Myths Busted.” Today we get to add
another myth to that list.
Several people have attempted to refute the myth, but the
myth of the tactical tampon stopping a life-threatening hemorrhage just refuses
to die. And if you try to ever so gently
school a Tampon Truther with facts, you’re labeled as the village idiot while
the Truthers smugly work the room with their superior knowledge. Actually, they just shout down every voice of
reason. I’ve even seen (self-proclaimed—not
sure I believe they’re licensed or certified) nurses and nursing students do
it.
So let’s look at some facts and the math to accompany the
information.
First off, the tampon is almost always asserted to be an
effective expedient method for stopping bleeding due to a gunshot wound. After all, it’s about the right size to plug
that hole. However, while the entrance
wound may be small, there’s this thing called cavitation. Basically, the energy from the bullet creates
a larger cavity inside. This energy not
only damages the soft tissue, it may also perforate arteries. Arterial bleeding is a primary cause of
death. A tampon inserted into such a wound
may prevent blood from exiting through the tampon, but it does nothing to stop
the bleeding. The blood will just find
another way out.
Oh, and how long is that tampon? 3-4” if it’s a big one? Most bullets also leave exit wounds. Most people are much more than 3-4”
deep. In other words, there’s no way the
tampon is reaching down to all the tissue damage from the bullet.
Now, let’s consider the math of the tampon. The average tampon will absorb 2 teaspoons of
blood. Life-threatening hemorrhage
involves somewhere around 1 pint of blood or more. There are 96 teaspoons in 1 pint. A tampon
isn’t going to cut it. Next, let’s
consider surface area. A tampon boasts a
surface area of about 4 square inches.
Hemostatic gauze, much preferred in a situation like this, has about 400
square inches. Even regular gauze,
without the hemostatic agent, would be a much better choice for stopping
bleeding. The fact that the tampon
cotton is ¼” thick is irrelevant. It
still only holds 2 teaspoons.
1000 mL. About 2
pints of blood. That’s the amount pumped
out of an injured artery in three minutes.
Two teaspoons—about 9 ml of blood—is all that the average tampon
holds. There’s no way it’s stopping an
arterial bleed.
0. This gem from
Bioprepper asserts that tampons were used to plug bullet holes during WWI. There is no proof. Zero substantiation of this claim. Because it doesn’t exist. Yes, cotton wadding was used as bandaging
material, and nurses did decide to try it as a tampon. However, tampons were never used (at least,
not successfully) to stop life-threatening hemorrhaging from bullet wounds.
0. That’s also the
number of peer-reviewed studies on the utility of tampons in stopping
bleeding. And this is in an age when we
can research any topic within mere minutes on the internet. Nothing about a tampon working as well as
gauze. Or even not working as well, but
still working a little. Nothing at
all. Zero.
30,000. Of the approximately 150,000 trauma deaths in the US
in 2014, about 20% (or 30,000) were potentially survivable. Many were due to
bleeding from an extremity. In other
words, a tampon wouldn’t have worked, but gauze and pressure may have.
Two 2×4″ pieces of cotton gauze in a tampon or
3.6×4.1″ by 12 yards of Kerlix gauze. It would take 36 tampons to
exert the same amount of pressure (156 mmHg) exerted by 1 roll of Kerlix gauze.
One source on Snopes.com doesn’t count. There is no documentation anywhere to support
the claims made about tampon use in the military to stop bleeding.
Never. The time when
you would want to use a tampon instead of anything else to stop bleeding. What if you are totally out of supplies? Would you use a tampon then? No, the answer is still never. Would you ever choose to pack tampons instead
of proven medical equipment? No,
never. And that is because clothing—any
clothing—would be far superior to using a tampon. Preferably clean clothing, but even sweaty
clothing would be better than a tampon.
That’s supposedly according to the American College of Surgeons, quoted
all over the internet on this topic. I
can’t find any legitimate source to document that.
Finally, if the above isn’t sufficient to
convince you, here is Dr. Joseph Alton, author of The Survival Medicine Handbook.
He’s an off-grid medicine doctor sharing his thoughts on the tactical
tampon:
Why wouldn’t a tampon
work? After all, it might be the right size to plug a bullet hole. When soft
tissue is struck by a projectile at high speed, however, it creates a channel
through which that projectile travels. As a matter of fact, it causes two channels:
A permanent one caused by the actual path (not to mention any fragments) and a
larger one caused by the energy being released into the body by the round.
Vessels and organs not in the direct line of the permanent cavity may still be
damaged and bleed due to the secondary shock wave. Bullets traveling at high
speeds go deeper into the body than a tampon can reach. Plugging a hole, even
one that looks like it could fit a tampon, doesn’t stop the bleeding inside. It
just pools internally or finds an exit wound. The tampon is just concealing the
bleeding, not stopping it. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t
happening. “Successes” in the field were, probably, nightmares for
the surgical team after evacuation.
References:
https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/-/media/local-files/eau-claire/documents/medical-services/ed-trauma/stop-the-bleed-booklet.pdf?sc_lang=en&hash=BF6F26E7E5A0F683278C61EB53DEF57F
https://www.doomandbloom.net/the-tactical-tampon/
https://pracmednz.com/the-myth-of-the-tactical-tampon-for-gun-shot-wounds/
https://www.crisis-medicine.com/tampons-not-for-bullet-wounds/
Links to related
posts:
DIY QuikClot (coming tomorrow)
Leave a Comment