http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
radial arm saws.
Perhaps someone has access to industry sales statistics that would let
us weigh the probabilities in a more useful fashion.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Tom
Yep, very easy to draw some funny stats or even very misleading stats
if all you have is the raw injury numbers and no real idea of the
number of man hours associated with the injuries OR the total number
of installed tablesaws vs RA saws
Also, the frequency of use of the various saw types would be of major
interest
From the RAW numbers, it is impossible to even guess as to what saw
type is the most dangerous without knowing the numbers related to the
incidence of use. Obviously if RA saws are used only approx 4% of the
time compared to the overall saw use numbers, then RA saws are average
in injury rate - However, if RA saws account for (as reported) approx
4% of the injuries but are used only 2%of the time, their injury rate
is 2x the average; and so on and so on
For example, I probably use my RA saw less than 10% of my total saw
use; table saw probably gets 80%of my total saw use, and about 10% for
my bandsaw - but those numbers can vary depending on the project I am
doing. If I am doing lots of half laps, then I may be using the RA
with dado blade a much larger percentage of the total useage compared
to cutting plywood panels for cabinet carcasses/etc
John
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:50:35 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>
>Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
>saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
>no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
>radial arm saws.
>
>Perhaps someone has access to industry sales statistics that would let
>us weigh the probabilities in a more useful fashion.
>
>
>
>Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Steve Peterson wrote:
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
> the United States of America."
>
> "joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
> >
> > Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution.
> > I
> > recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
> > Joey
> >
> Promote the general Welfare covers a lot of ground
Not according to the founding fathers. Here's what a couple of them
had to say:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare,
but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson, 1798.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always
regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
To take
them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not
contemplated by its creators." James Madison.
Steve Peterson wrote:
> > Steve Peterson wrote:
> >> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> >> Union,
> >> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
> >> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
> >> to
> >> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
> >> for
> >> the United States of America."
> >>
> >> "joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
> >> >
> >> > Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the
> >> > Constitution.
> >> > I
> >> > recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
> >> > Joey
> >> >
> >> Promote the general Welfare covers a lot of ground
> >
> > Not according to the founding fathers. Here's what a couple of them
> > had to say:
> >
> > "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare,
> > but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson, 1798.
> >
> > "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always
> > regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
> > To take
> > them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
> > Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not
> > contemplated by its creators." James Madison.
> >
> Unfortunately, the founding fathers aren't still around to do the running,
> and if they were, I don't think they could be elected by today's voters, at
> least if they wouldn't appeal to greed. This "general welfare" idea doesn't
> sell very well today. How many people are priced out of health care? How
> many drive SUVs to the grocery? How many have a 4 WD that has never been
> off the highway?
You are right that they would never be elected by today's voters and I
think the reason is that the founders were interested in liberty and
freedom. Too many people are afraid of liberty, freedom and the
responsibility that goes with it. I would somewhat disagree that the
"general welfare doesn't sell very well today". To the contrary, it is
used by far too many people and politicians to justify ever increasing
intrusion in to our daily lives.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:16:31 -0700, "joey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>
>Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution. I
>recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
>Joey
I'm going to blame Ralph Nader. He probably didn't have anything to
do with that particular study, but I'm sure he'd approve.
:)
"joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>
> Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution.
I
> recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
> Joey
You can't be that naive, can you? Quick review.
Congressperson wants to be reelected, and there are a declining number of
babies to kiss every year.
Local university wants to gain some status and money.
Congressperson proposes/endorses funding the research grant for the sake of
"the children", appears throughout the district announcing how much of other
people's money will be added to local economy, gets good press, and
reelection.
Of course, to all other congressional districts, this is a "pork" project.
They'd despise and denounce it if the above-named congressperson hadn't
contributed his vote for their new Social Security office, sewer plant,
mail-sorting facility, etc.
The real answer? BREED! That way they could kiss babies rather than other
people's asses to get reelected....
"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Most surprising is the number of injuries on miter saws. Maybe carpenters
> use them in a more dangerous manner than woodworkers, but I can't see
> getting hurt on a miter saw (while I am thankful each time I use the TS
> that I didn't get injured).
I consider the miter saw to be far more dangerous for two reasons.
You hold the work in one hand and bring the blade down with the other. Hold
it in the wrong place and take out a body part.
You do repetitive cutting and move the work piece an inch or two at a time
and then cut. Oooops, I should have stopped on that last cut.
It is not the saw, but the careless use of it that causes the injury.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:16:31 -0700, "joey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>
>Why do my taxes pay for this stuff.
What's your problem with it ? People getting injured at work is A Bad
Thing. Even the worst NeoCon think's it's a bad thing, because they're
expensive to clean off the machines and the downtime reduces shareholder
stock value.
It's a reasonable report - I read all of it with great interest. This is
_exactly_ the sort of thing that medical statisticians should be looking
at.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>
>Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
>saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
>no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
>radial arm saws.
>
>Perhaps someone has access to industry sales statistics that would let
>us weigh the probabilities in a more useful fashion.
>
>
>
>Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
I don't have ready access to statistics, but one thing to consider:
There are lots of $89 bench top tablesaws out there. There is no
equivalent RAS.
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
>Get a laser for it.
With the RAS you don't need no stinkin laser.
--
Rumpty
Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:xm6se.1197$k%[email protected]...
>
> > I consider the miter saw to be far more dangerous for two reasons.
> >
> > You hold the work in one hand and bring the blade down with the other.
> > Hold it in the wrong place and take out a body part.
> >
> > You do repetitive cutting and move the work piece an inch or two at a
time
> > and then cut. Oooops, I should have stopped on that last cut.
> >
> > It is not the saw, but the careless use of it that causes the injury.
> > --
> Get a laser for it. Seriously, you would have to be sound asleep to bring
> the saw down with a red line painting your fingers.
> I just bought the wrong blade for my miter saw. It is one intended for a
> slider, but I have a fixed. However, I am happy with the purchase.
Unlike
> my old blade, it doesn't pull on the work piece at all, so it is much
easier
> to hold a small piece securely. And it cuts just fine.
>
>
If you don't pay for it, men with guns will come to your door and kill you.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer
joey ([email protected]) wrote on Wednesday 15 June 2005 09:16 pm:
> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>
> Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution.
> I recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
> Joey
>
> "Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
>> saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
>> no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
>> radial arm saws.
>>
>> Perhaps someone has access to industry sales statistics that would let
>> us weigh the probabilities in a more useful fashion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
> Steve Peterson wrote:
>> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
>> Union,
>> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
>> defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
>> to
>> ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
>> for
>> the United States of America."
>>
>> "joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>> >
>> > Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the
>> > Constitution.
>> > I
>> > recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
>> > Joey
>> >
>> Promote the general Welfare covers a lot of ground
>
> Not according to the founding fathers. Here's what a couple of them
> had to say:
>
> "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare,
> but only those specifically enumerated." Thomas Jefferson, 1798.
>
> "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always
> regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.
> To take
> them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
> Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not
> contemplated by its creators." James Madison.
>
Unfortunately, the founding fathers aren't still around to do the running,
and if they were, I don't think they could be elected by today's voters, at
least if they wouldn't appeal to greed. This "general welfare" idea doesn't
sell very well today. How many people are priced out of health care? How
many drive SUVs to the grocery? How many have a 4 WD that has never been
off the highway?
John <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Tom
>
> Yep, very easy to draw some funny stats or even very misleading stats
> if all you have is the raw injury numbers and no real idea of the
> number of man hours associated with the injuries OR the total number
> of installed tablesaws vs RA saws
>
> Also, the frequency of use of the various saw types would be of major
> interest
>
> From the RAW numbers, it is impossible to even guess as to what saw
> type is the most dangerous without knowing the numbers related to the
> incidence of use. Obviously if RA saws are used only approx 4% of the
> time compared to the overall saw use numbers, then RA saws are average
> in injury rate - However, if RA saws account for (as reported) approx
> 4% of the injuries but are used only 2%of the time, their injury rate
> is 2x the average; and so on and so on
>
> For example, I probably use my RA saw less than 10% of my total saw
> use; table saw probably gets 80%of my total saw use, and about 10% for
> my bandsaw - but those numbers can vary depending on the project I am
> doing. If I am doing lots of half laps, then I may be using the RA
> with dado blade a much larger percentage of the total useage compared
> to cutting plywood panels for cabinet carcasses/etc
>
> John
>
>
I wonder if they are including the cheapo benchtop saws that many
carpenters carry around in their trucks? On the jobsites I'm at I have
to close my eyes when the trim carpenters are using these things to rip
mouldings etc. as they say "an accident waiting to happen".
As to injuries with a miter saw, well it's embarrassing to admit but
when I was younger (& just a little dumber) I figured I could do a
freehand compound miter with the trusty delta 8" non compound miter saw.
Needless to say the piece of 2' long piece of 3/4" select red oak went
flying and stuck in the drywall about a foot away from a beautiful new
Pella french door that was at least fourteen feet away. After I was able
to open and close my hand I went back to make some more cuts and noticed
something funny, the steel bed of the miter saw was twisted by about a
quarter of an inch. Lesson learned in a big way & I've been alot more
respectful of power tools since then.
Just an amateurs thoughts / ramblings
Adam
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>
> Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
> saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
> no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
> radial arm saws.
>
> Perhaps someone has access to industry sales statistics that would let
> us weigh the probabilities in a more useful fashion.
>
More important than units in the field would be how much time was spent on
the tool. I suspect that not only are there many fewer RAS than TS, but
that each TS is used more than the RAS.
Most surprising is the number of injuries on miter saws. Maybe carpenters
use them in a more dangerous manner than woodworkers, but I can't see
getting hurt on a miter saw (while I am thankful each time I use the TS that
I didn't get injured).
Well, actually the most surprising statistic is the number of injuries from
frying debris! Was the report written in Japan?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America."
"joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
>
> Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution.
> I
> recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
> Joey
>
Promote the general Welfare covers a lot of ground
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf
Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution. I
recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
> saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
> no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
> radial arm saws.
>
> Perhaps someone has access to industry sales statistics that would let
> us weigh the probabilities in a more useful fashion.
>
>
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
> I consider the miter saw to be far more dangerous for two reasons.
>
> You hold the work in one hand and bring the blade down with the other.
> Hold it in the wrong place and take out a body part.
>
> You do repetitive cutting and move the work piece an inch or two at a time
> and then cut. Oooops, I should have stopped on that last cut.
>
> It is not the saw, but the careless use of it that causes the injury.
> --
Get a laser for it. Seriously, you would have to be sound asleep to bring
the saw down with a red line painting your fingers.
I just bought the wrong blade for my miter saw. It is one intended for a
slider, but I have a fixed. However, I am happy with the purchase. Unlike
my old blade, it doesn't pull on the work piece at all, so it is much easier
to hold a small piece securely. And it cuts just fine.