Button Batteries: Convenient for you – and Baby, too

May 28th, 2010. By Hunter West

One can’t imagine the horror of discovering that your child has swallowed a battery. But it happens—and it’s occurring with increasing frequency, according to a study published this week in the medical journal Pediatrics.

It’s bad enough when a child swallows anything not meant to enter the mouth and the life-threatening choking hazard that can ensue. But just as dangerous—if more so—is the potential for an ingested battery to do permanent damage resulting from the electric charge still inherent with the ingested battery.

As reported earlier this week by CNN, there has been a 6.7 fold increase in the percentage of severe outcomes from battery ingestion over the last 24 years. What’s more, the severity of those outcomes, or injuries, has worsened. Reports have included damage to, and destruction of the esophagus, perforation of the aorta and vocal cord paralysis.

A common culprit, as described in the study, is the 20mm lithium battery.

You know these batteries. They’re the ones that look like a dime, or a penny. It’s the same concept as the small, button batteries that power your watch. And you can see the need for using these compact batteries, given the ever-shrinking size of electronics. Everything is getting smaller, including remotes for electronic devices. Remotes are everywhere, and most households have a collection of them lying around, in plain view and available for a toddler to locate, pick up and jam in his mouth.

That’s what children do. Everything goes in their mouths. And it always happens just when your back is turned for a split second. Call it Parental Murphy’s Law.

While I don’t dispute the need for smaller batteries (some products are so small and thin, even the small, ‘AAA’ batteries are way too big), where is the caution on the part of electronics manufacturers to baby-proof their devices?

I have four children. The oldest is 35 and the youngest is 14—so I’ve been through a lot of parenting and a basketful of toys, some of which were battery-powered. Most of the toys designed for children had—and hopefully still do—a screw nail securing the battery compartment cover. To get at the battery, you had to have a screwdriver.

Why is that not the case for all, small electronics? Do manufacturers of these small electronics not realize that to a child, this thing is a toy and they’re going to put the thing in their mouths? Just because a remote, for example, is designed for an adult, there is no guarantee that child won’t find the thing, pick it up, jam it in their mouths and somehow manage to get the battery cover off.

If, and when that happens—you know where that small, dime-sized battery is going…

Watchmakers have the right idea. You need tools to pry that watch back off, to get at the battery. Ever try to do that without tools? Forget it. But the inaccessible watch back cover is there for a reason: to hold the battery in place, and to protect the delicate inner workings. There is also provision for moisture protection, from perspiration or perhaps rain. In the case of a sports watch that can be submerged, a rigid seal is a must.

Of course, remotes are not meant to be dropped in a lake. They are there for our convenience. Ditto when the need arises to replace the battery. Most remotes I have experience with feature a battery cover that either slides off with thumb pressure, or is released by engaging a tab.

Convenient for me, but here’s the problem: toddlers can figure it out, too. I have a remote at home where the tab mechanism has worn over time, and it barely keeps the batteries in. We have to tape it shut. Not that it’s broken—it’s just wear-and-tear. Same with a remote that features a cover that slides, in a track. It’s worn and there is no friction left. It just drops right off. We have to tape that one, too.

I have a remote up at the lake, fairly new, that uses the 20mm lithium battery talked about in the Pediatrics article. The battery cover slides off with my thumb quite easily. There is little, if any resistance—and with wear, there will soon be no resistance at all.

If I can do it, so could a child. And it’s unrealistic to ‘put the remote up where the baby can’t get at it…’

C’mon. We leave them on the couch, or they fall on the floor and we don’t bother to pick them up after a late night of TV-watching. Here’s another shocker: some of those remotes featuring the spring-tab battery cover will loosen when dropped, or the cover will pop off altogether.

And here comes the baby…

Okay, so it is incumbent upon the parent to baby-proof as much as possible. That means taping up the battery compartment.

But why doesn’t the manufacturer ensure that battery-covers are not only secure, but that security is absolute? Okay, so we don’t all have kids. And if you are a grown adult who does not make a habit of putting lithium batteries in your mouth, you would not appreciate having to fetch a screwdriver every time the battery in your remote or other electronic device is in need of replacement.

But we have dogs. Cats. Pets. They can ingest a battery just as easily, and the damage can be just as severe.

To be sure, as a parent I am going to baby-proof as much as I can.

However, despite my best efforts were my child to suffer from the affects of swallowing a live battery from a remote or electronic device that I perceived to have security failings, I’m going to hold the manufacturer accountable.

That means, I would be calling my lawyer.

My child swallows a battery originating from a device whose battery cover was poorly designed, without allowance for children, or even pets?

Damn you. You’re going to pay.

Perhaps a few lawsuits might smarten them up…

Tags: Batteries, Button Batteries, Lithium Batteries

This was posted on Friday, May 28th, 2010 at 12:10 pm and is filed under Personal Injury . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.