UK Royalty and MCS

During World War II, gas masks were issued to all British citizens, including the royal family, in preparation for potential chemical attacks. While there are no verified photographs of King George VI or Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) wearing gas masks, historical accounts confirm that the royals received the same protective equipment as the general public. This reflected their commitment to sharing the risks faced by civilians, exemplified by their visits to bombed areas during the Blitz. The royal family was determined to show solidarity with the people, even in periods of such grave danger.

Interestingly,… children’s gas masks were affectionately nicknamed “Mickey Mouse” masks. This was done to make them less intimidating to young children, which, in hindsight, is a bit ironic. Imagine the reassurance: “Don’t worry, kids—if there’s a gas attack, at least you’ll look like a cartoon character!” It’s a curious mix of practicality and morale-boosting, typical of wartime efforts to keep spirits high in the face of such daunting threats.

Switching gears to something just as serious, but not nearly as whimsical: toxicology and its often mind-boggling doses. The term LD50, Lethal Dose 50, is a measure used in toxicology to describe the amount of a substance required to kill 50% of a population of test subjects—usually lab rats. For example, the LD50 of cyanide is about 10 mg/kg, which reflects its high toxicity, while water has an LD50 of over 90,000 mg/kg, showing just how safe it is in normal amounts. The point? People react to toxins differently, and there’s always a spectrum of effects from mild discomfort to fatality. Think of it like this: there’s a dose of car exhaust that’s lethal to everyone, a dose large enough to make half the people sick, and one that leaves the other half perfectly fine. Our bodies each have different tolerance levels.

This brings us to synthetic chemical allergies, a condition where people experience severe symptoms from exposure to low levels of chemicals that wouldn’t typically affect others. For MCS patients, something as harmless as a fragrance or a cleaning product can trigger intense reactions. But the thing is, while MCS patients are more sensitive, large enough doses of chemicals will make anyone sick. It’s a bit like the royal family’s approach to gas masks: everyone gets their share of risk, but some people are just more sensitive to it.

In fact, studies have shown that MCS is linked to heightened mast cell activity and increased oxidative stress—two physiological responses that are distinct from the kind of acute toxicity you see in standard toxicology tests. This is why conventional toxicology doesn’t always account for the challenges faced by MCS individuals, whose bodies react in unique ways to low-dose exposures. It’s a reminder that in the world of chemicals, one size does not fit all. Some of us are just more likely to be caught in the first wave of symptoms in the world of toxicology. Remember: it’s not the size of the dose, but how royally you react to it. Some of us take a full dose of chlorine gas; others, just a spritz of perfume, and we’re down for the count!

1. Karvala, K., et al. “Work-Related Sensitization and Symptoms Caused by Chemicals: A Clinical and Immunological Study.” Occupational Medicine, vol. 68, no. 5, 2018, pp. 321–328.
2. Sears, M. E. “The Medical Perspective on Environmental Sensitivities.” Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2007.
3. Belpomme, D., et al. “The Metabolic and Genetic Bases of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS): Preliminary Results of a Prospective Study.” Toxicology Letters, vol. 196, no. 1, 2010, pp. 51–58.
4. Miller, C. S., and J. J. Prihoda. “The Environmental and Genetic Basis of Chemical Intolerance.” Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 14, no. 3, 1998, pp. 577–588.
5. Nordin, S., et al. “Sensory Hyperreactivity: A Psychophysical Study of Perceptions and Discomfort in Chemical Sensitivity.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 115, no. 4, 2007, pp. 623–627.
6. Meggs, W. J., et al. “Neurogenic Inflammation and Sensitivity to Environmental Chemicals.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 107, 1999, pp. 791–796.
7. Staudenmayer, H., et al. “Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Part 1: A Causal Model.” Toxicology Reviews, vol. 22, no. 4, 2003, pp. 235–246.
8. Ross, G. H. “Treatment Options in Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.” Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 14, no. 3, 1998, pp. 589–609.
9. Pall, M. L. “Elevated Nitric Oxide/Peroxynitrite Mechanism for the Cause of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity.” Toxicology, vol. 179, 2002, pp. 55–68.
10. Heuser, G., and P. Wojdani. “Immunological and Biological Effects of Chemical Exposure in MCS Patients.” Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 114, no. 2, 2003, pp. 289–296.