misleading magazine article

Status
Not open for further replies.
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Did anyone else find the "Safety Equipment and Tools Article" (not yet available online) in the May edition of Electrical Contractor magazine to be misleading. This article, like most on the subject, just completely skip over the fact that it is a rare case when you are permitted to work on energized equipment. In reading the article you get the impression that as long as you have the correct PPE and tools you can work on anything. I know that a lot ofMany the information comes from the people that want to sell us this stuff, but I think that all article of this type need to spell out the rules that tell us when we can work on energized equipment.

Many in the trade do not go to formal training classes and get their information from sources like this. I think that, without the information about when you can work on energized equipment, these types of article do a dis-service to the industry.

I sent a comment to the author but have not yet received a response.
 
You would think the electrician, supervisor, plant manager, etc would know things need to be de-energized before working on it, but these manufacturers make you think you can work on it as long as you got PPE.

The article could be misleading if it were in a different publication, say a publication not geared towards electricians. The author might have figured if the article will be in a Electrician gear magazine, that the electrician will already know they can't work live unless the work meets the exceptions.
 
WorkSafe said:
... The author might have figured if the article will be in a Electrician gear magazine, that the electrician will already know they can't work live unless the work meets the exceptions.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that the majority of electricians know that. Most I talk to think that as long as you have the correct PPE and tools that you can work hot. Articles like this reinforce that idea.

There is a quote from an insulated tool manufacutrer that says almost all job sites where electricians are working require insulated tools. In fact, it is a very rare jobsite that would require the use of insulated tools and I can't think of any case where they would be needed in new construction.
 
It seems to be a very common misconception that once we put PPE we can do any live work we want.

Anything that perpetuates that misconception is going to get people into trouble.
 
EC Mag keeps publishing the add for Garvin that states that not using their wire markers is a code violation.
I guess as long as they get their money it doesn't mater if the add is fact or just a blatant lie.
 
tkb said:
EC Mag keeps publishing the add for Garvin that states that not using their wire markers is a code violation.
I guess as long as they get their money it doesn't mater if the add is fact or just a blatant lie.
Click to expand...
But I expect ads to be misleading, I don't expect that of articles that are not written by a manufacturer's rep.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
But I expect ads to be misleading, I don't expect that of articles that are not written by a manufacturer's rep.
Click to expand...

Articles in trade publications are almost always actually written by manufacturers when they refer to specific products. It's the same way local business and crime news is handled in the newpapers. Local business news is virtually always regurgitated press releases and crime reporting mostly amounts to minor rewrites of what the local police dept PR flack puts out.
 
petersonra said:
Articles in trade publications are almost always actually written by manufacturers when they refer to specific products. ...
Click to expand...
I understand that, but I don't think that is the case with this article. I could be wrong, but usually they tell you in the authors information when the author works for a manufacturer. I don't recall seeing that with this article and it is something I would normally look for.
 
I sent the following to the author last week:
[FONT=&quot]Mr. Griffin,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I just read your article ?cooltools? in the May edition of Electrical Contractor Magazine. It has a lot of good information, but like all most all articles of this type, it fails to make it clear that the use of insulated tools is permitted only in very rare cases. The OSHA rules and those in 70e prohibit most energized work no matter what PPE or tools you are using. The main exception is for trouble shooting and while PPE is certainly required for that, once you find the problem you are not permitted to work on the circuit while it is energized. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The comment by Mr. Russo of Cementex that states ?insulated tools are required on just about every job site?? is just plain wrong. It is a rare job site where insulated tools are permitted to be used, assuming that you are following the OSHA and 70e requirements. This type of information does a great dis-service to those in the trade who read it and think that just because they have selected the correct PPE and tools that they can work on energized equipment. I don?t know how many times I have talked to trades people and said something about not being permitted to work on energized equipment and get a response?you mean you can?t work on it without PPE and insulated tools? and I have to respond that No, I mean that you can?t work on it no matter what PPE and tools you are using.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] If we are ever going to make our jobs safer we need to do a much better job of teaching everyone that you just can?t do energized work (with rare exceptions)
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He responded with this;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Mr. Ganiere:

Thank you for your observations.

Jeff Griffin
Click to expand...
 
We require the use of insulated tools anytime there is more than 50 volts in the enclosure, one example is doing any work in a panel that has a main, the main is off, but there is still voltage at the line side. we require full PPE and 1000 volt rated tools to do anything in the panel, even though were not working it "Live". Being a large service company, it is very common we have to do this.
 
hillbilly1 said:
We require the use of insulated tools anytime there is more than 50 volts in the enclosure, one example is doing any work in a panel that has a main, the main is off, but there is still voltage at the line side. we require full PPE and 1000 volt rated tools to do anything in the panel, even though were not working it "Live". Being a large service company, it is very common we have to do this.
Click to expand...
You are working it live. You are exposed to the live parts and that is not permitted except in very rare cases. This is exactly the point I am trying to make. You are thinking that just because you have the correct PPE and tools that this type of work is permitted.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I understand that, but I don't think that is the case with this article. I could be wrong, but usually they tell you in the authors information when the author works for a manufacturer. I don't recall seeing that with this article and it is something I would normally look for.
Click to expand...

What tends to happen is the guy who gets the byline is often not the real author of the piece. A lot of times the piece was mostly written by some PR flack somewhere and the guy with the byline just regurgitated it. Sometimes the article is honest enough to at least mention where the piece actually came from but often not.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I sent the following to the author last week:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He responded with this;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Click to expand...

I was quite impressed with your letter and applaud your effort; the author's response, not so much. I can't think of anything to contribute, except perhaps that I should write him as well. Do you mind me mentioning my disappointment in his response to your letter when I do?
 
MichaelGP3 said:
I was quite impressed with your letter and applaud your effort; the author's response, not so much. I can't think of anything to contribute, except perhaps that I should write him as well. Do you mind me mentioning my disappointment in his response to your letter when I do?
Click to expand...
Thanks, and that would be fine with me.
 
I received another response from the magazine.
Mr. Ganiere,

Jeff Griffin forwarded your concerns to us. I wanted to extend our gratitude for your observation and close reading. Receiving such comments from readers is always a mix of emotions for the editorial staff. It?s a joy for us because it means the work we do is being received and used. However, it also means we?ve made a mistake, and we would be remiss to not acknowledge that fact.

First, I want to reassure you that ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR does not advocate dangerous and illegal work practices. In fact, the work we produce every month is intended to advocate safety and proper work practices. They are important pillars of our belief system. Moreover, these values are important topics we promote every month.

To address your concerns, I think the most important flaw you?ve pointed out is the context of the quote. It appears late in the article, and readers may have forgotten by the time they reach it that Electrical Contractor wants everyone to work safely and according to proper procedures according to applicable codes. Upon consideration, it may have benefited the article to remind readers of that periodically throughout the article to ensure the message was not miscommunicated.

On that note, I would like to draw your attention to the second paragraph in the article. It reads as follows:

?The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce employee exposure to hazards when engineering and administrative controls are not feasible or effective in reducing these exposures to acceptable levels.?

I?ve bolded the important part that may address your concerns, but I will admit, even though it?s in the second paragraph, the message is a bit buried in that sentence. Admittedly, we could have done a better to bring such an important disclaimer into the foreground.

To rectify this, our website editor, Tim Johnson, added a disclaimer to the article on our website that will state we do not advocate the practice of working on energized electrical equipment and that doing so should be a last resort as OSHA advises when de-energizing could pose greater safety risk. Live work must be justified. Only then are insulated tools necessary. We do, however, feel it?s important to have insulated tools on hand for when the need arises. (You can view the disclaimer here: http://www.ecmag.com/?fa=article&articleID=12667.)

I also found it interesting that you mention your experience with workers who don?t understand that working on energized equipment is just not OK. In the past, we?ve been pretty straightforward about endorsing OSHA?s practices in this regard, and hearing from you that it?s perhaps a greater issue than we realize, we hope to do more to raise awareness of this issue and hope you may find in future publications you can cite this magazine as a source on the matter.

Thank you for reading and writing in. We will keep your comments in mind and will redouble efforts to provide the best magazine possible. Please don?t hesitate to contact me or any members of our editorial staff if you have further questions, comments, or concerns.

Best regards,[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Andrea Klee
Editor
Electrical Contractor/Security + Life Safety Systems
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Yes, but I don't expect another reply.
Click to expand...

I bet you are right, the tone of that letter they sent you struck me as condescending, almost like they did not believe you knew what you were talking about.

It strikes me that selling insulated tools is more important to them than being truthful or factual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top