Ladies Beware


Warndalyn

Warndalyn

Postmaster General!!!
I know this is very long and I apologize, but due to my lack of technological expertise, I couldn't locate a link to post it to.

Anyway, very valuable information for us that I just received via email. I did not know this....Please read.


Check the labels of the sanitary pads or tampons that you
> are going to buy
> the next time, and see whether you spot any of the
> familiar signs stated in
> this e-mail. No wonder so many women in the world suffer
> from cervical
> cancer and womb tumors. Have you heard that tampon makers
> include asbestos
> in tampons? Why would they do this? Because asbestos
> makes you bleed more,
> if you bleed more, you're going to need to use more. Why
> isn't this against
> the law since asbestos is so dangerous? Because the
> powers that be, in all
> their wisdom (not), did not consider tampons as being
> ingested, and
> therefore wasn't illegal or considered dangerous.
>
> This month's Essence magazine has a small article about
> this and they
> mention two manufacturers of a cotton tampon alternative.
> The companies are
> Organic Essentials @(800)765-6491 and Terra Femme
> @(800)755-0212.
>
> A woman getting her Ph.D. at University of Colorado at
> Boulder sent the
> following: "I am writing this because women are not being
> informed about the
> dangers of something most of us use: tampons. I am taking
> a class this month
> and I have been learning a lot about biology and woman,
> including much about
> feminine hygiene. Recently we have learned that tampons
> are actually
> dangerous (for other reasons than TSS). I'll tell you
> this, after learning
> about this in our class, most of the females wound up
> feeling angry and
> upset with the tampon industry, and I for one, am going
> to do something
> about it.
>
> To start, I want to inform everyone I can, and e-mail is
> the fastest way
> that I know how.
> Tampons contain two things that are potentially harmful:
> Rayon (for
> absorbency), and dioxin (a chemical used in bleaching the
> products). The
> tampon industry is convinced that we, as women, need
> bleached white products
> in order to view the product as pure and clean. The
> problem here is that the
> dioxin produced in this bleaching process can lead to
> very harmful problems
> for a woman. Dioxin is potentially carcinogenic
> (cancer-associated) and is
> toxic to the immune and reproductive systems. It has also
> been linked to
> endometriosis and lower sperm counts for men. For both,
> it breaks down the
> immune system.
>
> Last September the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
> reported that there
> really is no set "acceptable" level of exposure to dioxin
> given that it is
> cumulative and slow to disintegrate. The real danger
> comes from repeated
> contact (Karen Houppert "Pulling the Plug on the Tampon
> Industry").
>
> I'd say using about 4-5 tampons a day, five days a month,
> for 38
> menstruating years is "repeated contact", wouldn't' you?
> Rayon contributes
> to the danger of tampons and dioxin because it is a
> highly absorbent
> substance.
>
> Therefore, when fibers from the tampons are left behind
> in the vagina (as it
> usually occurs), it creates a breeding ground for the
> dioxin. It also stays
> in a lot longer than it would with just cotton tampons.
> This is also the
> reason why TSS(toxic shock syndrome) occurs.
>
> WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?
> Using feminine hygiene products that aren't bleached and
> that are all
> cotton. Other feminine hygiene products (pads/napkins)
> contain dioxin as
> well, but they are not nearly as dangerous since they are
> not in direct
> contact with the vagina. The pads/napkins need to stop
> being bleached, but
> obviously tampons are the most dangerous. So, what can
> you do if you can't
> give up using tampons? Use tampons, that are made from
> 100% cotton, and that
> are UNBLEACHED.
>
> Unfortunately, there are very few companies that make
> these safe tampons.
> They are usually only found in health food stores.
> Countries all over the
> world (Sweden, Germany, British Columbia, etc.) have
> demanded a switch to
> this safer tampon,while the U.S. has decided to keep us
> in the dark about
> it. In 1989, activists in England mounted a campaign
> against chlorine
> bleaching. Six weeks and 50,000 letters later, the makers
> of sanitary
> products switched to oxygen bleaching (one of the green
> methods available).
> (MS Magazine, May/June 1995).
>
> WHAT TO DO NOW: Tell people. Everyone. Inform them. We
> are being manipulated
> by this industry and the government, let's do something
> about it!
>
> Please write to the companies: Tampax (Tambrands),
> Playtex, O.B., Kotex.
> Call the 800 numbers listed on the boxes. Let them know
> that we demand a
> safe product - ALL COTTON UNBLEACHED TAMPONS.
> Reminder: P.S. In order not to lose the impact of this
> mail, it is suggested
> that anyone who want to forward to your friends, PLEASE
> copy this mail and
> paste to a NEW message. That way it will not distort the
> whole message with
> all the forward arrows. Please do this with consideration
> and seriousness.
> Get more involved.
 



Before posting forwarded emails

No disrespect to ya, DTown, but allow me to spread a lil Internet wisdom: most forwards are false! And you can usually find out by searching on it on the 'Net.

But a site I love to go to for debunking email forwards has put together info on this forward to prove it's false. The site is called Urban Legends And Folklores and you can click to the debunking info about this site by clicking here.

Guess it's better to be safe than sorry, but I really hope rumors don't have us running scared.
 
Don't believe the hype....

Claim: Tampon manufacturers use asbestos in their products to promote bleeding.

Status: False

Origins: This mish-mash of claims began circulating on the Internet in the summer of 1998. It is usually attributed to "Donna C. Boisseau", who may or may not be a real person but who this missive makes out to be the "woman getting her Ph.D. at University of Colorado @ Boulder" who supposedly researched the information and is now sounding the alarm over her findings.

Two other names have been dragged into the fray by those looking to attribute claims made in the e-mail to an authoritative figure: Stephanie Baker and Dr. Benita S. Katzenellenbogen of the Molecular and Integrative Physiology department of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Neither of them vets the information presented in the Boisseau e-mail, and how their names came to be associated with it is explained on Dr. Katzenellenbogen's web page denial of involvement. In a nutshell, Baker (Katzenellenbogen's assistant) foolishly forwarded the e-mail to others, unaware that her signature block linking her to a respected figure in the field of cell and structural biology remained in place, and that this action made it look like the doctor she worked for had verified and supported what this Boisseau warning had to say. The doctor, of course, had no knowledge of any of this until her assistant began to be deluged with phone calls and e-mails about the matter.

(Information about Dr. Katzenellenbogen and her area of expertise can be found on her web page.)

Moving beyond the question this e-mailed scare's history, we shift to a discussion of the claims made in the missive. I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a safe tampon -- all the demanding in the world isn't going to change that, so the clarion cry of "Tell everyone to write to the companies," while stirring, is also naive. All-cotton unbleached tampons still leave the user at risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome, a fact calls to arms like this one gloss over.

There is some truth in the scare, but a lot a misinformation is mixed in around it. Let's separate the wheat from the chaff.

This e-mailed warning contains a number of claims about the dangers presented by American-made tampons. The worst of them is the one we can dismiss outright -- there's no truth to the notion of tampon manufacturers putting asbestos in their products to promote bleeding. According to a 23 July 1999 statement by the FDA:


FDA has no evidence of asbestos in tampons or any reports regarding increased menstrual bleeding following tampon use.
Before any tampon is marketed in the U.S., FDA reviews its design and materials. Asbestos is not an ingredient in any U.S. brand of tampon, nor is it associated with the fibers used in making tampons. Moreover, tampon manufacturing sites are subject to inspection by FDA to assure that good manufacturing practices are being followed. Therefore, these inspections would likely identify any procedures that would expose tampons products to asbestos. If any tampon product was contaminated with asbestos, it would be as a result of tampering, which is a crime. Thus far, FDA has received no reports of tampering.




Where this wild idea came from is anyone's guess. As a rumor, it's similar to the whisper attached to Carmex lip balm. (People swear the goo contains ground glass under the belief that the more roughed up lips are, the more the product will be needed. That rumor is also baseless.

Why wasn't this against the law since asbestos is so dangerous? Because the powers that be, in all their wisdom (not), did not consider tampons as being ingested, and therefore wasn't illegal or considered dangerous.



This claim is ridiculous. The use of asbestos (an incombustible fibrous material

Rayon contributes to the danger of tampons and dioxin because it is a highly absorbent substance and therefore when fibers from the tampons are left behind in the vagina (as usually occurs), it creates a breeding ground for the dioxin, and stays in a lot longer than it would with just cotton tampons.

Though the statement quoted above sounds impressive, it's difficult to make head or tail of it. Yes, rayon is absorbent and yes, it is used in tampons. How superior absorbency would contribute to any danger presented by left-behind fibres is beyond me (as is how hydrocarbons such as dioxin could "breed").

Anyone who has dealt with wound care knows cotton fibres adhere to wounds like cat sheddings to a pair of new black pants. If a problem is created by fibres from the tampon being left inside a woman after the tampon's removal, then an all-cotton tampon is going to create more of a problem, not less. Rayon is slick and fibres don't dislodge from it easily -- on these two counts, it's the polar opposite of cotton. (You doubt my word? Run a cotton T-shirt through one dryer and a rayon blouse through another. Examine the lint traps afterwards.)

Ignoring for the moment the sideways logic of this badly-expressed bit of the scarelore, if the use of rayon in feminine products is something to be wary of, it's for an entirely different reason. Dioxins are produced through the chlorine bleaching of wood pulp. The chlorine used to produce rayon results in additional dioxins. Rayon means more dioxins. If dioxins are bad, then you'd want to eschew rayon as well.



After a rash of TSS deaths in 1980 and two 1985 U.S. studies linking TSS to tampon use, manufacturers began removing most of the chemicals. Today, most tampons are made of cotton combined with chemically based viscose rayon.

Dioxins are nasty, nasty compounds -- there's no dispute about that. Are there enough dioxins in tampons to be harmful? It's hard to say authoritatively -- the experts aren't being clear on this. The Environmental Protection Agency monitored the level of dioxins in tampons in the late '80s and again in 1994. In both instances, the amounts present were barely detectable. Is it still too much, though? A number of researchers say even small amounts of dioxins are unacceptable in any product.

When it comes to tampons, there are two things to be concerned about -- toxic shock syndrome and contact with dioxins, a nasty carcinogen. They're not the same.

The FDA says there aren't enough dioxins in tampons to worry about:

[FDA, 1997]
In 1995, FDA again requested the four major manufacturers to submit dioxin levels in the rayon and cotton used to manufacture tampons. The manufacturers used an analytical method approved by EPA. The data from all four manufacturers showed dioxin levels in rayon and cotton to range from non-detectable to 1 part in 3 trillion. A part per trillion is about the same as one teaspoon in a lake fifteen feet deep and a mile square. This is far below the threshold that EPA believes puts consumers at risk of cancer.

(You don't trust the FDA, you say? Do you put more trust in a possibly fictitious "woman getting her Ph.D. at University of Colorado @ Boulder"?).

To round this up for those in the bleachers, there is no asbestos in tampons. Depending on the brand, there might be minute amounts of dioxins in some of them, but not -- according to the FDA -- enough to harm anyone. Thinking consumers might want to reduce their contact with dioxins anyway, trading comfort and absorbency for a bit more peace of mind.
 
Originally posted by Vinita
There is no asbestos in tampons.
Click to expand...

What is asbestos?
Asbestos is the name for a group of naturally occurring silicate minerals that can be separated into fibers. The fibers are strong, durable, and resistant to heat and fire. They are also long, thin and flexible, so that they can even be woven into cloth.
Because of these qualities, asbestos has been used in thousands of consumer, industrial, maritime, automotive, scientific and building products. During the twentieth century, some 30 million tons of asbestos were used in industrial sites, homes, schools, shipyards and commercial buildings in the United States.

There are several types of asbestos fibers, of which three have been used for commercial applications: (1) Chrysotile, or white asbestos, comes mainly from Canada, and has been very widely used in the US. It is white-gray in color and found in serpentine rock. (2) Amosite, or brown asbestos, comes from southern Africa. (3) Crocidolite, or blue asbestos, comes from southern Africa and Australia.

Amosite and crocidolite are called amphiboles. This term refers to the nature of their geologic formation.

Other asbestos fibers that have not been used commercially are tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite, although they are sometimes contaminants in asbestos-containing products

What are asbestos-containing products?

What is common to many asbestos-containing products is that they were (are) used to contain heat (i.e. thermal insulation.) It is impossible to list all of the products that have, at one time or another, contained asbestos. Some of the more common asbestos-containing products are pipe-covering, insulating cement, insulating block, asbestos cloth, gaskets, packing materials, thermal seals, refractory and boiler insulation materials, transite board, asbestos cement pipe, fireproofing spray, joint compound, vinyl floor tile, ceiling tile, mastics, adhesives, coatings, acoustical textures, duct insulation for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, roofing products, insulated electrical wire and panels, and brake and clutch assemblies.
Some of these products contained a very high proportion of asbestos, while others contained small amounts

Hopefully, ya'lls puddin aint that HOT
 
How do you think I got so proficient at saying, "That's TOO MUCH READING!! You really want us to READ all that?!"
 
Originally posted by Vinita
How do you think I got so proficient at saying, "That's TOO MUCH READING!! You really want us to READ all that?!"
Click to expand...

If it will help you know more about your feminine health & the products you use.....YES
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top