Counterintuitivity

“To reduce the possibility of injury in the HANDY shop, we use a SawStoptable saw. This saw features ‘flesh-detecting’ technology  that instantly stops and lowers the blade if your hand (or hot dog – click here for a video demo), for example, comes in contact with it. (SawStop received a HANDY Innovation award for its contractor’s saw in 2008.) I believe every commercial job site and institutional shop should be equipped with this type of saw. The greatly reduced risk of injury (and the associated medical costs) more than justifies the saw’s higher price.”

Evaluation claim

The author of this claim has tried to prove that this saw is safer not only by listening to Steve Gass but trying the saw him-self. What he thinks is that every shop should have this saw, even commercials should display this saw. It might be higher priced as he states but it is much more worth it to reduce the risk of injury.

I think this claim is pretty accurate and I also think that this saw is safer and should be in the different shops as well. This was a great invention and if you know that the person who made the saw used it on his own finger in front of the whole world than it must be safe enough for anyone else to use.

“I found out that table saws cause thousands of these really horrible injuries every year. This inventor, a guy named Steve Gass, had actually figured out a way to prevent just about all of those accidents. Over the years, he’s proved that it works, too. ‘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.”

Chris Arnold  was curious to learn more about this technology that Steve Gass invented that would prevent more injuries from a table saw. He found it amazing that someone invented something that could stop so many “horrible injuries each year”.

Evaluation claim

The author of this article goes over the thing Steve Gass say and do to prove that his invention will work and cause less injuries. He goes from just finding out about the invention to actually learning about it and giving many details in the process.

I think the claim is accurate because the inventor tested it on his self so everyone could see it. He had enough confidence in his work to actually show the world using his own finger. I agree with the author that this invention was a great one.

1. “Wec claims that “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 it is touched by human flesh. Wec says the technology could have prevented his 2007 injury from a Bosch miter saw.”

2. What Wec is trying to say is that the technology for safer and more user-friendly equipment has been available for sometime now and that if Bosch and it’s competitors had adopted these safety measures his permanent injury sustained in 2007 could have easily been prevented.

3.The Claim from this constituent is an evaluation claim.

4. The claim set forth by Wec seems fairly accurate to me. Wec sustained an injury using a Bosch miter saw that was not equipped with the latest breakthrough in saw safety even though it was offered to them several years before the accident. Therefore Bosch deserves to take some responsibility due to the fact that they turned down the potentially life saving modifications to their products, causing people like Wec to be severely injured when they could have easily prevented it.

1. “The system can tell the difference between your finger and the wood. So when you’re cutting wood if you accidently run your hand into the blade it will stop it so quickly that you’ll get a little nick instead of taking some fingers off.”

2. The exultant inventor claims that he made a table saw that could stop thousands of amputations in the United States every year.

3. This claim is a categorical claim.

4. Steve Gass the exultant inventor of the table saw uses an electrical sensor to tell when the blade comes in contact with flesh instead of wood. To prove that his invention worked Steve Gass conducted many trial runs of his invention using hot dogs because they have the same salty conductivity as human fresh. However, people had doubts whether the invention would stop for human flesh, so Gass set up a new trial using his own finger. When the table saw’s blade came into contact with his finger the blade disappeared under the table and didn’t draw blood. Gass stated it felt like a “buzz” or a “tickle” after coming into contact with the blade. Based on Gass’s trial runs I believe the accuracy, quality, and reasonableness of Gass’s claim is correct. Gass has shown that his invention meet his standards of his claim. I think the product itself is persuasive but is not an essential to peoples’ needs. In other words I believe if safety was everyone’s priority the product would sell more.

1. In a comment on a youtube video of a sawstop demonstration, this user said “My shop teacher says sometimes he puts some wet wood or something into the machine by accident and it stops and breaks… costs 200 dollars to replace plus the cost of the blade. also the humidity in the room has an effect. if it it too humid the wood will get damp and the sawstop will set off”

3. This is an evaluation claim that the sawstop technology is not effective at distinguishing between human flesh and damp or humidified wood. Also, there is a factual claim that when the sawstop is tripped, the saw is effectively broken and it will cost $200 plus the cost of a blade to make it operational again.

4. This argument may be somewhat effective in appealing to financially conscious table saw buyers who have lots of experience and are fully confident in their ability to use a table saw without hurting themselves. However, in the case of a high school shop class, most people would agree that safety should be the utmost concern no matter how much it costs, as these machines will be used to teach inexperienced kids.

1. Larry Okrend states, “After researching the facts of the case, I think mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary and counterproductive.”

2. “After researching the facts of the case, I think mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary and counterproductive.”

3. Evaluation Claim

4. His claim is a weak one put very sternly. He doesn’t point out how extra safety measures could lead to counter productivity. He simply points out that many tools can be made dangerous, but doesn’t make a point as to why this should defer governments from mandating manufactures to make these tools safer and idiot-proof. Consequentially, any reader pro-safe saws would not be persuaded to agree with his claim. For instance, a person could easily fight his weak claim by arguing that the company with SawStop implemented saws would be more productive since it would have no injured workers.

1.  The constituent i have chosen to quote is from the perspective of handymen who have had experience with the saw, more specifically Larry Okrend, and have given their personal opinion of it, however stating that it is not needed; the handymen understand that safer saws are always a good thing, but working in a shop where these are present requires more focus and common sense than “guaranteed” safety.

2.   “After researching the facts of the case, I think mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary and counterproductive. Table saws are only part of the power-tool safety problem. Almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly. I’d like to see technology address the hazards of using shapers, circular saws, routers, planers and other high-risk tools. Even so, I know that technology alone can’t eliminate risk. There’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices.”

3.  Okrend is making an evaluational claim, having both used the SawStop technology and weighing options for utilizing it against the cons.

4.  Any statement made by an actual handyman who has been able to use the SawStop technology is absolutely going to hold more weight than anyone else; opinions from companies and even the creator are going to be biased.  Okrend recognizes the benefits of the technology and what it can do to prevent injury, but rightfully so he stands with accepting that anyone in this profession looking for the pinnacle of safety is in the wrong occupation.  His stance is surprising and quite bold, as it would possibly make more “sense” to simply advertise the SawStop’s benefits, and his understanding the reality of the situation is quite refreshing.  Okrend’s being a handyman is already persuasive enough, to both the public and other handymen, but his stating that not every saw should legally be obligated to use the technology comes across strong, and his conclusion with handymen needing a degree of common sense and responsibility just drives his point home completely.

5.  I can say without a doubt that i agree with Okrend.  Safer saw technology would be wonderful, as no one actually wants to lose a finger, and more power to SawStop for trying. But with it risking every saw being legally obligated to use the technology and the ever-possible repurcussive law entanglements there are too many faults to accept it.  His points on responsibility had me nodding in agreement, as I too feel that if you are a handyman then you already understand the dangers of the job and have to be as careful as possible.  Safety-nets just make it easier to personally slip-up, and if someone is not comfortable with that, the answer is not safer saws, but to leave the profession entirely.

1. “Every year, thousands of people are severely injured after using table saws. For more than a decade, the SawStop safety mechanism has been available that could prevent almost all table saw injuries. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have refused to adopt it. Now, many people who have been injured are bring lawsuits against table saw manufacturers for failing to include the safety devices that would protect their customers from losing fingers, hands, arms, and suffering unfathomable pain.” – Table Saw Injury Lawyer

2. Although technology to prevent injury has been around, manufacturers do not adapt to the technology. Therefor, people still hurt themselves on the machines.

3. Consequential claim

4. The lawyers’ claim is reasonable to the reader. They provide facts on how long the technology to prevent injuries has been available and persuasively incriminate saw manufacturers that don’t use the technology to protect their customers. The statement is accurate and even gives a rough statistic to help support the claim that with the safe saw technology, there may be less injuries.

5. Although the lawyers’ claim is reasonable and is persuasive, I believe that bringing a lawsuit against the saw companies would be unfair to the companies because the buyer should understand the risks involved in buying and using a table saw, especially if the buyers know that the saw does not have the Safe Saw technology. This is along the lines of spilling hot coffee on yourself and sewing MacDonald’s for serving you hot coffee. If the saws advertised Safe Saw technology and the safe still injured the user, then there would be a much more credible lawsuit.

1. 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
2. Wec claims that if the safety technology was adopted and in use then he would not be seriously injured by table saw.
3. This is an evaluation claim.
4. This claim is accuracy.  From the demonstration by Gass testing his own finger on the SawStop, the table saw did stop and there are not even a sign of red on his finger.  This provides support to Wec’s claim that with use of SawStop he would not be injured.  It is reasonable to other people because people would not want to be injured, if there is some way to prevent this from happening.  This claim is persuasive.  It pursue people to take action to demand use of SawStop so serious injures will not happen.

1. “I think mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary and counterproductive. Table saws are only part of the power-tool safety problem. Almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly.”

2. It is not the machine’s fault that people are getting hurt; it is their own fault. Technology alone can’t prevent risk. There also needs to be a sense of alertness from the operator.

3. Evaluation claim

4. This is an understandable claim. He makes a strong point that machines are not always to blame for workplace injuries, and in most cases it is the fault of the worker. If there are only safe saws then it is very possible that workers could stop being as alert and, when not working with a safe saw, be more liable to injure themselves. All of this together makes it a fairly successful claim.