If you actually read the paragraph you'll find some (contradictory) issues with the NRAO statement (update: see below). Keep in mind we're talking about a stat

If you actually read the paragraph you'll find some (contradictory) issues with the NRAO statement (update: see below). Keep in mind we're talking about a statement made by astronomers about lawn mower safety. "An estimated 1,517 lethal accidents occurred with lawn mowers through the years 1997 to 2010." No data on the "1,517 lethal accidents" to prove that they were caused by fires or anything that a robotic vacuum solves (although I'd be happy to be sent a link proving this). So it's not "reasonable" to assume that these injuries will be reduced - the icing on the cake is the last sentence which essentially contradicts the first... "there is already a competitive market for robotic lawn mowers using wire loops [buried edge wire], which has somehow failed to stanch the stream of ghastly accidents and spilt gasoline that iRobot associates with the mundane practice of lawn-mowing" Edit: Just realized the fist statement (claiming safety) is by iRoomba, the second statement (disputing this) is by the NRAO. So iRoomba (the one selling the product) claims it will reduce vacuums. The NRAO pointed out that despite a "competitive market" for robotic lawn mowers injuries have not been reduced. Edit 2: Data! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16361919 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16361919