RAS v. Tablesaur - Injury Statistics
 

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
radial arm saws.

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)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
radial arm saws.

Perhaps someone has access to industry sales statistics that would let
us weigh the probabilities in a more useful fashion.

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 on

For 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






On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:50:35 -0400, Tom Watson
wrote:

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
radial arm saws.

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)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

John wrote in
:

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 on

For 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



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

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution. I
recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...


Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
radial arm saws.

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)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"toller" wrote in message

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).

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.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

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.
--
Michael White "To protect people from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

joey ) wrote on Wednesday 15 June 2005 09:16 pm:

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution.
I recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
...


Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
radial arm saws.

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)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:16:31 -0700, "joey" wrote:

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff.

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.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 19:16:31 -0700, "joey" wrote:

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution. I
recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey

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.

:)

"joey" wrote in message
...
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution.
I
recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey

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....

Get a laser for it.

With the RAS you don't need no stinkin laser.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"toller" wrote in message
...

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.

"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."

"joey" wrote in message
...
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution.
I
recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey

Promote the general Welfare covers a lot of ground

In article ,
Tom Watson wrote:
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Although the above might lead one to hastily conclude that the table
saw is statistically more dangerous than the radial arm saw, there is
no data to show the number of tablesaws existing versus the number of
radial arm saws.

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)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

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.


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

Steve Peterson wrote:
"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."

"joey" wrote in message
...
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the Constitution.
I
recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey

Promote the general Welfare covers a lot of ground

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.

Steve Peterson wrote:
"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."

"joey" wrote in message
...
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the
Constitution.
I
recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey

Promote the general Welfare covers a lot of ground

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?

Steve Peterson wrote:
Steve Peterson wrote:
"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."

"joey" wrote in message
...
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia03/os/powersaw.pdf

Why do my taxes pay for this stuff. I musta missed it in the
Constitution.
I
recently heard of a government study about why people laugh
Joey

Promote the general Welfare covers a lot of ground

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.