Talk:U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Legal action against chemical supply companies -- the link given as a citation is a link to an external page that is primarily opinion based. Seeking citation that is fact based. Lynne Jorgensen 01:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal action against chemical suppliers

As of 2006, the CPSC is pursuing legal action against chemical supply companies, claiming that sales of chemicals such as oxidizers and powdered metals contribute to the production of illegal firecrackers. This legal action has drawn considerable criticism from the chemical suppliers themselves, as well as rocketry and pyrotechnics enthusiasts. Companies such as United Nuclear have alleged that the CPSC is overstepping its bounds and is attempting to snuff out amateur chemistry research [1]. ^{[citation needed]} Despite the link, there was no real citation given for this other than the politically biased self-published material, which does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Hence, the deletion. Lynne Jorgensen 01:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is it you're looking to have verified? That the CPSC is cracking down? Or that the crackdown has drawn criticism? If the former, how about this link: [2] If the latter, I'd say the United Nuclear link provided does so quite well... But here are some others: [3] [4] [5] -- MyrddinEmrys 08:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The offending sentence did not flow; "hampering scientific research" is neither cited nor valid. Either way -- this is a terrorist mindset. It may have a place on wikipedia were it cited, but it does not. Please take your explosives elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.34.154 (talk • contribs)

Who's talking about explosives? Hydrogen used as an automotive fuel source has nothing to do with terrorism. Please take your paranoid mindset elsewhere. -- MyrddinEmrys 09:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyrddinEmrys, Please put your citations in the article itself. That's the point of citations. Lynne Jorgensen 23:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. But what exactly is it you're asking me to cite? I'm still not clear on that. -- MyrddinEmrys 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just added two; how's that look? Any better? -- MyrddinEmrys 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Hazardous Substances Act

The short article discusses the commission (CPSC) in relation to the CPSA (as improved) but not the Federal Hazardous Substances Act of 1960 (as amended by the Child Protection Act of 1966). If there is an External link to FHSA, then perhaps there should be some narrative or mention in the article explaining what the logical connection to the subjects (CSPC-FHSA) might be. Perhaps also mention that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) formerly administered the FHSA functions of the CPSC for years; (e.g., the FDA banned un-safe or hazardous "clackers" in 1971, prior to the creation of the CPSC on May 19, 1973). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creation day, establishment & formation

Public Law (15 USC 2053) states that the CPSC was "hereby established" - perhaps on that day of enactment (Oct 27, 1972); yet the later (Dec 22, 1978) Regulation (16 CFR 1500) and the (current) Federal Register both state that the establishment was May 14, 1973. The article adds to this confusion by using alternate terms "Created" and "Formed". However another section of the Regulations (16 CFR 1000.1) again states that the CPSC was "formed" on May 14, 1973. Suggest correcting both the creation and formation dates to read May 14, 1973 for the Commission; and allow the entirely separate article, on the CPSA law, to use the Oct 27, 1972 enactment date. It is not unusual for laws to specify reasonable timeframes (e.g., 180 days) for the creation of independent agencies or entirely new commissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have a "history" section in this article, with the motivation for the legislation, as well as details like the above. Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Computer board on top loading GE was king machine burned

Concerned over safety on a recall opening date is 2017 173.54.60.203 (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]