Talk:Poison control centers educate public on hand sanitizer consumption

I interviewed Stuart E. Heard, executive director at the California Poison Control System on April 30, 2012, at 6:47 p.m. central.

Summarized Notes:

Since March 1, 2012, 16 cases of teens drinking hand sanitizer have been reported to the California Poison Control System (CPCS).

Sixty cases have been reported to CPCS since 2010.

CPCS only receives the reported cases. They suspect there are much more that go unreported. Reports usually only happen when something goes terribly wrong.

Teens can learn how to distill the hand sanitizer to get just the alcohol from different sources. Friends, Internet sites, and YouTube tutorials show how to distill.

The best way to prevent children from drinking hand sanitizer is to educate them on the harmful effects. They must understand the effects of consuming large amounts of alcohol in a short amount of time. Alcohol poisoning is a serious issue.

CPCS is also concerned with how available the product is on shelves. It can be found in nearly all stores. Teens can buy it anywhere. It's even set up around schools and other facilities for people to use at their own convenience. It is readily available.

It is unlikely that this trend will cause the product to be locked up in stores to prevent kids from purchasing. It is also unlikely that any sort of legal purchasing verification will come out of this trend.

Srbealor (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Srbealor (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I interviewed James Mowry, director of Indiana Poison Center on May 1, 2012, at 3:27 p.m. central. Srbealor (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Summarized Notes:

Indiana Poison Center only had four reports so far in 2012 of teens misusing hand sanitizer; of those four, three were in correctional institutions.

They suspect that number is low. If teens are getting the expected effects of drinking hand sanitizer, they won't hear about it.

Hand sanitizer is made up of 62% ethly alcohol. That is comparable to a 120 proof drink or 50% more alcohol found in regular, hard liquor.

Teens are distilling the hand sanitizer to get rid of the antibacterial.

Hand sanitizer has a very high concentration of alcohol. Consuming this will alter judgements and induce vomiting. Vomit could potentially get in their lungs causing further complications.

Over the last 10 years, 41 cases of hand sanitizer abuse have been reported to Indiana Poison Center. Of those 41 cases, 31 were teenagers and 10 were adults.

Indiana Poison Center is doing their part by informing the public of what could happen. They will be posting information on their Facebook page. Although they are followed primarily by parents, they hope the parents will pass this information onto their children.

Srbealor (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Srbealor (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1486637 [Not ready]

Revision 1486637 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: There are really no substantive reporter's notes here. We want detailed reporter's notes — you should be trying to provide more than we need, not less. WN:OR. The headline should be a sentence (in headlinese) in active voice, describing the most important and unique thing about the focal news event of the article. A full-blown interview is itself the event on which its article focuses. In this case, the OR seems essential to whatever newsworthiness this has, since the sources are all about a week old (note, btw: one of the {{source}} template calls doesn't list a date). The lede should especially bring the focal news event into focus, as its whole function is to define the focus with succinct answers to as many as reasonable possibly of the basic questions about the news event. It doesn't appear to do this, though; there's no mention of the OR element, and the only day mentioned is two months ago. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1486637 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: There are really no substantive reporter's notes here. We want detailed reporter's notes — you should be trying to provide more than we need, not less. WN:OR. The headline should be a sentence (in headlinese) in active voice, describing the most important and unique thing about the focal news event of the article. A full-blown interview is itself the event on which its article focuses. In this case, the OR seems essential to whatever newsworthiness this has, since the sources are all about a week old (note, btw: one of the {{source}} template calls doesn't list a date). The lede should especially bring the focal news event into focus, as its whole function is to define the focus with succinct answers to as many as reasonable possibly of the basic questions about the news event. It doesn't appear to do this, though; there's no mention of the OR element, and the only day mentioned is two months ago. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1487005 [Not ready]

Revision 1487005 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: "no laughing matter" Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Think long and hard about the "inverted pyramid"-style and then read this article again....the Cusack/Kimmel bit early on doesn't really fit (given the title). There's loads of great stuff here....but it's a bit rambly in places. Terse and tight is the order of the day. Also, give a little thought to stale/fresh.....this issue is in the news, sure it is. But where's the recent "event" here? If I'm missing it, point it out to me. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1487005 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: "no laughing matter" Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Think long and hard about the "inverted pyramid"-style and then read this article again....the Cusack/Kimmel bit early on doesn't really fit (given the title). There's loads of great stuff here....but it's a bit rambly in places. Terse and tight is the order of the day. Also, give a little thought to stale/fresh.....this issue is in the news, sure it is. But where's the recent "event" here? If I'm missing it, point it out to me. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I missed the freshness of your OR...sorry, my mistake. I still stand by the other comments. This is a good article that doesn't need to die. I'm signing off for the evening, though. Keep working. Bddpaux (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1487107 [Not ready]

Revision 1487107 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Honestly, I'm just looking atm at the headline and lede, and how they have changed since my first review. They still don't identify a focal news event: An ongoing process is not an event (to use the example here, it's more like continental drift than like an earthquake), and something that happened on March 1 isn't news. The thing that has happened recently is some interviewing, and that isn't mentioned in either the headline or the lede. The word "staggering" has found its way into the lede since I last reviewed the article; that's moving in the wrong direction, away from neutrality rather than toward it. A previous review specifically warned against non-neutral phrasing, though this wasn't the particular example used. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1487107 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Honestly, I'm just looking atm at the headline and lede, and how they have changed since my first review. They still don't identify a focal news event: An ongoing process is not an event (to use the example here, it's more like continental drift than like an earthquake), and something that happened on March 1 isn't news. The thing that has happened recently is some interviewing, and that isn't mentioned in either the headline or the lede. The word "staggering" has found its way into the lede since I last reviewed the article; that's moving in the wrong direction, away from neutrality rather than toward it. A previous review specifically warned against non-neutral phrasing, though this wasn't the particular example used. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Remark on image

I'll put money on the bottle of hand sanitizer being zapped off Commons.

We should also avoid that, as it's just a sincle brand we're picking on. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1487720 [Passed]

Revision 1487720 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Inverted pyramid=Much improved!! Overall style/tone....much better on NPOV and terse writing....not as squishy as previous submissions. Bddpaux (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1487720 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Inverted pyramid=Much improved!! Overall style/tone....much better on NPOV and terse writing....not as squishy as previous submissions. Bddpaux (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

• I'm not too crazy about the image that shows up for the article on mains, but it'll have to do. Bddpaux (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

External sources

Did the reviewer use those links that are labeled as External sources? If so, they should be included in the Sources section. If not, their section heading should be External links. --Pi zero (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)