Cutting Torches
Twenty years of CPSC NEISS emergency-room records for this consumer product category, combined with demographic breakdowns, multi-year injury trends, and matching recall notices.
Home Communication & Entertainment · CPSC Code 874
Down 45% over 5 years
The verdict
Cutting Torches carry a danger score of 33/100 (low risk), driven by roughly 939 ER-treated injuries a year that are declining by about 45% over the last five years.
- 33/100
- danger score (low risk)
- 939
- ER visits per year (avg)
- 12.7%
- end in hospital admission
- 35-44
- most-injured age group
Every figure is rendered from the CPSC NEISS record for product code 874 - last data year 2024.
PlainSafety danger score
How this 33/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for cutting torches - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume939 ER visits/yr
- Severity (hospitalization rate)12.7%
- Fatality rate0.00%
- 5-year trend-45%
See the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Cutting Torches (CPSC product code 874, in the Home Communication & Entertainment category) generate an estimated 939 emergency-room visits every year in the United States, adding up to roughly 18,784 ER-treated injuries across the 20-year span from 2005 to 2024. PlainSafety derives a danger score of 33/100 for this category (low risk), combining raw injury volume, demographic reach, severity of outcome, and multi-year trend. The five-year trajectory shows that injury counts 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 for cutting torches 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 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.
Frequently Asked Questions
How dangerous are cutting torches?
Based on 20 years of CPSC data, cutting torches have a danger score of 33/100 (low risk). An estimated 939 ER-treated injuries occur annually in the U.S. related to this product category.
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.
Related Products in Home Communication & Entertainment
Safety Guides
What this means for you
Treat the 33/100 score as relative risk between products, not your personal odds of injury.
- See where this category ranks against every other tracked product. Full rankings
- Injuries cluster in the 35-44 age group, take extra care if that describes your household.
- Check for active recalls on this product before you assume it is safe. CPSC recalls
NEISS estimates ER-treated injuries from a national probability sample of hospitals; they do not capture injuries treated elsewhere or not treated at all.
Data: CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments. This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, scored, and verified.
