That is irrelevant. If you want to use that argument then I will tell you it is a known fact that there are more injuries due to 120V then to 240V. That means nothing.
Only if both appliances simultaneously experience an internal fault that causes their respective external metal parts to become energized. This is an extraordinarily unlikely event. But if it did happen, the equipment grounding conductor will do its job of carrying a high enough fault current back to the source so as to cause the breaker to trip. The code book authors correctly concluded that this is not a safety concern.
Current will not flow from either line conductor into a person's hand, unless that line conductor comes into contact with the external metal parts of the appliance. That would bring about the circumstances I mentioned just above, and the grounding has everything to do with it. It is your turn to think again.
This was the subject of a fairly long debate on this forum, and not that long ago. Look it up, if you wish to see who believes what. I will only state my answer: Neither 120V nor 240V has a greater likelihood of causing injury than the other, for the simple reason that "being dead is the same as being dead."
Is there any meaning in 'minimizing electrical shock risk'or not?Then the house wife should not be doing any laundry or cooking on the stove because she will be subjected to a potential 240 volt shock as well.
Chris
You are quite right, of course. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. :ashamed1:
Yes. One accomplishes this goal by not tearing apart electrical appliances while they are plugged in. It should be noted, however, that the act of doing laundry (and I do my share of this chore at home) does not involve tearing the washing machine apart. I think the same can be said for the act of cooking.
