The way that I see it, people always say "it's not the volts that is dangerous, it's the amps". And, while this is oversimplified, I understand that the intention of saying it this way, is to remind you that absolute voltage level itself isn't dangerous. It is only when the voltage can cause a current to flow, that it is dangerous.
In otherwords, think of the "bird on the wire". The bird is in contact with a high voltage relative to ground, but isn't in contact with anything other than that line of higher voltage. It is not absolute voltage at a particular location that does harm. It is a voltage difference causing current to flow. Volts still do directly determine the amps, but it is specifically Volts at point A minus Volts at point B.
An interesting question I thought of, is whether or not the ampere threasholds are valid no matter what the skin condition of resistance is. In otherwords, consider this example:
10 milliamps driven by 1000V through a 100 kOhm person with dry skin
10 milliamps driven by 10 Volts through the same person, but 1 kOhm after going swimming for a while (across the same two points on the body/through the same path in the body)
Are these two shock situations equivalent in danger?
I would expect that the first situation is much more dangerous. I would think that it is really cumulative Watt-seconds that would be a better metric of shock hazard.
