It is not uncommon for extra-urinary calcifications or foreign bodies in the bladder region to cast radiographic shadows of a confusing nature. Calcifications in the uterus, ovaries, and pelvic vessels are the common sources; vaginal pessaries and foreign material in the rectum occasionally present problems in interpretation. Careful radiography, with films taken in various projections, usually excludes the diagnosis of bladder calculi in such cases, but cystoscopy is often the most reliable method. A 44-year-old woman had a right nephrectomy ten years earlier because of a kidney abscess following ureteral calculus obstruction. Her gynecologist ordered an intravenous urogram because of the history of renal calculi and recent flank pain. A scout film revealed two oval shadows in the bladder region (Fig. 1). Films of this area in the anteroposterior and oblique projections before and after voiding showed the opacities to be “in the bladder” (Fig. 2), and the patient was referred for urological treatment. No film was taken in the lateral position. Cystoscopy was done and, when the bladder stones were not seen, another scout film was obtained: The “calculi” were no longer evident. It was then learned that the patient had placed two Baculin vaginal tablets, containing diiodohydroxyquinoline, in the vagina one hour before the initial x-ray examination. Braasch and Emmett (1) mention extra vesical calcifications which simulate bladder calculi. However, they do not mention vaginal tablets or suppositories as sources of confusion. Recently, a report of a suppository containing iodine and simulating bladder stone appeared in the literature (2). This case was similar to that recorded here. A 32-year-old woman with left calculous hydronephrosis was found to have what seemed to be a bladder stone but proved, after negative cystoscopy, to be a vaginal suppository. It has been learned that a number of vaginal suppositories which are currently being marketed contain sufficient iodine, silver, mercury, or arsenical compounds to cast dense shadows on x-ray films. These include Floraquin (Searle), containing di-iodohydroxyquin; Baculin (Amfre-Grant), containing diiodohydroxyquinoline and phenyl mercuric acetate; Lycinate (Lloyd Bros.), containing diiodohydroxyquin; Picragol (Wyeth), containing silver pic-rate; Quinettes (Storck), containing diiodohydroxyquinoline; Triserts (Ulmer), containing phenyl mercuric acetate; Vio-form (Ciba), containing iodochlorohydroxy-quin. Most urologists are not likely to be trapped by this artefactual problem, at least not for long, since they are trained to perform cystoscopy routinely to confirm the x-ray findings. Since a true lateral film would undoubtedly show the vaginal tablets to be posterior to the bladder, this should be routine in such cases.