DC Child Accident & Safety Blog

According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, approximately half of all poison exposures involve children younger than 6.

Most parents are pretty good at identifying and keeping their children safe from obvious toxins, from cleaning fluid to blood thinners. But many common household items, not to mention the contents of mom’s purse, are attractive and potentially lethal.

In his job as director of the Toxics Epidemiology Program for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Dr. Cyrus Rangan tracks and responds to toxic exposures and consults with patients exposed to toxins. Following is his list of common products that pose a poison threat, and why.

• Button batteries (for hearing aids, watches, etc.) can get lodged in the airway or the esophagus, causing third degree burns and bleeding. Note that these potentially lethal button batteries can even be found in toys.


• Chewing gum is generally safe, but a young child can choke on pieces of gum. Nicotine gum is very poisonous to young children.


• Cough drops taste sweet and might seem like candy to young children. But some contain medications like destromethorphan, which can cause gastrointestinal and vision problems, among others. Also, kids can choke on cough drops.


• Sanitary gel can be 60 percent alcohol (120 proof). If ingested, a small bottle is like giving a kid a couple small shots of hard liquor.


• Cigarettes carry a unique smell and taste that is attractive to some young children. Acute nicotine poisoning can result if they ingest a cigarette.


• Nail polish remover can cause gastrointestinal distress, and can be even more harmful if vomited and inhaled into the airways. These products seldom come in child-resistant containers.


• Pepper spray can be extremely irritating to the eyes, mouth, throat and lungs of anyone, but it’s worse for children, and such devices are easily deployed by accidental.

 
• "Gummy" vitamins look and taste like candy. Although toxicity is likely to be low, there’s a larger issue here of referring to medicine as candy. Children should learn that medicine is medicine, candy is candy and confusing them is dangerous.
 

• Over-the-counter medications, like cough drops and gummy vitamins, are often colorful, coated with sweetener and mistaken for candy. Some can be just as dangerous to a young child as prescription medications. We’ve tracked the checkered history of one such notable example, acetaminophen.


• Prescription medications that aren’t stored safely away from youngsters are hazardous. We’ve addressed this hazard, and the fact that many can kill a 2-year-old in a single dose. Never store them in a container other than what they came in.

 
If your child has ingested a toxic product or substance, or has a reaction to something he or she has touched, contact the National Capital Poison Center at (800) 222-1222. If you think your child might have swallowed a button battery, go to the nearest emergency room.

It’s hard enough for some parents to get their kids to brush their teeth regularly. If your little ones use an electric device called the Spinbrush, your job just got a little harder.

According to the FDA, the Spinbrush, whose colorful packaging and design is aimed at children, can cause serious injuries, as reported on WebMD.com.

More than 39 million Spinbrushes have been sold, some models under the Arm & Hammer brand, others under Crest. All are manufactured by Church & Dwight Co. Inc, and are sold as Spinbrush.

According to the FDA’s website, parts can fly off the device and chip teeth, damage eyes, cut the mouth and gums and get stuck in the throat.

The FDA cites the potential for injury while using these Spinbrush models:

• Spinbrush ProClean


• Spinbrush ProClean Recharge


• Spinbrush Pro Whitening


• Spinbrush SONIC


• Spinbrush SONIC Recharge


• Spinbrush Swirl


• Spinbrush Classic Clean


• Spinbrush For Kids


• Spinbrush Replacement Heads

The toothbrushes aren't being recalled, but Church & Dwight is informing consumers how to avoid injury on its website and via television and print advertising.

This isn’t the first time the FDA has come down on Church & Dwight. An inspection last year uncovered evidence that there had been numerous consumer complaints that had not been reported to the agency. In May, the FDA warned the company of its violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, including failure to report—within a reasonable period—serious injuries.

“Electric toothbrushes can be very effective in removing dental plaque, and so they can help prevent dental decay and gum disease,” says Susan Runner, D.D.S., chief of FDA’s dental devices branch. “At the same time, it’s important to supervise children when they use these brushes, and to look out for any malfunctions of the toothbrush that might cause an injury.”

If you or your child uses a Spinbrush:

• Inspect the Spinbrush for damage or loose brush bristles. If it’s damaged, don’t use the toothbrush.


• Check to ensure the headpiece is connected securely to the handle, and test it outside of the mouth. If the connection feels loose or the headpiece easily detaches from the handle, don’t use it.


• Do not bite down on the brush head while brushing.

Report damaged toothbrushes to Church & Dwight toll-free at (800) 352-3384 or (800) 561-0752. Report injuries or problems with the Spinbrush to MedWatch, the FDA’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program. You can file a report online, by regular mail or by fax or phone.

We often take issue with careless, shallow and/or misleading media reports about health and safety issues. But in one high-profile case, the flashy TV doc got it right.

Consumer Reports investigated the claim of Dr. Mehmet Oz ("The Dr. Oz Show"), and found that, indeed, 1 in 10 of the juices tested contained more arsenic than is allowed in drinking water. One problem, investigators said, is that juice and similar beverages have no standards for arsenic content. Inorganic arsenic (that is, arsenic that does not occur naturally in some fruits) is carcinogenic. Lead content also was problematically high in many juices.

The EPA limits arsenic in drinking water to 10 parts per billion (ppb), and some health experts say that’s too high. According to AboutLawsuits.com, The FDA told Consumer Reports that it’s considering arsenic standards for juice. In September, the website reported, the FDA “believed apple juice consumption posed little or no risk, but since then it has received eight apple juice test samples with total arsenic levels of up to 45 ppb.”

Because arsenic and lead disproportionately damage smaller, growing brains, the American Academy of Pediatrics advises:

• Don’t give infants younger than six months any kind of juice.


• Limit juice for children 6 years and younger to six ounces a day.


• Limit juice for children older than 6 years to 12 ounces a day.

For 26 years the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) has issued a report about toy safety. We wrote about it last year, and this year’s summary, “Trouble in Toyland,” was released earlier this week. It identifies hazardous toys and offers safety guidelines for consumers. Specific toys are listed in the complete report.

CALPIRG’s work has resulted in 150-some recalls of toys that posed hazards for a range of reasons, including strangulation, choking, toxins, noise and sharp edges. But as a consumer watchdog, the organization knows the work isn’t done. Although championing the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 for its advances in toy safety, CALPIRG also notes that this year, “policymakers delayed implementation of its most stringent lead standard rules and enacted some narrow exceptions,” and we concur.

That said, here’s what you need to know as you embark on the toy-buying season.

Lead
Lead is especially problematic for the central nervous system; childrens’ developing brains are particularly at risk. Seven toys exceed levels CALPIRG finds excessive (the organization’s threshold is much lower than the CPSIA standard).

Phthalates
Phthalates are of concern particularly for premature delivery and reproductive defects. The CPSIA has banned toys containing three phthalates and set temporary limits on three others, while tests continue. CALPIRG found two toys that laboratory testing showed to exceed limits allowed by the CPSIA by 42 and 77 times, respectively.

Choking
Choking is a major cause of toy-related deaths and injuries. CALPIRG found several toys that violated standard intended for children younger than 3, and several others that support its call for the small parts test to be made less permissive. Some toys intended for older children failed to provide choking hazards warnings required for small parts or small balls.

Noise
One-third of Americans with hearing loss can attribute it in part to noise. One in 5 U.S. children will have some degree of hearing loss by the time they are 12. CALPIRG found three toys it considers too noisy.

Among CALPIRG’s suggestions for improving toy safety are:

• The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) should review and, if necessary, expand its definition of a “small part” or “small toy” to include parts and toys that are larger than the current standard, but have been shown to pose a choking hazard to children.


• Cadmium should be limited in children’s jewelry. See our recent post about the dangers of this toxic chemical.


• Lead and phthalate standards in toys should be vigorously enforced, and lead standards should be lowered.


• The CPSC must ensure that its product incident database it provides the information consumers need to make informed choices in the marketplace.

Consumers must realize that not all toys are tested, and not all toys on store shelves meet CPSC standards. There is no comprehensive list of potentially hazardous toys. Examine toys carefully for potential dangers before you make a purchase.

It's also a good idea to screen all children for exposure to lead via a simple and inexpensive blood test at a physician’s office or public health agency.

Report unsafe toys or toy-related injuries to the CPSC at www.cpsc.gov and to www.saferproducts.gov or call the CPSC at 1-800-504-7923.

Last week, Johnson & Johnson surrendered. After sustained pressure from consumer watchdog groups, the manufacturer has decided to eliminate from its baby products any preservatives that might release even trace amounts of formaldehyde.

In a letter to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, the company’s vice president for product stewardship & toxicology reiterated the safety of all of its products, and called the reformulation a response to consumers. Two weeks before the company’s announcement, the Campaign had called for a boycott of Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo.

The removal of the offending ingredients—quaternium-15 and 1,4-dioxane—from all products worldwide will take about two years, but the baby shampoo will be reformulated first. Quaternium kills bacteria, but releases formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen. Dioxane is a suspected carcinogen.

In addition to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, the Breast Cancer Fund and the Environmental Working Group lobbied Johnson & Johnson to make the switch.

Later than you might think, according to this guest blog from Beckley Mason, which explores important new safety developments in car seats:

Out here in California, a law was recently (and at long last) passed that raises the size and age requirements children must reach before they can leave their safety car seats. California joins Maryland and about 30 other states in requiring that children be eight years old or at least 4’9’’ (which ever comes first).

While the law may not be popular with kids eagerly awaiting the day they can sit like an adult, it’s an important step to keep kids safe. Even with advances in technology and awareness of child seat safety fairly high, motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death for children between ages 3 to 14.

The reason that California, which was once the leader in child safety seat laws, fell so behind the times is that former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger twice vetoed similar laws. Schwarzenegger claimed that he would rather spend state money promoting education for parents on how to best use car seats than pass another difficult to enforce law. While it’s difficult to agree with his decision to veto, his reasoning does carry more than a bit of logic. In a state without our budget concerns this policy would be entirely indefensible, but research confirms that many parents all around the U.S. need more education on how to properly use booster and car seats to maximum effect.

In a groundbreaking year-long study of 79,000 car seats and their passengers, Safe Kids USA found that less than a third of all parents were both installing their car seats and strapping their children in properly. The primary issue was a failure to correctly use the top-most tethers that fully secure child seats during a crash. While at rest, these top tethers can seem superfluous, and often inspectors found that they were secured too lowly, or not at all. However when in a collision, the tethers are vital because they keep the passenger child’s head from moving dangerously during crashes.

The same study raised concerns that many parents who do their best to secure their children are not aware of the latest best practices for children of different heights and weights. New research doesn’t always reach the people who need to hear it, as in 2010, when American Academy of Pediatrics changed guidelines. The group now recommends that children under two years old ride in rear-facing seats. However a recent poll showed that barely a quarter of parents were aware of that fact. About three quarters of responding parents turned their kids around before year two, and 30 percent before year one.

It is at that young age that child seats are most vital to preventing serious injury. According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), properly using a child safety seat decreases the risk of death by 71 percent for infants and 54 percent for toddlers. Even older, less vulnerable children are 59 percent less likely to be injured in a booster seat that ensures the seatbelt fits across the chest instead of the collarbone or neck.

The NHTSA is trying to spread the latest word on child passenger safety by offering free educational resources to parents around the country. There are trained professionals at locations around the country that now offer 20-30 minute “courses” on properly installing car seats and their strapping in their passengers.

You can find a location near you by clicking over to the NHTSA website and searching by state or zipcode. It’s a great opportunity to get the latest information and training to make sure you keep your precious cargo safe.

Beckley Mason writes a Bay Area street safety blog for GJEL Accident Attorneys.

A hot topic in the world of sport safety these days is concussion. It’s not the first time we’ve covered the topic. Thanks to an increasing awareness that concussions can lead to traumatic brain injury (TBI), cognitive decline and other problems, athletes are monitored more closely for signs of head injury.

But greater awareness and better medicine have a concussion traveling companion of a decidedly consumer orientation. So-called “anti-concussion” sports equipment is making its market move. As always, it’s buyer beware.

As reported in the Los Angeles Times, no piece of equipment, no matter how technologically advanced, can indicate the presence of brain damage, or guarantee protection from it.

Testifying a couple of weeks ago at a U.S. Senate hearing, Jeffrey Kutcher, chairman of the American Academy of Neurology's sports section, said, "I wish there was such a product on the market. The simple truth is that no current helmet, mouth guard, headband or other piece of equipment can significantly prevent concussions from occurring."

Parents are a target market for these products, and football is a prime activity.

• Item: a $149 chin strap made by Battle Sports Science called the Impact Indicator that features colored lights to "help" indicate whether a player has a concussion.


• Item: the Brain-Pad LoPro mouth guard, which promises "brain safety space.


• Item: Riddell's Revolution helmet, whose pitch is to reduce the number of concussions by 31%. Kutcher said research showed that the helmet decreased concussions by only 2.6%.

Good equipment is key, whether you’re a 12-year-old middle linebacker or a 47-year-old softball catcher. But the best way to prevent brain damage (or worse) after a head injury is to take the time necessary to recover. Children have relatively heavier heads than adults, and because their brains are still developing, the incidence and severity of their head injuries is higher.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of traumatic brain injuries among young athletes has increased 60% over the last 10 years. In 2001, 153,375 young athletes were admitted to emergency rooms for concussions and other sports-related head injuries. In 2009, that number had climbed to 248,418. Approximately 298 youths per 100,000 suffered a head injury in 2009. Males 10 to 19 had the highest rate of injuries.

Motorcycle and auto accidents account for about 20% of traumatic brain injuries. According to the CDC, the most common sports and games leading to TBI are:

• bicycling


• playground activities


• football


• basketball


• soccer.

It’s difficult to resist the appeals of a kid who can’t wait to get back into the soccer game. But if she was dizzy, nauseous, had vision problems or a headache, even momentarily, she’s done until a doctor examines her. And certainly anyone who has gotten knocked out should be seen by a doctor immediately.

The groundswell against the use of tanning beds got an additional boost last week when California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation prohibiting children younger than 18 from using the body-bronzers as of January 2012. California is the first state to enact such a ban.

In March, the American Academy of Pediatricians called for a tanning-bed ban for minors, and last year an FDA advisory committed made similar recommendations.

An increasing body of evidence says that the risk of skin cancer from tanning beds might be much higher than previously expected. According to the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, the ultraviolet rays produced by most tanning beds penetrate deeply into the skin, causing significant damage.

According to AboutLawsuits.com, some studies have shown that use of tanning beds by young adults results in eight times the risk of developing melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. A study by the World Health Organization indicated that use of tanning beds before the age of 30 might increase the risk of skin cancer by 75%.

The American Cancer Society says that melanoma is diagnosed in about 69,000 Americans each year and causes about 8,650 deaths annually. Melanoma is highly curable while it's confined to the skin, but once it penetrates deeper, it can go to the brain and other vital organs.

A memorable client of Patrick Malone's died from medical malpractice in the failure to remove a mole from his lower back before it turned into a fatal melanoma. You can read about Richard Semsker in Malone's book, "The Life You Save," and on Patrick Malone's law firm website. Mr. Semsker's case had nothing to do with tanning beds, but shows how simple missteps in communications among his doctors could cause an unnecessary death.

The parental instinct to protect one's child is evolutionary. If something isn't safe, the parent's instinct is to remove the child from the danger, or otherwise minimize the threat.

That's a noble instinct, But is it always the best instinct? A recent story in the New York Times suggests that too much protection can stunt growth and inhibit an otherwise healthy desire to try new things and expand horizons.

Parental concern, government regulation, product safety guidelines and the fear of lawsuits have all contributed to the makeover of playgrounds from tall, creaky equipment resting on hard surfaces to kinder, gentler forms of outdoor apparatus. Shorter equipment sited on enclosed platforms underlain with absorbment material unquestionably prevents some injuries. But experts wonder at what cost.

“There is no clear evidence that playground safety measures have lowered the average risk on playgrounds,” said David Ball, a professor of risk management at Middlesex University in London. He noted that the risk of some injuries such as arm fractures increased after the introduction of softer surfaces on playgrounds in Britain and Australia.

“This sounds counterintuitive, but it shouldn’t ...,” Ball told The Times. “If children and parents believe they are in an environment which is safer than it actually is, they will take more risks.”

Playground equipment should be age-appropriate, of course--lower monkey bars will help develop a toddler's physical abilities. But they might impede an older child's psychological development or, because they're insufficiently challenging, encourage her to engage in play somewhere else--goofing around a high bridge over a river--that's too risky.

A study published in Evolutionary Psychology describes the value of risky play in encouraging children to confront their fears in order to overcome them. "[W]e may observe an increased neuroticism or psychopathology in society," the authors suggest, "if children are hindered from partaking in age adequate risky play."

Some researchers aren't convinced that children do suffer fewer physical injuries when their recreational corners are padded, but if so, they contend that such playgrounds may stunt emotional development and leave children anxious and fearful. Isn't that worse than a broken ankle?

As Ellen Sandseter, co-author of the Evolutionary Psychology study, told the New York Times, “I think monkey bars and tall slides are great. As playgrounds become more and more boring, these are some of the few features that still can give children thrilling experiences with heights and high speed.”

Sandseter identified six categories of risky play: exploring heights, experiencing high speed, handling dangerous tools, being near dangerous elements (water, fire), rough-and-tumble play (wrestling) and wandering alone away from adult supervision. The most common is climbing heights.

Children progressively raise their adventure bar, Sandseter, said. And that's the way they learn to accept and master challenge. When they fail, they get hurt, physically or emotionally. But as The Times' story reports, if parents and psychologists worry that a kid who suffers a bad fall will develop a fear of heights, studies have shown the opposite: A child younger than 9 who gets hurt in a fall is less likely as a teenager to have a fear of heights.

The gradual exposure to increasing danger is known as habituation. It's the same technique therapists use to help people overcome phobias. And it's hard-wired into our primordial brains: As The Times summarizes, "While a youthful zest for exploring heights might not seem adaptive — why would natural selection favor children who risk death before they have a chance to reproduce? — the dangers seemed to be outweighed by the benefits of conquering fear and developing a sense of mastery."

“Paradoxically,” the authors write in Evolutionary Psychology, “we posit that our fear of children being harmed by mostly harmless injuries may result in more fearful children and increased levels of psychopathology.”

So, parents, here's your long-term homework assignment. Try to understand that your instinct to keep the kids safe is normal and laudable, but it can overrun your child's need to take risks. You can't soften every blow, and--here's the take-home--you shouldn't try.

On the other hand, efforts to remove safety hazards from playgrounds are still important. When the issue is not just bumps and bruises, but head injury and serious harm, parents have a right to insist that playgrounds conform to safety standards.

Maclaren USA, the stroller manufacturer which issued a massive recall in November 2009, is calling for mandatory federal regulations of standards for strollers and global harmonization of stroller safety.

In a press release to announce results of the 2009 recall, Maclaren says that umbrella strollers “remain unregulated with tremendous risk to consumers who expect and assume otherwise" and notes that the stroller hazards that prompted the 2009 recall “were inherent not just to Maclaren products, but to nearly all umbrella-fold models,”

In November 2009, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Maclaren jointly announced a voluntary recall of approximately 1 million Maclaren single and double strollers, citing the risk of fingertip amputation and laceration while the parent/caregiver is unfolding/opening the stroller.

Maclaren has provided a kit to cover the elbow joint on their umbrella strollers’ hinge mechanism, to avoid the potential hazard to a child when the operator is opening or closing the umbrella stroller. Maclaren says more than 300,000 U.S. consumers have ordered the kits in the past 18 months. However, the company also says it has received 37 new reports of fingertip injuries since the recall was issued.

According to the CPSC, there are approximately 11,500 stroller-related injuries each year, about 500 of which relate to finger injuries, including the hinge-related injuries associated with umbrella strollers.

SOURCE Maclaren USA, Inc.

With an average of one child every two weeks strangled on the cords of window blinds, it’s no wonder that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has asked manufacturers to come up with a way to eliminate the risks to children from the cords or possibly face mandatory regulations.

In response, window blind manufacturers, working with a task force of regulators and consumer advocates, say they will come up with a fix by the fall. The decision to speed up work on solving the problem comes after an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) revealed that 49% of the deaths of children who strangle in window cords go unreported.

The article, which was co-authored by a CPSC staff member, estimates that the total number of window cord strangulations in the U.S. from 1981 to 1995 was 359 (i.e. one child strangling in window cords every 2 weeks). Most of the deaths (93%) are children 3 years and under.

Although window blind makers already install safety features and offer tips to parents to try to minimize the dangers from their products, critics complain that the manufacturers have dragged their feet on addressing safety hazards for decades, making minor tweaks or putting the onus on parents to shorten cords or buy tie-down devices, while regulators have done little to crack down.

In the current negotiations, manufacturers of window blinds have offered several fixes that they say would reduce the hazards, but consumer advocates on the task force say they are inadequate and have threatened to quit. “It was my understanding that we were eliminating the hazard,” said Carol Pollack-Nelson, a safety consultant and member of the task force. “Now they are talking about reducing the hazard. We don’t want reduced strangulation. We want no chance of it.”

CPSC regulators also rejected the industry’s proposals and urged the manufacturers to try again. Inez Tenenbaum, the commission’s chairwoman, emphasized that the commission staff plans to continue negotiating with manufacturers to find a solution.

One solution to the problem – cordless blinds -- has been available for several decades, but they are more difficult to produce and can cost twice as much as corded blinds. Due to the additional cost, CPSC also wants the task force to find cheaper alternatives, such as retractable cords or cords that are covered and therefore inaccessible to children.

Source: The New York Times

You can read the latest news release on window-blind safety from CPSC here, and the abstract of the JAMA article here.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it continues to receive reports of methemoglobinemia, a serious and potentially fatal adverse effect, associated with benzocaine products both as a spray used during medical procedures to numb the mucous membranes of the mouth and throat, and benzocaine gels and liquids sold over-the-counter and used to relieve pain from a variety of conditions, such as teething, canker sores, and irritation of the mouth and gums.

Methemoglobinemia is a rare but serious condition in which the amount of oxygen carried through the blood stream is greatly reduced. In the most severe cases, methemoglobinemia can result in death. Patients who develop methemoglobinemia may experience signs and symptoms such as pale, gray or blue colored skin, lips, and nail beds; headache; lightheadedness; shortness of breath; fatigue; and rapid heart rate.

While methemoglobinemia has been reported with all strengths of benzocaine gels and liquids, most cases occurred in children aged two years or younger who were treated with benzocaine gel for teething. The signs and symptoms usually appear within minutes to hours of applying benzocaine and may occur with the first application of benzocaine or after additional use. The development of methemoglobinemia after treatment with benzocaine sprays may not be related to the amount applied. In many cases, methemoglobinemia was reported following the administration of a single benzocaine spray.

The FDA recommends that Benzocaine products not be used on children under 2 years except under the advice and supervision of a healthcare professional. It also recommends storing these products out of the reach of children.

Source: Food and Drug Administration

Ophthalmologists worldwide are warning that recent cases of teenagers who suffered eye damage after playing with high-powered green laser pointers could be the beginning of a dangerous trend.

“In the hands of children, [they are] a very scary proposition,” said one ophthalmologist.

Meanwhile, other eye doctors interviewed by the New York Times said they were shocked at how easily available high-powered laser pointers are. And, they note, pointers 10 to 20 times more powerful than the legal limit set by the Food and Drug Administration are easy to order online. One physician was able to purchase a 100 milliwatt laser – 20 times the legal limit – online for $28, no questions asked.

Some physicians maintain that the dangers are so acute that even the FDA’s five-milliwatt limit is too high. And, in a consumer update in December, the FDA acknowledged that illegal laser pointers were being sold and warned that “a higher-powered laser gives you less time to look away before injury can occur, and as power increases, eye damage may happen in a microsecond.”

Steve Liu, chief executive of Wicked Lasers, said in an interview that the company's products did not violate FDA restrictions because those over the five-milliwatt limit were not called pointers, and that the company's web site clearly states that the lasers are eye and fire hazards. He also said his company would begin offering laser safety lessons to its customers before online checkout.

Laser experts concede that it is virtually impossible to control all the hazardous laser products currently available, and note that any talk of restricting availability would be resisted by the large community of laser enthusiasts, including those who use them professionally (e.g. contractors and astronomers).

Source: The New York Times