I wish I could feel surprise and outrage, which would be the correct reaction, but all I feel is: "Yeah, we know".
How come? Because of how rules (the concept of) works.
For clothing, one set of rules with a stricter subset for children's clothing. For surgical equipment (compresses and bandages f.e.), another ruleset. And so on.
Tampons, pads, et cetera are neither clothing, surgical/medical eq. or food or anything else, and as most products, the contents are therefore unregulated, and not checked but simply assumed to be safe for use.
I can give an example from over here:
Food and what may be put in it is tightly regulated. But is all imported food checked? No. Random spot checks may be carried out, managing to check maybe 1/100 000 goods. Also, medicines and anything claiming a medicinal effect are tightly regulated - but not homeopathic stuff or other hippie-things. Meaning you can use waste from slaughterhouses when producing various supplements, as the supplements don't counts as food or medicine.
Or seatbelts in buses here. It is assumed the private public transport company keeps the seatbelts and other safety features up to regs. Assumed. No checks are carried out, at all.
Speaking of things that go in the body: tattoos. The preservative used for tattoo-inks? The same Mercury-isotope used in vaccines before the 1990s, but in several magnitudes greater quantities. It is assumed it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier, or in other ways affect the tattooed person negatively.
Your point about tattoo ink is very well taken, indeed, and it is a big thing, I'd think. Given that all healthcare professionals I know are, well, kinda schadenfroh about tattooed people getting an MRI (because the ink is apparently metallic, which renders tattoos pain-inducing in the machine), it's perfectly obvious. I doubt that any 'regulation' is performed that differs from the tampons.
Your larger point about the 'assumed', or 'presumed', nature of how such things work is well taken, too. The West once used to be a high-trust society but these days…well, what can we say?
Thank you for this article. I think it would be very difficult to persuade tampon users to revert to pads, although I realise the modern ones are nothing like those large ear muffs of yesteryear! The fact that there is no regulation is appalling for intimate products and questions need to be asked of how do these toxins actually get into them in the first place.
So, the question is: is this intentional or is this incidental or might this be because our environment is so polluted that it's unavoidable?
Given that it's quite likely possible to manufacture these things without metal(oids), it seems intentional because doing so might cost a few cents less than not doing it.
I recall that in the context of the VW 'Dieselgate', it was the same issue with the more expensive cars (selling at +80K): to get emissions down, some additive called 'AdBlue' (in Europe) would have to be added; it costs some 50 bucks to add that tank, which designers didn't want to include…
Interesting that organic cotton tampons were contaminated as well. That surprised me, but I suppose our environment is so polluted that it even if you do not deliberately spray your plants with chemicals, they still end up contaminated.
As for pads vs. tampons: you're likely correct that pads are the safer option. That said, when I switched from pads to tampons as a teenager, it was a massive boost to my quality of life. (Although I still use pads at night.) I don't suppose you remember what it's like to walk around with a diaper (I don't - heh), so you probably cannot quite relate. ;-)
Well, let's get the most important 'disclaimer' out of the way: as a man, I literally don't know anything about these items.
Your co-incidence argument is a fair one; the same happens with one farmer using GMO seeds and his neighbour didn't, but the latter's field is still contaminated.
Thank you for drawing attention to this topic. And well, yes should go for anything being inserted as it were, whether condoms, lubricants, toys… lots of rubbish when it comes to plastics and chemicals and hardly regulated.
I wish I could feel surprise and outrage, which would be the correct reaction, but all I feel is: "Yeah, we know".
How come? Because of how rules (the concept of) works.
For clothing, one set of rules with a stricter subset for children's clothing. For surgical equipment (compresses and bandages f.e.), another ruleset. And so on.
Tampons, pads, et cetera are neither clothing, surgical/medical eq. or food or anything else, and as most products, the contents are therefore unregulated, and not checked but simply assumed to be safe for use.
I can give an example from over here:
Food and what may be put in it is tightly regulated. But is all imported food checked? No. Random spot checks may be carried out, managing to check maybe 1/100 000 goods. Also, medicines and anything claiming a medicinal effect are tightly regulated - but not homeopathic stuff or other hippie-things. Meaning you can use waste from slaughterhouses when producing various supplements, as the supplements don't counts as food or medicine.
Or seatbelts in buses here. It is assumed the private public transport company keeps the seatbelts and other safety features up to regs. Assumed. No checks are carried out, at all.
Speaking of things that go in the body: tattoos. The preservative used for tattoo-inks? The same Mercury-isotope used in vaccines before the 1990s, but in several magnitudes greater quantities. It is assumed it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier, or in other ways affect the tattooed person negatively.
Your point about tattoo ink is very well taken, indeed, and it is a big thing, I'd think. Given that all healthcare professionals I know are, well, kinda schadenfroh about tattooed people getting an MRI (because the ink is apparently metallic, which renders tattoos pain-inducing in the machine), it's perfectly obvious. I doubt that any 'regulation' is performed that differs from the tampons.
Your larger point about the 'assumed', or 'presumed', nature of how such things work is well taken, too. The West once used to be a high-trust society but these days…well, what can we say?
Thank you for this article. I think it would be very difficult to persuade tampon users to revert to pads, although I realise the modern ones are nothing like those large ear muffs of yesteryear! The fact that there is no regulation is appalling for intimate products and questions need to be asked of how do these toxins actually get into them in the first place.
So, the question is: is this intentional or is this incidental or might this be because our environment is so polluted that it's unavoidable?
Given that it's quite likely possible to manufacture these things without metal(oids), it seems intentional because doing so might cost a few cents less than not doing it.
I recall that in the context of the VW 'Dieselgate', it was the same issue with the more expensive cars (selling at +80K): to get emissions down, some additive called 'AdBlue' (in Europe) would have to be added; it costs some 50 bucks to add that tank, which designers didn't want to include…
I've become very sceptical over the last few years and would concur with your view. Profits über alles!
Interesting that organic cotton tampons were contaminated as well. That surprised me, but I suppose our environment is so polluted that it even if you do not deliberately spray your plants with chemicals, they still end up contaminated.
As for pads vs. tampons: you're likely correct that pads are the safer option. That said, when I switched from pads to tampons as a teenager, it was a massive boost to my quality of life. (Although I still use pads at night.) I don't suppose you remember what it's like to walk around with a diaper (I don't - heh), so you probably cannot quite relate. ;-)
Well, let's get the most important 'disclaimer' out of the way: as a man, I literally don't know anything about these items.
Your co-incidence argument is a fair one; the same happens with one farmer using GMO seeds and his neighbour didn't, but the latter's field is still contaminated.
Thank you for drawing attention to this topic. And well, yes should go for anything being inserted as it were, whether condoms, lubricants, toys… lots of rubbish when it comes to plastics and chemicals and hardly regulated.
And I suppose foodstuffs, too. Sigh.
Gosh yes! …and anything going on the skin. Almost like we are being used merely for profits hey ;)
Except for the PCR 'test' swabs, which were also unlawful.