Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Cutting Torches ranks #526 of 838 by danger score (33/100) at ER-volume #531 of 838 (939/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #526
- danger rank of 838
- #531
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 33/100
- danger score
- 939/yr
- estimated ER visits (avg)
Danger score combines injury volume, hospitalization, fatality, and five-year trend. ER volume is the average annual NEISS estimate alone. Rank 1 is highest on each list.
Where this category's danger score sits nationally
Danger score (33/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
33 Lower than most lower than 63% of 838 product categories
scored CPSC product categories, bucketed by value
Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more product categories. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.
Source CPSC NEISS, PlainSafety danger-score model · 2024
Composite verdict
Composite Safety Score: 45/100
One verdict blending 4 independently-sourced dimensions from two separate CPSC systems, each benchmarked against all 838 scored product categories by percentile rather than raw value, so no single huge-volume category can dominate the scale.
| Dimension | Value | National percentile | Weight applied | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) | 13 | 83rd | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 939 | 32nd | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | -45% | 11th | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 2 | 25th | 20% | CPSC SaferProducts.gov public incident report count |
Methodology: each dimension is ranked against the full population's p10/p25/p50/p75/p90 breakpoints and interpolated to a 0-100 percentile; the composite is the weighted average of available percentiles. See methodology for the full benchmark table.
Where 18,778 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 874. Segments sum to 18,778 - a body-map mix, not a danger score or ER-volume rank.
Two danger lenses
Same-group peer scores and this product's dial
The bars compare PlainSafety danger scores inside the Home Communication & Entertainment group (same CPSC NEISS extract). The dial is this product's score alone on the Low/Moderate/High bands. Do not read a peer bar as an ER-visit count.
Home Communication & Entertainment danger scores
How this 33/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for cutting torches - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 939 ER visits/yr Below median volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 12.7% High admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
- 5-year trend-45%
Band labels compare this category against the corpus of 838 scored CPSC product categories, see the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Across the 20-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2024, injury counts for cutting torches are declining by about 45% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2006 (1,888 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2024 (392 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is burns, thermal to the hand, accounting for approximately 3,749 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by foreign body to the eyeball (1,907 cases). The 35-44 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 4,003 cases over the NEISS window, and males appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 12.7% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 2 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how cutting torches fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.
Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 47 | 21 | |
| 5-14 | 218 | 159 | |
| 15-24 | 3,461 | 304 | |
| 25-34 | 2,676 | 30 | |
| 35-44 | 3,868 | 135 | |
| 45-54 | 3,193 | 123 | |
| 55-64 | 2,304 | 134 | |
| 65-74 | 1,124 | 65 | |
| 75+ | 844 | 74 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Hand | Burns, Thermal | |
| Eyeball | Foreign Body | |
| Lower Arm | Burns, Thermal | |
| Face | Burns, Thermal | |
| Finger | Burns, Thermal | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Lower Leg | Burns, Thermal | |
| Eyeball | Radiation | |
| Upper Trunk | Burns, Thermal | |
| Lower Trunk | Burns, Thermal | |
| Foot | Burns, Thermal | |
| Upper Leg | Burns, Thermal | |
| Eyeball | Other | |
| Wrist | Burns, Thermal | |
| Upper Arm | Burns, Thermal |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
53YOM WAS USING A TORCH TO OPEN A 50 GALLON ETHANOL VAT THAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE EMPTY. IT EXPLODED AND CAUGHT PTS SHIRT ON FIRE. BURNS ON CHEST AND ARMS. NO FD. DX: BURN, CHEST AND ARMS
53 YOF RAN INTO A PORTABLE WELDER AND INJURED LOWER LEG DX HEMATOMA LOWER LEG
6YOM PRESENTS WITH PARENTS FOR CONCERNS OF FACIAL BURN. PATIENT WAS REPORTEDLY PLAYING AT HIS FATHER'S CONSTRUCTION SITE. HE WAS WITH HIS DAD AND WHO HAD A BLOW TORCH, AND HE ACCIDENTALLY SWIPED IT ACROSS HIS FACE. DX: PARTIAL THICKNESS BURNS OF FACE
63YOM WAS REMOVING A SPARE TIRE AND WAS USING A CUTTING TORCH AND FELT SOMETHING GO INTO HIS EYE. WAS NOT WEARING SAFETY GLASSSES. DX RUST RING OF L CORNEA DUE TO MATELLIC FB.
82YOM PATIENT REPORT THAT HE WAS CUTTING A PAINT CAN USING SOME KIND OF CUTTING TORCHED AND IT BLEW UP IN HIS FACE, UPPER CHEST 2% OF FIRST DEGREE, MILD ERYTHEMA ON THE FOREHEAD 1% FIRST DEGRESS BURN DX: BURN
6YOM WAS PLAYING OUTSIDE W A PEER WHEN THEY PICKED UP DADS SMALL BLOW TORCH. FRIEND TURNED IT ON BUT THERE WAS NO FLAM AND PT WAVED HIS HAND IN FRONT OF THE NOZZLE WHEN THE FIRE TURNED ON BURNING LT HAND NO FD DX: PARTIAL THICKNESS BURN OF HAND INCLUDING FINGERS
35YOM STATES HE WAS WORKING ON HIS CAR WHEN HE BELIEVES A SMALL PIECE OF RUSTL FELL INTO HIS LEFT EYE WHILE WELDING. RESULTING IN HAVING PAIN WHEN OPENING HIS EYE. PROGRESSIVELY WORSENED AND NOW HAVING PAIN IN BOTH EYES. WAS WEARING PROTECTION. DX: PAIN AROUND BOTH EYES, CONJUNCTIVAL INJECTION, TEARING EYES.
53YOM BURNED HIS FOOT USING A CUTTING TORCH TO START A CAMPFIRE. DX: BURN FOOT- FIRE W/ NO F.D.
19 YOF WAS USING A BLOW TORCH IN HER COLLEGE CHEMISTRY CLASS WHEN SHE NOTICED SHE HAD BURNT A HOLE IN HER SHIRT AND BURNED HER ABDOMEN. DX ABDOMINAL BURN
61 YOM USING BUTANE TORCH WALKING FORWARD TRIPPED ON COFFEE TABLE DX PARTIAL THICKNESS BURN NOSE
58 YOM REPORTEDLY FELT TIRED AND FELL ASLEEP WITH A BLOW TORCH IN HIS HAND. HE DOES NOT REMEMBER THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO THIS, HE DOES ENDORSE METH USE TODAY. HE WAS SOMEWHAT UNRESPONSIVE SO BYSTANDERS PERFORMED CPR. ALSO RECEIVED ***. UDS +AMP, COC, THC, FENTANYL. +BURN LEFT FOREARM. DX: FULL THICKNESS BURN, SYNCOPE AND COLLAPSE
48 YOM WAS WORKING ON HIS CAR LAST NIGHT. HE WAS USING A BLOW TORCH WHEN THE STEERING WHEEL CAUGHT FIRE. FD NS. DX: PARTIAL THICKNESS BURN MULTIPLE SITES OF RIGHT HAND, PARTIAL THICKNESS BURN MULTIPLE SITES OF LEFT HAND.
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
A contractor working aboard MCB Camp Lejeune in Base Housing was brazing on an exterior AC unit when he reported the torch caught fire causing a small fire on the exterior siding of the housing and catching the torch tip on fire.
I own a Glowforge laser cutting system. The company is based out of Seattle. After a little over a year of use I have come to the conclusion that these machines appear to be built using very unsafe design practices and their use could lead to catastrophic fire. Electrical faults are rife. The component layout is dangerous. The tube cooling capacity is poor and susceptible to overheating. The main cable that controls the laser head is exceptionally easy to damage during cleaning or maintenance, and the insulation wears off alarmingly quickly, exposing the conductor traces. The main cable also runs very close the stepper motor. These motors run very warm and there is not adequate separation between it and the cable to ensure safety (or reliability). The cable then runs through the drag chain, where it is subject to a great deal of friction and wear. In addition, the machine is advertised as a 'Pro' device that is able to cut wood, acrylic and more. However, the electronics, heat sink and exhaust fan are all located next to each other in the same area of the machine. The accumulation of dirt in fumes in both the fan and over those critical components is alarming. The design reduces cooling capacity over time. Finally, there is a red tension cable that carries around 26,000 volts and feeds the laser tube. This cable is not designed to be flexed or strained at all and is very fragile. However, the high tension cable is installed next to the main ribbon cable (mentioned above) which carry control signs. Mains and high voltage signals should also be separated by a considerable margin for safety - the potential for noise and errors passing between the cables could cause glitches, faults and represent a fire hazard. The final area I am concerned with is the ducting supplied with the system. The ductwork expands every time the machine is in use and the creasing and uncreasing cause punctures in the duct, allowing cutting fumes to vent into the user's work space. The ductwork
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to cutting torches on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Home Communication & Entertainment
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Cutting Torches: cross-group products nearest on danger score (33/100), estimated annual ER visits (939/yr), and hospitalization share (12.7%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.
Similar danger score
Nearest cross-group products by PlainSafety danger score (100-point scale).
Similar ER visit volume
Nearest cross-group products by NEISS estimated annual ER visits.
Similar hospitalization rate
Nearest cross-group products by % of NEISS ER visits resulting in hospital admission.
Related Products in Home Communication & Entertainment
Read with this product
About this data
CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports form the basis of this page. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments.
According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Cutting Torches ranks #526 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #531 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does cutting torches rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, cutting torches ranks #526 by PlainSafety danger score (33/100) and #531 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (939/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from cutting torches?
The most common injury is burns, thermal to the hand, accounting for approximately 3,749 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from cutting torches increasing or decreasing?
Down 45% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for cutting torches injuries?
The 35-44 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 4,003 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by cutting torches?
Of all ER visits involving cutting torches, approximately 12.7% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (87.3%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with cutting torches?
You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.
PlainSafety is rendered directly from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and incident records, no number is typed in by an editor. Product recall timelines and hazard labels are drawn from CPSC recall records for this product. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of August 2026.