Consider Tampons for your 24 hour pack.

I know that that is an eyebrow raiser, I had the same reaction.

I worked for a while as a bodyguard for a daughter company of  Daimler-Benz. I was trained by a former British Military Intelligence officer with experience in Northern Ireland fighting the IRA and was part of the military unit protecting Princess Dianna. One thing I still remember was his telling us to carry Tampons with us, because what they are designed to do is very close to what a bullet wound is. So if our protectee is shot, as soon as we get them under cover we can insert it into the wounds and it will stop the bleeding as we rush to the hospital.

What do you think are the odds of walking into the site of an aircraft accident as a ground team member and finding victims with puncture wounds? Ideally you leave whatever is in them in them as it blocks bleeding itself, but that may not be a choice and something blocking bleeding internally will be more effective then just slapping something over the wound and trying to tie it tight.

Just something to consider when you next review your ground team gear.

What do you think are the odds of walking into the site of an aircraft accident as a ground team member and finding victims with puncture wounds?

Statistically zero.

I dunno about an airplane accident but I carried them in combat and there's a couple in my IPOK on my raid vest

Statistically zero.

Seriously?  Could you maybe at least try to explain that answer? No chance you will ever see it because you do not do ground team? No one has ever been punctured? No punctures ever in CAP history of SAR missions? You have never personally seen it? What exactly is that comment supposed to represent?

Statistically zero.

Seriously?  Could you maybe at least try to explain that answer? No chance you will ever see it because you do not do ground team? No one has ever been punctured? No punctures ever in CAP history of SAR missions? You have never personally seen it? What exactly is that comment supposed to represent?

Exactly what is says.  "Statistically zero' doesn't mean "can't happen", it means compared to real-world operations
there is no need, or that there is no data, anecdotal or otherwise, to show this is reasonable likelihood.

Given a long enough timeline, anything is possible, literally.  The ground gear is scoped on what team members are
expected to encounter, not what "could happen".  You would need to search long and deep to find any
situations where CAP GTs provided anything more then basic stabilizing first aid pending the arrival or real EMS.

The reality is that most GA air crashes result in either walking away-level injuries, or fatalities.

Pack what you will, the problem being that as people "suggest" more and more "in-case" gear, the
packs and vests start requiring sherpas to carry them. A load-out appropriate for a combat medic, soldier, or
even an urban EMT isn't necessarily appropriate for a CAP GTM.

Statistically zero.

Seriously?  Could you maybe at least try to explain that answer? No chance you will ever see it because you do not do ground team? No one has ever been punctured? No punctures ever in CAP history of SAR missions? You have never personally seen it? What exactly is that comment supposed to represent?

In 35 years, lots of field time, cadet activities, high-adventure stuff, SAR training, actual SAR missions, a couple situations with finds, etc, I don't think I've seen a single puncture wound that would have been properly served with a tampon.

Others with more experience can chime in, but I tend to agree with Bob: statistically speaking, your chances are pretty much zero for encountering a medical situation that would require that particular course of treatment.  A regular field dressing is going to be more universally usable.

I was on a CAP activity in the early 1980s where the chances of encountering bears & bobcats and such was pretty high. (Matter of fact, the 3rd or 4th night of the activity we had a bear in the trash dump in the camp).  There were rifles and shotguns at that activity because the powers that be determined that there was a "greater than zero" chance of running into the local fauna on the various bivouacs & footmarches scheduled for those two weeks.

Today, if I were to plan an activity or event here in the mountains, I know that I *could* encounter bear, coyotes, or bobcats. But its such a low possibility that I'd never even think to say "Hey, can we take a couple Remington 870s with us?"  It is so close to zero that I'd call it "statistically zero."

Here ya go:  The new U.S. military technology is easy for first responders to administer and increases the survival rate for severe internal injuries nine-fold.




DARPA Wound Stasis Foam


The organization that pioneered global positioning systems, voice recognition software, and ARPANET—the Internet’s earliest ancestor—is now putting research and development dollars to work creating innovative technologies to keep soldiers (and civilians) safe.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has collaborated with Arsenal Medical, Inc. to develop a revolutionary foam agent that can halt bleeding from severe internal abdominal wounds for up to three hours, with a survival rate of 72 percent. The Department of Defense (DoD) began the Wound Stasis foam project in 2010 in an effort to improve survival rates during the “Golden Hour:" the 60 minutes following an injury in which a wounded soldier is stabilized and moved to a treatment facility.

“Battlefield care is provided in austere, often hostile conditions, so the Department of Defense aims to transport injured troops off the battlefield and to appropriate healthcare facilities as quickly as possible," says Brian Holloway, DARPA Program Manager for the Wound Stasis System program, in an email to Healthline. "During the war in Iraq, DoD set a standard of one hour for this to happen; thus, the term ‘the Golden Hour.'

"Because approximately 50 percent of potentially preventable deaths from battlefield injuries are due to abdominal hemorrhage and delays in hemorrhage control during transportation to medical facilities, the need for rapid, far-forward hemorrhage treatments is great,” Holloway says.

According to the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, this type of internal bleeding is the leading cause of potentially survivable deaths on the battlefield. This is, at least in part, due to the fact that internal wounds can’t be compressed with tourniquets or dressings. The Wound Stasis foam, which is designed to be administered by a combat medic, expands to fill a soldier’s intact abdominal cavity and can be easily removed by a trauma surgeon once the soldier reaches a hospital.

“Currently, there is no FDA-approved battlefield treatment that a medic can apply for these types of injuries; evacuation to a surgical setting is the only option. We created the Wound Stasis program to help increase treatment options and save lives,” says Holloway.

The foam itself is a polyurethane polymer administered directly into the abdomen via two injections. When the injected materials meet, they expand to more than 30 times their original volume, forming a solid mass of foam that contours to the patient’s internal organs without adhering to tissues or absorbing blood. The entire foam block can be removed by hand in less than one minute following an incision by a surgeon.


“We knew that the optimal product would need to be easily carried by medics on the battlefield. We knew that we would need a small amount of material that could fill the large abdominal cavity, but that could also be removable. Given these needs, it was intuitive to us that a foam material would be the optimal solution,” says Upma Sharma, Director of Material Science and Engineering at Arsenal Medical and Program Director for the Wound Stasis foam project in an email to Healthline.

“We took an extremely thoughtful approach when we began engineering the foam, knowing that it would have to be optimized over a number of independent variables," she added. "In total, we developed 1,200 foams so that we can control each critical parameter, including expansion and hydrophobicity.”

The Wound Stasis foam has performed so well on pig models of human injuries (increasing survival rates from eight percent to more than 70 percent) that DARPA has awarded Arsenal Medical a $15.5 million contract to perform Phase II testing. To date, DARPA has given Arsenal $22.5 million to develop the foam product.

“Work on the program will continue in pursuit of the technical requirements for FDA approval and program transition to end-user organizations,” says Holloway. “Our goal is to move as fast as possible in bringing this device to fruition.”

Researchers presented pre-clinical data on the foam treatment at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in Kauai, Hawaii in September. Holloway is hopeful that the Wound Stasis foam, once approved by the FDA for use in human patients, will save the lives of many soldiers wounded in bomb blasts, as well as civilians who’ve suffered trauma in car accidents and elsewhere.

“Although DARPA's focus is on defense applications—particularly, in this case, improving survival rates for battlefield injuries—any such product, once commercialized, could impact civilian scenarios in which internal abdominal bleeding is likely to factor,” says Holloway. “It's highly plausible that such a product could become part of the toolkit for civilian first responders.”

Thank you for the clarification Eclipse.

I suspect that anyone with that kind of wound would be deceased by the time we find them. Even puncture wounds with the puncturing item still in place will bleed some. Multiply that x hours until found, environmental conditions, and comorbid factors and you basically have yourself a corpse.

Or if you do not want to carry tampons, carry the QuikClot Combat Gauze, which you can now buy at sporting good and outdoor stores such as Academy and Cabellas.  This is different than the QuikClot powder, which has not been in production since 2009.  But yes, I agree, chances are you will never use any of this on any REDCAP. 

Here ya go:  The new U.S. military technology is easy for first responders to administer and increases the survival rate for severe internal injuries nine-fold.




DARPA Wound Stasis Foam


The organization that pioneered global positioning systems, voice recognition software, and ARPANET—the Internet’s earliest ancestor—is now putting research and development dollars to work creating innovative technologies to keep soldiers (and civilians) safe.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has collaborated with Arsenal Medical, Inc. to develop a revolutionary foam agent that can halt bleeding from severe internal abdominal wounds for up to three hours, with a survival rate of 72 percent. The Department of Defense (DoD) began the Wound Stasis foam project in 2010 in an effort to improve survival rates during the “Golden Hour:" the 60 minutes following an injury in which a wounded soldier is stabilized and moved to a treatment facility.

“Battlefield care is provided in austere, often hostile conditions, so the Department of Defense aims to transport injured troops off the battlefield and to appropriate healthcare facilities as quickly as possible," says Brian Holloway, DARPA Program Manager for the Wound Stasis System program, in an email to Healthline. "During the war in Iraq, DoD set a standard of one hour for this to happen; thus, the term ‘the Golden Hour.'

"Because approximately 50 percent of potentially preventable deaths from battlefield injuries are due to abdominal hemorrhage and delays in hemorrhage control during transportation to medical facilities, the need for rapid, far-forward hemorrhage treatments is great,” Holloway says.

According to the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, this type of internal bleeding is the leading cause of potentially survivable deaths on the battlefield. This is, at least in part, due to the fact that internal wounds can’t be compressed with tourniquets or dressings. The Wound Stasis foam, which is designed to be administered by a combat medic, expands to fill a soldier’s intact abdominal cavity and can be easily removed by a trauma surgeon once the soldier reaches a hospital.

“Currently, there is no FDA-approved battlefield treatment that a medic can apply for these types of injuries; evacuation to a surgical setting is the only option. We created the Wound Stasis program to help increase treatment options and save lives,” says Holloway.

The foam itself is a polyurethane polymer administered directly into the abdomen via two injections. When the injected materials meet, they expand to more than 30 times their original volume, forming a solid mass of foam that contours to the patient’s internal organs without adhering to tissues or absorbing blood. The entire foam block can be removed by hand in less than one minute following an incision by a surgeon.


“We knew that the optimal product would need to be easily carried by medics on the battlefield. We knew that we would need a small amount of material that could fill the large abdominal cavity, but that could also be removable. Given these needs, it was intuitive to us that a foam material would be the optimal solution,” says Upma Sharma, Director of Material Science and Engineering at Arsenal Medical and Program Director for the Wound Stasis foam project in an email to Healthline.

“We took an extremely thoughtful approach when we began engineering the foam, knowing that it would have to be optimized over a number of independent variables," she added. "In total, we developed 1,200 foams so that we can control each critical parameter, including expansion and hydrophobicity.”

The Wound Stasis foam has performed so well on pig models of human injuries (increasing survival rates from eight percent to more than 70 percent) that DARPA has awarded Arsenal Medical a $15.5 million contract to perform Phase II testing. To date, DARPA has given Arsenal $22.5 million to develop the foam product.

“Work on the program will continue in pursuit of the technical requirements for FDA approval and program transition to end-user organizations,” says Holloway. “Our goal is to move as fast as possible in bringing this device to fruition.”

Researchers presented pre-clinical data on the foam treatment at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in Kauai, Hawaii in September. Holloway is hopeful that the Wound Stasis foam, once approved by the FDA for use in human patients, will save the lives of many soldiers wounded in bomb blasts, as well as civilians who’ve suffered trauma in car accidents and elsewhere.

“Although DARPA's focus is on defense applications—particularly, in this case, improving survival rates for battlefield injuries—any such product, once commercialized, could impact civilian scenarios in which internal abdominal bleeding is likely to factor,” says Holloway. “It's highly plausible that such a product could become part of the toolkit for civilian first responders.”

Sounds amazingly like "Great Stuff" foam http://www.homedepot.com/p/GREAT-STUFF-16-oz-Big-Gap-Filler-Insulating-Foam-Sealant-248314/100029171

Sounds amazingly like "Great Stuff" foam http://www.homedepot.com/p/GREAT-STUFF-16-oz-Big-Gap-Filler-Insulating-Foam-Sealant-248314/100029171

There's a Jeff Foxworthy joke in there.. I know it!

Sounds amazingly like "Great Stuff" foam http://www.homedepot.com/p/GREAT-STUFF-16-oz-Big-Gap-Filler-Insulating-Foam-Sealant-248314/100029171

I know you are just joking, but, given the readership, I feel compelled to reinforce, "Don't do this at home!"

I used some of this stuff last weekend, and I'm still cleaning it off my fingers. The easy removal aspect of the DARPA product would not be present here.

As someone who only has CPR/AED/First Aid training, why would I decide that doing this is a good idea?

Especially when it means using something not found on the first aid kit list?

Especially when, should I be charged with negligence, my defense will involve stating that I "saw it on the internet" when asked where I was told this was an approved method of dealing with a puncture wound?

What do you think are the odds of walking into the site of an aircraft accident as a ground team member and finding victims with puncture wounds?

Statistically zero.

But a very real possibility.  The "statistically zero" card doesn't play well with safety and preparedness.  Odds of catching Ebola are "statistically zero" in the US, but we'd be D----d fools to blow off the risk.

What do you think are the odds of walking into the site of an aircraft accident as a ground team member and finding victims with puncture wounds?

Statistically zero.

But a very real possibility.  The "statistically zero" card doesn't play well with safety and preparedness.

Disagree, that's what it's literally about.  It's physically impossible to be "prepared" for everything, the gear would
weigh 1000lbs and be referred to as an "ambulance".

You have to make good decisions about what you may or may not encounter in the real world, and adjust for conditions.
Ebola is a non-issue in the US, so is Zika, even West Nile in most areas, but it makes for click bait, so sound the alarm.
If you travel somewhere it's an issue, then adapt your precautions.

A CAP GT is much more likely to get food poisoning from an old MRE then encounter someone with puncture wounds who
hasn't already bled out.  CAP isn't there in the golden hour, let alone the same day as most crashes - that's why the push back
on the first responder threads, it's not in CAP's mission or mandate.

(And yes, the odds of cadets restoring the firing pins to parade rifles is also "statistically zero", so there you go!)

I say go ahead and put one in your IFAK(great for nose bleeds). I see alot of untrained and unqualified people in CAP carrying around med equipment  they should not have. People in CAP need to stop playing EMS. 

Statistically zero.

Seriously?  Could you maybe at least try to explain that answer? No chance you will ever see it because you do not do ground team? No one has ever been punctured? No punctures ever in CAP history of SAR missions? You have never personally seen it? What exactly is that comment supposed to represent?

My own experience with victims at an aircraft crash site is that the victims are killed from blunt force trauma or have to be literally separated from the aircraft components.  By that time, a tampon is going to be of little use.  Your tampon suggestion is definitely valid for cases like you mentioned....subject is shot and you are right there to deal with the wound immediately.  In our environment, you're much more likely to give it to a fellow ground team member who needs one because they ran out than you are to insert one into a puncture wound that miraculously stabilizes the victim long enough to transport the, to the hospital after lying in the woods for several hours bleeding from said wound.

Now a maxipad, on the other hand....that I could get on board with as a suggestion.  You're packing something designed to absorb blood and is much more versatile as a first aid tool than a tampon.  I know more EMTs carry maxipads in their kits than I do ones who carry tampons with them if they don't need them for personal use.

I say go ahead and put one in your IFAK(great for nose bleeds). I see alot of untrained and unqualified people in CAP carrying around med equipment  they should not have. People in CAP need to stop playing EMS.

Absolutely - on more then one occasion I've had to have members leaver CV collars, backboards, oxygen and
full-on trauma kits in their car on an ELT mission.

There are plenty of other places those skills can be used, not in CAP.

Where can one find a library of SAR real life stories? Are they accumulated anywhere like NTSB plane crash reports are, such that folks can research them? Reading this thread made me wonder when the last CAP SAR was where Cadets and/or Senior members found any survivors that needed immediate assistance before EMTs could arrive?  I read the NTSB reports often as they are a great learning tool for pilots. Would be great to read similar CAP accounts of actual missions with details and critiques.

.

Just press releases and AARs if they are completed / distributed.

My wing has had two distress finds with fatalities this year, neither, to my understanding
involved anything but recovery.

I don't recall any in my AOR where aid was rendered for anything but minor injuries.

As mentioned above, with GA crashes it's usually either "walked away" or a fatality.

One of the drivers of our squadron van has " feminine Hygeine products" in case one of our female members needs them.

I really hate to pile on, but I cannot discourage this strongly enough.  While I typically don't appeal to authority, I'm an Army Medic with nearly 10 years ARNG side and a deployment to Afghanistan.  I've recertified as a 68W 3 times, attended BCT3, taken part in live tissue labs, a Combat Medic Mentorship Course, and conducted thousands of hours of OJT and real-world work as a Healthcare/Trauma Specialist on the military side.

Do not pack tampons to provide bleeding control for penetrating trauma of any kind.  That's not what they're designed for.  They're designed with a very specific purpose, and an untrained person could cause significant harm if trying to employ them in the manner suggested by the OP.  The Army standard (for non 68Ws, per the AWT Guide) is to pack Kerlix (or Combat Gauze/other hemostatic gauze if available) into the wound in order to control bleeding.  The 68W standard is to pack Kerlix (or Combat Gauze/other hemostatic gauze if available).  The Marine Corps standard is to pack the wound with Kerlix (or Combat Gauze/other hemostatic gauze if available).  The Navy standard is the same.  The Air Force standard is the same.  These are the organizations that deal with this type of injury on a regular basis.  They are, arguably, the source for standards and best practices regarding penetrating trauma.

The bottom line is this: What were you trained to do?  What are you, as a CAP member, allowed to do?  If your response to those questions does not include "packing wounds with tampons," then you're wrong if you're packing them in your 24 hour gear with any purpose other than addressing menstrual bleeding.

No.



I hope the image works- but take a look at two common combat bandages and then the tampon.

They do not expand that much.

For every expert that recommends them (and I've had buddies say the same to me) I can find plenty more who have taken a tampon apart or otherwise done actual research into why it is a bad idea.

See the above post- gauze is much more effective. Let's stick with built for purpose here. It's a nice idea, but not a great one. Gauze rolls and pads also have many uses, if you aren't afraid to use it on regular cadet needs instead of "Only The Big One." Plenty of scrapes shins, even can fashion a triangle bandage if you pick good multi-purpose supplies.

-Paramedic, etc..

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I added a travel pack (3) of them to the team first aid kit, simply because my philosophy for a team first aid kit is broader than Band-Aids -- it includes items for safety and comfort, like sunscreen, insect spray, etc.  I've added a mesh bag with most of the OTC medications listed on the national release form.  Unexpected situations do happen with missions and such, and sometimes a member forgets something they might need, which may not be easily acquired at 3am...  The additional reason is because they are absorbent.  Miserable members are ineffective, so some Pepto-Bismol tablets can be a lifesaver. 

I carry them in my gear, but for a very different reason. Compact emergency fire starting material. :-)

Not a CAP member but I would be hesitant giving them to a cadet without specific parental permission due to the risk of TSS and perhaps religious beliefs.

I really hate to pile on, but I cannot discourage this strongly enough.  While I typically don't appeal to authority, I'm an Army Medic with nearly 10 years ARNG side and a deployment to Afghanistan.  I've recertified as a 68W 3 times, attended BCT3, taken part in live tissue labs, a Combat Medic Mentorship Course, and conducted thousands of hours of OJT and real-world work as a Healthcare/Trauma Specialist on the military side.

Do not pack tampons to provide bleeding control for penetrating trauma of any kind.  That's not what they're designed for.  They're designed with a very specific purpose, and an untrained person could cause significant harm if trying to employ them in the manner suggested by the OP.  The Army standard (for non 68Ws, per the AWT Guide) is to pack Kerlix (or Combat Gauze/other hemostatic gauze if available) into the wound in order to control bleeding.  The 68W standard is to pack Kerlix (or Combat Gauze/other hemostatic gauze if available).  The Marine Corps standard is to pack the wound with Kerlix (or Combat Gauze/other hemostatic gauze if available).  The Navy standard is the same.  The Air Force standard is the same.  These are the organizations that deal with this type of injury on a regular basis.  They are, arguably, the source for standards and best practices regarding penetrating trauma.

The bottom line is this: What were you trained to do?  What are you, as a CAP member, allowed to do?  If your response to those questions does not include "packing wounds with tampons," then you're wrong if you're packing them in your 24 hour gear with any purpose other than addressing menstrual bleeding.

Excellent point!!! Spot on!!!

I carry them in my gear, but for a very different reason. Compact emergency fire starting material. :-)

Cotton dryer lint is far better tinder.  Cotton balls soaked n Vaseline and wrapped in aluminum foil work VERY well.  I don't think tampons in the 1st aid kit will light many fires except on this thread.

If you're stuck in a bathroom at Pulse Nightclub during an active shooter event and there's a tampon dispenser in the stall, then by all means, use one or 20 of those things to help control bleeding.  But if you're packing/stocking your IFAK, blowout kit, ground team medic kit, or vehicle first aid kit with tampons, then I really don't want you tending to my wounds because you really don't get it.

There are so many better and more appropriate tools that are made to control bleeding from trauma, that if you don't get it, you won't get it, and you're just trying to "wow" people with your wanna-be ditch medicine knowledge.

Stick with the tools that are designed and available for casualty care, not what could be used in an extremis situation.

I carry them in my gear, but for a very different reason. Compact emergency fire starting material. :-)

Lit a whole box of them when I was a kid, and not one exploded as expected...

I say go ahead and put one in your IFAK(great for nose bleeds). I see alot of untrained and unqualified people in CAP carrying around med equipment  they should not have. People in CAP need to stop playing EMS.

When we went through CERT training, during the First Aid portion our instructor advised to include a couple of tampons in the first aid kit mostly for nose bleeds and for their intended use. Our instructor is very active in the SAR community as a medic, is EMT qualified and works at the local ER.

There is no way as a team leader that I'm dispensing tampons to cadets on my team, lest I face irate parents.

I do usually stock pads, though for the intended use only, after I had an extremely embarrassed cadet come to me requesting something, anything, a couple of decades ago. One could make an argument that females need to stock them in their personal kit and not rely on Team gear. However, for whatever natural reason (strain of new circumstances on an FTX, in the case I had?) you cannot tell when the situation might arise the first time without warning. In those cases, I judge it to be an emergency.

V/R
Spam

For the suggested purpose, QuikClot "combat gauze" is a better choice.  Can help clot off the bleeds and will be easily identified on an x-ray.   The only reason I can think of why tampons could be suggested would be the cost vs the correct stuff.  People can easily justify an inferior product when the cost is 90% cheaper than the correct product.  I'm an EMT and don't carry tampons in my personal trauma kit, I carry a few different types of QuikClot gauze ("combat" and EMS versions).

I texted two former CAP cadets last night regarding this subject and asked what THEY would put I'm a individual first aid kit (IFAK) or "blowout kit."

One is a highly decorated PJ (Distinnguished Flying Cross w/Valor) and the other is a Special Forces officer, between the 2 of them they have 8 combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and have dealt with new gunshot wounds, among other trauma injuries than anyone on CAP Talk, short of a doc or career paramedic from a city like Chicago.

Regarding the homemade blowout kit I asked them this:

If you were making a a personal blowout kit that fit into a Ziploc (cargo pocket) sized bag, what needs to be in it? 

NOTE: Neither mentioned tampons!

SF officer response: 

I'll take a stab at it:
-Tourniquet or two
-Big, loose Guaze roll or an Israeli bandage or two to pack bullet wounds
- 14-gauge needle for needle decompression
-pack of quick clot, if you're good at packing wounds with it (I'm not)
-ace bandage, if you don't have an Israeli bandage.

I think if you're narrowing the mechanism of injury to gunshot wounds, you wouldn't need a nasal pharyngeal or a trachea kit. Obviously, blood pressure will be a concern, but with that size of a bag,an IV or IO kit won't fit.

Tom [the PJ] how did I do?

---------

PJ's response:

Sorry guys, had a zero dark thirty show and was asleep. The standard on battle pack, designed for the Ziploc bags and cargo pocket:
1x roll of kerlex gauze
1x ace type bandage
1x chest seal (Asherman or whatever the current flavor of the month is)
1x quick clot or similar
1x chest dart needle (14ga IV Cath)
1x CAT tourniquet or similar
1x nasal airway and lube
1x cravat
1x small Israeli bandage

Colin [the SF guy] was pretty spot on, just underestimated what fits in a Ziploc bag

Mother of pearl, this is still a conversation? BLUF: use the right tool for the right job.

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/severe-bleeding-first-aid-misconceptions-tampons/

The one big use of tampax is they are really great for nose bleeds (they need to be trimmed) but you get the string hanging down for easy removal. In fact "nasal tampax" that we carry at the hospital looks just like regular tampax, just a little smaller. The one time I find a need for them is winter encampment, as the dry air causes nose bleeds quite frequently. Never had much of use for them otherwise, except for well, the obvious use - I do find female cadets forget to pack things, and do carry a supply to cadet events. Never thought of taking them to the range when I practice- in fact, I still think I'll keep them out of my range bag

Never had much of use for them otherwise, except for well, the obvious use - I do find female cadets forget to pack things, and do carry a supply to cadet events.

This has been addressed earlier, but the difference between a pad and a tampon being provided to a female cadet can be significant, especially since Toxic Shock Syndrome is no small issue (especially given the stress and potential field environments at CAP events).

If you don't know what Toxic Shock Syndrome is, you should look it up. And then take the tampons out of gear...

1st Lt Raduenz

Never had much of use for them otherwise, except for well, the obvious use - I do find female cadets forget to pack things, and do carry a supply to cadet events.

This has been addressed earlier, but the difference between a pad and a tampon being provided to a female cadet can be significant, especially since Toxic Shock Syndrome is no small issue (especially given the stress and potential field environments at CAP events).

If you don't know what Toxic Shock Syndrome is, you should look it up. And then take the tampons out of gear...

1st Lt Raduenz

Can't agree with this statement anymore.  Toxic Shock is a very real possibility because most Tampons are chemically treated for different reasons.   Ultimately, the chemicals you are introducing into spaces that they were not intended.

[merged from another new topic]

Greetings,

I saw a post where I couldn't post a reply. It was in regards to using tampons for puncture marks. It was stated a former British military member advised CAP member at one point Tampons work well with "puncture marks" i.e. bullet holes. True. And they were used recently in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it wouldn't be prudent. The US Military in recent years have devised "Quick Clot Combat Gauze" which is now available in IFAK kits and also commercially. Self Aid Buddy Care/Tactical Casualty Care/Combat Life Saver has been moving training to focus on the new equipment and is no longer taught by per Air Force Expeditionary Skills Taskings.

I am not saying it is a bad idea, I'm just saying equipment has evolved into better tools for the trade.

I didn't go through all the posts, but I was in the Infantry for 8 years, I've been a cop for almost 20.  Been a tactical EMT on SWAT, been to countless accidents, shootings, stabbings, and even handled a couple gun shot wounds, one of a suspect that had been shot during a hostage rescue.  Been flying now for several years, done numerous SAR missions and located victims in various stages between completely OK to completely dead and everywhere in between.  I've had the chance to work with some PJs during a couple LE missions and countless paramedics, EMTs and even some ER doctors out in the field and not once have I ever seen a tampon come out of anyone's gear as a solution.

Please.... and I beg you... unless you are a legit medical trauma type who can undeniably stand your ground and make people stand in awe of your medical resume, please do not ever, while in a CAP uniform, whip out a tampon.  I could almost guarantee you be the subject of unrelenting ridicule and mockery. 

The last post on this thread before McDaddy resurrected it recently was the issue of Toxic Shock Syndrome on the victim created by the added chemical junk on the tampons.

Do you want to put the health of the victim you are treating at risk by your treatment?

Based on my training and more... my experience.... bullet entry wounds for the most part, are actually fairly small.  If its a rifle projectile, the entry wound will be the least of your concerns.  Overall its just someone looking for the WOW factor trying to be Trauma Tim by dazzling everyone by pulling out a tampon.  If you are going to purposely make the effort to carry the wrong equipment, take the same effort and carry the right equipment.