Ok I pretty much lurk here except to milk you guys for information
once and a while, but the SawStop posts and safety debates have piqued
my interest. I work in a shop with about a dozen other guys and we've
got a couple sliding table saws, a couple Unisaurs and a couple of the
big 12-14" Deltas too. The only saw that really ever has the blade
guard in place is the Altendorf slider, and that's probably on 1/3 of
the time - when someone's breaking down a pile of plywood for cabinet
box parts. And then it's really only used for the dust collection.
In the 5 years I've been at the shop we've had exactly one hand injury
from a table saw, and that was a guy doing a groove in a very small
part that he admits he never should have done anyway, and couldn't
possibly have done it with the guard in place. (He basically put a
little groove in the tip of a finger - two stitches.) When I go over
to the slider, for example, and I need to rip a strip of plywood for
say a stretcher, if that guard is in place I push it right out of the
way. I just don't like reaching my hand around that big plastic thing
wondering where in the heck the blade is - I like to be able to see
the spinning blade (through my (almost) ever present safety glasses)
so I can keep my hand away from it. I feel like those guards might
actually make things more unsafe WHILE CUTTING. Now if someone's
going to walk by a saw and slip and fall into a spinning blade,
well..what in the hell is he doing anyhow? I mean seriously - if you
can't walk around your shop without falling into the top of a table
saw, you've got bigger issues to address than a blade guard. And in
the case of the whole Whirlywind versus SawStop debate I'd have to
come down decidedly on the SawStop side of things - if it was a choice
between one or the other. (But there's not much chance of me buying a
$3000 saw any time soon...and if I were I'd be getting a really nice
used Tannewitz with a feeder or something along those lines.)
So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
"RicodJour" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ask people about their opinions on seatbelts or airbags or any other
> safety device. Separate the answers into two groups - Safety Device
> Kept Them Kicking vs. No Personal Experience With It. See if you
> notice a correlation between a positive opinion on the safety device
> and which group they fall in.
When I was a kid we didn't have bike helmets. But when my wife and I got
mountain bikes some years back they came with helmets so we wore them. It
didn't take long before my wife took a fall that split her helmet in half,
but she didn't have a scratch on her. Needless to say we replaced that
helmet before we went riding again. Today I wouldn't dream of riding a bike
without a helmet--as you say, I'm in the Now We Know group.
On Jan 23, 10:46=A0am, Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok I pretty much lurk here except to milk you guys for information
> once and a while, but the SawStop posts and safety debates have piqued
> my interest. =A0I work in a shop with about a dozen other guys and we've
> got a couple sliding table saws, a couple Unisaurs and a couple of the
> big 12-14" Deltas too. =A0The only saw that really ever has the blade
> guard in place is the Altendorf slider, and that's probably on 1/3 of
> the time - when someone's breaking down a pile of plywood for cabinet
> box parts. =A0And then it's really only used for the dust collection.
> In the 5 years I've been at the shop we've had exactly one hand injury
> from a table saw, and that was a guy doing a groove in a very small
> part that he admits he never should have done anyway, and couldn't
> possibly have done it with the guard in place. =A0(He basically put a
> little groove in the tip of a finger - two stitches.) =A0When I go over
> to the slider, for example, and I need to rip a strip of plywood for
> say a stretcher, if that guard is in place I push it right out of the
> way. =A0I just don't like reaching my hand around that big plastic thing
> wondering where in the heck the blade is - I like to be able to see
> the spinning blade (through my (almost) ever present safety glasses)
> so I can keep my hand away from it. =A0I feel like those guards might
> actually make things more unsafe WHILE CUTTING. =A0Now if someone's
> going to walk by a saw and slip and fall into a spinning blade,
> well..what in the hell is he doing anyhow? =A0I mean seriously - if you
> can't walk around your shop without falling into the top of a table
> saw, you've got bigger issues to address than a blade guard. =A0And in
> the case of the whole Whirlywind versus SawStop debate I'd have to
> come down decidedly on the SawStop side of things - if it was a choice
> between one or the other. =A0(But there's not much chance of me buying a
> $3000 saw any time soon...and if I were I'd be getting a really nice
> used Tannewitz with a feeder or something along those lines.)
>
> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
> eye on things. =A0Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
> for me. =A0Proper technique and feed rate are key. =A0A splitter is
> absolutely a great thing. =A0Guards? =A0I'm just not a fan.
Ask people about their opinions on seatbelts or airbags or any other
safety device. Separate the answers into two groups - Safety Device
Kept Them Kicking vs. No Personal Experience With It. See if you
notice a correlation between a positive opinion on the safety device
and which group they fall in.
I understand your point, and agree that a lot of safety devices
require an adjustment in use/behavior, but you obviously have never
been injured so the topic is a theoretical one for you.
Ask a guy what he'd do if he caught his wife in bed with another guy
and then _have_ him catch his wife in bed with the other guy. My
suggestion, regardless of the guy's answer to the theoretical
question, don't be the other guy in the second scenario.
R
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:46:02 -0800 (PST), Jay Pique
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...snip...]
>
>So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
>in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
>eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
>for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
>absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
The wood whisperer guy, Marc Spagnolo, said something similar during
the podcast "safety week" a year or two ago.
IMO, if all blade guards were well designed and convenient to put on
and take off, I'd say you are all wet. But the blade guard on my saw
is so flimsy it sometimes scares me.
But I think the proper solution is to have a better guard, not to just
remove it.
For myself, I'm thinking Shark Guard or a homebrew guard that hangs
from above.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:16:40 -0800, Jim Weisgram
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 07:46:02 -0800 (PST), Jay Pique
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[...snip...]
>>
>>So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
>>in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
>>eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
>>for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
>>absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
>
>The wood whisperer guy, Marc Spagnolo, said something similar during
>the podcast "safety week" a year or two ago.
>
>IMO, if all blade guards were well designed and convenient to put on
>and take off, I'd say you are all wet. But the blade guard on my saw
>is so flimsy it sometimes scares me.
>
>But I think the proper solution is to have a better guard, not to just
>remove it.
>
>For myself, I'm thinking Shark Guard or a homebrew guard that hangs
>from above.
I think a splitter/riving knife and the plaws are more important than the
guard, particularly one hanging down. Yes, I'd use mine more if it wasn't
such a PITA.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:19:44 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 01/25/2011 10:04 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:44:21 -0500, Steve
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques
>>> <[email protected]> said:
>>>
>>>> Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
>>>> bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.
>>>
>>> And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
>>> the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
>>> injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
>>> not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
>>> to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
>>> properly to the injury in the first place.
>>>
>>> Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?
>>
>> You're right. I was considering only the semi-intelligent people.
>> There are far too many otherwise out there for it to be profitable.
>> But every little bit helps when you're $13T in debt and have massive
>> deficits adding to it each year...
>>
>
>You're a trillion too late:
>
>http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Holy Fing S, Batman! Did anyone catch the Fake of the Union last
night? What wasn't rhetoric was sucking up. 90/10?
--
If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying?
-- Shantideva
On Jan 23, 4:05=A0pm, "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote:
> =A0A splitter is
>
> > absolutely a great thing. =A0Guards? =A0I'm just not a fan.
>
> I think most pro shops do eventually take off all the guards. I think
> as a pro you do somehwat repetitive processes and become aware of safe
> vs non-safe motions. Regardless, while your experience has been very
> little blood, the national statistics are pretty clear and hundreds of
> people loose digits and worse every year.
>
> Here is a quote from a lawyer who takes saw injury cases.
>
> "Every 9 minutes a person in the United States is injured using a
> table saw. =A0Ten people everyday suffer amputations. =A0"
>
> Every nine mimutes. Wow, I would not want to be that person or one of
> those other 10 people. You think they would become more careful after
> a while.
>
> And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
> "A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
> of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
> from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
> related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
> averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
>
> Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
My question is if 31,500 went to the ER, what did the other 534,170
(estimated) people do (assuming one injury each!) and how did the
study know how to estimate it with that degree of accuracy?
I've injured myself a whole bunch of times on jobs with 'only' two
visits to the ER, and I never reported the other times to anyone. Am
I in trouble?
R
On Jan 23, 9:16=A0pm, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]=
.com>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
> >> "A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
> >> of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
> >> from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
> >> related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
> >> averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
>
> >> Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
>
> >My question is if 31,500 went to the ER, what did the other 534,170
> >(estimated) people do (assuming one injury each!) and how did the
> >study know how to estimate it with that degree of accuracy?
>
> I think you missed the point: 565,670 injuries in an 18-year period is
> (approximately) 31,500 *per year*.
Right. Doh!
R
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:10:52 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 1/23/2011 3:05 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
>
>> And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
>> "A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
>> of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
>> from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
>> related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
>> averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
31.5k/yr is too many, for sure.
Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.
>Take such statistics with a grain of salt. Operative word is "related".
>
>Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
>involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.
And look at the number of simple falls people make each year is way
above that number. No tools necessary:
Older adults - 2.2 million non-fatal injury falls, 18k of those fatal.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/adultfalls.html
One tool necessary:
In 1996 there were 18,900,000 US auto accidents.
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1045_age_of_driver_and_number_in.html
--
"I probably became a libertarian through exposure to tough-minded
professors" James Buchanan, Armen Alchian, Milton Friedman "who
encouraged me to think with my brain instead of my heart. I
learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy
as opposed to intentions."
-- Walter E. Williams
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:35 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:36:00 -0800, "DGDevin"
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Swingman" wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> Take such statistics with a grain of salt. Operative word is "related".
>>
>> >> Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
>> >> involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.
>>
>> >How many? 50%? 5%? Makes a big difference, just saying some accidents
>> >didn't involve a spinning blade doesn't give us useful information, it's
>> >like telling someone to wade across a river with an average depth of only
>> >two feet.
>>
>> His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
>> the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
>> is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
>> accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
>> use it as a teen+alcohol=BAD things accident.
>>
>> That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away
>
>That's curious. And by curious I mean stupid and myopic.
>
>You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? When I'm in
>the 'nervous seat', as my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
>as much attention as the driver.
>
>R
I said a passenger IN THE OTHER CAR...how does a drunk passenger have
ANYTHING to do with the fact that the other driver is a teenager?
On Jan 26, 10:34=A0am, Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Anytime I see stats quoted by anyone, I wonder how they arrived at the
> number? =A0Who did the counting? =A0What was their objective. =A0Saw Stop
> people count differently than Delta people, for example.
>
> In any case, 31,500/year =3D .5 Every 9 minutes, not 1 every 9 minutes,
> making someone off by what, just 50%? =A0 =A0Just saying...
Not arguing with you, but if you're talking about accident rates I
would imagine that most of the accidents occur when people are awake,
right? So the 'day' is not 24 hours.
R
On Jan 26, 12:04=A0am, Larry Jaques <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:44:21 -0500, Steve wrote:
> >On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques said:
>
> >> Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
> >> bandage would do the trick. =A0That alone drives up insurance rates.
>
> >And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
> >the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
> >injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
> >not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
> >to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
> >properly to the injury in the first place.
>
> >Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?
>
> You're right. I was considering only the semi-intelligent people.
Everybody is semi-intelligent.
R
On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> said:
> Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
> bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.
And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
properly to the injury in the first place.
Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?
On 2011-01-24 10:41:18 -0500, RicodJour <[email protected]> said:
> I see. Pros are more careful so they don't need guards, and pros are
> the only ones that spend enough time cutting that it is cost effective
> (again, skew word at work) for them to make guards, hence no one needs
> guards. Yep. Ironclad reasoning, fer sure.
>
> R
And never match wits in battle against a Sicilian?
Larry Jaques wrote:
> Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a
> simple
> bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.
--------------------------------------
You are now qualified to make a medical diagnosis I see.
When did you recieve your med school degree?
Lew
On 01/25/2011 10:04 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:44:21 -0500, Steve
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques
>> <[email protected]> said:
>>
>>> Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
>>> bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.
>>
>> And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
>> the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
>> injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
>> not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
>> to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
>> properly to the injury in the first place.
>>
>> Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?
>
> You're right. I was considering only the semi-intelligent people.
> There are far too many otherwise out there for it to be profitable.
> But every little bit helps when you're $13T in debt and have massive
> deficits adding to it each year...
>
> --
> If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
> If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying?
> -- Shantideva
You're a trillion too late:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Morgans" wrote:
> I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip
> with it, either.
------------------------------------
SFWIW, the local community college has some rather firm opinions about
the RAS.
In their program, the RAS has ONLY ONE function.
The first step in preparing stock.
IOW, cutting rough stock to approximate length.
Just starting that beast got my extra special attention.
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote
> SFWIW, the local community college has some rather firm opinions about the
> RAS.
>
> In their program, the RAS has ONLY ONE function.
>
> The first step in preparing stock.
>
> IOW, cutting rough stock to approximate length.
>
> Just starting that beast got my extra special attention.
>
> Lew
A year or so ago I bought a Milwaukee sliding compound miter saw.
I bought a Freud blade to go with it. (the Milwaukee blade sucked)
No matter how many different ways I tried to cut with it, I got splinters,
not bad but still.........
I went back to my old Craftsman RAS with Freud blade.
Now the Milwaukee collects dust.
I would never try to rip with an RAS but it sure cuts a fine crosscut.
Max
=A0A splitter is
> absolutely a great thing. =A0Guards? =A0I'm just not a fan.
I think most pro shops do eventually take off all the guards. I think
as a pro you do somehwat repetitive processes and become aware of safe
vs non-safe motions. Regardless, while your experience has been very
little blood, the national statistics are pretty clear and hundreds of
people loose digits and worse every year.
Here is a quote from a lawyer who takes saw injury cases.
"Every 9 minutes a person in the United States is injured using a
table saw. Ten people everyday suffer amputations. "
Every nine mimutes. Wow, I would not want to be that person or one of
those other 10 people. You think they would become more careful after
a while.
And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
"A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
On Jan 23, 10:46=A0am, Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
> eye on things. =A0Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
> for me. =A0Proper technique and feed rate are key. =A0A splitter is
> absolutely a great thing. =A0Guards? =A0I'm just not a fan.
In 40 years, I've seen lots of kickback, but never anyone getting
bit. Not sticking your fingers into the blade is the best protection
against having to relearn how to pick your nose. Splitters and
pawls are a big help against kickback. So is keeping your
machine tuned up -- a blade that heels in against the fence is
liable to grab and fire a board like a rail gun.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:36:00 -0800, "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Swingman" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Take such statistics with a grain of salt. Operative word is "related".
>
>> Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
>> involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.
>
>How many? 50%? 5%? Makes a big difference, just saying some accidents
>didn't involve a spinning blade doesn't give us useful information, it's
>like telling someone to wade across a river with an average depth of only
>two feet.
His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
use it as a teen+alcohol=BAD things accident.
That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:54:20 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
>>risk of an accident.
>
>I think the point was that (according to mdavenport, anyway) MADD counts as a
>teen-alcohol-related accident even cases in which there was a drunk passenger
>in the car *not* driven by the teen.
THANK YOU!!!!!
That is exactly what I was referring to
"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ok I pretty much lurk here except to milk you guys for information
> once and a while, but the SawStop posts and safety debates have piqued
> my interest. I work in a shop with about a dozen other guys and we've
> got a couple sliding table saws, a couple Unisaurs and a couple of the
> big 12-14" Deltas too. The only saw that really ever has the blade
> guard in place is the Altendorf slider, and that's probably on 1/3 of
> the time - when someone's breaking down a pile of plywood for cabinet
> box parts. And then it's really only used for the dust collection.
> In the 5 years I've been at the shop we've had exactly one hand injury
> from a table saw, and that was a guy doing a groove in a very small
> part that he admits he never should have done anyway, and couldn't
> possibly have done it with the guard in place. (He basically put a
> little groove in the tip of a finger - two stitches.) When I go over
> to the slider, for example, and I need to rip a strip of plywood for
> say a stretcher, if that guard is in place I push it right out of the
> way. I just don't like reaching my hand around that big plastic thing
> wondering where in the heck the blade is - I like to be able to see
> the spinning blade (through my (almost) ever present safety glasses)
> so I can keep my hand away from it. I feel like those guards might
> actually make things more unsafe WHILE CUTTING. Now if someone's
> going to walk by a saw and slip and fall into a spinning blade,
> well..what in the hell is he doing anyhow? I mean seriously - if you
> can't walk around your shop without falling into the top of a table
> saw, you've got bigger issues to address than a blade guard. And in
> the case of the whole Whirlywind versus SawStop debate I'd have to
> come down decidedly on the SawStop side of things - if it was a choice
> between one or the other. (But there's not much chance of me buying a
> $3000 saw any time soon...and if I were I'd be getting a really nice
> used Tannewitz with a feeder or something along those lines.)
>
> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
> eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
> for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
> absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
I don't use that guard as most of my cutting can not be done with it on.
However seat belts are a different thing. Save me 3 times as I could
maneuver with out sliding on the seat an losing control. 1 a large dog at
night that could have been a child, hard to tell with oncoming lights. 2 a
deer that came out of the brush fast. 3 a idiot that came on the highway
with out stopping I was able to go off road and back on with good control..
Had a friend that refused to use seat belts, was injured because of this in
an accident. Second time he was killed when a drunk hit him and as the car
rolled he was ejected an car landed on him. His wife had belt on and
received a cut finger. WW
In article <xj6%[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
>
> Living in furniture manufacturing country, I would argue the opposite.
>
> A person making the same types of cuts for hours at a time tend to get bored
> and then sloppy, and forget to be careful. Then the finger leaves the hand.
>
> I think everyone would be surprised how easy you can get used to using
> guards, for most cuts.
The thing is, if you're making the same cut for hours at a time, it's
cost effective to make jigs and fixturing specific to that cut and to
incorporate guards and to put up and take down the setup.
-.
0
"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote
> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
> eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
> for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
> absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
I was about like most people when it comes to TS guards, in that they take
them off. When I started teaching high school students, liability concerns
dictated that I had to use the guard.
After a while, I came to realize that the guard was really not a problem,
for most operations. When there are cuts that need to be made and a guard
can not work, I come up with another shop built guard to protect hands and
fingers.
--
Jim in NC
"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Take such statistics with a grain of salt. Operative word is "related".
> Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
> involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.
How many? 50%? 5%? Makes a big difference, just saying some accidents
didn't involve a spinning blade doesn't give us useful information, it's
like telling someone to wade across a river with an average depth of only
two feet.
You probably have nbo idea how many more times seatbelts have saved your
life or prevented injury to you.
You forgot to mention the guy, in the other car, wearing a seatbelt, that
stayed behind the wheel, and controlled still his car, after being hit or
sufferring another incident to dislodge his driving position.
"WW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I don't use that guard as most of my cutting can not be done with it on.
However seat belts are a different thing. Save me 3 times as I could
maneuver with out sliding on the seat an losing control. 1 a large dog at
night that could have been a child, hard to tell with oncoming lights. 2 a
deer that came out of the brush fast. 3 a idiot that came on the highway
with out stopping I was able to go off road and back on with good control..
Had a friend that refused to use seat belts, was injured because of this in
an accident. Second time he was killed when a drunk hit him and as the car
rolled he was ejected an car landed on him. His wife had belt on and
received a cut finger. WW
On 1/23/2011 3:36 PM, DGDevin wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> Take such statistics with a grain of salt. Operative word is "related".
>
>> Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
>> involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.
>
> How many? 50%? 5%? Makes a big difference, just saying some accidents
> didn't involve a spinning blade doesn't give us useful information, it's
> like telling someone to wade across a river with an average depth of
> only two feet.
You proved my point ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jan 23, 10:46 am, Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
> eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
> for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
> absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
In 40 years, I've seen lots of kickback, but never anyone getting
bit. Not sticking your fingers into the blade is the best protection
against having to relearn how to pick your nose. Splitters and
pawls are a big help against kickback. So is keeping your
machine tuned up -- a blade that heels in against the fence is
liable to grab and fire a board like a rail gun.
Been there. Kickback with a 3/4 inch plywood about 16 inches square. Caught
between fence and blade took off spinning and peeled a finger down to the
tendon. Could watch tendon move as I bent my finger. 7 stitches in ER. THEN
I bought the set of 2 pawls that hold wood down. Works great. WW
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
> involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.
Yeah, that reminds me of the time when I dropped the tablesaw on my foot.
The hospital gave me a crutch and called the sore foot a table saw injury.
:)
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
> the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made.
Without knowing how much of an adjustment it's kind of pointless, what if
it's .05%?
> The fact
> is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
> accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
> use it as a teen+alcohol=BAD things accident.
Their shift to being almost a temperance organization is what caused the
group's founder to leave. They've become one of those self-contained
bureaucracy-religions that serves itself more than a public need. They
absorb a lot of the money they raise too and get poor grades from
organizations that rate the efficiency of charities. Too bad, they did good
work once upon a time.
On Jan 24, 9:27=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <xj6%[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
>
>
> > "SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > > Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
>
> > Living in furniture manufacturing country, I would argue the opposite.
>
> > A person making the same types of cuts for hours at a time tend to get =
bored
> > and then sloppy, and forget to be careful. =A0Then the finger leaves th=
e hand.
>
> > I think everyone would be surprised how easy you can get used to using
> > guards, for most cuts.
>
> The thing is, if you're making the same cut for hours at a time, it's
> cost effective to make jigs and fixturing specific to that cut and to
> incorporate guards and to put up and take down the setup.
I see. Pros are more careful so they don't need guards, and pros are
the only ones that spend enough time cutting that it is cost effective
(again, skew word at work) for them to make guards, hence no one needs
guards. Yep. Ironclad reasoning, fer sure.
R
On Jan 26, 7:11=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:35 -0800 (PST), RicodJour wrote:
> >On Jan 23, 5:36=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
> >> the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
> >> is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
> >> accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
> >> use it as a teen+alcohol=3DBAD things accident.
>
> >> That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away
>
> >That's curious. =A0And by curious I mean stupid and myopic.
>
> >You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? =A0When I'm in
> >the 'nervous seat', as =A0my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
> >as much attention as the driver.
>
>
> I said a passenger IN THE OTHER CAR...how does a drunk passenger have
> ANYTHING to do with the fact that the other driver is a teenager?
Two cars ARE involved in the accident. Only one OF them needs TO get
out of the WAY to avoid the two car collision that you are referring
to - with ME so FAR...?
If THE driver in either car is distracted, the odds of avoiding the
ACCIDENT, for both cars, GOES down. Still WITH me?
A drunk teenager in a CAR is a major distraction. I THINK you can
handle it FROM there. THANKS.
R
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:08:43 -0700, "WW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>On Jan 23, 10:46 am, Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
>> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
>> eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
>> for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
>> absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
>
>In 40 years, I've seen lots of kickback, but never anyone getting
>bit. Not sticking your fingers into the blade is the best protection
>against having to relearn how to pick your nose. Splitters and
>pawls are a big help against kickback. So is keeping your
>machine tuned up -- a blade that heels in against the fence is
>liable to grab and fire a board like a rail gun.
>
>Been there. Kickback with a 3/4 inch plywood about 16 inches square. Caught
>between fence and blade took off spinning and peeled a finger down to the
>tendon. Could watch tendon move as I bent my finger. 7 stitches in ER. THEN
>I bought the set of 2 pawls that hold wood down. Works great. WW
The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I was
sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage came
at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than one
board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.
On Jan 23, 5:36=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:36:00 -0800, "DGDevin"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Swingman" =A0wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Take such statistics with a grain of salt. Operative word is "related"=
.
>
> >> Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
> >> involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.
>
> >How many? =A050%? =A05%? =A0Makes a big difference, just saying some acc=
idents
> >didn't involve a spinning blade doesn't give us useful information, it's
> >like telling someone to wade across a river with an average depth of onl=
y
> >two feet.
>
> His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
> the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
> is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
> accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
> use it as a teen+alcohol=3DBAD things accident.
>
> That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away
That's curious. And by curious I mean stupid and myopic.
You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? When I'm in
the 'nervous seat', as my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
as much attention as the driver.
R
On Jan 25, 8:05=A0pm, "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "WW" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Been there. Kickback with a 3/4 inch plywood about 16 inches square.
> > Caught between fence and blade took off spinning and peeled a finger do=
wn
> > to the tendon. Could watch tendon move as I bent my finger. 7 stitches =
in
> > ER. THEN I bought the set of 2 pawls that hold wood down. Works great. =
=A0WW
>
> =A0That is a violation of my "table saw rules" number 5.
If you are serious and you really do have a set of rules, post them,
please. I'm curious.
I have a set of rules...unfortunately, I can't post them as most of
them are dirty. The rest are just obscene. ;)
R
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:08:43 -0700, "WW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>On Jan 23, 10:46 am, Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
>>> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
>>> eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
>>> for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
>>> absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
>>
>>In 40 years, I've seen lots of kickback, but never anyone getting
>>bit. Not sticking your fingers into the blade is the best protection
>>against having to relearn how to pick your nose. Splitters and
>>pawls are a big help against kickback. So is keeping your
>>machine tuned up -- a blade that heels in against the fence is
>>liable to grab and fire a board like a rail gun.
>>
>>Been there. Kickback with a 3/4 inch plywood about 16 inches square.
>>Caught
>>between fence and blade took off spinning and peeled a finger down to the
>>tendon. Could watch tendon move as I bent my finger. 7 stitches in ER.
>>THEN
>>I bought the set of 2 pawls that hold wood down. Works great. WW
>
> The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I
> was
> sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage
> came
> at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than one
> board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.
I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip with it,
either.
In my opinion, there is not enough control of the stock while doing this,
and far too many "bad things" can happen. It can pull your hand into the
blade, or shoot the stock at you. I shudder when thinking about it.
--
Jim in NC
>
On Jan 26, 10:20=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
> accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
> teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?
You said it was a teen drunk in the other car. I'm not sure if you're
purposefully being obtuse or what. I understand your point, but you
don't apparently understand mine.
Having some drunk in the car, regardless of age, increases the risk of
an accident for the people in that car, whether the drunk is driving
or not. You can play semantic games and get your knickers in a twist
about MADD, but I don't really see the problem.
> That arguement is the same as saying that ALL blondes are dumb or that
> all Italians are in the mob.
They are, and they are. Oh, excuse me - let me put that in words
you'll understand.
They ARE, and THEY are.
> My point from the beginning is that MADD uses an accident like what I
> just described to bolster their arguement that ALL uses of alcohol is
> BADBADBAD.
Well, holy shit and stop the presses - somebody has an agenda?!
> If you can't or won't accept that sometimes crap happens, then you
> live in a happier world than the one that I live in..
Getting upset about someone having an agenda, and then throwing out
even the good stuff that they might try to do is just silly. Buck up.
R
"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? When I'm in
> the 'nervous seat', as my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
> as much attention as the driver.
I've done that too, especially if they're a mediocre driver. There's several
people I know that I now refuse to get in the car with if they're driving.
Fortunately, my closest friend whom I happen to ride with the most is an
excellent driver.
In article <[email protected]>, "WW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>However seat belts are a different thing. Save me 3 times as I could
>maneuver with out sliding on the seat an losing control. 1 a large dog at
>night that could have been a child, hard to tell with oncoming lights. 2 a
>deer that came out of the brush fast. 3 a idiot that came on the highway
>with out stopping I was able to go off road and back on with good control..
>Had a friend that refused to use seat belts, was injured because of this in
>an accident. Second time he was killed when a drunk hit him and as the car
>rolled he was ejected an car landed on him. His wife had belt on and
>received a cut finger. WW
I'm a firm believer in seat belts. Some years back, there was an accident on
one of the country roads a mile or so from where we lived at the time. Someone
crossed the center line, not sure which driver, but the result was a head-on
collision at some 50mph each between a full-size pickup truck and a compact
car on the order of a Fiesta or something similar. The seatbelted elderly
couple in the Fiesta had ankle injuries. The UNbelted 30something driver of
the pickup was pronounced dead at the scene.
In article <h43%[email protected]>, "Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? When I'm in
>> the 'nervous seat', as my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
>> as much attention as the driver.
>
>I've done that too, especially if they're a mediocre driver. There's several
>people I know that I now refuse to get in the car with if they're driving.
>Fortunately, my closest friend whom I happen to ride with the most is an
>excellent driver.
>
LOL! I remember one place I worked at in the 90s... a group of us would go out
to lunch together from time to time. Two guys pretty quickly found out that
they were the only ones in the entire department who would consent to be a
passenger when the other of the pair was the driver. Lots of people rode with
them once. I don't think anybody ever rode with either of them twice.
In article <1f4a77cd-4076-464b-a3d8-38309898304e@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
>> "A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
>> of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
>> from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
>> related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
>> averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
>>
>> Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
>
>My question is if 31,500 went to the ER, what did the other 534,170
>(estimated) people do (assuming one injury each!) and how did the
>study know how to estimate it with that degree of accuracy?
I think you missed the point: 565,670 injuries in an 18-year period is
(approximately) 31,500 *per year*.
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <1f4a77cd-4076-464b-a3d8-38309898304e@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
>>> "A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
>>> of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
>>> from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
>>> related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
>>> averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
>>>
>>> Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
>>
>>My question is if 31,500 went to the ER, what did the other 534,170
>>(estimated) people do (assuming one injury each!) and how did the
>>study know how to estimate it with that degree of accuracy?
>
> I think you missed the point: 565,670 injuries in an 18-year period is
> (approximately) 31,500 *per year*.
And vehicle accidents cause 50,000 Deaths ...
--
"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! "
Brian's Mum
In article <[email protected]>, godsword <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>So those of you who take your blade safety covers off, go right ahead,
>for you just know that nothing will ever happen to you. You are supermen
>who can not ever be hurt because you are just too smart, and too
>careful. But when you visit the hospital, remember to bring the cut off
>fingers with you for they just might be able to sew them back on again.
You hear about the guy that cut off all ten fingers in a table saw accident?
ER doc: Why didn't you bring them with you so we could sew them back on?
Hapless woodworker: Couldn't pick 'em up...
In article <[email protected]>, "Lobby Dosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article
>> <1f4a77cd-4076-464b-a3d8-38309898304e@f30g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>> RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
>>>> "A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
>>>> of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
>>>> from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
>>>> related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
>>>> averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
>>>>
>>>> Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
>>>
>>>My question is if 31,500 went to the ER, what did the other 534,170
>>>(estimated) people do (assuming one injury each!) and how did the
>>>study know how to estimate it with that degree of accuracy?
>>
>> I think you missed the point: 565,670 injuries in an 18-year period is
>> (approximately) 31,500 *per year*.
>
>
>And vehicle accidents cause 50,000 Deaths ...
>
Not any time recently, they haven't.
"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote
> In 40 years, I've seen lots of kickback, but never anyone getting
> bit. Not sticking your fingers into the blade is the best protection
> against having to relearn how to pick your nose.
In my 18 years or so of teaching, I have only had one student have a serious
accident. One too many, though. (knocking on wood, here)
He was using a table saw to ease the corners of a piece he was going to turn
on a lathe. He was one of my best students, so I was not watching him like
a hawk. He made a couple very bad decisions that I though that he should
know better, the wood kicked back, and he jumped and placed his hands on the
table to catch himself. Problem is, he chose the one place on the table
that had a two finger remover blade spinning. They put most of one finger
back on, but he lost about half of one finger.
Now, the guard is on, if it is possible to use while making a cut. If it is
not, an alternate guarding system is set up, or they don't use the saw.
Period.
--
Jim in NC
"WW" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Been there. Kickback with a 3/4 inch plywood about 16 inches square.
> Caught between fence and blade took off spinning and peeled a finger down
> to the tendon. Could watch tendon move as I bent my finger. 7 stitches in
> ER. THEN I bought the set of 2 pawls that hold wood down. Works great. WW
That is a violation of my "table saw rules" number 5.
It goes something like "The measurement of the wood touching the fence must
be 1.5 times the distance the fence is from the blade, unless the
measurement of the wood against the fence is more than 4 times the length of
the saw blade that is above the table."
In the case of a 16 by 16, they would be required to run it with a miter
gauge, or sled, or a different saw.
--
Jim in NC
Morgans wrote:
>
> "WW" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Been there. Kickback with a 3/4 inch plywood about 16 inches square.
>> Caught between fence and blade took off spinning and peeled a finger
>> down to the tendon. Could watch tendon move as I bent my finger. 7
>> stitches in ER. THEN I bought the set of 2 pawls that hold wood down.
>> Works great. WW
>
> That is a violation of my "table saw rules" number 5.
Perhaps you would be willing to post your other table saw rules too (I'd
just soon not learn them the hard way)?
Thanks,
Bill
>
> It goes something like "The measurement of the wood touching the fence
> must be 1.5 times the distance the fence is from the blade, unless the
> measurement of the wood against the fence is more than 4 times the
> length of the saw blade that is above the table."
>
> In the case of a 16 by 16, they would be required to run it with a miter
> gauge, or sled, or a different saw.
On 1/23/2011 4:05 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> Here is a quote from a lawyer who takes saw injury cases.
> "Every 9 minutes a person in the United States is injured using a
> table saw. Ten people everyday suffer amputations. "
> And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
> "A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
> of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
> from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
> related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
> averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
Anytime I see stats quoted by anyone, I wonder how they arrived at the
number? Who did the counting? What was their objective. Saw Stop
people count differently than Delta people, for example.
In any case, 31,500/year = .5 Every 9 minutes, not 1 every 9 minutes,
making someone off by what, just 50%? Just saying...
--
Jack
4 million people die from second hand smoke every day....
http://jbstein.com
On 1/26/11 9:08 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I
>>> was
>>> sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage
>>> came
>>> at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than one
>>> board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.
>>
>> I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip with it,
>> either.
>>
>> In my opinion, there is not enough control of the stock while doing this,
>> and far too many "bad things" can happen. It can pull your hand into the
>> blade, or shoot the stock at you. I shudder when thinking about it.
>
> Not trying to stir up too much crap, but as someone that uses a RAS to
> rip sheet stock on a fairly regular basis, I'm curious as to how you
> can have your hand pulled into the blade when ripping.
>
> As I see it, on a TS, you are pushing a piece of wood into the
> spinning blade while using a fence to guide the stock and the blade
> sticks UP thru the material...on a RAS, you push the stock into the
> spinning blade, using a fence, and the blade is above the stock. With
> these set-ups, the TS pulls the material down to the table and the RAS
> pulls the stock up to the blade guard...so the same effect, really.
>
> Mike
I'm guessing he's feeding the stock the wrong way. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
In article <fd6040c5-bac0-4436-b54f-82c3e23abf4b@i40g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jan 26, 10:20=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
>> accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
>> teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?
>
>You said it was a teen drunk in the other car.
No, he didn't. Go back and read it again.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:39:01 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jan 26, 7:11 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 15:30:35 -0800 (PST), RicodJour wrote:
>> >On Jan 23, 5:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
>> >> the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made. The fact
>> >> is that it's kinda like when MADD "cites" teen alcohol related
>> >> accidents...if a PASSENGER in the OTHER car was drunk, MADD will still
>> >> use it as a teen+alcohol=BAD things accident.
>>
>> >> That is one reason why I'd like to see MADD just go the hell away
>>
>> >That's curious. And by curious I mean stupid and myopic.
>>
>> >You've never seen something the person driving hadn't? When I'm in
>> >the 'nervous seat', as my brother and I call it, I'm paying at least
>> >as much attention as the driver.
>>
>>
>> I said a passenger IN THE OTHER CAR...how does a drunk passenger have
>> ANYTHING to do with the fact that the other driver is a teenager?
>
>Two cars ARE involved in the accident. Only one OF them needs TO get
>out of the WAY to avoid the two car collision that you are referring
>to - with ME so FAR...?
>
>If THE driver in either car is distracted, the odds of avoiding the
>ACCIDENT, for both cars, GOES down. Still WITH me?
>
>A drunk teenager in a CAR is a major distraction. I THINK you can
>handle it FROM there. THANKS.
>
>R
Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?
That arguement is the same as saying that ALL blondes are dumb or that
all Italians are in the mob.
My point from the beginning is that MADD uses an accident like what I
just described to bolster their arguement that ALL uses of alcohol is
BADBADBAD.
If you can't or won't accept that sometimes crap happens, then you
live in a happier world than the one that I live in..
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:36:00 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Morgans" wrote:
>
>> I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip
>> with it, either.
>------------------------------------
>SFWIW, the local community college has some rather firm opinions about
>the RAS.
>
>In their program, the RAS has ONLY ONE function.
They're wrong. It is both a radio -and- alarm saw.
--
Ask not what the world needs. Ask what makes you come
alive... then go do it. Because what the world needs
is people who have come alive. -- Howard Thurman
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:22:06 -0500, "Morgans" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:08:43 -0700, "WW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>On Jan 23, 10:46 am, Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
>>>> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
>>>> eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
>>>> for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
>>>> absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
>>>
>>>In 40 years, I've seen lots of kickback, but never anyone getting
>>>bit. Not sticking your fingers into the blade is the best protection
>>>against having to relearn how to pick your nose. Splitters and
>>>pawls are a big help against kickback. So is keeping your
>>>machine tuned up -- a blade that heels in against the fence is
>>>liable to grab and fire a board like a rail gun.
>>>
>>>Been there. Kickback with a 3/4 inch plywood about 16 inches square.
>>>Caught
>>>between fence and blade took off spinning and peeled a finger down to the
>>>tendon. Could watch tendon move as I bent my finger. 7 stitches in ER.
>>>THEN
>>>I bought the set of 2 pawls that hold wood down. Works great. WW
>>
>> The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I
>> was
>> sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage
>> came
>> at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than one
>> board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.
>
>I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip with it,
>either.
>
>In my opinion, there is not enough control of the stock while doing this,
>and far too many "bad things" can happen. It can pull your hand into the
>blade, or shoot the stock at you. I shudder when thinking about it.
That's kinda why my RAS hasn't been used in 15 years[*], and why I bought the
Unisaur.
[*] Thinking about it, it was last together before we moved *to* VT, in '93.
On 1/23/2011 3:05 PM, SonomaProducts.com wrote:
> And then seriously another study by Science Daily says
> "A recent study conducted by the Center for Injury Research and Policy
> of The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital found that
> from 1990-2007, an estimated 565,670 non-occupational table saw-
> related injuries were treated in US hospital emergency departments,
> averaging 31,500 injuries per year."
Take such statistics with a grain of salt. Operative word is "related".
Injuries are routinely classified as "table saw related" even when
involving a table saw without a blade attached and/or not plugged in.
DAMHIKT
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:30:43 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 26, 10:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
> >> accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
> >> teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?
> >
> >You said it was a teen drunk in the other car. I'm not sure if you're
> >purposefully being obtuse or what. I understand your point, but you
> >don't apparently understand mine.
>
> I NEVER said that the teen was drunk....I said, from the beginning
> that it was the PASSENGER in the other car. If the driver of the other
> car can't maintain control because he or she has a passenger, then
> that person should NEVER drive
> >
> >Having some drunk in the car, regardless of age, increases the risk of
> >an accident for the people in that car, whether the drunk is driving
> >or not. You can play semantic games and get your knickers in a twist
> >about MADD, but I don't really see the problem.
>
> I'll stipulate that point, but not so far as to pin ANY blame on the
> accident to the teen
I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
risk of an accident.
> >> That arguement is the same as saying that ALL blondes are dumb or that
> >> all Italians are in the mob.
> >
> >They are, and they are. Oh, excuse me - let me put that in words
> >you'll understand.
> >They ARE, and THEY are.
> >
> >> My point from the beginning is that MADD uses an accident like what I
> >> just described to bolster their arguement that ALL uses of alcohol is
> >> BADBADBAD.
> >
> >Well, holy shit and stop the presses - somebody has an agenda?!
>
> I don't mind an agenda....we all have one...but I don't expect the
> taxpayers of this country to pay for mine
>
> >
> >> If you can't or won't accept that sometimes crap happens, then you
> >> live in a happier world than the one that I live in..
> >
> >Getting upset about someone having an agenda, and then throwing out
> >even the good stuff that they might try to do is just silly. Buck up.
> >
> >R
>
> Tell me this....exactly WHAT good has that group done?
On Jan 28, 10:54=A0am, [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "J. C=
larke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
> >risk of an accident.
I do believe you're the first person mentioning the drunk is passed
out.
> I think the point was that (according to mdavenport, anyway) MADD counts =
as a
> teen-alcohol-related accident even cases in which there was a drunk passe=
nger
> in the car *not* driven by the teen.
I, for one, am shocked, shocked I tell you!, that someone would figure
their statistics differently than someone else. I've never heard of
such a thing and think it's probably an urban myth.
R
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
> risk of an accident.
Maybe the "drunk" was a good looking blonde and the driver kept looking in
the back seat?
In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
>risk of an accident.
I think the point was that (according to mdavenport, anyway) MADD counts as a
teen-alcohol-related accident even cases in which there was a drunk passenger
in the car *not* driven by the teen.
On 1/28/11 10:54 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, "J. Clarke"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I am curious as to how a drunk passed out in the back seat increases the
>> risk of an accident.
>
> I think the point was that (according to mdavenport, anyway) MADD counts as a
> teen-alcohol-related accident even cases in which there was a drunk passenger
> in the car *not* driven by the teen.
Which is incredibly stupid, as they were obviously doing the right thing.
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:30:43 -0800 (PST), RicodJour
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Jan 26, 10:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Let's try this again...tell me how it's a TEEN drinking related
>> accident if the teen involved is NOT drinking? Shall we blame ALL
>> teenagers of being drunk behind the wheel?
>
>You said it was a teen drunk in the other car. I'm not sure if you're
>purposefully being obtuse or what. I understand your point, but you
>don't apparently understand mine.
I NEVER said that the teen was drunk....I said, from the beginning
that it was the PASSENGER in the other car. If the driver of the other
car can't maintain control because he or she has a passenger, then
that person should NEVER drive
>
>Having some drunk in the car, regardless of age, increases the risk of
>an accident for the people in that car, whether the drunk is driving
>or not. You can play semantic games and get your knickers in a twist
>about MADD, but I don't really see the problem.
I'll stipulate that point, but not so far as to pin ANY blame on the
accident to the teen
>
>> That arguement is the same as saying that ALL blondes are dumb or that
>> all Italians are in the mob.
>
>They are, and they are. Oh, excuse me - let me put that in words
>you'll understand.
>They ARE, and THEY are.
>
>> My point from the beginning is that MADD uses an accident like what I
>> just described to bolster their arguement that ALL uses of alcohol is
>> BADBADBAD.
>
>Well, holy shit and stop the presses - somebody has an agenda?!
I don't mind an agenda....we all have one...but I don't expect the
taxpayers of this country to pay for mine
>
>> If you can't or won't accept that sometimes crap happens, then you
>> live in a happier world than the one that I live in..
>
>Getting upset about someone having an agenda, and then throwing out
>even the good stuff that they might try to do is just silly. Buck up.
>
>R
Tell me this....exactly WHAT good has that group done?
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:44:21 -0500, Steve
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2011-01-23 22:04:29 -0500, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> said:
>
>> Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a simple
>> bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.
>
>And look at those who don't make the trip, figuring (incorrectly) that
>the simple bandage would do the trick. Maybe they get lucky... and the
>injury "sort of" heals. Result, a body part that "sort of" works, but
>not at peak condition. Or perhaps an advanced surgical repair is needed
>to correct the original damage PLUS the damage done by not attending
>properly to the injury in the first place.
>
>Now who's run up the insurance rates, hah?
You're right. I was considering only the semi-intelligent people.
There are far too many otherwise out there for it to be profitable.
But every little bit helps when you're $13T in debt and have massive
deficits adding to it each year...
--
If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying?
-- Shantideva
--
Liberalism is a mental disorder
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I
>>> was
>>> sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage
>>> came
>>> at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than
>>> one
>>> board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.
>>
>>I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip with it,
>>either.
>>
>>In my opinion, there is not enough control of the stock while doing this,
>>and far too many "bad things" can happen. It can pull your hand into the
>>blade, or shoot the stock at you. I shudder when thinking about it.
>
> Not trying to stir up too much crap, but as someone that uses a RAS to
> rip sheet stock on a fairly regular basis, I'm curious as to how you
> can have your hand pulled into the blade when ripping.
>
> As I see it, on a TS, you are pushing a piece of wood into the
> spinning blade while using a fence to guide the stock and the blade
> sticks UP thru the material...on a RAS, you push the stock into the
> spinning blade, using a fence, and the blade is above the stock. With
> these set-ups, the TS pulls the material down to the table and the RAS
> pulls the stock up to the blade guard...so the same effect, really.
>
I used to rip on a radial arm saw frequently. Could never understand what
was supposedly so dangerous about it. Has blade guard, splitter and anti
kick palls. You're right, no real difference. The blades are just orientated
180 out from each other.
"Jay Pique" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
> eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
> for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
> absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
The problem is perception, people who are doing unsafe things often perceive
they're in no danger. That guy next to you on the freeway who has a cell
phone in one hand and a coffee in the other, steering with his knee--he
thinks he can get away with that because in his view he's a good
driver--that something is about to happen two cars ahead that he hasn't
foreseen doesn't enter into his perceptions. The same thing happens in the
shop, like a hidden knot in a piece of wood that is about to cause a power
tool to do something you didn't expect. I agree that paying attention and
proper technique are vital to safety, but sometimes things happen that
aren't necessarily your fault, and then it's nice to have a backup that
keeps the blade out of your hand.
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:11:17 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> Look at how many people unnecessarily go to the hospital when a
>> simple
>> bandage would do the trick. That alone drives up insurance rates.
>--------------------------------------
>You are now qualified to make a medical diagnosis I see.
>
>When did you recieve your med school degree?
Hell, boy. I was teaching braille anatomy way back in high school.
<wink>
--
If you can solve your problem, then what is the need of worrying?
If you cannot solve it, then what is the use of worrying?
-- Shantideva
>> The worst "kick back" (really the reverse) I've had was with my RAS. I
>> was
>> sawing into a 1" cedar board when it grabbed the blade and the carriage
>> came
>> at me. I had a few kicks when I was ripping with it, too. More than one
>> board hit the wall. I've had no kicks on my table saw, yet.
>
>I will not rip with a RAS, and will not allow my students to rip with it,
>either.
>
>In my opinion, there is not enough control of the stock while doing this,
>and far too many "bad things" can happen. It can pull your hand into the
>blade, or shoot the stock at you. I shudder when thinking about it.
Not trying to stir up too much crap, but as someone that uses a RAS to
rip sheet stock on a fairly regular basis, I'm curious as to how you
can have your hand pulled into the blade when ripping.
As I see it, on a TS, you are pushing a piece of wood into the
spinning blade while using a fence to guide the stock and the blade
sticks UP thru the material...on a RAS, you push the stock into the
spinning blade, using a fence, and the blade is above the stock. With
these set-ups, the TS pulls the material down to the table and the RAS
pulls the stock up to the blade guard...so the same effect, really.
Mike
On 1/23/2011 9:46 AM, Jay Pique wrote:
> Ok I pretty much lurk here except to milk you guys for information
> once and a while, but the SawStop posts and safety debates have piqued
> my interest. I work in a shop with about a dozen other guys and we've
> got a couple sliding table saws, a couple Unisaurs and a couple of the
> big 12-14" Deltas too. The only saw that really ever has the blade
> guard in place is the Altendorf slider, and that's probably on 1/3 of
> the time - when someone's breaking down a pile of plywood for cabinet
> box parts. And then it's really only used for the dust collection.
> In the 5 years I've been at the shop we've had exactly one hand injury
> from a table saw, and that was a guy doing a groove in a very small
> part that he admits he never should have done anyway, and couldn't
> possibly have done it with the guard in place. (He basically put a
> little groove in the tip of a finger - two stitches.) When I go over
> to the slider, for example, and I need to rip a strip of plywood for
> say a stretcher, if that guard is in place I push it right out of the
> way. I just don't like reaching my hand around that big plastic thing
> wondering where in the heck the blade is - I like to be able to see
> the spinning blade (through my (almost) ever present safety glasses)
> so I can keep my hand away from it. I feel like those guards might
> actually make things more unsafe WHILE CUTTING. Now if someone's
> going to walk by a saw and slip and fall into a spinning blade,
> well..what in the hell is he doing anyhow? I mean seriously - if you
> can't walk around your shop without falling into the top of a table
> saw, you've got bigger issues to address than a blade guard. And in
> the case of the whole Whirlywind versus SawStop debate I'd have to
> come down decidedly on the SawStop side of things - if it was a choice
> between one or the other. (But there's not much chance of me buying a
> $3000 saw any time soon...and if I were I'd be getting a really nice
> used Tannewitz with a feeder or something along those lines.)
>
> So I guess I have no real point other than to say that I think safety
> in the shop is at least 95% using good commone sense and keeping your
> eye on things. Feeling how the wood and the saw are responding is key
> for me. Proper technique and feed rate are key. A splitter is
> absolutely a great thing. Guards? I'm just not a fan.
This is a long 2 cents worth, so feel free to ignore it and do not even
read it, It really isn't very important.
I found this subject interesting, maybe because I took the guard off of
a saw when I was in high school and because the guard was off, I ran my
hand into the saw blade while it was at full spinning speed.
This was not some small table saw, not indeed, our school had taken over
a commercial chair factory and all the machines was massive industrial
types. The table saw had a 12 in blade,(in the 1940's) the thickness
planer would take a four foot wide piece through it.
So what did happen to me? It seems that in my ignorance, I had put on a
new saw blade "" Backwards "" and so today, 50 years + later, I still
have my thumb with a scar on it. Lucky me, for if the blade had been on
there correctly, I would have lost my thumb and part of my hand.
So that taught me to never again remove the safety shield. If the piece
cannot be cut with the guard on, then it will be cut by hand, or not cut
at all. The same with our huge thickness planer as I spoke of above. We
kids, all would feed in a piece and then squat down to watch it go
through. But the safety fingers to prevent kickback would not work. So
one day another boy put a piece through it and for some reason stepped
aside just as the piece was thrown out, and all the way through a wall
ten feet behind it. If that boy had been even standing behind it, it
would have killed him. We learned to appreciate and respect the killing,
and maiming power of the tools that we used.
Yes, so many years later, I had a son who was working at a factory where
part of his job was to cut plastic moldings to size on a table saw, well
today he has a very short finger because the unthinkable happened.
For may years now I have had a RAS and there is not way that a blade
guard can be put on it. You can bet that every time that I use it, that
my thumb hurts, and I make sure that my hands never comes even close to
that spinning blade. If the piece cannot be held in a safe way far from
the spinning blade, it will not be cut by that machine. And when
ripping, or using my own thickness planer, that I never ever stand where
I can be hit if it kicks back. Experience has taught me well. I had an
uncle who lost a thumb because he took the safety off of the machine he
ran. And later he lost four fingers on the same hand when he tried
moving an industrial fan without first turning it off. I worked in a
factory where a man lost both arms because he disregarded the safeties.
Thought he could work faster without them.
So those of you who take your blade safety covers off, go right ahead,
for you just know that nothing will ever happen to you. You are supermen
who can not ever be hurt because you are just too smart, and too
careful. But when you visit the hospital, remember to bring the cut off
fingers with you for they just might be able to sew them back on again.
Jack
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:02:37 -0800, "DGDevin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> His point was NOT is not claiming how MUCH to adjust the numbers as to
>> the "related"...just that there IS an adjustment to be made.
>
>Without knowing how much of an adjustment it's kind of pointless, what if
>it's .05%?
And that is exactly WHY the "data" can be misleading...they give no
room for margin of error, nor do they even acknowledge that there IS a
margin for error...They use anecdotal "evidence" as proof, so long as
it fits what they are trying to prove.
As the old saying goes, figures don't lie...but liars can figure
On 1/26/2011 9:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> In their program, the RAS has ONLY ONE function.
>
> The first step in preparing stock.
>
> IOW, cutting rough stock to approximate length.
>
> Just starting that beast got my extra special attention.
My sentiments exactly ... "beast" is a good description. Used a borrowed
RAS to build a couple of recording studios way back when, and it was the
only tool that I've ever used that I instinctively hated to walk up to.
I had no preconditioning for that feeling whatsoever, there was just
something about a RAS that literally exuded danger to me ... still would
if I had one.
To me, always been a tool of last resort if I couldn't use something
else. Irrational? So be it ... it even surprised me when I thought about
it ... go figure.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"SonomaProducts.com" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Again note: "Non-occupational" I think pros are more careful.
Living in furniture manufacturing country, I would argue the opposite.
A person making the same types of cuts for hours at a time tend to get bored
and then sloppy, and forget to be careful. Then the finger leaves the hand.
I think everyone would be surprised how easy you can get used to using
guards, for most cuts.
--
Jim in NC