Safer Saws

Consumers
1A. Ryszard Wec argues that his 2007 injury could have been avoided if Mitter Saws had adopted the flesh detection technology on the market. He argues that the company did not apply these safety alternatives to “assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,’ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market.”
1B.
– Flesh detection technology would prevent injuries.
-Mitter is trying to get away with using unsafe technology.
– They are lobbying against it because of potential lawsuits.
1C
–    Consequential
–    Definitional
–    Consequential
1D
–    The first claim is accurate and proven. Saws would certainly be safer if this technology was required.
–    This claim is implied in Wec’s argument. It is plausible, but definitely bias. Mitter may have turned down the technology for other reasons.
–    Like the first one it is plausible, but definitely deniable on Mitter’s part. The argument is that Mitter is trying to reject the technology as to not make themselves liable to lawsuits with their current technology which does not use Saw Stops.
Federal Consumer Safety
2a. Inez M. Tenebaum is the chairmen of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. He says “Last year, I called on the table saw industry to address this hazard through the voluntary standards process and work to prevent the needless injuries that occur each and every day.”
2b.
–    The Table Saw industry is reluctant to make saws safer.
–    Injuries could be easily avoided if stop saw was introduced.
2c
–    Definitional
–    Consequential

2d
–    The first claims is aimed at the industry showing that they could do something about the injuries, but have chosen not to at this point.
–    This claims that the injuries are not needed at all and that companies should be blamed because they could easily stop the injuries from occurring.

Industry
3a. The industry states that making the technology mandatory isn’t right because it makes the price of saws go up and gives Gass “near-extortion and monopoly position” when it comes to the royalties on the saws.
3b
–    Prices will rise if they are forced to implement SawStop.
–    Gass is extorting the companies by trying make his technology mandatory.
3c
–    Consequential
–    Definitional
3d
–    This claim is saying that implementing SawStop will not be easy and will pass expense onto the consumers.
–    This is interesting claim that is probably being over looked. While the technology is certainly safer Gass is asking for a lot of money and trying to push the industry into a corner.
Lawyers
4a. A Schmidt Firm claims that “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”
4b.
–    When comparing injury numbers, table saws are the most dangerous power tool.
4c.
–     Evaluation
4d.
–    This claim is stating that the SawStop should be in place because of the dangerous nature of the saw.
National Consumer League
5a. The National Consumer League claims that, “This technology (Plastic blade guards) has remained essentially the same for over 50 years.  Yet, blade guards have proved to be ineffective in reducing the 40,000 serious table saw injuries that occur every year.
5b.
–    The Technology hasn’t been updated, is ineffective, and, as a result, has not been able to prevent 40,000 injuries.
5c.
–    Consequential
5d.
–    This is a claim that indirectly blames the lack of progress as the cause of the injuries. It says that the blade guard is ineffective, but puts an emphasis that its been ineffective for more than 50 years.
Inventor
6a. Steve Gass talks about his interaction with Delta saws. He reports they said; “’Well we decided, we concluded, that safety doesn’t sell.’ And I was shocked.”
6b.
–    Delta saw is rejecting his idea because they believe safer saws won’t increase their prophets.
6c.
–    Evaluation
6d.
–    Steve Gass is clearly trying to cast the saw companies as the bad guys for not accepting his technology.
Saw Companies
7a. After being pressured in Washington from injured customers, Susan Young of Black & Deckor, Bosch, Makita, and others power tool companies states, “”SawStop is currently available in the marketplace to any consumer who chooses to purchase it.”
7b.
–    We can not be held viable for these people’s injuries. because they could have purchased a saw with SawStop technology.
7c.
–    Consequential
7d.
–    This claim is aimed at those taken legal action against the companies she represents. She says that her companies can not be sued because consumers can choose to invest more money in a SawStop saw, or not.
Government
8a. According to Dr. John D. Graham, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for President George W. Bush, an average table saw equipped with an automatic safety system will deliver $753 in benefits due to reduced injuries.
8b.
–    The extra cost of the saw outweighs the cost of injury.
8c.
–    Evaluation
8d.
–    This claim is aimed at debunking the big saw companies claim that it is not worth the extra money.
–    It is also aimed at consumers to make them see that paying more would be worth it.