Letters: Trial and error in solving allergy mysteries

Thanks for the article on food allergies [“My Turn: Food allergies are answer to medical mystery,” April 5].

I’ve been suffering from spontaneous hives for the past 10 years. I take a very powerful antihistamine, which helps, but what I’ve found to be at the root of this problem is severe allergy to palm oil and sunflower oil, which are added to food and cosmetic products.

Many years of wandering aimlessly in the grip of the knowledgeable medical profession wasn’t too helpful — except for needing my prescription filled for my antihistamine. The doctors tried: It’s just that their methods are not geared up to help people on the fringes of medical frustration.

Gary Morris

Albuquerque

•

Many years ago, I began having symptoms of an inner ear infection and skin sensitivities. I was already seeing an allergist and told her of my symptoms. The skin on the right side of my face was red and hot; the skin on the inner side of my arm was so sensitive I couldn’t stand to have even clothing touch it.

After testing for trees, cats, dogs, grasses, etc., which showed only slight allergies, she removed dairy products from my diet for two weeks. There was no change.

Next, because it is so difficult to remove wheat (gluten) from the diet, she chose to remove corn products. That too was not so easy because almost all cereals and soft drinks have huge amounts of high fructose corn syrup. But I persevered.

After just one week without corn, the symptoms went away. I tested the theory by eating some popcorn. The symptoms returned.

Patricia Braddy

Little Rock, Ark.

Other views on smoking outdoors

Secondhand smoke isn’t the main reason for banning smoking at outdoor venues, in my mind [“Outdoor Smoking Bans: Jury Is Still Out,” April 5].

One of the main reasons for banning smoking on beaches and in parks is not so much for the exposure to secondhand smoke as it is for the billions of cigarette butts and filters that end up in the playgrounds, on the beaches and in the ocean. They are toxic to fish and other living creatures.

You might want to check out the data from the Orange County beach cleanups done by Earth Resources — the No. 1 item they pick up off our beaches is cigarette butts.

Smokers who now treat outdoor spaces as public ashtrays may reconsider their behavior when they learn that cigarette butts are made of plastic, not of cotton and paper, and worse, that cigarette butts contain chemicals that can kill some of the animals that occupy critical positions in aquatic communities. It is important that smokers’ littering behavior be modified to decrease this source of pollution.

So would an outdoor smoking ban save lives? It would, if you are talking about the lives of sea creatures and small animals that might die from eating them or swimming in water that has been contaminated by the leeching of their chemicals. Or the children who might pick them up in parks and put them in their mouths.

Linda Kearns

Costa Mesa

•

The article on secondhand smoke from cigarettes also needed to mention secondhand smoke from wood-burning fireplaces. In cold weather it is pretty widespread and increasingly obnoxious. One fireplace can foul up the air in a wide circle around, especially on a windless night. It is unpleasant and unhealthy to take an evening walk in the smoke.

Dan Kraus

Thousand Oaks

•

Of course all smoking should be banned in all public places for the sake of all of us. The idea that we are even debating this is baffling!

Unless, of course, the state is more worried about pulling in less from the tobacco sales taxes. When taxes are valued higher than health, it’s a sad situation.

In the age of wanting and needing lower health insurance costs, banning smoking should be our obvious first goal.

Birgitta Lauren

Beverly Hills

•

Without any scientific evidence or support, the smoke Nazis want to take away the liberty of others. My uncle in San Francisco had the police called on him because his neighbor complained he was smoking in his own home! This will be challenged in court. And sadly, when this civil rights issue is decided, the taxpayers will eat it again.

Steve Ferrera

Crestline

•

Smoking cigarettes remains a legal activity. Smoking is already banned in almost every indoor space in the state, save private homes (and that will not last long) and maybe casinos. Prohibiting the sale, possession and use of tobacco products is not likely to go over well in the state, so what is one to do? The harassment of people doing something that is legal, and provides much-needed tax revenue to the state, must continue!

Perhaps California legislators should reexamine all the public conduct laws, not just the ones pertaining to smoking in the open air. Maybe, with all the free time and extra money that California has, they should see if a ban on stupid haircuts can be enforced. Maybe noisy, smoke-belching cars and motorcycles. These are easy to find, but oddly enough, almost never removed from the road despite being in violation of the law.

What about the visual pollution of people wearing too little, too tight clothing in public?

Just wait until pot is legal. You will be able to smoke marijuana anywhere you want to, but not tobacco. Go figure.

Brian Reilly

Destin, Fla.

Letters to the editor highlights selected reader comments on recently published articles.

All submissions are subject to editing and condensation and become the property of The Times.

Please e-mail health@latimes.com.