Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know. This isn't enough to make me go upstairs and throw away ours. As NJGoat pointed out, it refers to brushes made before 2009. What about the ones made in the last year? It doesn't sound like they are being recalled. If they are that big of a hazard, why aren't they? I'm going to look into to further. ETA Goat and I read it wrong. 2009 refers to the year before which the brand name was different. Still, this is a blog. I'm not finding much about it elsewhere. It sounds like if you follow the directions, and replace the brush after 3 months, these injuries won't happen.
The article was a little unclear. At one point they referenced brushes made in 2009 or earlier. Does that mean that newer ones don't have these same issues? It was also a little unclear in that it seems that if you replace the brush or head every three months as the manufacturer recommends then these problems are pretty much non-existent. As with most things, people don't follow the recommendations and get hurt. The manufacturer wasn't explicit enough with the warnings, so now they end up being labelled "dangerous".
My kids have used these for years and my wife and I use the Sonicare ones and haven't had any problems at all, though we do replace the kids brushes every three months. I personally hate the feel of a worn tooth brush, why even bother brushing at that point, lol.
I think the 2009 thing was referring to Crest producing them (prior to 2009) which they dont anymore.
I once worked with product testing. You would actually be very surprised at the extensive testing required for any thing thats going to be anywhere near children. There are a lot of products that don't make it to market because the price of the testing is more expensive than the profit they would make from selling whatever it is. A huge majority of recalls are caused by injuries the consumer sustains while incorrectly operating the product. I can garentee that there is way more to the story than someone was just brushing their teeth and the brush exploded. I'm not saying that cannot happen, but there was recently a recall of freezer packs because a dog chewed on one and it got sick from the liquid inside. The pack wasn't meant to be chewed on but because that happened they had to recall and retest.
I once worked with product testing. You would actually be very surprised at the extensive testing required for any thing thats going to be anywhere near children. There are a lot of products that don't make it to market because the price of the testing is more expensive than the profit they would make from selling whatever it is. A huge majority of recalls are caused by injuries the consumer sustains while incorrectly operating the product. I can garentee that there is way more to the story than someone was just brushing their teeth and the brush exploded. I'm not saying that cannot happen, but there was recently a recall of freezer packs because a dog chewed on one and it got sick from the liquid inside. The pack wasn't meant to be chewed on but because that happened they had to recall and retest.
that's what I'm thinking. And this product wasn't even recalled. That tells me there isn't anything inherently wrong with it, if it is used correctly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.