Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

Yeah right, 'Excited Delirium' my ass...

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

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Attn SECU: a call for CSA to get involved

The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) is similar to the US Underwriters Laboratory (UL). They conduct research, set standards, and test products to make sure that they're safe.

They would have unassailable experts on their staff that would know about the difference between average and RMS current, and they would know the applicable safety standards. They would be able to provide expert and unbiased advice to the SECU committee regarding the purported safety margin (remember Smith's evidence: "15 to 1" safety margin?) of the various taser devices (M26 and X26).

The CSA experts could look at the specification sheets, and could even comment on the changes to those spec sheets over time (RMS current value expunged, why?).

I see no downside to the CSA being asked to get involved at this point. To ensure that you receive a consensus opinion, invite not just one expert, but two or three of their experts. They should all agree. This should settle the argument about safety once and for all (provided that they do not overlook any real information hidden under a layer of Taser smoke and mirrors).

At the outset, all that is required is a documentation review (pretty quick). Just compare the specified current values ("average" and RMS) to the applicable safety standards in Canada. Actual equipment testing can follow later if required.

By the way, keep Taser out it it for now. Just get CSA's unbiased opinion based on present electric safety standards and compare those to the taser spec sheets (including RMS current values). DO NOT ALLOW TASER TO INFLUENCE THIS EVIDENCE. Ask the CSA experts if they have had any contact from Taser or similar taser proponents, or if they have ever had any relationship to the taser controversy.

As a starting point, here is a graph that Taser's Kroll included in his IEEE Spectrum article. I've added the red information regarding the X26 taser's RMS current ("151 mA RMS" from the early X26 specification sheet, expunged in later revisions, rarely mentioned) and primary frequency component (just 19 Hz).

No comments: