> RussellMc wrote: >> http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/Table_Saws_and_Safety.html Summary: OSHA not so dumb. Challenge: Read the 3 "Which system would you rather ..." questions in the text and answer them truthfully. Report back. ____ Vitaliy: > I found this comment interesting >> " > "At the wood shop I am the safety manager at, we use the Brettguard system ... >> ... However, OSHA does not see the Sawstop as a guard, so you will >> still be fined for not having a guard in place" Vitaliy: > OSHA's mission is to make workers safer, but in this case it looks like they > made them less safe because they followed the regulations, instead of common > sense. No. Demonstrably not so. It may seem that way at first glance, but it can be seen on a little consideration that OSHA, in the instance in question, have a bit more nouse than you are crediting them with. Consider: > "At the wood shop I am the safety manager at, we use the Brettguard system. > It is a fixed clear guard covering the entire blade that you crank up and > down, so you can get it to about 1/16 above the material being cut. It will > not raise up if you run your hand into it like some of the other guards. It > also helps hold the material down - works great with laminate. So far so good. He has a guard that works superbly, with which you CANNOT cut yourself at all if you follow the shop rules (eg adjust to 1/16" above work surface)(unless you have body parts < 1/16th" thick)(eg you could probably cut long air with it but you'd probably have to try very very very hard to do so)(tell me again, why WERE you lying on the saw table?), > We had a Sawstop as well, but sold it. It was an amazing product. ie they concluded either that the Brettguard did everything that the SawStop did that they needed OR they decided they were happy to be less safe and to save some money. ie nobody made them sell the SawStop. They could have used it as well as the BrettGuard. They chose not to. Why we don't know, but there is good reason to think that the Brettguard made it unnecessary. Note that the BrettGuard is not cheap compared to alternatives. There are many other guards that would meet OSHA specs, but they chose this one. That suggests that they are serious about safety. > However, OSHA does > not see the Sawstop as a guard, so you will still be fined for not having a > guard in place, since an injury has to take place for the system to work. " OK. Two questions suggest themselves. 1. Are OSHA correct? 2. Are OSHA being reasonable? Compare a Brettguard and a SawStop in use in a shop that tries to be as safe as possible. Both systems are used according to manufacturers suggestions and are adjusted correctly. Both have codes of practice in place and these are enforced by a resident safety officer or similar. Questions: Which system would you rather offer a finger to? Which system would you rather fall on with an outstretched hand? Which system would you rather fall on if your body was going to be the first point of impact just above the blade? If you think that those are contrived and unfair questions - they are and they aren't. ie the situations apart from offering a finger are unusual. Nobody in their right mind allows themselves to fall onto a saw blade in such a way that they need to put their hand on the blade to save themselves - let along fall on a bladed with their body? Do they? Maybe not. But apparently there are people around who are NOT in their right minds who use saws. Quoting from somebody who says that they are quoting (favourably) a statement by SawStop themselves: "SawStop informed me that the worst injury caused by a SawStop was when someone lost their balance and in order to keep from falling on the spinning blade had to push off the blade with their hand. This action with normal table saws will produce an amputation, minimum. The resulting injury, because the saw was a SawStop, required 5 stitches. From: http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/Table_Saws_and_Safety.html Now, I consider that an awesomely successful product. A rotary saw blad that you can fall on with an outstretched hand, taking weight on your arm to prevent body injury, and only needing 5 stitches in the hand, is utterly awesome. It's a marvellous achievement of technology. BUT, it is hard to imagine that if a Brettguard had been fitted that the user would have needed ANY stitches at all. Nor needed an about $100 brake and blade replacement (having read more that's more like the cost). Nor needed an accident report, work stoppage, blade & brake replacement (quick if you have both in stock), 5 stitches, emergency room trip, OSHA intervention ... . And, FWIW, the 5 stitches DO sound amazing. But if that had been the users wrist and not hand that had met the blade then the 5 stitch may have been a bit too late to help. I've never seen a BrettGuard. In fact, I'd never heard of one until I read that piece. But Amazon has: http://www.amazon.com/HTC-10A-L-Brett-Guard-Table-Guard/dp/B0001LQW7S And here's what users think of them: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?referrerid=5960&t=77274 Sounds good to me. Note that a user suggests that most aftermarket "guards" are described as "covers" by their makers. But wait, there's more :-). - The SawStop will sometimes mistrip -~ $100/time. Can be reduced by proper setup and maintenance, but no guarantee of never happening. - Point in favour: I have not seen anything suggesting that it ever failed to trip as designed. - There are some materials that it will not work with. You can check these by putting it in bypass mode and seeing if it trips when offered the material.If you don't mind the effort of disabling the system and testing on every new piece of wood this MAY save your $100 events. BUT the system CAN be bypassed and MUST be bypassed for some sorts of use. A well designed guard system will be usable for a wide range of work thicknesses and styles. There may be some conditions where it is essentially necessary to convert to a "bare blade". BUT a SawStop system that is bypassed ALWAYS converts to a fully unprotected bar-blade system unless you eg add a guard as well. Then ... . - Can't be used with non conductive blades or blades with non conductive cutting inserts. - Has a maximum blade size and mass that it will work with. Also a minimum blade stiffness (for safety). - MAY sometimes shed teeth on standard steel blades. - Very unwise to use with tipped teeth (eg Tungsten carbide) even if conductivity OK. Tungsten Carbide bullets may not be good for your health. (A friend of mine managed to hit a fence wire with a TC blade and he reports that it peeled the outer ring of teeth and inserts off the blade). - SawStop reportedly are asking an extortionate-in-the-extreme-by-any-usual-standards 8% royalties for their system. That's fine as far as it goes in a what-the-market-will-bear open market system. BUT they reportedly are seeking declaratory judgements (or some such) to have their maximally safe system made mandatory on saws of this type.If both be true, and I know not how true they be, then it seems an abuse of the WTMWB system to use compulsory regulation to mandate your free market patented device. - Bosch are/were being sued by a user who hurt themselves with a Bosch mitre saw because, they say, it did not have a SawStop type system installed and could have had. But SawStop systems are not made for and are not suitable for this sort of saw. - Reportedly, the large majority of table saw injuries, some very bad ones, are caused by the work being thrown back by the blade. SawStop (presumably) does nothing to prevent this. I suspect that may guard systems do or can prevent or reduce this happening. That should do for now. > OSHA's mission is to make workers safer Does anyone think / still think that OSHA did the wrong thing by the workers who they are mandated to act on behalf of? Russell -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist