Does NEC gives complete protection for human ?

[kalanjeya]

The members of the NFPA are not supposed to accept a proposal unless there is an adequete techincal substantiation. Typically this includes doucmented cases of bad things that have happened, not bad things that could happen. With that said, if there are enough people that die from contact with electric ranges, look for the consumer product safety commission to propose a requirement. Until there are some dead bodies, however, don't expect this to be required.

I really not aware how , NEC prapared.

I never sit against NEC.But now , as per ryan_618 i came to

know that many dead bodies behind every sentence in NEC.

 

[bthielen]

I'm not so sure that I could believe the NEC is purely a reactive body. It would seem prudent that the writers would also consider potential risk when deciding whether a code should be included. I imagine a more speedy resonse would result from a rash of accidents. When new technology is discovered that can reduce potential risk at minimal cost does it take a pile of dead bodies to get the writers of the NEC to react?

Bob

 

[ryan_618]

I guess I should try to explain my thougts on this a little more clearly. Looking at the history of GFCI protection, it appears as though panel 2 requires some very serious substantiation, not just "it could happen". Look at how long it took GFCI's to be required outdoors in nonresidential occupancies.