Zapdaddy85
New member
- Location
- Stockton, CA
Why are we allowing the term "subject to physical damage" to be openly interpreted? The picture included is a service entrance wire run bare, externally. It should have been protected by 230.50 section B subsections 1 OR 2. But this was allowed to pass inspection run at what looks to be about 4 get high. How is this not "subject to physical damage"? My 3 year old kid could touch that bare wire with her hands, without a step stool. Which surely means that it is"subject to physical damage". And the sun alone is going to beat the hell out the sheath around that wire causing the wire to be only more exposed at some point. That doesn't include the rest of the weather that will take it's tole on the sheath of that wire. And the worst part is that someone thought it was okay to pass an inspection the first time. And this is in the states, where we have some of the most stringent rules in electrical for all the safety reasons in the world... But this apparently wasn't considered "subject to damage" upon inspection. Please, allow the plumber to prove you wrong.