[140] in peace2
Re: Evil tampons -asbestos or not
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (M Chui)
Thu Mar 16 14:34:39 2000
Message-Id: <20000316193341.3104.qmail@hotmail.com>
From: "M Chui" <maisiechui@hotmail.com>
To: mdecerbo@bbn.com, peace-list@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:33:41 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Hi Mike,
Asbestos -- dioxin? Whatever you name it, there's stuff in those fancy
tampons used widely by women these days. And if all it takes is a little
consumer pressure to clean up the act. Then I'm for it.
Rgds to my last email, I did in fact read of sth that specified some
terribly wrong stf added to tampons, but can't remember what now since it
was a while back.
Was it myth too? Who knows. But it warned me that it increases my risk for
cancer by multiple fold next to non-users. In that case, I'll just use the
all-cotton brand, how difficult is that?
And hey, if all this is myth, and there's no harm whatsoever to the female
body, then I guess there's the ecological value to using all-cotton vs the
chemically advanced + what-not kind.
--Afterall, why do you think they came out with the other line in the first
place?
Maisie
>From: Mike Decerbo <mdecerbo@bbn.com>
>
>Hmm, I did a quick Web search and the results suggest pretty strongly
>that the bit about asbestos in tampons is a myth. There is a very
>compelling page at
>http://www.snopes.com/toxins/tampon.htm
>that points out, in part:
>
> > 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 made from magnesium silicate and used for
> fireproofing, electrical insulation, and chemical filters) is now
> regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency because of the health hazards it
poses, and its use in certain products has been banned outright. It is
classified as a known carcinogen, with its "primary routes of
potential human exposure" being "dermal contact [emphasis ours],
inhalation, and ingestion." If the government regulates asbestos use because
it recognizes that asbestos' coming in contact with skin poses health risks,
would it really turn a blind eye towards asbestos-laden products whose
intended use requires that they be inserted into thebody?
>
>What's more, the editor of "Essence" magazine confirmed that she never ran
>any article about asbestos in tampons. See
>
>
>http://urbanlegends.about.com/culture/urbanlegends/library/weekly/aa111898.htm
>
>As that page points out, the dioxin controversy is real, but it's
>really unfortunate that the chain-letter email muddied the waters with
>baloney about asbestos.
>
>For some reason, a lot of urban legends are about consumer products
>like, I guess tampons. So I'd say it's always worth doing a little
>bit of Web research before forwarding messages like this one to a
>mailing list and (potentially) getting a lot of people frightened.
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>
>Mike Decerbo
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
