "

mental model of the effect that it is far easier to just take someone

to a pristine location so they can feel it for themselves by

the " relative shift " in response upon return.

Dr Shoemaker explains the masking response as the ACTH emergency

backup enzyme to the primary MSH response.

It seems to me that when one can set up the conditions to unveil the

masking effect - the very fact that it occurs is an indicator that MSH

has already been depleted - and is a serious warning.

When MSH and ACTH are finally both depleted, all defenses are gone and

that's when people " Hit the Wall " and turn into Universal Reactors.

-