Construction activity and the Code

Status
Not open for further replies.
T.M.Haja Sahib said:
Hasty as usual.I wonder how many electrical accidents you might have caused by your hasty nature.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem comments won't get you anywhere, certainly not closer to the singular answer you seem to suppose that there is.

As to Bob's nature: Hasty probably isn't it.

I'd suggest he has (1) a quick wit, and (2) a typically good sense of professional judgment to deal with electrical and construction issues, born from a long time in the field, working with people of all types, even hasty ones.

As the saying goes: "There are old electricians and bold electricians, but there are no old and bold electricians."
 
iMuse97 said:
As to Bob's nature: Hasty probably isn't it.

I'd suggest he has (1) a quick wit, and (2) a typically good sense of professional judgment to deal with electrical and construction issues, born from a long time in the field, working with people of all types, even hasty ones.

As the saying goes: "There are old electricians and bold electricians, but there are no old and bold electricians."
Click to expand...

I remain unconvinced.The way he handles the posts in this forum impresses me how immature fellow he is.
 
T.M.Haja Sahib said:
The code does not address such items directly.One may have to infer what is applicable from it.I just did that in post no,105.You may show how I am contradicting the code in doing so.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem that many seem to have with the solution you are proposing:

1. You cannot use a code of any kind to infer what may be done in a situation not otherwise specified. Codes by their very nature are specific only in what they require or prohibit. Any other inferences are not in the realm of code.

2. When engineers and physicists (and apparently others on this forum) study the realities of a given situation (ie. lightning storms and tall building construction), they may develop additional data, theory, and knowledge regarding the specific problems such a situation presents. These may be developed into codes, which may or may not completely mitigate the dangers involved.

3. NFPA 780 is at best a document in the development stages. It cannot stand as law because of ambiguities mentioned by Hurk in post #131.

4. It is impossible to develop reliable Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) by (1) inference (2) from a developing document filled with legal ambiguity, (3) especially when this ambiguity is caused by an incomplete understanding of the physics of the dangers in question.

5. The data nobody seems to argue about is that people die when they are struck by lightning, side-flash or otherwise.

6. The fact that some possibly have avoided dying when they are struck does not eliminate the fact that some do.

7. Given that reality and most people's aversion to dying, construction workers typically leave the site when lightning storms threaten.

8. As to your idea that some hazard could be eliminated: the best that can be said is that it might be possible to eliminate some portion of the hazard.

9. In the world that Safety Officers occupy, that level of hazard avoidance is unacceptable. The byword is that "if it cannot be done safely, find another way to do it, or don't do it at all."

10. Could some SOP eliminate the hazard described in your OP? No. It might be possible to mitigate some portion of said hazard, but that is not an acceptable level of remediation.

11. Therefore we conclude that burrowing under the earth is the only acceptable grounding and method for lightning hazard elimination... not really a joke... it would work every time. Second best: Stop work when storms are approaching.

12. What I find interesting, having followed this thread from the beginning many suns ago, is that many have suggested my point #11 or something similar. You have continued to pursue the thought that something could have been done. However, the physics of lightning do not yet admit that some method of grounding and bonding could be suitable for personnel protection in this situation, given the legal and moral expectations for such protection.

13. Unless you can study lightning (or find studies already published) and develop a predictive understanding of lightning that has not yet been achieved on this earth, there is not a construction worker in the world that will trust a bonding and grounding protocol that is as safe as getting out of the way.
 
iMuse97 said:
1. You cannot use a code of any kind to infer what may be done in a situation not otherwise specified. Codes by their very nature are specific only in what they require or prohibit. Any other inferences are not in the realm of code.
Click to expand...

You are not understanding the code.The code gives the specifics of lightning protection in a general way.You have to INFER whether or not they are applicable for a given equipment and take action accordingly.The only thing you have to ensure is that your action does not conflict with the requirements in the code.

Since the subject lift is attached to the building structure,the code applies.Prior to the subject lightning incident,the workers were near the bucket and it was hanging from the boom.Had it been lowered on to re-bars tied to the floor before the workers handled the concrete in it,it would have been bonded per 4.21.2.3 of NFPA 780:2011 and subject lightning incident would have been avoided.But this was apparently not done and this consequently resulted in human casualty due to the subject lightning incident.
 
T.M.Haja Sahib said:
You are not understanding the code.The code gives the specifics of lightning protection in a general way.You have to INFER whether or not they are applicable for a given equipment and take action accordingly.The only thing you have to ensure is that your action does not conflict with the requirements in the code.

Since the subject lift is attached to the building structure,the code applies.Prior to the subject lightning incident,the workers were near the bucket and it was hanging from the boom.Had it been lowered on to re-bars tied to the floor before the workers handled the concrete in it,it would have been bonded per 4.21.2.3 of NFPA 780:2011 and subject lightning incident would have been avoided.But this was apparently not done and this consequently resulted in human casualty due to the subject lightning incident.
Click to expand...

You may be correct about that particular code, since it is not in the strict sense, a Code, which by definition is enforceable. I will grant that there might be some leeway there.

As to this specific situation: Such a bond as you describe may have reduced the hazard to an unspecified degree.

So, being unspecified, the question remains: would human casualty have been averted by some type of bond?
I remain unconvinced.
 
Last edited:
iMuse97 said:
You may be correct about that particular code, since it is not in the strict sense, a Code, which by definition is enforceable. I will grant that there might be some leeway there.

So the question remains: would human casualty have been averted by some type of bond?
I remain unconvinced.
Click to expand...

I can understand the legitimacy of your stand if you can show me at least one case of human casualty due to side flash failure of lightning protection system,designed and maintained per NFPA 780.Can you?
 
Last edited:
T.M.Haja Sahib said:
I can understand the legitimacy of your stand if you can show me at least one case of human casualty due to side flash failure of lightning protection system,designed and maintained per NFPA 780.Can you?
Click to expand...

The legitimacy of my stance is found in this:

I cannot allow any person I am responsible for to be in a position where they could be that example of human casualty that you are looking for.

Again you put too much faith in a LPS. There are no guarantees even with a system designed and installed to double or triple the minimum requirements to meet NFPA 780 that such a system will completely protect personnel.

I appreciate your interest in this subject; I am interested, too, as indicated by my involvement here. However, we will have to agree that neither of us is willing to be convinced by the other.

You keep looking for the one example that will disprove a Protection System's ability to eliminate a relatively minor lightning hazard.

Meanwhile I maintain that the proof lies in the fact that there are no physics which yet adequately explain the nature and vagaries of lightning. Therefore, designing a system of protection only provides a certain level of protection, never complete elimination of the hazard.

Again, I would not argue that a bond such as you propose would not be a good idea, or that it wouldn't help to minimize hazards, but when another proposal eliminates the hazard, I'd have to go with that one: go inside and have a donut and a cup of coffee.
 
iMuse97 said:
The legitimacy of my stance is found in this:

I cannot allow any person I am responsible for to be in a position where they could be that example of human casualty that you are looking for.

Again you put too much faith in a LPS. There are no guarantees even with a system designed and installed to double or triple the minimum requirements to meet NFPA 780 that such a system will completely protect personnel.

I appreciate your interest in this subject; I am interested, too, as indicated by my involvement here. However, we will have to agree that neither of us is willing to be convinced by the other.

You keep looking for the one example that will disprove a Protection System's ability to eliminate a relatively minor lightning hazard.

Meanwhile I maintain that the proof lies in the fact that there are no physics which yet adequately explain the nature and vagaries of lightning. Therefore, designing a system of protection only provides a certain level of protection, never complete elimination of the hazard.

Again, I would not argue that a bond such as you propose would not be a good idea, or that it wouldn't help to minimize hazards, but when another proposal eliminates the hazard, I'd have to go with that one: go inside and have a donut and a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

Again I ask you to present instances of human casualty due to side flash failures.Because the lightning protection system per NFPA780 is the only legitimate protection system against lightning and so any flaw pointed out can lead to its further development towards more safety against lightning.
 
Twoskinsoneman said:
He also apparently has a fan club :D
Click to expand...

You can join too, it s just $15.00 per month and I email you dozens of times a day with interesting things like this.

'I am walking upstairs'

'I just stubbed my toe'

'What is this lump I found under my arm?'

'I hate pink cars'

How can you pass it up? :p
 
T.M.Haja Sahib said:
I remain unconvinced.The way he handles the posts in this forum impresses me how immature fellow he is.
Click to expand...

I am glad you are impressed. :thumbsup:

Seeing as we are being honest and upfront about our feelings it is my opinion you are nothing more than a forum troll trying to stir up controversy.

That is fine, I can have fun too. :dunce:
 
T.M.Haja Sahib said:
You are WRONG.
Click to expand...

No he's not. You are.

FWIW, I would work for Bob any day and I seriously doubt we would have any problems.

You, on the other hand, would be very hard to work for. I don't think I would make it to the first pay day. If I had to banter with you over safety fantasies at work, my patience would run thin and I would be back on the books or you would be gone.

You come to this forum with how much construction experience?

You come to this forum with a question and tell everyone that answers you they are wrong.

Now you have went after Bob. I think we should call you 'honey badger'.

I don't see this thread as being long for this world.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top