Lobster tank GFCI protection?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kwired said:
Disposers are arguably just as much a threat of shock, yet those still don't require GFCI as a general rule.

I'm pretty certain the fire starting components were the main force behind this, and they must have found that GFCI does respond to the problem in most cases. Should have been something put in instruction manuals and not a general requirement in NEC to add GFCI protection.

Just plain stupid IMO to have all of 210.8 apply to 15/20 amp 120 volt receptacles (other then the boat hoists, which maybe should have had the requirement elsewhere in code) and being rather obvious the reason was increased risk of shock in certain instances with 15/20 amp 120 volt receptacles - then add this dishwasher thing for totally different reasons.
Click to expand...

everyone is entitled to their opinion

not sure it is the same level of risk
 
Ingenieur said:
the dishwasher 'issue' pales in comparison
The study found 1,676 Americans were reported to have drowned in a tub during this five-year period, an average of 335 a year. Infants, very young children and the elderly are at risk, but more than half of all tub deaths are among able-bodied people between the ages of 5 and 64.

In 2016, there were approximately:

Click to expand...

personally, hoping that most of the people dying due to drugs or cars are the idiots but unfortunately, seems like the idiots are taking over- they are becoming the managers, the supervisors and the politicians, which explains why the laws are becoming more and more nanny state laws... if you need a law to tell you it is stupid to get drunk and ride your motorcycle in the nude going the wrong way on the interstate then you should not need to be alive!
 
Adamjamma said:
personally, hoping that most of the people dying due to drugs or cars are the idiots but unfortunately, seems like the idiots are taking over- they are becoming the managers, the supervisors and the politicians, which explains why the laws are becoming more and more nanny state laws... if you need a law to tell you it is stupid to get drunk and ride your motorcycle in the nude going the wrong way on the interstate then you should not need to be alive!
Click to expand...

too political, too angry and judgemental
they are human beings
I noticed you omitted idiots with guns
 
Besoeker said:
Sounds like commercial........but what do I know about lobsters..................:p
Click to expand...
The thing here is if the tank is actually in the "commercial kitchen". If on a restaurant premises but not in the "kitchen" GFCI may still be required, but by different code section for other reasons. If not cord and plug connected equipment, may not require GFCI at all.
 
jumper said:
I meant I was serious about the rumor or such. Did not say it was gospel or that I agreed.

I do not wire DWs so I ain’t really interested in the back story or substantiation for the code, I just was sayng I am pretty sure there was back room politics/shenanigans involved. Don G I think may have brought it up. Do not remember.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to imply you were in agreement, I just don't see GFCI as much of a preventative measure. "Well, at least we did *something*..."
 
Adamjamma said:
personally, hoping that most of the people dying due to drugs or cars are the idiots but unfortunately, seems like the idiots are taking over- they are becoming the managers, the supervisors and the politicians, which explains why the laws are becoming more and more nanny state laws... if you need a law to tell you it is stupid to get drunk and ride your motorcycle in the nude going the wrong way on the interstate then you should not need to be alive!
Click to expand...

Ingenieur said:
too political, too angry and judgemental
they are human beings
I noticed you omitted idiots with guns
Click to expand...

Did an electrical discussion break out in a political forum?
 
mbrooke said:
They are- but the CMP's opinion actually changes/results in code.
Click to expand...

so??? that is their function
and it is a body of opinions, called a consensus

I'm a member of an international code making body
we use science and fact, not personal opinion
takes unanimous agreement
 
mbrooke said:
I hope not- but guess so because one side has run dry on counter rebuttals and as such the modus operandi is to steer the thread into closure...
Click to expand...

who would that be?
your backhanded insults carry no water like your opinion
my point was statistics show much greater issues than dishwashers
it was another member who went on a rant, much like you

I've rebutted 2 things
that you know the subject material
your arguements and google 'proof'

you said tap or pool water will not conduct
I proved it is a very good conductor
 
Last edited:
Ingenieur said:
so??? that is their function
and it is a body of opinions, called a consensus

I'm a member of an international code making body
we use science and fact, not personal opinion
takes unanimous agreement
Click to expand...
Yet we have codes written supposedly on science and facts and still have others that present science and facts that disagree with the code that was written.

Does the CMP's do their own scientific research or do they mostly rely on other's findings? Seems it would be easy for a manufacturer to skew the findings of their own studies to support their own agenda, especially involving their pocketbooks, and it does happen to some extent.
 
kwired said:
Yet we have codes written supposedly on science and facts and still have others that present science and facts that disagree with the code that was written.

Does the CMP's do their own scientific research or do they mostly rely on other's findings? Seems it would be easy for a manufacturer to skew the findings of their own studies to support their own agenda, especially involving their pocketbooks, and it does happen to some extent.
Click to expand...

that is your opinion

both
but seldom rely on mfgs data
if not internal testing/evaluation must be a third party lab/engineer selected by the code committee, NOT the mfg or submitter
we will at times use gov funded research or research performed by gov agencies
but rarely the mfg unless conducted and certifed to be performed to our protocol/methods by a third party
never rely on 1 data source
 
Last edited:
Ingenieur said:
so??? that is their function
and it is a body of opinions, called a consensus

I'm a member of an international code making body
we use science and fact, not personal opinion
takes unanimous agreement
Click to expand...

At the risk of wading into this cesspool, it is hopeful and naive to believe that *people* will consistently employ only science and fact. The only thing more corrupt than people is a group of people.
 
Craigv said:
At the risk of wading into this cesspool, it is hopeful and naive to believe that *people* will consistently employ only science and fact. The only thing more corrupt than people is a group of people.
Click to expand...

you surround yourself with the wrong people
 
Ingenieur said:
that is your opinion

both
but seldom rely on mfgs data
if not internal testing/evaluation must be a third party lab/engineer selected by the code committee, NOT the mfg or submitter
Click to expand...
This thread is about GFCI, but the AFCI mess has all kinds of studies that conflict one another's results. I'm not totally picking a side, but the fact that there is legitimate studies that oppose one another tells me they may at least have jumped the gun on implementing code before they had it figured out, and still may not have it figured out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top