Tamper resistant receptacles EXPANED??!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Twoskinsoneman

Twoskinsoneman

Senior Member
Location
West Virginia, USA NEC: 2020
Occupation
Facility Senior Electrician
M. D. said:
:smile:I hope all you,.. "if it saves one child" folks don't wire pools.. DOWN WITH POOLS ,...DOWN WITH POOLS!!

If we all would just stop wiring them ,.. it might save one child ...

The problem with this kind of code rule is that it makes it easier for the next one of this type ,... tamper resistant screws on cover plates perhaps ..:smile:



FWIW ,..40% equals about 313 children​

Click to expand...

Not wiring them is a brutish answer. But If they come out with a new code that makes the pool safer I won't balk at it.

Adding 4 cents worth of internal parts to a receptacle to keep a handful of kids from dying is a no-brainer.
 
Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
Twoskinsoneman said:
Adding 4 cents worth of internal parts to a receptacle to keep a handful of kids from dying is a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
It's not 4 cents, more like $2. Let's not exaggerate. And I am slowly installing them in my house as I paint each room. But it's my decision as a parent and home owner.

Can government save every single child? Should the government save every child possible? What cost is the public willing to bear to enable the government to save children? These are questions we should ask ourselves. And the answers are not limited to electrical devices. If you're willing to spend $100 million per child saved for TR receptacles then you should be willing to spend that in all areas of life. I don't think the public is willing to pay that cost.
 
Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
electricmanscott said:
Or let's. :grin:

The argumet against this is just silly. I guess you guys just ignore all rules and requirements. Don't let the man get us! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You'll have to enlighten me. I have difficulty following you.

My arguement is silly? That people don't like excessive spending or government regulating their lives? And your counter arguement is to just call my opinion silly?

Am I being accused of ignoring all of the rules and requirements? Which ones?

And the 'man' would be government? Like I'm a paranoid militia member?
 
Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
These two silly laws would save 2 out of 3 children who die from an accident. About 8,000 children every year in the US. But is the public willing to bear the cost of saving 8,000 children every year.
 
electricmanscott

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
Mr. Bill said:
These two silly laws would save 2 out of 3 children who die from an accident. About 8,000 children every year in the US. But is the public willing to bear the cost of saving 8,000 children every year.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you are talking about.

So you are against seatbelts and car seats for children?

The public already bears the cost for saving lives. There are strict regulations in place. Those come at a cost.
 
Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
electricmanscott said:
I don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about... What costs are reasonable for saving a life? Do we apply this cost to determine what safety features are appropriate? There's always going to be arguements about why GFCI, AFCI, TR receptacles, or some other gadget are needed if someone shows it will save a life. I'm trying to make a broader arguement or discussion about how to determine what's reasonable protection and what goes too far. So that all proposed safety requirements are judged on a balanced scale. Once something is added to law for safety it's never going to get removed.
electricmanscott said:
So you are against seatbelts and car seats for children?
Click to expand...
No, I think the cost per life saved is lower for these items. I'm still not sure about requiring booster seats for 8 year olds. But I never looked at the numbers for any of this.
electricmanscott said:
The public already bears the cost for saving lives. There are strict regulations in place. Those come at a cost.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I think there should be an open public discussion about the costs of all future regulations. Starting with what is an acceptable cost per life.

The first life saved in government regulation costs very little, if anything. Each additional life saved will continue to cost more and more. Regarding electrical power, I think we're at the point now that each additional life saved costs 10 times what an average person is expected to earn in a lifetime. So the life's work worth of 10 people is being used to save one person. Think of it like 10 nanny's for each at risk child. That's a very high cost. I just want this cost a publicly agreed on and openly discussed value. And then apply it as a standard for consideration of future regulations.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
JohnJ0906 said:
Don't forget nonlethal shocks and burns.
Click to expand...
I thought this expansion was sold to the Code-Making Panel based on how many children's lives would be saved. Nonlethal shocks and burns should be easier to value than a human life. Cost is equal to all medical treatments and lost productivity. Plus some additional for pain and suffering. The value for pain and suffering would be somewhat debateable but recent court ruling should be able to give some estimate on that value. Does it equal the cost of medical treatments. Maybe it's 5 times the cost of medical treatments.

And thanks for the link.
 
Mr. Bill

Mr. Bill

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
So we're talking about preventing 4 deaths in 10 years and 1,680 injuries each year. Of which, 146 required some level of hospitilization.
 
electricmanscott

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
Just a quick quote from one of the links posted.


"During a 10-year period, from 1991 to 2001 , over 24 000 children in the United States were injured when they inserted foreign objects into electrical receptacles. Every year an average of at least 2 400 children are injured when tampering with electrical receptacles"

Stupid kids, they had it coming. Is that better Mr Bill. :rolleyes:


NEMA Business Information Services Department estimates that the average increase in "retail" cost for tamper resistant receptacles wil be 50 cents each and that the average new home built in 2004 had 75 receptacles. This translates into $37. 50 increased cost for the average new home.

What a waste of $37.50
 
Twoskinsoneman

Twoskinsoneman

Senior Member
Location
West Virginia, USA NEC: 2020
Occupation
Facility Senior Electrician
electricmanscott said:
Just a quick quote from one of the links posted.


"During a 10-year period, from 1991 to 2001 , over 24 000 children in the United States were injured when they inserted foreign objects into electrical receptacles. Every year an average of at least 2 400 children are injured when tampering with electrical receptacles"

Stupid kids, they had it coming. Is that better Mr Bill. :rolleyes:


NEMA Business Information Services Department estimates that the average increase in "retail" cost for tamper resistant receptacles wil be 50 cents each and that the average new home built in 2004 had 75 receptacles. This translates into $37. 50 increased cost for the average new home.

What a waste of $37.50
Click to expand...

I wonder what that works out to be per month on a 30 year loan...
Still not worth it. :roll:
 
charlie

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
For what it is worth, I have just seen a draft that is going to public review in the cycle of the Indiana Electrical Code. TRs and AFCIs are both removed from the draft at this stage. :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top