Tamper resistant receptacles EXPANED??!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
electricmanscott said:
What a waste of $37.50
Click to expand...
1,654,000 new homes in 2006 * $37.50 = $62,025,000
The life's earning of over 25 people for each year of protection.

Or if we use my off the shelf number of a $2 increase it's = $248,100,000. The life's earning of over 100 people for each year of protection.

$37.50 per house does seem a bit high to me.
 
The US government attempted to put a dollar value on human life in compensating the families of the victims of 9/11.
All awards are tax-free. No family of a deceased individual will receive less than $300,000 and awards of more than $4.5 million will be rare. Government analysts estimate that families will receive an average award of $1.85 million and that the Fund will cost taxpayers between $6 billion and $10 billion.
Click to expand...
The British healthcare system has a weird calculation called QALY that puts a value on each year of life. It works out to about $30k-$45k per year. So if a 4-year-old needed a $5 million operation to cure her the national insurance would not cover this. The parents can pay if they'd like. Our own health care insurance also make's these judgements about what they will or won't pay for.
electricmanscott said:
Stupid kids, they had it coming. Is that better Mr Bill.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent, YES. Kids find all sorts of ways to hurt themselves. I chipped my tooth playing dodgeball when I was 9 and it's still costing me money. I don't run around saying all kids should wear mouth guards in gym class. If most of these injuries are described as relatively superficial first or second-degree burns, where children are treated for reddened skin or blisters and released from the Emergency Room with topical treatment. Of all the ways they hurt themselves this doesn't freak me out.

I tried breaking the cost down in my own arbitrary way on how this money would get divided based on the level of injuries and pain and suffering and TR's costing $0.50 more, or just $37.50 per house.
Injury: $5,000 (as described above)
Hospitalized: $235,300
Death: $50,000,000

I still think these look high for the public to be paying the cost. If $5 million is too much for medical care to save a child's life why is $50 million reasonable for the electrical industry to save a child's life.
 
Mr. Bill said:
I still think these look high for the public to be paying the cost. If $5 million is too much for medical care to save a child's life why is $50 million reasonable for the electrical industry to save a child's life.
Click to expand...

The additional cost of TR devices is very marginal and is spread out over millions of different installations. I don't see any comparison between TR devices and the cost of healthcare at all. :-?
 
peter d said:
The additional cost of TR devices is very marginal and is spread out over millions of different installations. I don't see any comparison between TR devices and the cost of healthcare at all. :-?
Click to expand...
The cost of health insurance is also spread out over millions of people.
 
This argument has turned ridiculous.

I could not and would not ever put a price on either of my kids life.

You have to be a sick son of a gun to think like that.
 
electricmanscott said:
This argument has turned ridiculous.

I could not and would not ever put a price on either of my kids life.

You have to be a sick son of a gun to think like that.
Click to expand...

Yeah but think what you could do with that $37!

It's almost laughable that people are actually arguing the point. Go home and explain to your wife that your kids aren't worth $37 to possibly save their life.
 
Didnt know my post took a turn like this. Lets try to stay 'civil' toward each other everyone. But anyways, It looks like they maybe backing off the 'tamper resistant' requirment. It looks as though the powers that be have stopped requiring it for exam rooms and waiting areas in hospitals that they had required for a number of years. This surprises me.

This is on the 'wake' of the expansion in residential (NEC 2008 requirment). So it looks like there is a back and forth 'arguement on this issue.
 
M. D. said:
If the code panel believes that TR receptacles are required to meet the purpose of 90.1 ,.. I'm not sure why they are not required for every receptacle everywhere,.. if it is to protect "the children" only ,..it seems it is a design specification .. slippery slope if you were to ask me.
Click to expand...

So,.. the 125 volt receptacle in my living room , right next to the 220 volt for the A.C. has to be TR ,...but the 220 volt receptacle does not:-? and both meet the purpose of the code:-?
 
does anyone have the statistics of how many people are injured by receptacles, and how many of those are kids ? that would expane a lot, imo
 
M. D. said:
So,.. the 125 volt receptacle in my living room , right next to the 220 volt for the A.C. has to be TR ,...but the 220 volt receptacle does not:-? and both meet the purpose of the code:-?
Click to expand...

220? :smile:

You can also put a 240 volt receptacle right beside your tub without a GFCI.

NEC sections don't always make sense, but to me removing the 125 volt GFCI requirement is not the way to fix things. :smile:
 
nakulak said:
does anyone have the statistics of how many people are injured by receptacles, and how many of those are kids ? that would expane a lot, imo
Click to expand...

Here you go ,.. lots of graphs at the site ...did not read it all seems well done.

http://childsafetyoutlet.org/statistics/index.htm

?
A typical case involves a male child, between the age of 1 and 3 years, inserting a foreign object into an outlet at home and receiving a burn/electrical injury to the finger or hand.
? 472 cases were identified (median age 3 yrs)
? 58% of cases were males
? 68% of incidents involved children between ages of 1 and 3 years
? 78% of cases associated with child inserting a foreign object into the outlet
? 76% of cases occur at home (3.6% at other home)
? 63% are burn or electrical injuries to the hand or finger
? For a copy of the CHIRPP study, click here
Click to expand...
 
nakulak said:
you left one out

100% of the males age 1-3 that stuck foreign objects into outlets were found to have become electricians later in life
Click to expand...

That would be me then. back then (and until very recently) there was no requirement for TR on New Zealand 240V outlets.

The single most important point you need to grasp is that the sooner all recepitcals are TR then the lower the eventual cost of recepticals will be.

Eventually, all recepiticals will be TR. Every year that the factories in China continue to turn out non-TR recepticals (as well as TR recepticals) the higher the price differential will become and that will set the eventual cost of a receptical years down the line.
 
One issue I have is the stat that says 63% involve burn or electrical injury to the hand. To me that implies two points of contact...possibly two metal objects. The currently available TR receptacles do not prevent the insertion of two objects even at different times. It is possible that some of the second objects were inserted in the U ground contact that is not protected.

The TRs used in the past, in the few areas where they were required, did not permit the insertion of two objects at different times. You could put in two objects but you had to put force on both of the shutters at the exactly the same time and would be much more effective in preventing contact with two objects, but they had a cost of about $20 each.
 
electricmanscott said:
This argument has turned ridiculous.

I could not and would not ever put a price on either of my kids life.

You have to be a sick son of a gun to think like that.
Click to expand...
And we're back to the personal insults.

What you do with your money is your choice. When public money is involved there should be some discussion about what level of protection or safety is the best use of the public's money. If the money was focused elsewhere how many more children could be saved.

I know this is an emotional topic, but that doesn't mean people don't try to profit off of our fear. If any time someone says something will save a child and we're just suppose to open our collective pocketbooks without question then I worry in a relativly short time our building industry will become cost prohibitive.

It does not seem like anyone will change their opinion on this topic. And we're just going to get more and more emotional as we continue. So, consider me tossing in the towel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top