Massachusetts construction worker killed after saw hits him in throat

[Stormin' Norman]

These tools can kill us, even if we take proper safety precautions....

Massachusetts construction worker killed after saw hits him in throat

[DerbyDad03]

"Investigators say they believe the chop saw he was using "became bound" and jolted back at him, making contact with his neck."

Does anyone want to explain how a *chop saw* could "jolt back" and make contact with someone's neck?

[Stormin' Norman]

Simple, a 23 year old, female journalism major used the wrong term to identify the tool, probably because the police or fire department representative didn't know the proper technical term. We who know the difference understand the unfortunate deceased man must have been using a hand-held cutoff saw, e.g.

.

The point of the story was a man was killed by a tool while on the job.

[DerbyDad03]

I understand the point. Job site accidents unfortunately happen quite often.

One more thing: "...even if we take proper safety precautions"

It would be nice to know what (if any) safety precautions the unfortunate deceased had taken. We might all learn from his mistake, if there was indeed one (or more).

Perhaps there will be a follow-up story after OSHA completes it's investigation. I doubt it.

[Stormin' Norman]

Good, glad you understand.

The only precautions I can think of that might have prevented this accident would be to wear a thick, heavy, belting leather stock or collar, something similar to what marines used to wear.

Of course, the other precaution would have been to use a different kind of cutting tool, possibly a remotely operated hydraulic cutter or a large chain cutter if they were working on a cast iron pipe.

You can look up details of OSHA investigation on the OSHA web site.

[DerbyDad03]

Actually, that wasn't the point of my "I doubt it." It was more about the fact that gory accidents are "news". Follow-up investigations and recommendations as to how to prevent them are not.

BTW...my mention of the "chop saw" was more or less a rhetorical question. It was, once again, more of an indictment of our news services than anything else. The tool wasn't the news, i.e. the facts don't matter. The fatal cut to the neck and the images that the words provoke is what counts to the media.

Per Don Henley:

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blond who comes on at five She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye It's interesting when people die Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet? You know, the boys in the newsroom got a running bet Get the widow on the set! We need dirty laundry

[Stormin' Norman]

There was no gore presented in the story. I felt it was pithy and communicated the pertinent information that would be of interest to the general public.

As the majority of the general public is not going to be climbing into a trench and cutting a large, underground pipe with a power saw, there is no reason to publish the investigation results in a newspaper, that is what trade journals are for.

Again, this story was pithy and contained little to no embellishments or opinion. I saw nothing worthy of condemnation. Your comment about the chop saw came across as being a somewhat picayune criticism.

Don Henley? A songwriter or poet? Not sure of the relevance of this reference to the immediate story at hand, but I don't really assign much significance or credibility to most "artistic" commentary. If he wanted to be critical of an industry, there is plenty to criticize in the arena of the performing arts.

[Ed]

The story doesn't say but I assume he was using a saw similar to one of these:

I can see how working down in a too small trench might cause you to position yourself and/or the machine improperly. It looks to me like it would have a kickback potential similar to a chainsaw. And it wouldn't be the first time some clown removed a safety guard (heh heh heh).

[Stormin' Norman]

Yes, I posted the same link as you did. I also suspect he was standing on the pipe, which could have caused it to bind while he was cutting.

The saw might benefit from some kind of clutch mechanism to prevent this kind of catastrophic kick-back.

[DerbyDad03]

Gore can be presented in a very subtle manner. Words invoke images, both gentle and gory.

Then what was the point of publishing the account of the incident? Do they publish an account of everyone that dies at work or do they just publish the deaths that make us all cringe? If, as you say, "the majority of the general public is not going to be climbing into a trench and cutting a large, underground pipe with a power saw" why did we need hear of this incident?

It was, in fact, a criticism. If the facts of the story were inaccurate, it deserves criticism.

Just as an aside, why did you include "female" in your description of the fictitious journalist?

As to the song's relevance, I'll repeat what I said earlier:

"BTW...my mention of the "chop saw" was more or less a rhetorical question. It was, once again, more of an indictment of our news services than anything else. The tool wasn't the news, i.e. the facts don't matter. The fatal cut to the neck and the images that the words provoke is what counts to the media."

That also applies to my comments about the subtle ways that gore can be presented.

And criticize he has. In the documentary "History of the Eagles" Henley was asked about the meaning behind what is arguably their most well known song, Hotel California.

"On just about every album we made, there was some kind of commentary on the music business, and on American culture in general. The hotel itself could be taken as a metaphor not only for the myth-making of Southern California, but for the myth-making that is the American Dream, because it is a fine line between the American Dream, and the American nightmare."

[DerbyDad03]

He was quite possibly/most likely using a power cut-off saw such as you pictured. My point is that he was most likely not using a chop saw as stated in the article.

[Stormin' Norman]

I avoid pointless rabbit holes.

The story was not presented in a sensational manner.

News organizations publish what the individual editors feel will be of interest to their readership. There is no hard, fast rule or formula.

I certainly did not cringe when I read the story, I felt sympathy for the victim and took it as a reminder of the dangers some people are exposed to in occupations which serve the public interest.

Above you stated it was a rhetorical question, an indictment of "our" news services. Are you a shareholder in the Associated Press? How is it your news service?

Now you claim it was a criticism of the story. IMHO, your criticism was picayune and this story does not support your "indictment" of news services.

We are all human and fallible; to criticize such minor errors seems rather immature.

Another pointless rabbit hole.

[philo]

A friend of a friend was using a chain saw and did himself in when it hit his neck.

The poor fool was trimming off a tree branch above his head

[DerbyDad03]

I'm not seeing the point in your question. There are news services that are available to all of us. Those are "our" news services. In my opinion, these services tend to sensationalize the news in order to gain readership.

Did that paper (or even the AP) publish a story about the 55 year old who died because he smoked for 40 years? Nope, because that news is not sensational. Nobody is going to re-post a link to that story on usenet, even though smoking is at least - or probably even more - as dangerous as using a "chop saw" in a trench.

It's not a "Now I claim" situation. It was a criticism from the moment I read that line and posted my rhetorical question. I guess you missed that. Text on the ole interweb can certainly be misconstrued/misunderstood.

Sure, we can certainly allow our news services to print inaccurate information without question or criticism. Who cares...fact checking has no bearing. They got that point wrong, let's just assume everything else is correct. Sorry, that doesn't work for me. The author loses credibility when parts of the story are just flat out illogical.

...and one that you cannot defend. Your comment was rather immature and degrading to women in the context used. But, hey, if that's how you feel about women, so be it. At least we know where you are coming from.

[Stormin' Norman]

An absurd red herring.

Keep your eye on the road when you are backpedaling this furiously.....

Loses credibility? Only in the eyes of a hypercritical and insecure individual who sees an opportunity to raise his own self-esteem by criticizing the work product of a reporter or public safety employee on the basis of an insignificant detail.

A fallacious, sloppy and hypocritical ad hominem attack. In the ridiculous question you posed above, you conjured a fictitious male smoker. Using your logic, one can assume you feel that all men are so moronic that they would commit suicide by smoking for 40 years.

[DerbyDad03]

Playing the backpedaling card is fairly common when one doesn't want to admit that they missed a point. Some call it "deflection".

I know what I meant and that's all that really matters to me.

As ridiculous as that extrapolation is - since my comment was not derogatory - you still haven't explained why you used "female" in your comment. All you offer is more deflection.

Moving on...

[DerbyDad03]

I have a friend with a massive scar on his neck from a chainsaw. The limb he was cutting was under tension and when it released it knocked the running saw into his neck. If not for his brother who was nearby, he'd have bled to death.

I worked with a guy who was clearing his yard after an ice event. He didn't realize that the branch he was cutting was holding a sapling under tension. When the cut removed the weight, the sapling sprang up and smacked him in the side of the head. It knocked him unconscious, but luckily the saw had already stopped. When he came back to work he looked like he had gone a few rounds with a heavy weight boxer.