Toxic Tampons and Fertility Issues

News from 'the Science™' suggests all tampons are contaminated with toxic metal(oids), which, once again, begs the question: who watches the watchers?

Issues related to birth rates, fertility (widely understood), and the impact of ‘modernity’ (also widely conceived) are a recurring theme of these pages.

Today’s posting is no difference, and while that theme remains, hence we shall not mention the unfolding modRNA disaster, ‘other’ products, such as Merck’s HPV jabs or sunscreen products, or social media/dating apps:

The Unbearable Sadness of Online Dating

Instead, today we’ll address yet another golden calf of the past 60 years, namely ‘women’s reproductive health™’.

Come along for this two-part ride, which features a few insights about widely-used products (tampons, to be precise) and the toxic crap they contain, as well as an example of media spin from Norway’s state broadcaster NRK.

As always, non-English content comes to you in my translation; all emphases are mine, if not noted otherwise.

‘Tampons as a source of exposure to metal(loid)s’

The above header is the title of a recent study by Jenni A. Shearston et al. that appeared a short time ago in Environment International 190, Aug. 2024 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108849). It’s available fully online, and I shall delimit myself to citing a few choice passages.

Highlights

• 16 metal(loid)s were evaluated in different kinds of tampons.

• Several toxic metals, including lead, were detected.

• Tampon use is a potential source of exposure to metals in menstruating people [sigh; only women menstruate, you moron].

• The highest concentration was found for zinc (geometric mean = 52,000 ng/g)

• A geometric mean lead concentration of 120 ng/g was found in our samples.

As if this isn’t bad enough, here’s more from the ‘background’ section:

Between 52–86% of people who menstruate in the United States use tampons—cotton and/or rayon/viscose ‘plugs’—to absorb menstrual blood in the vagina [if the wokefied nonsense would be consistently applied, that would be a ‘bonus hole’]. Tampons may contain metals from agricultural or manufacturing processes, which could be absorbed by the vagina’s highly absorptive tissue, resulting in systemic exposure. To our knowledge, no previous studies have measured metals in tampons [oh, look, another one of these ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ issues: what a ‘surprise’].

Methods

About 0.2–0.3 g from each tampon (n = 60 samples) were microwave-acid digested and analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) to determine concentrations of arsenic, barium, calcium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, mercury, nickel, lead, selenium, strontium, vanadium, and zinc [that’s quite a list of stuff you don’t wish to ingest, to say nothing about having stuck in your vagina for hours]. We compared concentrations by several tampon characteristics (region of purchase, organic material, brand type) using median quantile mixed models.

Results

We found measurable concentrations of all 16 metals assessed. We detected concentrations of several toxic metals, including elevated mean concentrations of lead (geometric mean [GM] = 120 ng/g), cadmium (GM = 6.74 ng/g), and arsenic (GM = 2.56 ng/g). Metal concentrations differed by region of tampon purchase (US versus European Union/United Kingdom), by organic versus non-organic material, and for store-versus name-brand tampons. Most metals differed by organic status; lead concentrations were higher in non-organic tampons while arsenic was higher in organic tampons. No categoriy had consistently lower concentrations of all or most metals.

Let that sink in. And then read on the below paragraphs from the ‘discussion’:

We detected all 16 metals in at least one sampled tampon, including some toxic metals like lead that has no ‘safe’ exposure level…

Metal concentrations in tampons

All of the metals we assessed were present in quantifiable concentrations in tampons (Table 2). For 12 out of the 16 metals, we found concentrations greater than the MDL in 100 % of tampon samples. For Hg, Cr, As, and Se, we found concentrations above the MDL in 8.3 %, 10 %, 95 %, and 98.3 % of tampon samples, respectively (Table 2). Concentrations varied substantially across metals. We found the highest concentrations for Zn (GM = 52,000 ng/g, GSD = 1.93 ng/g) and Ca (GM = 39,000 ng/g, GSD = 2.17 ng/g), and the lowest concentrations for As (GM = 2.56 ng/g, GSD = 2.02 ng/g) (Table 2 and Fig. 2). Several toxic metals were detectable in all tampon samples, including As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and V. Among these, Pb [lead] had the highest concentration with a GM of 120 ng/g (GSD = 2.24 ng/g) (Fig. 2). We also observed substantial variation across metal concentrations in tampons from different brand-product-line-absorbency combinations (Supplemental Table S4). For example, tampons from Brand D had higher As concentrations but lower Pb concentrations, compared to the GM for all brands. Many metals were moderately correlated with each other, while Fe was strongly correlated (>0.8) with Ca and V, and Zn was strongly correlated with Cd (Fig. 3).

And here’s the concluding paragraph:

To our knowledge, our study is the first to assess concentrations of metals in tampons [if true, why do we, the people, fund regulatory agencies?], despite the potential for substantial vaginal absorption of metals and the widespread and frequent use of tampons among menstruators [sic; also, that term looks and feels quite male to me]. We found measurable concentrations of all 16 metals assessed, including the toxic metals Pb ([lead] GM = 120 ng/g), Cd ([cadmium] GM = 6.74 ng/g), and As ([arsenic] GM = 2.56 ng/g). We also found elevated concentrations of Ca ([calcium] GM = 39,000 ng/g) and Zn ([zinc] GM = 52,000 ng/g) in tampons. Future research is necessary to replicate our findings and determine whether metals can leach out of tampons and cross the vaginal epithelium into systemic circulation. Our findings point towards the need for regulations requiring the testing of metals in tampons by manufacturers [see what I mean? Apparently, ‘our’ regulatory agencies haven’t required testing by the manufacturers]. This is especially important considering that we found measurable quantities of several toxic metals, including Pb [lead], which has no known ‘safe’ exposure level.

I encourage you all to read and share the linked content, esp. if you’re a parent whose daughters are (considering) using tampons.

[The above image accompanies the study (source)] Fig. 1. A tampon separated into its components, including the (A) non-woven outer covering, (B) withdrawal string, (C) inner absorbent core, (D) applicator, and (E) wrapper.

Even though I’m convinced that the most logical alternative—menstrual pads—haven’t been subjected to rigorous testing, I’d argue they are probably much better in terms of safety due to the way they are used (i.e., they don’t spend hours inside a menstruating woman’s vagina).

---

New study: Found toxic metals in tampons

American researchers analysed tampons purchased in the EU, UK and US. They found toxic metals such as lead and cadmium in all of them.

By Ingvill Dybfest Dahl, NRK, 10/11 July 2024 [source]

In all 60 samples tested, the researchers found 14 out of 16 metals they tested for. They found toxic metals in all of them.

I was surprised that we found lead in every single tampon we tested!

So says researcher Jenni A. Shearston of the University of California at Berkeley to NRK, adding:

The fact that we found lead was also what worried me the most, because there is no safe level of exposure to lead.

Little research

Shearston is the lead author of the recent study. She works at the Department of Public Health at the University of California Berkeley.

The researcher says that as far as the research team knows, this is the first study on metals in tampons:

Despite the great potential for public health risk, very little research has been done measuring chemicals in tampons.

The report states that between 52-86% of menstruating women [see, woke-ism isn’t that wide-spread in Norway] in the US use tampons.

Found all the metals

KK and VG have previously written that around 70% of menstruating women in the USA and Western Europe use tampons. They cite the Norwegian Institute of Public Health as their source.

According to the news story on UC Berkeley’s website, researchers tested tampons from brands that potentially millions of people use every month.

The researchers do not name the brands, but they tested tampons from 14 different tampon brands that they describe as ‘very common’ and ‘best-selling’.

Out of a total of 30 tampon types, 3 were purchased in the UK and EU.

Sherston tells NRK that there are several reasons why they cannot disclose brand names. She believes the most important thing is how consistent the results were across the brands [translated from academese: it doesn’t matter which brand you buy, they’re all contaminated].

‘We found traceable amounts of all the metals we tested for, including toxic metals such as arsenic and lead’, emphasises the researcher.

‘Something you definitely don’t want to get into your body’

Physician Anne-Lise Bjørke Monsen has seen the news about the study and says it is interesting:

Cadmium, lead and arsenic are toxic, and it takes very little to cause health damage.

All of these [metals] have known negative health effects and are something you definitely don't want to get into your body. All levels of lead are dangerous to ingest.

Monsen is also a specialist in medical biochemistry and a board member of the interest group Environmental Toxins and Public Health.

Don’t know if the metals get into the one’s body via the vagina

The doctor emphasises that we still do not know whether the metals found in the tampons are harmful to health:

This will depend on whether the metal(oids) leak out of the tampon during use. And also whether they are absorbed by the mucous membrane of the vagina and enter the bloodstream [well, given that we’ve phased out, e.g., lead in paint and gasoline for precisely the reason of absorption via mucous tissues in the lungs and mouth area, I consider this ‘hedging’ strongly misleading].

Lead author Jenni A. Shearston also emphasises this when asked by NRK: can we say that one type of tampon is safer than another?

We can only state that there were different amounts of metals in the different tampons. We don’t yet know whether the metals can leak out and be absorbed by the body [I call you, dear Jenni Shearston, a coward].

‘Time to break the taboo’

A major obstacle in assessing possible health risks is the lack of studies on how the lining of the vagina absorbs chemicals [fair point, but lest we forget, the vagina isn’t the only mucous membrane in the human body, and there’s a million reasons why e.g., toys aren’t coated in lead paint, eh…also: good luck trying to study that kind of exposure].

‘We definitely need more research in this very understudied area. Especially because it can affect millions of people’, says Shearston [again: we learn by comparisons, such as from this paper entitled ‘Comparative permeability of human vaginal and buccal mucosa to water’, which holds that ‘vaginal mucosa is histologically similar…oral human mucosa’ suggests, as so often these days, that Ms. Shearston is both a grifter and spouting misinformation, or: ‘the Science™’ at work].

The public health researcher points out that menstruation in general has historically been taboo. According to her, this has contributed to a lack of scientific research in the area [this is how ‘the Science™’ works: by deflecting from the issue, which is, once again, mucous membranes and their potential to take up toxic metals, not mentruation].

‘Now it’s time to break the taboo and start talking about and studying menstruation and menstrual products’, says Shearston [the one and only taboo that needs breaking is your omertà: you know which tampons are more toxic than others, but for ‘whatever’ reason, you refuse to tell the public: why?].

She believes it is very important to study this further [grifters of the world, unit]. Both to find out what chemicals are found in menstrual products and whether they pose any health risks.

Lack of regulations

Another challenge is the lack of regulations for feminine hygiene products.

The report states that the US, the UK, and the EU have few regulations on tampons, and none of them require regular testing [I’m reproducing this section for the sake of complete-ness, but do note that, like with Plotkin’s admission that these same regulatory (sic) agencies have not done any safety testing for injectable products, we’re led to believe that this would be different from, say, tampons? Well, I’ve got a bunch of bridges to sell to you, too, but note that the below section is perhaps even more disingenuous than the above information as it is based on the premise that we should now require the regulators to conduct ‘studies™’ and do ‘testing™’ as if that would change anything (regulators haven’t done their job in the past, but they now will do so in the future? Come over here, I’ll have bridges to see…)]

According to the Norwegian Environment Agency, tampons are regulated by the Product Control Act. The European chemicals regulation REACH also applies in Norway.

However, there is currently no legislation, either in Norway or the EU, specifically for tampons.

Those who sell such products are responsible for ensuring that they do not contain hazardous substances.

This is according to Ingunn Correll Myhre, acting head of the chemicals section at the Norwegian Environment Agency [see what I mean? ‘Those who sell such products’ haven’t been doing that, and I think this was done with the full, if tacit, support of the regulators].

Encourages people to buy the ecolabel

‘We generally encourage consumers to buy products that are ecolabelled’, says Myhre.

The Nordic Swan Ecolabel is the official ecolabel in the Nordic region. It is administered by Ecolabelling Norway, which also manages the EU Ecolabel in Norway.

‘The ecolabel is currently a voluntary scheme. When we develop requirements, it’s the manufacturers who test, not us’, says Nina Margareta Høie, press officer for the Nordic Swan Ecolabel [do you see it yet? If not, I’ll remind you of the modRNA products].

To be awarded the Nordic Swan Ecolabel, Ecolabelling Norway sets requirements for the production of raw materials and requirements for chemicals and additives in production and products [which the Norwegian regulators then don’t enforce, even if they existed].

Høie states that they also make inspection visits to factories and guarantee [how?] that the manufacturer complies with Nordic Ecolabelling requirements:

There are no regulations on what tampons can contain. But they are close to the skin, even inside our bodies. That’s why it’s particularly important to avoid chemicals that are harmful to health in these products.

In 2020, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) carried out a major test of tampons and analysed dioxins in them, among other things.

NRK has been in contact with the Consumer Council [Forbrukerrådet] and asked what they think about the lack of labelling on tampons. Due to holidays, they refer to the Norwegian Environment Agency [surprise].

NRK has also contacted the Norwegian Institute of Public Health with questions about menstruation and tampon use, but their expert in the field is on holiday [call me a cynic, but that’s why this story is running now and not when people are back from their vacations].

---

Bottom Lines

Another day and topic, another example of gaslighting and misinformation, courtesy of ‘the Science™’ and legacy media.

So far, nothing new under the sun.

Yet, as I’ve detailed in these pages time and again, the main problem is twofold:

‘The Science™’ isn’t doing stuff because it would require action on part of the ‘the Regulators™’.

So, politicos and journos don’t ask researchers because all of them are afraid of Big Business coming after them.

Hence the continued need for doing one’s own research.

Oh, and if you have teenage daughters, please advise them to use menstruation pads instead; while there’s no research on them either (and I’m pretty sure that their contents are in about the same ballpark as tampons in terms of metals as they’re also manufactured by the same companies), at least they remain outside a woman’s vagina.

Stay vigilant.