Norm receives award for promoting eye safety

[John Gregory]

http://www.aao.org/newsroom/release/042309.cfm

American Academy of Ophthalmology Honors PBS Master Carpenter Norm Abram for His Commitment to Eye Safety

And you get to see Norm in a suit and tie.

[Eric Roberge]

Cool to see Norm out of the "office" :)

I know that I wear mine and I make my son wear his anytime we're doing a project. It's gotten to the point that if I go to turn on a machine and forgot to put them on he'll remind me.

Thanks for sharing John.

[Jim Rimmer]

http://www.aao.org/newsroom/release/042309.cfm

American Academy of Ophthalmology Honors PBS Master Carpenter Norm Abram for His Commitment to Eye Safety

And you get to see Norm in a suit and tie.

Can't agree more on eye safety.
I at least expected Norm to be weaing a plaid suit. ;)

[glenn bradley]

Mine are prescription. Makes it easy to remember to wear them. Now where is that saw . . . . Oh, my glasses!?!

[Rod Sheridan]

"Norm receives safety award"........Bit late for April 1 isn't it?:confused:

OK, so that was harsh, Norm always wears, and promotes safety glasses so it's nice to see him recognized for that.

Now if he could learn about table saw guards we would really be getting somewhere.;)

Regards, Rod.

[Clifford Mescher]

Can't agree more on eye safety.
I at least expected Norm to be weaing a plaid suit. ;)
You stoled my thunder. A plaid tie would have been cool. Good for Normy!!!! Clifford.

[Richard M. Wolfe]

As regards not using guards on machinery,I don't guess I've heard the 'explanation' on NYW, but I've heard others say that they are removed for demonstation clarity. It's been a long time since I heard that; it needs to be said more often along with them saying they should be used.

[mike holden]

Rod, et al,

BUT NORM DOES *NOT* WEAR SAFETY GLASSES ON HIS SHOW!!!!!

(there, got that off my chest, I feel better now)

The glasses that Norm points to and says: " there is no more important thing to wear but these safety glasses" are NOT safety glasses! There are *NO* side shields on them, and without side shields they are NOT safety glasses. They may be impact resistant lenses, but they are NOT safety glasses without side shields.

Rant off, but this really bothers me. I have a friend that had to have a corneal transplant because he was only going to drill one hole, and was wearing his regular glasses. The chip came up and around the lens and into his cornea. Lots of pain.

THEY ARE NOT SAFETY GLASSES IF THEY DONT HAVE SIDE SHIELDS

Sorry, please return to your regularly scheduled programming,
Mike

And for those who are thinking "another "friend" tale", the victims name is Mike Peters, the accident occurred at Jacobs Industries in Fraser, MI about 1997, he was treated at Mt Clemens General Hospital - not sure where the corneal transplant was done. mh

[Ryan Baker]

I agree with you 100% Mike. I always thought it was funny that Norm makes a big point out of safety glasses while pointing out the fact that he isn't using them himself. A good case of do what I say, not what I do.

[Rob Price]

I've seen more woodworkers with missing/mangled fingers than missing an eye, how about using a splitter/riving knife/blade guard/anything on the TS???

Oh well, I still watch his show.

[Clifford Mescher]

Rod, et al,

BUT NORM DOES *NOT* WEAR SAFETY GLASSES ON HIS SHOW!!!!!

(there, got that off my chest, I feel better now)

The glasses that Norm points to and says: " there is no more important thing to wear but these safety glasses" are NOT safety glasses! There are *NO* side shields on them, and without side shields they are NOT safety glasses. They may be impact resistant lenses, but they are NOT safety glasses without side shields.

Rant off, but this really bothers me. I have a friend that had to have a corneal transplant because he was only going to drill one hole, and was wearing his regular glasses. The chip came up and around the lens and into his cornea. Lots of pain.

THEY ARE NOT SAFETY GLASSES IF THEY DONT HAVE SIDE SHIELDS

Sorry, please return to your regularly scheduled programming,
Mike

And for those who are thinking "another "friend" tale", the victims name is Mike Peters, the accident occurred at Jacobs Industries in Fraser, MI about 1997, he was treated at Mt Clemens General Hospital - not sure where the corneal transplant was done. mh
Big deal. The point is that he put the phrase about safety glasses deep into our subconscious. For that, he probably prevented many eye injuries. Clifford.

[Greg Hines, MD]

Congratulations to the Master Carpenter, regardless of whether he wore a suit or a toolbelt.

Doc

[Cody Colston]

Sawstop, Festool and Norm

Three topics sure to elicit polarizing opinions on any woodworking forum. :D

Congrats to Norm for the award.

[Jim Kountz]

Sawstop, Festool and Norm

Three topics sure to elicit polarizing opinions on any woodworking forum. :D

Congrats to Norm for the award.

Couldnt have said that any better Cody!!

[Jim Kountz]

Well thats alright!! Ol Norm done good!!

[Rod Sheridan]

Rod, et al,

BUT NORM DOES *NOT* WEAR SAFETY GLASSES ON HIS SHOW!!!!!

(there, got that off my chest, I feel better now)

The glasses that Norm points to and says: " there is no more important thing to wear but these safety glasses" are NOT safety glasses! There are *NO* side shields on them, and without side shields they are NOT safety glasses. They may be impact resistant lenses, but they are NOT safety glasses without side shields.

Rant off, but this really bothers me. I have a friend that had to have a corneal transplant because he was only going to drill one hole, and was wearing his regular glasses. The chip came up and around the lens and into his cornea. Lots of pain.

THEY ARE NOT SAFETY GLASSES IF THEY DONT HAVE SIDE SHIELDS

Sorry, please return to your regularly scheduled programming,
Mike

And for those who are thinking "another "friend" tale", the victims name is Mike Peters, the accident occurred at Jacobs Industries in Fraser, MI about 1997, he was treated at Mt Clemens General Hospital - not sure where the corneal transplant was done. mh

I had to dig out a Norm DVD to have a look at his safety glasses.......You're absolutely correct, he doesn't wear safety glasses.

All these years and I've never noticed that.

Oh well, hopefully most of the people he's inspired to wear glasses, do wear approved safety glasses.

(I wear a pair that wraps around my prescription glasses, and of course it has side shields.)

Regards, Rod.

[Ken Higginbotham]

I had to dig out a Norm DVD to have a look at his safety glasses.......You're absolutely correct, he doesn't wear safety glasses.

All these years and I've never noticed that.

Oh well, hopefully most of the people he's inspired to wear glasses, do wear approved safety glasses.

(I wear a pair that wraps around my prescription glasses, and of course it has side shields.)

Regards, Rod.

With as much shop time as he's had over the years with no eye damage (That we know of) he must be doing something right :p

fyi - Last time I looked I had 70 New Yankee Workshop episodes on my Tivo and 100+ Ask This Old House :D

[Rod Sheridan]

With as much shop time as he's had over the years with no eye damage (That we know of) he must be doing something right :p

fyi - Last time I looked I had 70 New Yankee Workshop episodes on my Tivo and 100+ Ask This Old House :D

Wow Ken, you're a fan for sure!

As for Norm's safety record, never mistake luck for good practice......Rod.

[Clifford Mescher]

Wow Ken, you're a fan for sure!

As for Norm's safety record, never mistake luck for good practice......Rod.
After 40+ years with all his digits and both eyes intact, I am fairly sure that "good practice" was a factor. Clifford.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Well,

Check this link out: http://www.safetyglasses.com/prod_100series.html

Safety glasses and.........side shields are considered accessories!

[Rod Sheridan]

Well,

Check this link out: http://www.safetyglasses.com/prod_100series.html

Safety glasses and.........side shields are considered accessories!

I read it as side shields are included with the glasses?????......Rod.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Rod,

You are right. I copied the wrong link. At least one other site has sideshields as accessories.

I will find that link and post it later. My point is two-fold.

1. One person's or organizations description of what constitutes "safety glasses" may not agree with another.

2. A lot of folks like to take shots at a public figure like Norm.

One things for sure...whether he wears "safety glasses" or not, he promotes the use of them and that is why he got the award.

I'd suggest that anyone wearing "impact resistant lens" or "safety glasses without the side shields" is better off than "no glasses at all".

[Bill Houghton]

And you get to see Norm in a suit and tie.

He should have shown up wearing his tool apron.

[Rod Sheridan]

I agree whole heartedly Ken........Regards, Rod.

[David Keller NC]

"After 40+ years with all his digits and both eyes intact, I am fairly sure that "good practice" was a factor. Clifford."

This is a very common error that most of the population makes based on a poor understanding of statistics. Safety is a combination of the likelyhood of an accident, the frequency of the activity that can lead to the accident, the consequences of an accident, and the tolerance for risk that the individual or organization has for an accident.

In the case of the above statement, the assessment is that because an accident has not occurred in the past to a specific person means that person has avoided an accident through avoidance of risk, skill, or infrequency of the activity. This conclusion, while on the surface logical, is completely incorrect because of a mistunderstanding of statistics.

That misunderstanding is that the frequency of a previous occurence influences the probability of a future occurence, and it is wholly incorrect. It does lead people, though to make incorrect assessments of all sorts of things - including the idea that because a particular combination of numbers was a lottery winner last week, then playing that combination of numbers for this weekend's lottery will reduce the chances of winning.

It's quite correct that wearing some sort of impact resistant lenses over one's eyes considerably reduces the chances and severity of an accident over wearing nothing, but that's an insufficient excuse for emulating that behavior - buy (and use) proper safety glasses!

[Clifford Mescher]

This is a very common error that most of the population makes based on a poor understanding of statistics. Safety is a combination of the likelyhood of an accident, the frequency of the activity that can lead to the accident, the consequences of an accident, and the tolerance for risk that the individual or organization has for an accident.

In the case of the above statement, the assessment is that because an accident has not occurred in the past to a specific person means that person has avoided an accident through avoidance of risk, skill, or infrequency of the activity. This conclusion, while on the surface logical, is completely incorrect because of a mistunderstanding of statistics.

That misunderstanding is that the frequency of a previous occurence influences the probability of a future occurence, and it is wholly incorrect. It does lead people, though to make incorrect assessments of all sorts of things - including the idea that because a particular combination of numbers was a lottery winner last week, then playing that combination of numbers for this weekend's lottery will reduce the chances of winning.

It's quite correct that wearing some sort of impact resistant lenses over one's eyes considerably reduces the chances and severity of an accident over wearing nothing, but that's an insufficient excuse for emulating that behavior - buy (and use) proper safety glasses!
:rolleyes:Your joking, right? Gee, a guy starts a thread about a guy who is honored for reminding people to wear safety glasses and it degraded to this? Ken is right. It is tough to be a public figure. Clifford.

[Jeff Dege]

It's quite correct that wearing some sort of impact resistant lenses over one's eyes considerably reduces the chances and severity of an accident over wearing nothing, but that's an insufficient excuse for emulating that behavior - buy (and use) proper safety glasses!
I don't know why people are making such a big deal over this. Why, I've been doing woodworking for nearly three months now, and in that time I've only had a chip hit my goggles that was big enough to make a noise twice.

[Cody Colston]

One things for sure...whether he wears "safety glasses" or not, he promotes the use of them and that is why he got the award.

I'd suggest that anyone wearing "impact resistant lens" or "safety glasses without the side shields" is better off than "no glasses at all".

Safety glasses Do Not necessarily have side shields. OSHA and NIOSH make recommendations for the type of safety glasses required depending on the type of hazard that will be present. For instance, face sealing goggles are required when handling certain chemicals but that doesn't mean all protective eyeware that doesn't seal against the skin is not "safety eyeware."

However, both NIOSH and OSHA do recommend side shields when cutting wood as the airborne dust can cause eye injury or irritation even without direct impact. But, for protection against projectiles, such as a thrown splinter or object, the side shields are not necessary or effective. Many approved side shields are nothing more than paper-thin, slip on plastic pieces used primarily prescription on safety glasses. They offer little or no impact resistance.

On a humorous note, I worked with a fellow supervisor that transferred to the GoM from Alaska. His safety glasses had leather side shields to eliminate glare from snow. We immediately nicknamed him Seabiscuit. :D