Give em a break guys.
Whether there is or is not "contamination" is not the argument in this case nor do I have a view one way or the other on it.. .That will be for the experts to decide.
But you have to see the companies side as well.. .They have a duty of care to their staff. . .If certain members of their staff raise concerns about their personal health in relation to a given workplace situation and are adamant that continued operation therein will continue to prejudice their health, then if they have no other suitable alternative work available for them, their position becomes redundant or they must be put on sick leave whilst it is investigated.
They would be negligent in the extreme if they ignored an employees claim that they were being made to work in conditions deleterious to their health.
If the company determines that the conditions are acceptable then they have no other alternative but to remove the employee from the place that the employee alleges is causing the problem. . .Impute whatever other motives you might, but that is the bones of it.
On the other side of the coin, the company has a duty at large to satisfy itself in all and any reasonable ways that the workplace is safe. Until that becomes otherwise the above must apply.
As a bit of context, my youngest child (19) has severe eczema and is in the top 5% of that population, sufficiently bad that occasionally he has to take the same anti rejection drugs used in transplant surgery. He is improving and will, we hope sooner than later, be able to live a relatively normal life. But he does have to be careful of his environment and there are occupations that will not be available to him whether he likes it or not. . .So what, well everybody in the world has different reactions to different environments, it's called life. . .If he starts a job and finds after time that that environment is not good for him, why should the employer carry the can.. .An extreme example perhaps, valid nonetheless.
An employer recognising that circumstance and moving to protect the worker and itself, does not, ipso facto, admit that the workplace is unsafe for everybody else.