jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
To be fair, I did start it. We're even now.
I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on the matter. Both sides have their points; which to my mind means that my view is the correct view on the issue for a code enforcement official, because it is the least restrictive read on the code. 210.52 is a prime example of a section that accomplishes a bit of something (inhibiting extension cord use), and will never hope to accomplish its aim (because Walmart will continue to stock and sell cheap extension cords for the foreseeable future).
Seeing that it is a well-meaning but inherently incomplete section, whenever there is a question the inspector should default to the least restrictive interpretation of the code. I am not preaching to ignore the code, just not to stretch it into oblivion in the other direction, especially on an issue such as this; until such a time that a body is found next to such an island with one receptacle, justifying a proposal to tighten the language, giving solid enforcement grounds for the more restrictive interpretation.
But, that's one guy's opinion, do what you want.
Thank you. I have great respect for those man up and now it is my turn. Thank you Dennis for pointing out my error.