What wiring method can be used to limit EMF in a home where people can "feel" EMF?

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
But honestly who is actually running circuits in that way with NM?

If they take advantage of that section it will likely be to use two 2 wires in place of a 3 or 4 wire and the two 2 wire cables would be run with each other not adding to EMF.

As Karl had always pointed out if you wire normally, following the NEC it will be the appliances that will be the largest source of EMF in a home.
Click to expand...

If you wire to code. But how do we know a neutral isn't touching a ground?
 
mbrooke said:
If you wire to code. But how do we know a neutral isn't touching a ground?
Click to expand...

We don't, yet the world does not burn down.

All I am saying is I am against adding code rules based on people's feelings, or based on what one person thinks is a good idea.
 
iwire said:
I would want true substantiation that a new rule is needed and that it would be effective in addressing the safety concern.
Click to expand...
Even though it is truly substantiated, it may not be approved by code panel unless consensus is reached among them. Isn't it?
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
But honestly who is actually running circuits in that way with NM?
Click to expand...

I was very surprised to find out, on these forums, that there were quite a few members who would run 2 wires between a set of 3 ways then feed both sides.

Many of the other issues with electromagnetic field are resolved naturally with the use of afci breakers since they would likely trip in some of the scenarios I mentioned earlier.
 
iwire said:
All I am saying is I am against adding code rules based on people's feelings, or based on what one person thinks is a good idea.
Click to expand...


I proposed deleting a rule not adding one..... :D Besides there is a bit more substantiation then you may think.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I proposed deleting a rule not adding one..... :D Besides there is a bit more substantiation then you may think.
Click to expand...

Again, who is actually taking advantage of the allowance you wish to remove in a way that adds to EMF or increases the chances of an electrical accident? I am on these forums too and I would say damn few if any are using the allowances in ways that increase EMF

So based on damn few and as yet no scientific consensus about the health effects of EMF and the fact that far more EMF is emitted from appliances and equipment I think it is premature to change the code on this.

I am not saying never, just wait for the right time if it does come.
 
You certainly are allowed your opinion. Personally I don't agree and I think the time is past due. What value does allowing this type of install have. It encourages, IMO, poor installs and why mess with a potential situation if there is no good reason to have this rule. We'll see what the cmp thinks.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
You certainly are allowed your opinion. Personally I don't agree and I think the time is past due. What value does allowing this type of install have. It encourages, IMO, poor installs and why mess with a potential situation if there is no good reason to have this rule.
Click to expand...

It has not yet been scientifically established that EMF is harmful. That being the case EMF concerns are not a reason to change the code. (As of yet)

Your perception of a code sections value, or your personal belief that wiring methods you do not like should not be allowed is not a reason to change a code rule.

A good use of this code section is allowing two 2 wire cables to act as a single cable. Such as from a switch box to a heat, fan, light, night light fixture. There is no reason to require a four wire cable for this.

Another could be using two 2 wires for the travelers between three ways.

Worker: Hey boss, we ran out of three wire, we won't be able to get done for inspection.

Boss: Damn it, we used to be able to run two 2 wires in a jamb like this but they changed the code without substantiation.

We'll see what the cmp thinks.
Click to expand...

I hope they demand a reason for the change before making it.
 
iwire said:
It has not yet been scientifically established that EMF is harmful. That being the case EMF concerns are not a reason to change the code. (As of yet)
Click to expand...
This is your opinion. There are studies that support higher rates of Lukemia in children but if you want to ignore that that is your right.

Your perception of a code sections value, or your personal belief that wiring methods you do not like should not be allowed is not a reason to change a code rule.
Click to expand...
Totally unfair and inaccurate. This IMO is an attack on me as a person and has nothing to do with reality. The change I proposed had nothing to do with how others do their wiring. Sure I don't particularly like it but that is not my concern so please refrain from accusing me of things that are incorrect.[/quote]
 
mivey said:
You must have gotten through cause it ain't there.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's 300.3(B)(3)


(3) Nonferrous Wiring Methods. Conductors in wiring methods with a nonmetallic or other nonmagnetic sheath, where run in different raceways, auxiliary gutters, cable trays, trenches, cables, or cords, shall comply with the provisions of 300.20(B). Conductors in single-conductor Type MI cable with a nonmagnetic sheath shall comply with the provisions of 332.31. Conductors of single-conductor Type MC cable with a nonmagnetic sheath shall comply with the provisions of 330.31, 330.116, and 300.20(B).
Click to expand...
 
iwire said:
Pretty sure it's 300.3(B)(3)
Click to expand...
Ah.

I have run parallel two-conductor NM for 4-way switches. Being concerned about something getting between them, I twisted the cables together along the route. I would not like to lose that option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top