Which Toys Are Okay? Don't Ask the Safety Police.

In a chillingly similar fashion, CPSC has so far refused to release this year's report. ATVs are among the deadliest and most controversial products under the agency's jurisdiction, but I found this pattern of suppressing scientific research to be the agency's standard operating procedure on many issues.

Even in the agency halls, there's a defeatist anti-regulation atmosphere, despite the staff's desire to put research to good purpose. My co-workers would ask me what I was working on and say, "Oh, are you still on ATVs? What a shame. The commission is never going to do anything about that." Everyone knew it was a hopeless cause. Even I wondered at times whether my work would ever have an effect as long as the industry had a friend like the former general counsel in place.

ATVs aren't the only problem. One of CPSC's long-term goals is to reduce the number of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning, many of them associated with portable generators, which have become a popular household item because of snowstorms in the North and hurricanes in the South. For years, CPSC has wrung its hands while generator-related deaths increased.

I once asked an engineer co-worker why the manufacturers couldn't do more to prevent such deaths. She told me that they know how to make a generator that doesn't emit carbon monoxide -- thus eliminating the hazard altogether -- but it would add $25 to the cost of buying a generator. CPSC would not require the manufacturers to start making these safer models.

On the other hand, some of my colleagues studied hydroxides, a chemical in certain hair products and drain cleaners. Some hydroxides can cause horrific internal burns if swallowed, so products containing them may merit child-resistant packaging -- which, CPSC research shows, would cost manufacturers about 2 cents more per package. CPSC's upper management has for several years not even allowed the research on hydroxides to be presented to the commission.

I'm not a disgruntled former employee. I loved working at CPSC, and my job there was the most rewarding I've ever had. I was commended as an outstanding worker, and it broke my heart to leave. When I did so at the end of 2006, it was of my own accord. If I'd thought that staying there to crunch numbers could have saved a single person's life, I would have stayed. But I came to realize that, unfortunately, that wouldn't happen unless the agency finds a way to change.

After working at CPSC, I lost my naive confidence that Uncle Sam would do the right thing. I also made changes in my home. I have no toaster. No curling iron, no turkey fryer, no gas oven. I unplug my hair dryer after every use, check the burners on my stove nightly, replace the batteries in my smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detector several times a year.

One year -- admittedly in a moment of overzealousness -- I gave my parents a fire extinguisher for Christmas. I'm acutely aware that I'm responsible for my own safety and that no one else is looking out for me -- perhaps least of all CPSC.

It's easy to be outraged because the agency has allowed dangerous products to be imported from China, or because its chairman has taken trips paid for by the industries she regulates. But it's important to look more closely at CPSC and ask what really drives it and what currency it deals in. The agency was formed for one reason: to save lives. People of all ages die every day in incidents associated with some of the 15,000 products that it's meant to oversee. The agency should listen to its own scientists and stop silencing the life-saving research happening in its buildings.

Think about the gifts you're giving your loved ones this holiday season. Do you think they're as safe as they could be?

robin.ingle@yahoo.com

Robin Ingle is a statistician living in suburban Maryland.