Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Class I, Division I Seal-Off Controversy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Wire-Smith View Post
    I think your question is based on a false pretense that it should be considered safe until proven unsafe, while in the industry we do it the opposite way, things have to be proven safe in the lab before we use them in public. I am guessing they never tested the different variations of the application, only 18" of multiple nipples. The guacs may blow the cover off when you get a combination like a big enclosure and a 1/2" conduit and guac, or those small instrument seals may blow with a big guac.
    It was previously approved. To my knowledge, and yours, no incident or series of incidents was brought to the attention of the committee that would suggest a move to a more restrictive requirement. The true implementation of the precautionary principal, is "Do nothing, unless clear evidence suggests otherwise". The false premise (not pretense) is that it should be considered unsafe until tested. Those advocating for a change from the status quo bear the burden of proof. Apparently, all we had were a bunch of busybodies looking for an excuse to justify their existence. And if you look at the draft report, it pretty much confirms my suspicions.

    Comment


      #17
      I think you should close this thread and start a new one entitled Class I Division II as you clarified. That is completely different and will likely remove the confusing and confused answers.


      I know what I don't know, and I know where to go to find it!

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by gadfly56 View Post
        It was previously approved. To my knowledge, and yours, no incident or series of incidents was brought to the attention of the committee that would suggest a move to a more restrictive requirement. The true implementation of the precautionary principal, is "Do nothing, unless clear evidence suggests otherwise". The false premise (not pretense) is that it should be considered unsafe until tested. Those advocating for a change from the status quo bear the burden of proof. Apparently, all we had were a bunch of busybodies looking for an excuse to justify their existence. And if you look at the draft report, it pretty much confirms my suspicions.
        Interesting view, it doesn't make sense to me. You say the premise I'm using is" unsafe until tested" I say" it is supposed to be proven safe beyond a reasonable doubt before being used on the public." just because it was put to the public before the doubt came about doesn't mean it is irrelevant. Explosions are a rare occurance but when they happen there are often extraordinary consequences. To me this isn't something to wait and see on, to me that would be like saying Russia and china have never attacked us, therefore we do not need to develop a specific defense plan against them. I will say though I know I am more on the conservative side of the scale on these kinds of issues and I'm not a good barometer of the industry if that makes you feel better.

        Comment

        Working...
        X