Category: E06: Safer Saws

1A: Clint DeBoer states, in his Bosch Tools SawStop Lawsuit summary that, “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.”

1B: This quote states, the company isn’t for having the SawStop safety involved with power tools.

1c: This is an evaluation claim because there is a judgement about strongly the company feels about having to deal with adding the SawStop technology. This can not be measured nor assessed. This convinces readers to believe that because they are offended about the idea.

1d: The claim makes the issue of not wanting the SawStop technology personal. People get offended because of something they are against or hurt by something. It seems that they are offended by even having the SawStop invented was hurtful to them. As if Steve Gass should have thought about the issues the Power Tool Institute will have.

2a: From a customers who has bought and used the SawStop, “The purchase of this saw has raised the bar on all my other shop tools.”

2b: The customer is clearly satisfied with their purchase of SawStop. They believe that if the other tools do not have this technology, then they will probably not by it.

2c: This is a opinion claim. The customer made their opinion that SawStop is better than other tools because of its stop technology. Though this person believes that it is better, others might not.

2d: The claim states that the customer believes that this is the most effective tool they now have, compared to the other tools. They have some sort of tool standard and the SawStop is now their best tool. All their other tools do not compare to how good the SawStop is.

3a: In Clint DeBoer’s lawsuit article, he states: “Mr. Schiech indicated that if the Commission issued a mandatory rule it would be extremely difficult for the industry to comply because of patent restrictions on sensor technology.”

3b: If the safety invention had to be used in all tools, it would be hard for companies because of the few rights given for this kind of technology.

3c: This is a evaluation claim. We do not know for sure that it would be difficult, but evidence can back up predictions.

3d: The claim here states that their are issues when it comes to sensor technology. The issues are not listened so we don’t know what they are. It is too hard for the industry to make this rule mandatory because of these issues.

4a: In the small article on NCL states,”The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the cost.”

4b: The cost of putting the SawStop technology is better than getting a finger amputated.

4c: This can be a factual claim because paying more money to be safe is, in fact, better than dealing with a lost finger, hospital bills, etc. It would not make sense if someone would say that they rather lose a finger than pay an extra $100.

4d: This claim states that there is obvious reasons to improve the safety of table tools, and that they are more reasonable than worrying about money and other issues. Safety first.

5a: A quote from The Courthouse News Service: “Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

5b: If the mandatory rule to add SawStop to all table saw were not vanished, this injury would not have happened.

5c: This is a proposal claim because Wec is trying to tell Bosch that he still should accept the safety technology. He is using himself as a real example to Bosch, and he his saying that it is Bosch’s fault.

5d: This claim states that table saw injuries are caused from lack of safety technology. If Bosch did not reject the rule to use the technology in table saws, Wec’s injury would not have happened. If the technology was being used, then there would be no injuries.

6a: The Courthouse News Service also states: “Wec demands more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability. He is represented by Michael Cushing.”

6b: Wec is suing Bosch for their carelessness. He also has a lawyer.

6c: This is a factual claim because all parts are true and can be proven so.

6d: Because Wec was injured from actions of Bosch, Wec decides to take action to court, making it a judges decision on who is to blame for table saw injuries. Michael Cushing will also be defending Wec.

7a: The Bosch Tool SawStop lawsuit states, “By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market.”

7b: SawStop can be too much of a scientific invention, and there might be risk of this not working. If one product isn’t made properly, then there could be injuries.

7c: This is a proposal claim because it is saying if the invention is on the market it could cause defects in the way it’s supposed to work. This is saying what way something should be and giving a reason.

7d: The claim states that there could be issues regarding how reliable the product would be on the market. There could be that one in thousands of working SawStops that doesn’t stop when touched by a finger. It is too much of a “high tech” invention to be reliable.

8a: News reporter Chris Arnold states: “I found out that table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year.”

8b: Chris Arnold went into research and saw who severe and often saw accidents really are.

8c: This is a factual claim because Arnold researched a fact that he saw surprising. It is true that thousands of table saw accidents happen every year. It is a fact that he didn’t know this before and now he does.

8d: This claims that the injures of table saws are often and severe. This also claims that Arnold must have done research to find this fact because he said “I found out.”

9a: After trying the invention on himself, Steve Gass described the SawStop as, “It felt a little like a buzz or a tickle almost.”

9b: This states that his invention does work and he only felt just a small cut instead of major injury. By putting his own finger to the saw, it didn’t hurt him.  He describes what it felt like to touch the spinning blade for a thousands of a second.

9c: This is a factual claim because it is true that Gass did not get injured by the saw stopping when he touched it. This proves that his invented works and is successful.

9d: There is only one small injury with no emergency situation. It seems silly to describe a cut caused by a table saw as just a little tickle, but this just proves that his own invention works and is reliable.

1c.Bosch’s release of its own flesh detecting device is now reflected in the agency’s new strategic plan—one of the CPSC’s primary goals is a commitment to prevention. In other words, we believe in being proactive rather than reactive.
1a. The life altering injuries from table saws are very preventable. It should be a law to protect the consumers that every table saw should have this technology.

2c. “Consumer product safety,” says Gas says, “Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,”.
2a. The Investors are not entirely worried about safety as much as they are worried about their return on investment.

3c. As of “delighted consumer” Gass, engineers at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recommended that the government begin a “rulemaking process” that could result in mandatory safety standards for table saws. The agency’s commissioners then turned the power tool industry on its ear by agreeing with Gass’ recommendation.
3a. Gass bing persistent got his claim across successfully. But only for a period of time. It is a great idea but this would wipe out a big part of the industry.

4c.”determined regulators” states that able saws cause tens of thousands of serious injuries every year, costing billions of dollars.
4a. More than 10 of these injuries each day are amputations. Being an ex contractor I do see the danger in table saws and this technology could save a lot of fingers.

5c. Current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.
5a. Gas doesn’t just want his product to be successful, he wants to change all of the safety standards for table saws. This will eventually pan out to change the regulations on all of saws.

6c. Mother jones directly states, “Gass says a power tool executive warned him, “If you guys don’t cooperate with us, the industry is going to get together and squish you.”
6a. Gass was not trying to be harsh but just being honest. He sees the change in the industry and is just offering a chance to get on board before the industry comes after them.

7c. If Table Saws Can Be Safer, Why Aren’t They? says NPR
7a. We now finally have the technology to make the powerful saws safer. some contractors are usually old school style guys who don’t care about the safety because they just like what they have been using their entire lives. Some may not want to make the switch.

8c. An outraged planiff posts that “Injured Man Says Bosch Tool Lobbied Feds to Keep Safer Power Saws off the Market”
8a. This is where things might get hairy for the companies that are not on board with the technology. Every company should at least offer one style of saw with the safe saw technology to protect them from being sued.

1A. Consumer Safety Advocates

Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year.

1B. The sentence claims the C.P.S.C is determined to be apart of the solution of preventing table saw injuries that occur each year.

1C. This claim is a opinionated claim.

1D. This claim depicts the C.P.S.C.’s position on the table saw injury problem. Before this claim was made another claim stated that the C.P.S.C had a unanimous vote to approve an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on table saw blade contact injuries.

2A. Customer

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.

2B. This sentence claims that tool companies did not put the Saw Stop technology in their saws even though it works.

2C. This claim is a factual claim.

2D. This claim shows that even though Gass invented a technology that could reduce table saw injuries he hasn’t convinced major tool companies they need his technology. There are three factual claims in this one sentence.

3A. Manufacturers

A PTI JV has developed a flesh sensing technology that reacts faster, has a lower replacement cost of firing, and mitigates injury to a greater degree when compared to the SawStop technology.

3B. This sentence has three claims. These three claims challenge’s three aspects of Gass’s technology.

3C. This is a proposal claim.

3D. This claim tries to show they have created a faster reacting, cheaper, and safer technology than Gass. This challenge could to Gass’s technology could help the manufacturers.

4A. Injured Plaintiffs

“I think the manufacturers should think less about cost, but more about people who are using the saws.”

4B. This sentence claims that manufacturers should worry about the people who are injured by their table saws rather than the cost of the saws.

4C. This is a opinionated claim.

4D. This claim give’s prospective from a person injured by a saw without Saw Stop, who want’s companies to introduce Saw Stop to their table saws. Companies are worrying more about money and less about safety.

5A. Industry Spokesman

“SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it”

5B. This sentence claims that SawStop is available on the market to any consumer who wants to buy it.

5C. This is a factual claim.

5D. This claim states that SawStop technology is available to people. This claim came from a spokesman for a tool company that was defending themselves against Gass’s request for SawStop to be mandatory for all table saws.

6A. Steve Gass himself

I’m gonna put this hot dog on top of the board here, as if it was my thumb misplaced in the path of the blade.

  6B. Steve Gass proposed a demonstration of him showing how the technology actually works.

6C. This is a proposal claim.

6D. Steve Gass spoke about his demonstration. He explained how his technology worked. In a later demonstration he also used his actual finger to show his confidence in his technology.

7A. Personal Injury Lawyers

Now these manufacturers are facing dozens of lawsuits brought forth by people whose injuries could have been prevented had SawStop or similar safety mechanisms been in place. 

7B. This claim states that manufacturers are being sued for not implicating SawStop into their table saws.

7C. This is a factual claim.

7D. This claim indicates a negative impact the manufactures are facing for their rejection of Saw Stop technology. This is ironic because one reason the manufacturers are rejecting the technology is high costs. They are facing lawsuits that will result in costs either way.

8A. Amputees

I lost a finger and half the use of my hand in a table saw accident the cost of a cartridge a new blade is well worth having that safety.

8B. This claim states that the cost of losing a finger greater than the cost of replacing broken pieces on a table saw.

8C. This is a factual claim.

8D. The cost of replacing a broken blade and cartridge is around $160, which is a big difference form the hundred thousands of dollars spent on medical bills after a table saw accident. It maybe speculator to say someone would choose $160 over $100,000 to spend because not many people have 100,000 to spend but it is more then likely to be true.

8b. This quote claims:

• This technology works.
• The technology works well.
• Major tool companies have failed to use this technology on any of their other table saws.

8c. The first two claims state factual evidence that the product works and that is works well.  The third claim is that the company has “failed to use the technology on other table saws” but the problem with this statement is that this news reporter is assuming this. how does he know that they haven’t been in the process of installing this new technology on their other table saws.

8d. The first and second claims are sustainable because they are simple facts.  The third claim is unstainable

 

1. Creator

Steve Gass invented a woodworking device that stops the teeth of a saw within 4/1000’s of a second. Steve now is a manufacturer of the product and has never had a customer who has suffered amputation or serious injury from his saws.

2. Manufacturers

Most manufacturers believe that a large part of their demographic does not want the SawStop because it adds cost for something that they don’t need because they take proper safety precautions beforehand. Black&Decker holds firmly stating, “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it,” since the SawStop is available online, they believe if you want that product then you should buy it directly from them.

3. Customers

The customer’s claim on the subject depends on who you ask. They will either be delighted to have it, or angry. Many customers do not like the SawStop because of the added cost, false positives (which increase cost and extend time of project), braking event poses a hazard, and they also believe that if you want this technology then you should buy it directly from the creator.

4. Industry Spokespeople

Industries such as the Power Tool Industry (PTI) argue that making all saws compatible with SawStop would be too expensive. Although it would prevent over 40,000 injuries and it’s cost, the manufacturers are not the one’s paying for it. The PTI holds that if you use the proper safety equipment and follow the proper safety procedures, that you do not need a SawStop.

5. Consumer Safety Advocates

Consumer safety advocates such as Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum seek to find solutions to reduce to amount of table saw accidents every year. They look at the 67,300 medically treated table saw accidents in 2007-2008 which resulted in $2.36 billion dollars in medical bills which have changed the lives of many families. Tenenbaum stands strong in his argument that preventable injuries are unacceptable and claims that the manufacturers are responsible.

6. Injured Plaintiffs

One injured plaintiff argued that Bosch “colluded with competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to stop “flesh detection and braking” technology from being a requirement. He also argued that this technology has been out since his traumatic injury, and if Bosch utilized that technology then he would not have been injured. Another plaintiff extended the same argument and won 1.5 million dollars.

7. Personal Injury Lawyers

Personal injury lawyers have held companies reliable for personal injuries stating that they are liable for the reason that had the safety mechanism been utilized, their injuries would have been miniscule. Rewards have been given for medical expenses, pain and suffering.

8. Government Officials

Government officials look at the statistical side of the situation and not much else. They hold that table saws cause thousands of serious injuries every year, which costs billions of dollars to the consumer. They state that table saw safety standards have been ineffective in preventing harm. The officials maintain that there is technology that exists that can protect the consumer, therefore it should be forcefully implemented

9. News Reporters 

Mother Jones made us aware that SawStop has had two reports of amputations. They also attacked the manufacturers on their arguments to not implement the SawStop technology. Mother Jones assumes that manufacturers are not utilizing the technology because they are scared of a wave of liability lawsuits. Although this very well may be true, the manufacturer’s arguments of higher prices and conductivity problems that are pointed out here are very sound. Mother Jones also talks with table saw victims for a dose of pathos to the reader.

1a. Within the article, “Saws cut off 4,000 fingers a year. This Gadget could fix that,” the Robert Bosch Tool Corporation stated, “Safety has historically been one of the Bosch principals… and is reflected in our slogan ‘Invented for life.’

1b. This quote is stating that safety is crucial to The Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and that safety is so significant that the business references it in their slogan.

1c. This is a proposal claim because they are introducing the idea that safety is one of their principals. By doing so they are trying to convince anyone who thinks otherwise that they support safety with that claim. They introduce their slogan at the end of the quote to support their claim even further.

1d. This claim is trying to persuade everyone to see the positive side of Robert Bosch Tool Corporation. However, if Robert Bosch Tool Corporation considers safety one of their priorities. Instead of continuing to release saws that have been proven to cause various injuries, they showed seek safer methods to lower the number of injuries.

2a. “That the price of their table saws with the safety devices would ‘increase dramatically,’ eliminating low-priced consumer bench-top saws, and SawStop would have an unfair market advantage.”

2b. This quote is making the assumption that if the SawStop table saws were to be put on the market, it would give the SawStop in unfair advantage due to the price.

2c. This is a opinion claim purely because they have no evidence that when the SawStop table saws hit the market, that will be the outcome.Throughout the quote they use assumptions to make their claim however these assumptions are only their opinions rather than facts.

2d. This claim is attempting to give off the impression that the SawStop table saws would crippled the other competitors leaving them bankrupted or losing money. Nonetheless this is not accurate because they  can not be sure what would happen if SawStop table saws were to be sold, since the SawStop table saws haven’t been sold.

3a. “Current table safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.”

3b. This quote is declaring that the standards set to be considered as safe have been tested and failed to protect the consumers.

3c. This is a opinion claim because the quote states its been proven but doesn’t provide any evidence for the claim.

3d. This claim mainly expressing its opinion without stating any real facts because they make claim about how it has been proven to be ineffective. However the quote doesn’t back the statement up with any results such as revealing test results from a survey that proves how ineffective they claim table safety standards to be.

4a.”Flesh detection and braking technology and user friendly blade guard(s) have been available for years. The flesh detection technology stops a blade instantly when its touched by human flesh. Wec says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

4b. This quote is stating that the cause of the injury could have been avoided because there is technology available to prevent this injury.

4c. This is a proposal claim because they are introducing the idea that the there is safer technology that could prevent injuries . However  Bosch doesn’t use that technology and continues to use a different technology even though the safer technology has been around for years. By doing so they are trying to convince everyone that this injury could  have been avoided because if they had the safer technology this injury would not have occurred.

4d. This claim is trying to convince everyone that the Bosch company is to blame for Wec’s injury. In doing so they introduce the idea that the there is alternative technology that could’ve avoided the injury. However rather then using that technology Bosch uses a technology that doesn’t stop the blade.

5a. “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws.”

5b. This quote is declaring that someone has been able to reduce the number of injuries dealing with table saws by an enormous amount with their invention.

5c. This is a opinion claim because the quote states a claim, however they do not support their claim with any evidence.

5d. This quote is mainly stating an opinion without providing any evidence to back up the claim.

6a. “This week some of the nation’s biggest power tool companies sent their executives to Washington. They come to argue against tougher safety mandates for so-called table saws, the popular power tools with large open spinning blades.”

6b. This quote stating the biggest power tool companies of the nation sent a representative to voice their opinions on why they are against tougher safety mandates for table saws.

6c. This is a a judgmental claim because the quote is focusing on how the nations biggest power tools are coming to go against safety mandates for table saws. By doing so the quote is mainly portraying the power tools coming as a negative instead of just stating facts.

6d. This quote is focusing more so on the power tools coming to oppose the safety mandates for table saws rather than remaining neutral and stating the facts of the situation. Furthermore at the end of the quote, is a even more judgemental claim because the quote focuses only one part of what the power tool’s table saws do instead of stating everything the saw can do. In doing so, they are leaving information out so the audience will only see one side of a story rather than understanding everything about the power tool’s table saws.

7a. “What the industry saw as a problem was not the amputations and injuries occurring on their product, but the advent of a technology that could prevent those injuries.That was the problem we created.”

7b. The quote is declaring with sarcasm that the industry had a problem with his manufacturers and him because they were capable solving the problem that the industry couldn’t.

7c. This an opinion claim because the quote is not stating any supporting evidence to prove this is a true statement. Rather the claim is an opinion because the quote only portrays one side of the situation instead of both sides.

7d. This quote mainly focuses on the opinion of Gass because the quote only states his opinion and does not state the opinion of the opposing side. Furthermore, the quote doesn’t have any evidence to support his claim to make his claim a valid one.

8a. “People who have lost fingers, hand, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries. Those who who lack medical insurance suffer an unfathomable amount of pain, multiple surgeries, and a bill that they may never be able to pay so long as they they are unable to work.”

8b. This quote is stating the different injuries people associated with table saws have been through and stating how the affects of the injuries have impacted their lives.

8c. This is a proposal quote because the quote is trying to bring awareness to the injuries people deal with when they are using table saws. In addition to stating the injuries, they bring up the affects these injuries have on their lives.

8d. This quote goes through the injuries people have endured with table saws. Following the injuries these people have, the quote states how these injuries have affected the lives of the injured people. By doing so this quote is attempting to make the audience see the negative table saws caused bring up awareness about the situations that occur with table saws. To go along with that the quote brings up the affects that these injuries have on these people’s lives.

1A: A statement by the commissioner of the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission, said “Today’s unanimous decision by the Commission to approve an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on table saw blade contact injuries should send a clear signal to consumers and the industry that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year.

1C. the type of claim stated in this quote is a proposal claim.

1D. This claim made by the commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a logical claim, but involves no factual or certain claims. Only claims of certainty and reliance on another mans word that may not come true.

2A. Manufacturer

Members of the Power Tool Institute claim that “A low percentage of the 30,000 annual (U.S.) table saw injuries are due to contact with the blade – most are from kickback.”

2C. This is a factual claim.

2D. This claim is factual and brings up a strong point that counters the side for safety stops on saws. It is a logical claim and is worthy for debate. It is a persuasive claim and causes readers to re-think other facts.

3A. injured plaintiff

“Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

3C. This is a factual claim but at the same time somewhat opinionated.

3D. Coming from an injured plaintiff, this claim turns out to be very persuasive and logical but also very one sided. the plaintiff claims that if the safety mechanism was installed onto his saw, this injury would have never occurred. Which is true but a consumer also needs to know and understand the safety precautions needed to handle the tool that is known to be dangerous.

4A. News Reporter

“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.”

4B. News reporter discuses the absence of the saw safety mechanism in large named brands.

4C. This is a factual claim.

4D. This claim made by the reporter brings up a very ghastly flaw made by these saw companies. It brings up the question as to why saw companies refuse to implement this safety feature.

5A. Customer

“To hold Bosch liable for not making a bad business decision that would cost them lots of money seems a bit unreasonable if not ludicrous.”

5C. This claim is an opinion

5D. This claim is very logical but at the same time is arguable. This shows that customers do understand the thought process behind these saw companies and understand the reasoning behind the decisions. This is a logical and accurate claim.

6A. Industry Spokesperson

“SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.”

6B. Spokesperson stating a fact for all unaware consumers.

6C this is a factual claim.

6D. This spokesperson is using very logical and accurate information in their claim. It is a claim that tries to push away the people who are attacking these companies. It’s a reasonable claim and is accurate.

7A. Government Official

“The benefits of improving table saw safety clearly outweigh the costs.”

7B. A claim made by Government officials stating that no matter the cost peoples health and well being are most important.

7C. this is an opinionated claim.

7D. This claim is logical and persuasive but not reasonable or accurate. Making a financial decision that costs millions of dollars is not always an accessible decision, especially for a company that cannot afford to do that

 

 

1. Manufacturers

1A. “Blade guards must be removed for many kinds of cuts made on a table saw, so they cannot be used all the time.  Automatic safety devices on table saws, in contrast, can be used for virtually every cut of wood and other non-conductive material.”

1B. Blade guards are not functional functional for every different use of a saw, whereas automatic safety devices work effectively at all times.

1C. This is an evaluation claim because the usage of the two different types of safety methods are being compared and evaluated.

1D. This claim is very accurate. The only grey area is that it can be used for “virtually any cut of wood”. That leaves it a little bit open-ended as to how much you can do with it while remaining safe. Other than that it simply states the functionality of two different safety methods in relation to table saws. The manufacturer wanted it to be known that unlike other table saws with temporary blade guards, automatic safety devices work effectively all of the time.
2. Customers

2A. “He says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

2B. Automatic safety devices could have prevented the saw accident in the past from happening.

2C. This could be interpreted as a proposal claim because he is suggesting that had the technology been in use at the time, the accident would not have happened.

2D. This claim is accurate because the automatic safety technology is effective without fail. Therefore, had he been using the technology then, his mistake would not have resulted in an injury.
3. Industry Spokespeople

3A. “SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it,” says Susan Young, who represents Black & Decker, Bosch, Makita and other power tool companies.

3B. Anybody has the option or ability to purchase SawStop

3C. This is a factual claim, simply because it is a fact that this product is available to anybody who desires to purchase it.

3D. This claim is true but also very broad. Saying that it is available in the marketplace does not disclose what marketplaces and it could be a broad term for having to order it online. Nevertheless, it is true because regardless of where it may be sold, it still is available for anybody to buy.
4. Consumer Safety Advocates

4A. “What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws,” says Bob Adler, a commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was holding meetings on the issue this week.

4B. Somebody created the technology to prevent virtually all table saw related injuries.

4C. This is a simple causal claim because the effect of the technology created is stated.

4D. This claim is accurate because it is just going over factual things. It is true that somebody created this technology, and it is true that it significantly reduced injuries. Who it is that invented it and how the technology itself works are unclear in the claim, but that does not take away from the validity of what was stated.
5. Injured Plaintiffs

5A. “A man who was cut by a miter saw says Robert Bosch Tool Corp. “colluded with its competitors” and lobbied the Consumer Protection Safety Commission to keep “flesh detection and braking technology” from being required on table saws.”

5B. A man stated that one company colluded with its competitors to keep automatic safety technology from being a required feature on table saws.

5C. This is clearly an opinion claim. The man is a disgruntled and injured plaintiff, and provided no evidence as to how there was collusion between companies in his claim.

5D. This claim makes no good point at all. It accuses companies of unjust acts with no evidence to support the claim. Also, what “competitors” are involved in the collusion? This claim is not specific enough and not supported by any facts.
6. Personal Injury Lawyers

6A.  “Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

6B. The man argues that his traumatic injury would not have occurred, had the automatic safety technology on table saws not been rejected by major companies.

6C. This is an opinion claim because the man is just assuming that this technology would have prevented him from sustaining his injury.

6D. This claim is somewhat accurate. Given the rate of effectiveness of the automatic safety technology, the man probably would not have gotten hurt had in been in effect. Nevertheless, it is virtually effective almost all of the time. That phrasing leaves a little bit of room for error so assuming he would be safe is not fully accurate.
7. Government Officials

7A. “Based on the injury data obtained in the 2007 and 2008 CPSC special study, our staff’s injury cost model projected that consumers suffered approximately 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries annually in 2007 and 2008—with an associated injury cost of $2.36 billion dollars in each of those two years.”

7B. Approximately 67,300 people were medically treated for blade contact injuries in 2007 and 2008, with an associated injury cost of roughly $2.36 billion each year.

7C. This is a factual claim without a doubt. There are clear cut statistics in this claim that support the claim of the number of these accidents being a big issue.

7D. This claim is clear and precise in pointing out how many injuries are sustained from blade contact and the expensive repercussions as a result. There are statistics which are also cited as to where the information comes from. Numbers do not lie and it is very hard to disagree with statistically factual claims.
8. News Reporters

8A. “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.”

8B. The assumption is that consumers will not be in favor of paying $100 t0 $300 extra for the SawStop technology.

8C. This claim is completely an opinion claim. The reporter is assuming people would not want to pay extra money for enhanced safety features. That is not something you can just assume until the product is made available to everybody and the consumers then speak for themselves.

8D. This claim is unclear and not supported. It is simply an assumption that anybody could make. There is nothing within this claim that can back this opinion up.

8E. I refute this opinion-based claim. I disagree with what is being said because to me personally, a few hundred extra dollars in exchange for guaranteed safety and all of my fingers is a deal that I would always take. I feel that more people would actually agree with that opinion because safety comes first, and operating a table saw without automatic safety technology is a true risk.

1a. “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.”

1b. Many tool manufacturers are strongly offended by the idea of making safety features, like the Safe Saw, mandatory.

1c. The claim that manufacturers are against mandatory safety features is an opinion. It is vague in that in does not state whether the manufacturers will fight against Safe Saw from becoming mandatory or they are just against it as an idea.

1d. The claim has some evidence to back it up but cannot be proven. The evidence is shown in that many manufacturers do not offer safety features in any of their models. If they were not against safety features, they would likely offer them in their products. However, these manufacturers may not be offering safety features due to other factors like cost so it can’t be proven that they are solely against the concept of mandatory safety features.

2a.”All saws should have this technology, Wheeler says. “I mean, we’re dealing with human beings.”

2b. Wheeler claims that it is humane to implement universal Safe Saw technology.

2c. This claim is an opinion.

2d. This claim is logical. Wheeler witnessed firsthand one of his employees using Safe Saw which prevented him from having a traumatic injury. It makes sense that Wheeler, who often sees the pain and money that goes into table saw injuries, would be for adding it to all table saws.

3a.”The Robert Bosch Tool Corporation provided a statement: “Safety has historically been one of the Bosch principles…and is reflected in our slogan ‘Invented for life.'”

3b. Bosch, a company that reject Saw Stop, claims that safety is one of the company’s most important principles.

3c. This claim is an opinion.

3d. This claim is not supported by the company’s actions. They stated that they care about safety yet they do not offer any safe technology on table saws. If they truly valued safety, one would think that they would passionately accept Saw Stop technology despite the added cost.

4a.”What you have is somebody who has invented a dramatic technology that seems to reduce virtually all the injuries associated with table saws,” says Bob Adler, a commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

4b. Bob Adler claims that Safe Saw technology reduces all table saw injuries.

4c.This claim is a factual claim.

4d. This claim is reasonable and accurate. Safe Saw technology has been proven to stop at the detection of skin which undoubtedly has reduced injuries for those who use the saw. Adler has not claimed that Safe Saw eliminates all injuries, only that they  reduce the amount of injuries, which is certainly true.

5a.”Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury” could have been prevented if Bosch and its competitors had not rejected and fought against the safety technology.”

5b. Wec, a victim of a table saw injury, claims that his injury could have been prevented if table saw manufacturers accepted Safe Saw technology.

5c. This is an opinion claim.

5d. This claim is somewhat accurate. If Safe Saw technology was accepted by manufacturers and made available to Wec then his injury most likely would not have occurred if he bought the safe saw. However, it can’t be proven that Wec, without knowing that he was going to be injured, would have bought the Safe Saw over the traditional saw for more money.

6a. “SawStop was a “game changer,” says Osorio’s attorney, Richard Sullivan, whose firm has been involved in most of the cases.”

6b. Sullivan, a personal injury lawyer, claims that Saw Stop is the invention that will hold saw manufacturers liable for injuries.

6c. This claim is an opinion.

6d. This claim is reasonable. Sullivan was an attorney in a table saw injury case. To win the case, Sullivan argued that his client’s injury would not have happened if Ryobi had implemented Saw Stop technology. The jury agreed and Osorio received $1.5 million. Many cases using Saw Stop as their defense have been just as successful.

8a. “Society will save money if safer saws are required.”

8b. The claim is that mandatory safe saws will save society money.

8c. The claim is an evaluation.

8d. This claim could possibly be accurate but there is no solid evidence stated to support it. The author merely states that by reducing hospital costs by lowering the amount of preventable saw injuries, the Safe Saw will save society money. This may be true but there is no research given besides the one fact that is stated that society spends $2 billion per year on preventable table saw injuries. Also, the manufacturers are not considered at all in this claim. Will the amount that society saves be worth the amount that manufacturers will have to spend?

9a.”They came back and said, ‘Well, we’ve looked at it, but we’re not interested because safety doesn’t sell,’ ” Gass says.

9b. Gass claims that saw manufacturers are rejecting his product because they do not believe that safety will sell.

9c. This is an opinion claim.

9d. This claim is reasonable. Most companies make decisions based solely on profit so if they do not think that Safe Saw technology would sell, that would explain why so little of them have added it to their products.

The Battle to Make Table Saws Safer

Manufacturers- Saw Stop

A.Our saws, besides being the highest quality and best featured saws in their market segments, feature the ability to detect contact with skin and stop the blade in less than 5 milliseconds.

B. The claim is explaining that SawStop’s saws are the best in their market segments, and that they contain a unique feature to protect the users.

C. The type of claim being made is factual. Everything that the company says about their saws is presented as facts.

D. Yes, SawStop’s saws do have the unique ability, but what evidence is there to show that those saws are also the highest quality and best featured in their market segments? The main focus of the manufacturer in the entire note that featured this claim was really about how the saws had a feature like no other. Outside of this claim, there is never a mention or proof that the saws are also the best all around.

Customers- Peter A. Surette; Middleton, MA about the Jobsite saw

A.First table saw I’ve ever purchased since all the others I’ve seen posed a significant risk to my livelihood.

B. The claim explains that the customer chose to buy the Jobsite saw as his first saw over all the other choices, as it won’t injure him as bad as the majority.

C. The type of claim being made is opinion. The customer is saying why he chose the saw he bought.

D. The claim is over exaggerating the danger that may come from other saws, which is exactly what the customer seemed intent on doing. He is trying to explain why he chose the Jobsite saw over the others in a humorous way. The customer is persuading new customers to consider the SawStop saw in a manner that seems very casual and friendlike.

 Industry Spokespeople-Susan Young, who represents Black & Decker, Bosch, Makita and other power tool companies

A.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.

B. The claim is saying that many customers will not want to pay extra money for the SawStop technology to be included with the saws.

C. The type of claim being made is factual. Young is saying as a fact that due to the extra cost, people won’t want to buy the technology.

D. How do we know that the technology could add $100 to $300 in cost? What are the two sides that we may talk to? This industry spokesperson says that consumers will not want to pay for this technology, and yet, many of these consumers are the ones demanding for the addition of the safety technology, as they have gotten injured by normal table saws. So, I don’t think consumers will be opposed to paying some extra cash in order to work safer.

Customer Safety Advocates – National Consumer League

A.Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.  About 4,000 of those injuries – or more than 10 every day – are amputations.

B. The claim explains that about a tenth of the injuries suffered from table saws are amputations.

C. The type of claim being made is factual. It is giving the specific number of Americans injured by table saws, and the number of amputees from the same source.

D. Outside of the amputations, what are the other types of injuries coming from table saws? How were these statistics acquired (based off what)?

Injured Plaintiffs- A Man Injured by a Table Saw

A.The plaintiff is demanding more than $30,000 from Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability. 

B. The claim explains that a person injured by a table saw is suing Bosch for negligence, breach of warranty and product liability concerning the product.

C. The type of claim being made is factual. The plaintiff is saying frankly that his injury was because of negligence, breach of warranty, and product liability. It is also a fact that he has decided to sue the company more than $30000.

D. How does the man believe that the company was negligent in their table saws? How did the man injuring himself breach the warranty of the saw? What does product liability have to do with the matter? Basically, this claim does not explain why the plaintiff chose to sue in those specific categories. Also, how did he come up with $30,000 or more as the amount that he is suing?

Personal Injury Lawyers- The Schmidt Firm, PLLC

A.People who have lost fingers, hands, and arms to table saws have been devastated by their injuries.

B. The claim explains that people who have been injured by table saws are left in  bad situations due to their injuries.

C. The type of claim being made is factual. The argument is presented to the reader as straight up facts.

D. Why and how have people with table saw injuries become devastated? How many people out of a greater number have been devastated? While not necessarily needed, it would be nice to know what type of people most commonly acquire these injuries.

Government Officials- Chairman Inez M. Tenebaum of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

A.To these victims and to all of the other victims who have suffered life-altering injuries from table saws, I want you to know that your efforts to improve the safety of these tools have made a difference.

B. The claim is the Chairman letting the victims of saw-related injuries know that their efforts to improve the tools’ safety mechanisms are making a difference.

C. The type of claim being made is proposal. The Chairman is appealing to the victims by letting them know that their worries are and will be dealt with.

D. The Chairman says that the victims’ efforts have made a difference in improving the safety of the tools. However, this appears to be just an excuse to quiet the complaining. Based off other articles on the entire matter,no difference has really happened. In fact, as seen in one transcript,it appears as if the U.S. Consumer Product Commission is actually stalling on reaching a decision. The major companies have not adopted the SawStop technology (or something similar), and people are still very much getting injured.

News Reporters-Clint DeBoer of Protool Reviews

A.So Bosch apparently doesn’t want to be under a law that would double the price of many of their saws, require expensive safety devices on miter saws (which really don’t need them) and force them (and all other manufacturers) to pay royalties to a monopolistic single license holder of the SawStop technology… I wouldn’t either.

B. The claim is the reporter saying that he has the same mindset as Bosch, as both wouldn’t want to be a law that regulated the way business was being done.

C. The type of claim being made is opinion. The reporter can clearly be seen adding his own views to the argument.

D. So the law would supposedly rise the price of the Bosch saws, which the company does not want. However, these saws are rising in price because they will be including the SawStop, which will prevent more injuries from happening. And as previously mentioned, customers are willing to pay more in order to be safer. So in the end, Bosch would actually be making more money under the new law. The reporter says that the saws don’t really need the expensive safety devices that would become a requirement under the new law. And yet, there are so many customers who have been injured by these saws, that it is almost completely evident that these cutting tools need better safety mechanisms. The reporter also claims that the law will force these big companies to pay royalties to the single license holder of the SawStop technology. I am not sure a law will force the big companies to use one specific product. I believe the law will just require these manufacturers to include some type of safety mechanism similar to SawStop (or the brand version if they are willing to pay as much for it).  If the law, however, did require the big companies to pay royalties to SawStop, then okay. The little safety technology manufacturer deserves to make more money, and I don’t think that the royalties will make the big companies lose  that much money.