They can’t refute the facts…

so they resort to ad hominem attacks…

The little dragon writes on TAM:

I trust information from people who know what they are doing. People who have studied and tested to get their license. People who have to put up with snap safety inspections to keep their insurance current.

What some of the ‘safety guru’s’ (including the main idiot) do is read a book or surf the web. Do they have a GB98? Do they have a EE98? Their MM98? Their LPG certification?? no.

An ad hominem attack is where the attack is based on the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument. When you have to resort to ad hominem attacks to make your point, you’ve already lost the argument.

I would like to see the dragon present an argument for using bulk tanks with a hot head torch indoors, based solely on the FACTS and not an ad hominem attack. Present an argument based on reasoning and supporting evidence. Find where I (and others) are mistaken and explain why it is wrong (presenting factual information). Explictly refute the central point of the argument.

And I direct your attention to the ISGB website, where Vince Henley, the ISGB safety expert, member of the NFPA, member of countless safety and code organizations writes here:

I note that not one of the responses provided the correct advice and that is that the use of a hothead torch attached to ANYTHING but a one pound canister of fuel gas is not authorized and not intended by the manufacturer. Yes, I know this has been a long practice by lampworkers and I know that vendors sell adapters and hoses for this purpose, BUT it is not safe, as the person who had the incident found out, and it is not authorized.

Let me stress that this practice is NOT safe. Let me also suggest that should an incident result in significant property loss, injury or death, then the person responsible for using an adapter and hose that failed could conceivably be found to be grossly negligent and be solely responsible for all costs and penalties related to the incident. I do not believe that any insurance company would cover a loss caused by the use of these unauthorized devices.

It is important that lampworkers inform themselves of and strictly follow safe practices with their equipment. There are many quite legal and safe ways to use equipment to melt glass and create our art and there is no valid reason to be either unsafe or illegal.


I understand this controversy in continuing. Since I can’t participate in the forum in question I have sent Mike some information that might be of use in describing just how dangerous this practice is. Let me state again that there is no either safe or approved way to use a hothead torch with a bulk tank. It is dangerous.

I liken this practice to the sport of skydiving without checking the chute packing before jumping out of the plane. Yes, most of the time the chute will be prefectly OK and all will be well. However, there will come that one time when the chute packing will be defective and it won’t open. Maybe your backup will work. Maybe it won’t.

So, I challenge the dragon to a debate based on the facts presented above and elsewhere. You have to use facts and sound reasoning with supporting evidence to refute the central point of the argument that using bulk tanks with the hot head torch is unsafe and against code therefore illegal.

I await your response.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s