Safer Saws-Nreina34

  1. Manufacturers

Finger-saving SawStop has been around for a decade, but tool companies aren’t interested

1a.)  In an article written by Jeff Blagdon it states,  But despite SawStop effectiveness, the big tool companies still haven’t added it to their products. Meanwhile, saw-related injuries result in some $2.3 billion in medical bills, lost wages, and other societal costs every year. Fair Warning investigates why the power tool industry has so far failed to license the SawStop technology or implement its own alternative. ‘If the manufacturers had to pay the cost of those injuries,’ says inventor Stephen Gass, ‘they would have adopted technology like this within months of the time they heard about it’”.

1b.)  The inventor, Steve Gass, makes the claim that manufacturers do not want the liability of the saw to not work.  They do not pay for the medical bills of their customers now but if they were too implement this saw, it opens up a world of lawsuits and bills for the company.

1c.)  This is a factual claim made by this article and Mr. Gass.  Manufacturers do not want the responsibility and the headaches that this saw may bring, at least Steve Gass’ invention.

1d.)  I agree with the claim brought up by Steve Gass and how big companies don’t want to pay for things they do not have to.  But, if this is such a big issue then why is Steve Gass taking the chance and manufacturing these saws? The problem is right now is that the technology is too ineffective and inconsistent.  Approximately, 2,000 people have been injured from this saw out of 300,000 table saw emergency room visits since 2002, when the company opened.

Safer Saws- amongothers13

1- Customers- A list of Complaints

1a) “A false trip mandates replacement of the brake mechanism which is an expensive piece (~$59)”

Consumers would have to pay another $60 if the blade does stop before hitting flesh. This is an inconvenience.

1b) “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”

Most injuries aren’t even from the skin hitting the blade itself, but more so from other things. So, consumers would have to purchase this saw if all others are wiped off the shelves even if the problem doesn’t apply to them.

1c) “The Power Tool Institute (made up of many of the major tool manufacturers) takes strong offense to the concept of making safety devices like this mandatory on products like table saws. They cite both technical and practical/financial problems with mandating SawStop technology – and there are a lot.”

Not everyone agrees that they should be mandatory for there are many problems that stem from it becoming a “necessity.

Factual

2-  Steve Gass himself

2a) “The saw saves the finger, but mangles the machine.”

Your finger would be safe, yes, but the machine is destroyed due to slowing down in milliseconds. This causes damage to the whole machine, and then you’d have to buy a whole new one.

2b) “That’s like driving a car a thousand miles an hour and hitting a brick wall.”

Discussing the damage done to the machine after stopping so fast would be similar to the damage to a car driving into a wall at a fast pace. This infers there would be extreme damage to the machine that is unfixable.

2c) “This is a man who has faith in his creation.”

Despite what the rest of the video says about the damage, Steve Gass still has full potential in his invention and believes it is quite an amazing invention.

Opinion

3- News Reporter 

3a) “But as well as the technology works, the major tool companies have failed to put this kind of device on any of their table saws — even eight years after Gass offered to license it to them.”

The reporter thinks that these safer saws should have been on shelves when Gass first offered it to them. He wonders why they aren’t for sale yet if they can prevent injury from using saws.

3b) “In other words, let consumers decide. Young says many consumers won’t want to pay for the SawStop technology, which could add $100 to $300 in cost, depending on which side you talk to.”

Consumers can buy it if they want to, but safety doesn’t always sell because of the additional price. Would people rather lose a finger or pay an extra 200 dollars?

3c) “I came across a little ad for a table saw that wouldn’t cut off your fingers. That sounded like a good kind of saw to me; I like doing home-improvement projects. And it just sounded interesting.”

The reporter is interested in the saw because he does home-improvement projects and sees where the injuries could happen. He agrees that these items should be sold for consumers. He thinks it is a good idea.

Opinion

4- Personal Injury Lawyers

4a) “Table saws cause more than 40,000 injuries every year. Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year. Fingers, hands, and arms are the most common parts of the body that are amputated. Only 20% of the injuries occur in people who are on the job, where injuries are usually covered by workplace accident insurance.”

The lawyers say that a change is needed due to the amount of injuries a year. A large percentage of injuries aren’t on the job but from at-home projects.

4b) “The SawStop and other table saw safety devices are actually very simple. ”

They think that the SawStop is a simple machine that reduces injuries.

Proposal

5-Consumer Product Safety- Sally Greenberg 

5a) “Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents. 10 a day!  I’ve wanted to push the CPSC for a mandatory standard ever since hearing a story on NPR in May of 2006.”

This woman believes 10 amputations a day from table saws is way too much! When she heard it she instantly wanted a change for safer saws.

5b) “They also took the commendable step of petitioning the Commission and asking that it adopt a mandatory safety standard – that was in 2003. ”

She thinks that SawStop is commendable for wanting the safe saw to be a mandatory machine for everyone to have for they are looking out for people’s safety.

5c) “As NCL told USA Today, if you have a pattern of injury, a safety technology that can address it, and it’s affordable, you should move toward a mandatory safety standard so that all parts of the industry comply. ”

People should be pushing for the SawStop to be mandatory because of how many injuries there are in just a day.

5d) “10 amputations a day and thousands more injuries every year, is an unacceptable toll when a ready fix is affordable, available, and waiting.”

Basically saying, break out the SawStops! We need more protection! It is affordable and ready for consumption, so why isn’t it on shelves yet? It is what she thinks we need.

Proposal

Safer Saws-Dohertyk9

3. Power Tool Product Reviewers

https://www.protoolreviews.com/news/bosch-tools-sawstop-lawsuit/3806/

3A. “However, the manufacturing costs, coupled with licensing fees, make this an almost ridiculous prospect.”

3B. The author of this article, Clint DeBoer, claims that it is ridiculous to expect a company to employ safer technology that would significantly increase the price of their merchandise.

3C. This quote makes an evaluative claim. The author considered the additional expenses added to the overall price of the saw because of the safety adjustments to the saw. He then made the evaluation that it would not be worthwhile for the companies to make those adjustments.

3D. This claim is hard to refute. Undoubtedly, the safety adjustment would significantly increase the cost of the saw, which may harm the company’s profit.

 

6. Personal Injury Lawyers

https://www.schmidtlaw.com/table-saw-amputation-lawyer/

6A. “Recently, a man who filed a table saw amputation lawsuit was awarded $1.5 million after the court found that table saw manufacturers were liable for not including the safety feature.”

6B. “Recently, a man who filed a table saw amputation lawsuit was awarded $1.5 million after the court found that table saw manufacturers were liable for not including the safety feature.”

6C. This quote makes a factual/quantitative claim.

6D. This quote cannot be disputed because it was an actual occurrence.

 

8. News Reporters

https://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/

8A. “Before SawStop, this fact alone would have made a successful lawsuit unthinkable.”

8B. The author claims that before the invention of SawStop, if saw guards were not used and there was a resulting injury, a lawsuit would be unsuccessful.

8C. This is an evaluative claim. After considering previously successful and unsuccessful lawsuits, the author noted that the company would be able to deflect any injury-related charges if the person filing the lawsuit had failed to use the safety guards.

8D. This claim is hard to refute. Major companies have many resources at their disposal to fight lawsuits. Also, probably even the most dim-witted lawyer would be able to think of the argument that if a person does not utilize safety guards, the injury is their fault. Only the invention of SawStop presents the new argument that better safety measures could have been taken, yet weren’t.

11. Amputees

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/table-saw-sawstop-safety-finger-cut/

11A. “He testified that after the blade sliced into his hand, he began running around in circles in the yard, screaming in pain and terror.”

11B. This claim is referring to Brandon Stollings, who cut off two of his fingers while he was in the process of installing flooring.

11C. This is a factual/evaluation claim. It paraphrases Stollings’s testimony.

11D. This claim is hard to refute because I was not present when Stollings’s injury took place nor when the trial took place, and cannot say for certain whether or not that was his testimony.

9. Steve Gass himself

https://fcir.org/2013/05/16/power-tool-industry-circles-the-wagons-as-disabling-saw-injuries-mount/

9A. “‘If the manufacturers had to pay the cost of those injuries,’ Gass said, ‘they would have adopted technology like this within months of the time they heard about it instead of looking for excuse after excuse to delay for year after year.'”

9B. “‘If the manufacturers had to pay the cost of those injuries,’ Gass said, ‘they would have adopted technology like this within months of the time they heard about it instead of looking for excuse after excuse to delay for year after year.'”

9C. This is a causal claim. If A. the manufacturers had to pay the costs, then B. They would have adopted new technology.

9D. This claim cannot be proven unless manufacturers are forced to pay the costs of the injuries, and it results exactly as Gass claimed it would. Until then, this claim can be dismissed as one man’s opinion.

 

Safer Saws- Myrtle View

Steve Gass

A. ” It [Saw Stop] will detect that [finger] in less than a thousandth in a second.”

B. Steve Gass claims that his power tool is able to stop itself from injuring a person because of its fast reflexes.

C. This claim Steve has made is an evaluation claim since he most likely tested the speed at which his power tool stops.

D. This claim along with the video proves the power tool credible for having quality and logic for making the tool sense parts of the body. However, it does not completely have reasonableness since Steve’s demonstration was orchestrated with care, he was not careless but cautiously inching his finger to the blade.

Manufacturers

A. “When skin contacts the blade, the signal changes because the human body is conductive.”

B. Manufactures claim that when the blade touches skin the machine stops because of signal changes reacting to the conductivity of the human body.

C. This claim is factual since the blade does stop when contact is made with skin.

D. This claim is reasonable, logical, and has quality because the power tool does what the manufacturers claim it does.

 

Power Tools Product Reviewers

A. “Logic dictates that this increase in accident rate on SawStop saws is due primarily to a user’s decision to use the blade guard less frequently due to a “sense of security” in having the SawStop flesh-sensing technology on the saw.”

B. Reviewers of the power tool SawStop claim that the tool has done more harm than good. According to users people feel more comfortable using the blade guard less often because of the tools technology.

C. This claim is an evaluation claim seeing that there would have to be data collected to make this statement.

D. This has quality and appears to be logical and reasonable claim since it is based on data collected from people who invest in the welfare of customers and the quality of products.

Government Officials

A. “The article got the attention of Commissioner Robert Adler, who hosted meetings this month with the Power Tool Industry, the trade group that is resisting adopting safety technology by arguing that it’s too expensive, that it’s unreliable, and that consumers don’t want it.”

B. According to government officials the power tool industry do not want to make safer power tools because they will cost too much money and will not make a profit.

C. This is a opinion claim since the industry has not tried advertising safer power tools in the market.

D. This claim is reasonable but illogical since this statement is based on an opinion on what consumers may want instead of actual data or evidence.

Personal Injury Lawyers

A. “Table saws cause more than 40,000 injuries every year. Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year.”

B. Table saws cause more than 40,000 injuries every year. Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year.

C. This claim is factual since it is based in statistics from a credited source.

D. This claim is reasonable, logical, and has quality since it explains how many people are effected by power tools in a year.

Safer Saws- LBirch

4A. Ten people every day – according the CPSC’s own data – have their fingers amputated in power saw accidents. 10 a day!  I’ve wanted to push the CPSC for a mandatory standard ever since hearing a story on NPR in May of 2006. The inventors of a saw that senses an electrical current in a finger, as opposed to a piece of wood, and stops before serious harm is done, named their company SawStop.

4B.

First: 10 people a day are losing their fingers due to saw innocents and this seems like a shocking statistic.

Second: This customer has been wanting to make a push for a safer, better saw with more precautions that gives users less risk of amputation of a finger. The author of this article has been wanting to do this for around five years.

Third: Inventors of this saw have made and designed something very different that no one else has made.

Fourth: This saw prevents severe injury, and with this new design, stops the saw completely.

4C. 

  • The first claim is a factual claim, stating that ten people are amputated every day due to a saw accident. This data comes from CPSC’s, Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is a reliable source for product information.
  • The second claim is causal claim and the author states that because of these accidents, he has been wanting a new standard of equipment. He has been wanting to do this since May of 2006, but we do not know if he has tried anything to make this equipment standard possible because he has only wanted to do this.
  • The third claim of new inventors finally making a product that can prevent amputations is causal. It claims that because of the need of a safer saw, the StopSaw was made with new technology that has never been used before.
  • The fourth claim is a claim of value. That if we have this new, safer product, serious harm will decrease. If the blade slightly comes in contact with you, an electrical current will stop the blade.

4D. 

  • The first claim can be flawed because of how this research was collected. We do not know how the CPSC collected their data even if they are a reliable commission and group.
  • The second claim, that the author has been wanting a new standard, is most likely accurate because of how alarming this stat seems.
  • The third claim, that new technology that senses electrical current is being made seems correct and reliable too. But with the limited information, we cannot decide how much this will prevent injuries.
  • The fourth claim the author makes seems to be his opinion. He states that the blade will stop before any serious injury is done is not backed up by sources or experiences.

Safer Saws – picklerick

A. Stephen Gass once stated, in an interview with Asa Christiana, “Obviously not everyone is going to spend $1000 or more on a table saw. But the question becomes can you put SawStop-like technology on smaller saws as well and what is the cost.”

B. Gass is making a claim which expresses that he is aware people have a tough time affording the SawStop, and because of this, he is working of finding a way to make it more affordable to lower the cost.

C. I feel like Gass’s claim could be considered an evaluative claim because he is evaluating the public’s inability to easily afford his SawStop invention and offering a solution to the issue.

D. I feel like his claim is very reasonable. The price of his SawStop seems to be one of its biggest problems, so it’s good he’s addressing it. This claim will probably persuade the public to keep tabs on Gass and on his improvements to the SawStop.

 

A. A user on LumberJocks forum named Bill Davis made a post about SawStop which stated, “I think it sends the wrong message about safety and at a pretty high cost to the user. That message is ‘you dont have to be so careful we’ll protect you’.”

B. He is making a claim that says, instead of relying on an expensive machine to keep you safe, you should just learn how to use normal saws responsibly.

C. This is an opinion claim. Bill Davis has the opinion that people should be able to care for their own safety enough not to rely on SawStop.

D. This claim is very persuasive in that it provides a counterargument to SawStop’s main goal. It will probably make people think twice before buying this machine purely for safety reasons.

E. I partly disagree with this claim because I feel like there situations where having every bit of safety possible is beneficial. Like if a company is relying on their employees to use saws responsibly, it would be in their best interest to use a SawStop. They don’t want to have to pay worker’s compensation. I do understand where Bill Davis is coming from though; it is a lot of money for a small safety precaution.

 

A. Myron Levin stated in an article about SawStop, “Each year, more than 67,000 U.S. workers and do-it-yourselfers suffer blade contact injuries, according to government estimates, including more than 33,000 injuries treated in emergency rooms and 4,000 amputations.”

B. “Each year, more than 67,000 U.S. workers and do-it-yourselfers suffer blade contact injuries, according to government estimates, including more than 33,000 injuries treated in emergency rooms and 4,000 amputations.”

C. This is a factual claim because Levin is just giving statistics.

D. I’m not sure how accurate this claim is, considering its statistics were taken from “government estimates.” These estimates could easily be wrong, disproving the claim. It is a logical claim, though, because it lets people know that lots of people suffer injuries from blades year round.

 

A. Carlos Osorio, a man who suffered from a terrible table saw injury, stated, “There was blood on my face, my body. It was everywhere. I was able to see my tendons.”

B. His injuries were very serious and gruesome.

C. This is a descriptive claim because Osorio is describing the scene after his injury from a table saw.

D. His claim is persuasive because it gives a detailed scene depicting what could happen if your hand slips when using a regular table saw. This could persuade people into buying the SawStop so that they can avoid this scenario.

 

A. There’s an article on thewoodwhisperer.com that reviews an alternative to SawStop. The alternative is called Whirlwind. The article says, about the Whirlwind, “The brake is triggered BEFORE you touch the blade, which means no stitches and no bandaids.”

B. This claim implies that the Whirlwind is superior to the SawStop because the blade retracts faster, making it safer.

C. This is a factual claim because it states a feature of the Whirlwind.

D. This claim is reasonable and logical, but I don’t think it’s very persuasive. People who are in the market for a safer saw will likely not care about such a minor aspect.

Safer Saws- Ugandanknuckles

6A. An unnamed writer for the Schmidt Law Firm wrote, “Table saws cause more than 40,000 injuries every year. Approximately 10% of those injuries, or 4,000, result in amputations every year. Fingers, hands, and arms are the most common parts of the body that are amputated. Only 20% of the injuries occur in people who are on the job, where injuries are usually covered by workplace accident insurance.”

6b.

First: It lists the amount of injuries and some statistics about those injuries in an effort to push for more SawStop usage.

Second: The overall claim contains a claim that only a fraction of those injuries cause amputations

Third: It claims that the expected places of injury are the most common places of amputation.

Fourth: It claims that only a fifth of the people injured are on the job, somewhat discrediting the effectiveness of making SawStop mandatory for workplace usage.

6c. The first claim is a causal claim with X being table saws without SawStop and Y being 40,000 injuries per year.

The second claim is a factual claim about how many many injuries actually result in amputation. The wording is very plain and simple, without either side of the situation appearing to be supported.

The third claim is another factual claim. This is more of just restating what people already expect. The body parts nearest the saw are the ones most commonly amputated, as expected.

The fourth claim is yet another factual claim, this time serving to point out that only a fraction of the people injured by table saws are people on the job.

6d. The first claim is completely reasonable and honestly makes complete sense.

The second claim is as well reasonable and makes sense.

The third claim is kind of redundant. Maybe I’m just being too critical, but it seems pointless to mention that the parts of the body that interact with the table saw are the parts of the body that most often get amputated.

The fourth claim is astonishing and serves as a strong persuasive piece of their argument. The fact that only a fraction of the people injured are people at work should make companies want to implement SawStop more. People on the job are covered by insurance, while the common user is more likely to sue for lack of insurance coverage.