---

Screenshot (above) from Black Oxygen’s website before it was taken down this week.

---

Thursday — November 26, 2021

Hello! I expect a lot of people who will be reading this article may be new to my work, so I will start with a bit of an introduction and some context for how my testing of this product came about, as well as providing some context (to the best of my ability) for what these readings may potentially mean from a health perspective. (Note: I am obviously not a doctor, nor do I have any other *medical* credentials — but I do have a great deal of specialized knowledge and experience that qualify me to speak about this subject.)

---

For those new to this website:

Tamara Rubin is a multiple-Federal-award-winning independent advocate for childhood Lead poisoning prevention and consumer goods safety, and a documentary filmmaker. She is also a mother of Lead-poisoned children (two of her sons were acutely Lead-poisoned in 2005). Since 2009, Tamara has been using XRF technology (a scientific method used by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission) to test consumer goods for toxicants (specifically heavy metals — including Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Antimony, and Arsenic). All test results reported on this website are science-based, accurate, and replicable. Items are tested multiple times to confirm the test results for each component tested. Tamara’s work was featured in Consumer Reports Magazine in February of 2023 (March 2023 print edition).

 

---

Here’s a link to the business model for my work (including the test results for products that are reported on this website).

A quick summary of the article linked above (as it relates to the testing of the Black Oxygen Organics Fulvic Acid powder):

1. My readers bring issues of concern (with specific products or other areas related to environmental toxicity) to my attention.
2. If enough readers ask for my input about a specific product or a specific issue, I do some research and decide if it is something where my work might help demystify the concern for readers.
3. I ask readers to support the work — by either sending in products they would like to see tested (and helping to cover the cost of testing), or by chipping in to help me cover the cost of purchasing some of the product in question myself to test (and post the results).

As far as the “BOO” product is concerned, readers brought the concern to my attention a few months ago. (I also am friendly with a vlogger who made a fairly extensive video about the product, which I watched.) When things were blowing up this week (in the days before and after the shutdown of the company), I asked my readers to send me samples of their product for testing (ideally new and in the original packaging, with the stamped lot numbers) and receipts — to serve as a way to trace various levels of contaminants, to determine if there were batch-specific considerations.

---

This is what I posted on social media:

---

The articles mentioned above…

In the graphic above I mentioned a couple of articles I wanted folks to read to help give them context for this work — to help people understand the concerns, as well as what is possible (and what the limitations are) with the type of testing I do. I invite you to read these articles as well — BEFORE reading further in this post so you have context for my findings. Here are the articles you should read to help give you some context:

1. This piece describing the testing methodologies I use in my work.
2. My recent article about Lead in a clay-based (single ingredient) baby powder.
3. My overview post about testing supplements.
4. My overview article on supplements in general.
5. My write-up about “the best” natural supplement ever (and no — I am not selling anything!).

I promise you that if you read the articles above, MOST, if not ALL — of any questions you might have about the context and meaning behind my testing will be answered there.

---

Symptoms of Heavy Metal Exposure (including Lead)

Again, given many of the readers here may be new to my work (i.e. mostly testing and writing about Lead, Lead poisoning, and its prevention), and considering that the symptomatic expression of exposure to other heavy metal toxicants can present similarly (similarly to the symptoms of Lead poisoning — both acute and chronic), I would also like to share with you a few articles about symptoms associated with possible metallic toxicants exposure:

1. My “Symptoms” overview article
2. My piece about symptoms in children
3. My article about symptoms in adults
4. An article (not written by me) about the impact of low levels of exposure
5. An article about the impact of trace population levels of heavy metal exposure (specifically Lead) on fertility and birth outcomes.

Each of the articles on this website includes science-based information, and normally the relevant scientific references are linked at the bottom of the post (or discussed within the body of the article) — so please also explore those links when you have time.

---

VERY IMPORTANT CONTEXT

It is very important to understand that my intention here — as with all of my work — is to help you (Lead Safe Mama readers) get information that you might not otherwise have access to; I am doing this as a public service and as an independent advocate for consumer goods safety. I may not have all of the answers as to “what this all means for you,” but at least you will have a set of solid, science-based data to help you move forward in your journey of exploring the potential health impacts of (use/consumption of) consumer goods (including supplements) with heavy metal contamination.

I will say that – with what I have already learned (detailed below) with the one sample of this Black Oxygen Organics “fulvic acid” product that I have tested so far – I would highly recommend that anyone who has been taking this “supplement” ask their doctor for an immediate (as soon as possible) heavy metals test. Please ask your doctor if they can collect your samples ASAP — this weekend or Monday, if at all possible (as I have posted this on a Friday evening!)

The reason I suggest immediate blood-urine-or-hair testing is that these metals tend to have a “half-life” in the body (read more about that here), and by testing now (right after you have hopefully ceased using this product, thus removing a significant source of potential heavy metal exposure) you will get a better sense of the extent / highest level of any exposure you may have had.

If you stop taking the product and then wait – a few weeks (or a month or more) – before getting tested, your levels found for various metals at the time of testing will likely be significantly lower than they would be now. Said another way: as the body works to try to eliminate the toxic metals over time, and they also migrate from the bloodstream to harder-to-detect (or impossible-to-detect) long-term-storage sites within the body (bone, brain, organs)- with cessation of use  – your apparent / readily detectable heavy metal burden is likely to go down fairly quickly – at least as far as blood and urine testing are concerned. So ideally, you really should ask your doctor if you can get tested immediately, so that you can know what the worst case scenario might be (in terms of your exposure levels) – which will also be helpful if you are participating in the class-action lawsuit against the (now defunct, as of this week) company and its owners. You might also want to ask your doctor about the possibility of doing a follow up test in about a month, to see if you levels have decreased 30 days after stopping use of the product (and if so, by how much.) Here’s an article where I discuss a case in which a child’s Arsenic levels were high and then were noted to be significantly reduced one month after the suspected source was removed from his environment and bedtime routine.

There are many tests available, but you should ask for one that gives you a full metals panel (not just a BLL [blood Lead level] test). Initial screening tests can be done on blood, urine, or hair — your doctor should be able to advise you of the best course of action. To learn more about this type of testing, I have an overview article about urine and hair testing and also an overview about blood Lead testing.

---

11,000 parts per billion Cadmium
What does this mean?

Below is one full set of XRF data for the sample tested (in the lot number noted in the headline on this article). Coming in at 11,000 parts per billion (ppb) Cadmium, this test found alarming levels of Cadmium (for a supplement – and especially for one that might be taken daily on an ongoing basis). The context for me saying that these levels are “alarming” is discussed in the linked articles above (in the section about supplements) in detail (plus the baby powder post.) Please do read those articles — so you have the full background and context.

I will attempt to summarize some of the more important points from those articles here by stating the following points:

• Supplements almost NEVER contain toxic heavy metals at a level so high as to be detectable using an XRF instrument; supplements are toxic at levels measured in ppb (parts per billion) — and the low threshold of detection for an XRF instrument is in the range of single digits ppm (parts per million).
• 1 ppm is equal to 1,000 ppb.
• For a supplement to test positive for any heavy metals (and especially a known carcinogen) in the parts per million range is quite alarming.
• For context: food and beverages are subject to specific legal limits for several metallic toxicants – and are considered to have unsafe/illegal levels of Lead (for instance) if those levels exceed 1 to 100 parts per billion (depending on the specific solid or liquid consumable in question). EXAMPLES: water is toxic for children at levels of 1 ppb Lead and up; candy is considered unsafe and illegal at 100 ppb Lead and up (this is discussed at length in the above-linked articles).

This first BOO sample I tested was positive for 11,000 ppb Cadmium. That’s a LOT of Cadmium — a known carcinogen. Shocked, I tested the sample no fewer than 10 times, and this level of Cadmium was completely replicable. (For the curious, I followed the exact same testing methodology as outlined in the baby powder article linked above (and as shown in the video on that post.) NOTE: I am not a lab — however, a lab is not needed for these test results to be valid; The instrument I use is a phenomenally expensive high-precision XRF analyzer designed for accurate field use — and is also the exact brand and model of XRF instrument historically preferred and used by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission for testing for metallic toxicants in consumer goods.

---

One full set of XRF levels for the sample tested:

120-second test (two minutes)

• Lead (Pb): non-detect (below 2,000 ppb)*
• Cadmium (Cd): 11,000 ppb (+/- 1,000 ppb) – known carcinogen
• Mercury (Hg): non-detect (below 4,000 ppb)*
• Bromine (Br): non-detect (below 2,000 ppb)*
• Chromium (Cr): non-detect (below 84,000 ppb)*
• Iron (Fe): 7,894,000 ppb (7,894 +/- 89 ppm)
• Zinc (Zn): 18,000 ppb (18 +/- 3 ppm)
• Niobium (Nb): 414,000 ppb (414 +/- 6 ppm)
• Indium (In): 9,000 ppb (9 +/- 2 ppm)
• Tin (Sn): 7,000 ppb (7 +/- 2 ppm)
• Platinum (Pt): 21,000 ppb (21 +/- 7 ppm)
• *Limit of detection for this testing methodology – a testing methodology which is distinct from laboratory “digestive” testing… so these are not “true negatives” – they are non-detect, within the noted limit of detection.
• Metals not listed above were not detected (within the limits of the technology used). All metals detected are listed above. The metals listed as “non-detect” (& others) are possibly present at quantities that fall below the numeric values noted.
• XRF testing results in readings in parts per million (ppm). Ideally, supplements should be tested in a lab down to more sensitive levels with a low threshold of detection of 1 part per billion (ppb). Please read the linked articles within this post (above) to better understand these considerations.

---

+ 8,000 ppb Mercury?

I also did multiple readings that came up with Mercury levels in the 7,000 to 9,000 ppb range – but those readings were not as solidly replicable as the Cadmium levels (they were a bit “mercurial“, as it were. ;-)) So I am less confident in the exact Mercury readings — but 100% confident in the Cadmium readings found in this one sample.

How much Cadmium is “too much” Cadmium?

• Please read this article, which discusses Cadmium limits in food (as it relates to shellfish and chocolate).
• One of the highest permissible Cadmium levels is 600 ppb — in cocoa powder (much higher than other limits for Cadmium in food, because it is assumed “it will be mixed with other non-Cadmium-containing food items” [like milk], thus diluting the levels).
• The above point is absolutely relevant because (apparently) the manufacturers of this BOO product have claimed that the findings of heavy metals are irrelevant — “because the product is meant to be mixed with water”, and that somehow the ppb levels “should only be counted” in the presence of the product mixed with water! 
• COCOA POWDER is considered TOO TOXIC to be mixed with milk or another beverage (the primary intention of the use of the product) at 600 ppb Cadmium and above.
• This BOO product came in at 11,000 (ELEVEN THOUSAND) ppb – so the argument made by the manufacturers is, frankly, preposterous.
• The amount of Cadmium found in this particular BOO sample was 18 times more toxic than the allowable toxicity level for cocoa powder.

Please also read this article about Cadmium toxicity in consumer goods [it does NOT discuss the levels that are toxic in supplements, but will help give you some context for the issue].

---

As always, please let me know if you have any questions. I will do my best to answer them personally as soon as I have a moment. Please also understand that this article is for just ONE set of readings from ONE BATCH of this BOO product. I am still waiting for four additional samples to arrive in the mail (from readers all over the country, that hopefully will encompass different batches of the product) and I will also be posting each of those sets of test results separately, as I have them, AND I will be writing an overview article for the concern once we have a better sense of which metals are present in the product at XRF-detectable levels (= very concerning levels of heavy metals to be found in ANY supplement!).

In the meantime — if you are interested in further exploring this website, please check out this article (which has a bunch of shortcut buttons to different categories of articles here on the website) and please consider watching this (short) 16-minute video that shows you how to efficiently search the website.

Tamara Rubin
Lead Safe Mama, LLC
Portland, Oregon

---

Some additional popular recent Lead Safe Mama articles:

1. Testing of the Always Pan
2. Testing of the Caraway Home Pans
3. Testing of the Green Pan
4. Testing of Redmond Bentonite Clay Baby Powder
5. Test results showing Nuk brand glass baby bottles are sometimes painted with Lead Paint
6. Test results for various brands of salt
7. Testing of Vintage Tupperware Products
8. Warning from Fisher Price re: their vintage plastic toys
9. Warning from Corelle re: their pre-2005 patterned dishes
10. Test results for vintage Pyrex (Bowls, Casseroles, etc.)
11. Test results for vintage Corning Casseroles