Consumer Product Safety Comm. to discuss proposed SawStop technology safety rule

Page 12 of 14  

wrote:

It was a pretty silly example of how we would get hurt. Almost as dumb as saying my rollerskates hit a wet spot and I slipped. Maybe you are just jumpier than me but I make sure I am firmly planted and not in a position where I will slip and slide my hand into the blade. I use push sticks and a sled if that is appropriate. Maybe that is why I do have all my digits. It occurs to me most "accidents" are because people get in a hurry and don't plan each cut. You should know where the woodis , how you will control it and where your fingers are going to be before, during and after you cut. I am a lot more afraid of that blade than I am of someone going "BOO" behind me. I might not even notice them. I certainly don't pay any attention to a loud noise somewhere else in the shop. Whatever fell, broke or exploded will still be fell, broke or exploded when I get the saw turrned off. Maybe it is just tuinnel vision. Keep you mind on the work My grandfather taught me and my dad enforced it, now it is just habit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:04:47 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

My Dad actually, so no, I can't kill him. And I don't mean he intentionally tries to scare me, it's just that when you're working by yourself and totally focused on your cut and can't hear anything and then suddenly there's someone else nearby you get startled.
I had to make sure the saw was pointed at the main door so I could see him come in. I also keep the lights that are on the main switch off, supposedly to save electricity because it also turns on all the rest of the lights in the basement. When that light is on I know to be on high alert for the wandering tool thief.
-Leuf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Frankly, Leuf, those are very weak arguments to put forth in the interest of Gov mandating a technology that adds significant cost to the machinery. Maybe the big heavy thing falling over will do more harm to you than the TS could.

Years ago my wife did something similar and it never happened again as I sat her down and explained the potential for danger. On the job can be a challenge at times. Other subs walking behind me, etc, etc. But its only when I don't pay proper attention to my environment that things get risky. With all due respect to your Dad, you need to make some noise with him. Like many other pieces of equipment in our daily lives, a TS can go from innocuous to dangerous in a moments notice...as based on the negligence of the operator.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is a red herrring unless you want to go protest the KFC, Baskin Robbins and McDonalds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long period? If you want to really get down to it, your statement is much more of a red herring than the one you commented on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

How so? If anything, the costs and disabilities and death due to longterm degenerative disease is FAR more onerous than WhirlySharp injuries.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very likely true, but not as immediately costing and the expense of sudden catastrophic injuries can't be planned for over the long term nearly as well as for those degenerative diseases.
And yes, I fully realize that eventually, the point might be reached where even long term planning will not be sufficient to pay for what's needed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

But, these degenerative disease costs are hitting us now from what was generated in the past 10 years and before. And the expense, to both dollars and productivity, keep ocurring now and into the future. Are you saying that the cost of say, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, is less today than the cost of whirlysharp injuries?
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

dollars
that
the
So you're fine to accuse me of ridiculous comparisons, but you feel free to use them yourself? Grow up, you know damned well I suggested no such comparison.
Let me ask you. Knowing what you know now about increasing diabetes and cardiovascular disease, if one single mandate could have been enacted 30 years ago that would effectively and selectively eliminated the bulk of these conditions, would you still say it was undesirable? Knowing all the misery and strife that these two conditions have caused to our society, would you still be sticking to your "no government involvement"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Costs are costs, regardless of the nature of the health care. And you were the one that wanted to dance by saying: "Big difference don't you think with things that can cause definite instant injury and other things that may cause health difficulties over a long period"? I was just following your lead.

I have never said I am against all government involvement, and it is rhetorically dishonest to try to support your arguments on that kind of tactic. You seem to be having difficulty with the concept that opposing a government mandate does not mean you oppose all. However, since you seem locked into that position, do you support all government involvement since you seem to support this mandate?
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course not and I do see your point. I was only trying to illustrate that government involvement, mandate or whatever does not automatically make it a bad thing, which is the vibe I seem to be getting from you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A case could certainly be made that if they had mandatory weight tresting and rationer food to fat people they would be a lot heathier ... or so the legend goes but that is not the way Americans want to live. These discussions are the best argument against national healh care. Do you really want the people who run the drug war, running a fat food, hazardous activity war?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, that certainly would not be the North American way. I don't know, I guess it comes down to what you've experienced growing up. I know that if I'd not been born in Canada and born in the bulk of other countries around the world, my health problems would have killed me over 20 years ago. So I admit it, I feel lucky in some ways and certainly more appreciative of our society than some. I know that clouds my judgement, but it's who I am. Sure, there's lots of things I don't like about Canada, especially in the disability arena, but it's better than most, so for the most part I think there's been a good combination of personal choice and government involvement. I do know that I'd feel really stupid for a long time if I cut some fingers off on a tablesaw. That's something I'd have a really difficult time getting over.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

It's the Poutine, dammit; blame the Poutine. :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have to answer yes to that question. There was and still is a simple government mandate that would in fact reduce these medical conditions substantially. Outlaw red meat. Outlaw white bread. Outlaw refined sugar. It would be fairly simple to identify those food items that contribute the most to an unhealthy diet and simply outlaw those items. Death rates would drop. Physical (as opposed to mental) health would improve. Natrural life expectancy would probably soar. Life would suck.
It could be taken a little further by mandating limited portion sizes in restaurants and limiting all patrons to one entree. I guess we could go whole hog and if someone invented and patented the safe food (ala soylent green maybe) mandate that all meals must incorporate this food item.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Try reading into the response a little more.

"Effectively and selectively" suggests "what if" it could be done simply and easily. You've posted three foods that have a wide distribution and eliminating them "effectively and selectively" could not be done easily.
And as an aside, if the elimination of those three foods from your diet means that your life would suck, then you lead an extremely limited, one-sided life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, I probably like steak better than you do. If you ever visit Toronto, I'd be happy to take you out to my favourite steak house and feed you some. :)
Shrimp cocktail, whiskey sour, rib steak, rare, grilled mushrooms in the side. In fact, I'll be eating and drinking all those things tomorrow evening.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Is that a Gloat? :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Closer to a self-indulgent pig out if I can get through it. These last few years see me bringing sections of the meal home in a doggy bag. It maybe a piece of cold steak the next day, but most of the taste is still there. One of the few benefits of getting older is that I can't eat near as much, so when I get my hands on something good, it usually lasts a little longer. I've also noticed that I'm more interested in quality these days, not bulk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Damn, now that is truly a reason to visit Toronto ;-)

Now you're just making me hungry - Just change the whiskey to a non-alcholic beverage and make the steak medium and place my order in abstentia.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.