“It can be debated that all of the requirements of

[aelectricalman]

What? Can someone help me by starting a debate on this one!!! Im interested in knowing why the codes exist if it can be dabated that following them can cause a hazard. I know this is stated, I've seen it myself, I just don't understand why this is stated. Liability perhaps?

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: “It can be debated that all of the requirements of

Sorry, here is the quote.

“It can be debated that all of the requirements of the NEC, when traced through a chain of events, may relate to an electrical hazard.” NFPA 70E

 

[bphgravity]

Re: “It can be debated that all of the requirements of

The statement isn't saying that following the NEC will create a hazard, it just says that even if you do everything possible to make an absoultely safe installation, a hazard could still arise.

Product failures, material degradation, extreme events, and other unforeseen conditions can be created or will exist that is unpreventable or that cannot be protected against.

The fact of the matter is that trying to harness and control the phenomenon of electricity is a hazardous endevour. Every and all precautions should be made, but after all is said and done, dangers will always exist.

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: “It can be debated that all of the requirements of

I never said "it would". I said "may". Also, by NFPA stating "it can be debated", that says to me that they are not talking about equipment failure. It seems to me that they are saying that there could be scenarios in which if all working conditions are in place there still could be an instance "givin a certain scenerio" that "following a chain of events" there could be an electrical hazard, even though you are following the proper procedure. I agree that harnassing electricity can be trivial but I just wondered if:

A. They are saying this to take some liablity of of their back.

B. They meant excatly what you stated.

or


c. There can be specific instances where even though everything is done correctly and all materials are without flaw, there can still be problems because the methods and calculations provided are to be debated in some sense. I have an Electrical Engineering Degree (I can see you all laughing now) and have a few physics theory classes under my belt, where in remember the professor state that Article or statement NFPA 70 or whatever the number is, and my impression is that its due to the physics part of electricity not being consistant, or perhaps its our precision and effeciency of its usage. It has been a while since I've been to school so I may just be speaking out of my @%@^&*^%,

Its just the wording of that statement does not seem to suggest equipment failure. If anyone has an instance, please share it. Thank you. Thanks for post Bryan.

 

[bphgravity]

Re: “It can be debated that all of the requirements of

I've gone back to the source I borrowed the quote to try to get a better context of what the statement may mean. The statement is actually from the NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace.

I like the statement because to me it made the point that electricity isn't all that safe no matter what we do. Accidents can still happen because people are stupid and people don't follow rules. However, in context with the book, I now believe that is not what the statement is saying.

When you read the whole section the sentence is in, the sentence makes more sense. I believe the NFPA is saying that most if not all requirements in the NEC are derived from a past hazard that was a result from the use of electricity. Meaning, once a hazard is determined to exist from use of electricity, the NFPA makes requirements to try to protect persons and property from that hazard.

The reason this sentence is in this book is becasue the NFPA wanted the reader to know that the NFPA 70E doesn't cover all safety requirements for an installation, but only those assoicated with an employees workplace.

Here is the complete startement in case you do not have the standard:

"It can be debated that all of the requirements of the NEC, when traced through a chain of events, may relate to an electrical hazard, but, for practical purposes, inclusion has not been made of those provisions that, in general, are not directly assoicated with employee safety."

 

[jwelectric]

Re: “It can be debated that all of the requirements of

With your permission I will take a stab of trying to explain this phrase.
It can be debated that all of the requirements of the NEC, = It can be said that every article in the NEC
when traced through a chain of events,= was written because
may relate to an electrical hazard.?= Of an accident that took place or hazard

680.38 Emergency Switch for Spas and Hot Tubs; was added to the 1999 code because a small child got her hair caught in the suction port on the bottom of a hot tub in Charlotte North Carolina. This will be found in 680.41 of the 2002 and 2005 code. Don?t quote me about this incident as I?m not totally sure about the story.
Another story I have heard about in years past is the three wire receptacle came about in 1962 or 65 for ?washing machines only? because of a baby getting between the washer and a water heater. I didn?t start in electrical until ?68 and that is when I heard that story.
Does this help?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: “It can be debated that all of the requirements of

Originally posted by jwelectric:
With your permission I will take a stab of trying to explain this phrase.
It can be debated that all of the requirements of the NEC, = It can be said that every article in the NEC
when traced through a chain of events,= was written because
may relate to an electrical hazard.?= Of an accident that took place or hazard

See? I agree with that!

 

[aelectricalman]

Re: “It can be debated that all of the requirements of

By golly I think I understand now. Thank you all, I think I was trying to read to far into it.