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