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

[iwire]

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.

Dennis, I am aware of those studies.

I am also aware that there are studies that dispute it, as of now there is no majority consensus one way or another. But if you want to ignore that....

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.

:blink:

Here is what you had said

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.

To me that clearly says you personally consider it a poor install, serves no value and needs to be stopped.

I do not believe I have attacked you or said anything untrue.

All I am asking for is actual substantiation that the present code rule is unsafe.

 

[mivey]

All I am asking for is actual substantiation that the present code rule is unsafe.

Me too. If it is a problem then what about the rest of our environment? Where are you going to go to be "safe"?

I guess minimizing exposure is the goal. I don't know for sure but this has to be way low on the list.

 

[mbrooke]

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.

But electrical fires do happen, that's documented, but how often is the cause said not be x y or z?



These aren't feelings, but proven fact. There were enough facts to say hot wires touching something and not tripping a standard breaker were enough to get AFCIs into the code.

 

[mbrooke]

Actually the afci breakers will handle that issue.

Very true, especially the 30ma GFP logic in them. AFCIs have caught a lot of code violations. Heck, over on DIY chatroom AFCIs caught a defective space heater, washer and a few other things.

However, commercial, industrial and many older installations still lack any sort of GFP protection. (Ok, I do take one thing back, 277/480 services 1000amps and over need a GFP main)

One thing I find a lot in existing installations are crossed circuits, improper 3 ways and standing ground faults that all can be caught with GFCIs/RCDs. The truth is, any 600 volt and under installation done to code will have close to zero EMF. The issue at hand however is guaranteeing the system is to code. The only 2 ways that I know of are GF breakers or initial testing with a megger.

 

[iwire]

But electrical fires do happen, that's documented,

For sure.

How many of them caused by improper neutral to EGC contact?

Of those few (if any) fires how many would be prevented by testing at the date of installation.

These aren't feelings, but proven fact.

I agree it is a fact that fires happen. Beyond that we are pretty much guessing.

For instance here in the US we show a much higher incidence of electrical fires than many other developed countries.

Now do we really have more electrical fires or is their reporting / recording policy different from ours?

Do their FDs often attribute fires of unknown origin as 'electrical' as happens here?

There were enough facts to say hot wires touching something and not tripping a standard breaker were enough to get AFCIs into the code.

hmy:

I think you picked an analogy that helps me more than you.

 

[iwire]

Very true, especially the 30ma GFP logic in them. AFCIs have caught a lot of code violations.

Which is why we might have been better off going with some sort of GFP requirement and forget about this AFCI junk until they really (if ever) make it functional at a reasonable cost.

 

[mbrooke]

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.

Scientific evidence often isn't mainstream. For mainstream people it can seem that way.

Anyways, yes its true some appliances emit very high levels of EMF, however that is only around the appliance. It rapidly falls of with the square of the distance. Don't like EMF, move away or turn it off. Anyway, who uses a hair dryer several hours a day or stands within inches of a microwave for hours?

Wiring errors on the other hand can fill a whole home with magnetic fields, at least several rooms in all directions. Wiring wraps around a walls, ceilings, often feeding an entire floor. A single circuit with a ground fault will produce EMF along the entire run. Not only that circuit, but neighboring circuits as well since their EGCs may be the detour for some of the neutral current. Basically any circuit that shares an EGC with the effected circuit will produce magnetic fields. If stray current gets on duct work or plumbing, well that to will give of magnetic fields.


So, unlike an appliance, a single wiring error exposes occupants to far more EMF for much longer periods over any appliance.



AS for EMF its nothing complicated. Its basic science. A wire carrying current will produce a magnetic field. That is how all motors, transformer, and the like work. If another wire creates a field of equal, yet opposite magnitude fields cancel out. That is the basic operation of GFCI and many protective devices the sum sequence current components.

 

[mbrooke]

For sure.

How many of them caused by improper neutral to EGC contact?

Of those few (if any) fires how many would be prevented by testing at the date of installation.

We don't know, we don't even know if it was an arc fault or breaker failing. However, good evidence for suspicion as an aid, it is well known that conduit will heat from inductive currents. I have seen wires melt from improper paralleling of feeders in ferrous conduit. A crossed circuit or ground fault does the same to some degree or another.

Also, conduit carrying current will spark at a loose joint.


Further, if I lost the neutral at a subpanel, and a branch circuit had a standing ground fault, I don't think #14 or #12 will make a good return for a subpanel neutral buss bar.

I agree it is a fact that fires happen. Beyond that we are pretty much guessing.

For instance here in the US we show a much higher incidence of electrical fires than many other developed countries.

Exactly. And what do other countries have on every circuit we don't have yet people like you call the rest crazy for considering it?



Now do we really have more electrical fires or is their reporting / recording policy different from ours?

Well, I could call that a conspiracy Why would well meaning firefighters purposely say electrical in origin when they can write down 'unknown'? Why deliberately falsify data?



Do their FDs often attribute fires of unknown origin as 'electrical' as happens here?

hmy:


Same here. I could argue, well, show me the evidence our FDs are calling unknown fires as electrical. Chances are you wont find solid evidence of that.


I think you picked an analogy that helps me more than you.

Nope. Evidence for AFCIs stopping electrical fires may be spotty, but still, you have a huge amount of evidence that they do catch code violations; some of which could legitimately start a fire. Forums like this, are black and white proof left and right that AFCIs catch poor connections and wiring errors. So with that sad, those that put them into the code knew something before hand electricians may not have.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I realize that the studies may be bogus and that electromagnetic field's may be harmless however, if I had a yound child I would prefer that the electromagnetic field's are not existent. The fact that everything from pc's to TV's etc have electromagnetic field's is a different issue. You generally don't stay 6" from them but when the electromagnetic field's encompass the room it is a different story altogether.

My point is we should take precaution and I think the NEC should look forward toward that approach. They may laugh at me and turn it down but at least I tried. I actually don't expect a pass on this but I felt it should be brought to their attention.

Let's get it clear that I am not affected by electromagnetic field's and I do believe many people are pathological about it but I do believe some are affected by it so why design a system that can be harmful to others. It may not cause cancer but some just get headaches etc from the effects of the electromagnetic field's. So yes I will wire things to avoid the electromagnetic field's where possible but I am not a fanatic about this issue- just open to the fact that there could be some real issues for some.

 

[mbrooke]

I realize that the studies may be bogus and that electromagnetic field's may be harmless however, if I had a yound child I would prefer that the electromagnetic field's are not existent. The fact that everything from pc's to TV's etc have electromagnetic field's is a different issue. You generally don't stay 6" from them but when the electromagnetic field's encompass the room it is a different story altogether.

My point is we should take precaution and I think the NEC should look forward toward that approach. They may laugh at me and turn it down but at least I tried. I actually don't expect a pass on this but I felt it should be brought to their attention.

Let's get it clear that I am not affected by electromagnetic field's and I do believe many people are pathological about it but I do believe some are affected by it so why design a system that can be harmful to others. It may not cause cancer but some just get headaches etc from the effects of the electromagnetic field's. So yes I will wire things to avoid the electromagnetic field's where possible but I am not a fanatic about this issue- just open to the fact that there could be some real issues for some.

I don't think they are laughing at you, at least they shouldn't be. I know Im not. I have read your code proposals, and every single one of them is rooted in knowledge in addition to practical applications that reflect the real world. I think you are a genius, I really do:happyyes:

 

[petersonra]

I am opposed to making changes to the code that accommodate what people feel about an issue rather than actual science. Emotion should not be driving code changes.

The only thing that should drive code changes is actual science.

And helping companies sell stuff no one would buy otherwise.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I am opposed to making changes to the code that accommodate what people feel about an issue rather than actual science. Emotion should not be driving code changes.

The only thing that should drive code changes is actual science.

And helping companies sell stuff no one would buy otherwise.

This is not an emotional proposal and it was not what drove me to make the change. There are studies-- some believe in them some don't. I have no feeling one way or the other about them however if there is a chance that the studies are accurate I think this is a small price to pay to avoid the electromagnetic field's.

 

[mbrooke]

I am opposed to making changes to the code that accommodate what people feel about an issue rather than actual science. Emotion should not be driving code changes.

The only thing that should drive code changes is actual science.

And helping companies sell stuff no one would buy otherwise.

:blink: I hope not :lol:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Well, I could call that a conspiracy Why would well meaning firefighters purposely say electrical in origin when they can write down 'unknown'? Why deliberately falsify data? ...

Because there is strong pressure not to put "unknown" down on the report. Very few residential fires are investigated by a "fire investigator"...the officer on the first due engine most often does the investigation.

Nope. Evidence for AFCIs stopping electrical fires may be spotty, but still, you have a huge amount of evidence that they do catch code violations; some of which could legitimately start a fire. Forums like this, are black and white proof left and right that AFCIs catch poor connections and wiring errors. So with that sad, those that put them into the code knew something before hand electricians may not have.

Yes they catch code violations, but most are ground fault issues and it is my opinion that those ground fault trips are one of the reasons that the GFP part has been removed by at least two manufactures now (GE and one of the Eaton lines). That is very unfortunate as the GFP really does most of the work of the AFCI in preventing fires. One of the original design engineers from Eaton has strongly pushed for the UL standard to be changed to require the GFP part but without success. A second engineer from Eaton has submitted code proposals to require the GFP but they were rejected.

 

[ggunn]

This is not an emotional proposal and it was not what drove me to make the change. There are studies-- some believe in them some don't. I have no feeling one way or the other about them however if there is a chance that the studies are accurate I think this is a small price to pay to avoid the electromagnetic field's.

OK, but where is the end to that? If we were to write into the code proscriptions against everything that someone thinks might be a risk, we would end up with a document which is much larger and even more incomprehensible than the one we have now.

 

[mbrooke]

Because there is strong pressure not to put "unknown" down on the report. Very few residential fires are investigated by a "fire investigator"...the officer on the first due engine most often does the investigation.

Ok, that's good info. Thanks! But I still believe electrical fires, even when over reporting figures are adjusted, are higher in the US then other developed nations like France.

Yes they catch code violations, but most are ground fault issues and it is my opinion that those ground fault trips are one of the reasons that the GFP part has been removed by at least two manufactures now (GE and one of the Eaton lines). That is very unfortunate as the GFP really does most of the work of the AFCI in preventing fires. One of the original design engineers from Eaton has strongly pushed for the UL standard to be changed to require the GFP part but without success. A second engineer from Eaton has submitted code proposals to require the GFP but they were rejected.

Ground faults can still lead to fire in some cases. Hot to ground will do that, and if the neutral became compromised in a circuit that standing ground fault could become a glowing or arcing connection because its not intentionally done.

I think you are right. I know GE took them out so MWBC could be used, but complaints from ground faults might be a driver to. Its sad since the majority of the work was done by GFP protection, even when a hot touched a ground.



Since we are on the subject on flaw I see in the NEC and NESC is that the neutral is treated more like a ground wire than a current carrying conductor. I can explain if need be.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

ggunn you said "where someone thinks".... I believe there is more to this than someone thinking it is bad. Again there are studies-- do I think they were done in a scientific fashion-- I don't know but like everything in life there are studies that go both ways.

Using these same arguments one could say why do anything about global warming. Some studies say there is a phenomena called global warming and others debunk it. So should we do nothing or be proactive? Not wanting a political debate here. I made the proposal so when IF the cmp accept it you all can blast it in the public comment stage.

 

[mbrooke]

This is not an emotional proposal and it was not what drove me to make the change. There are studies-- some believe in them some don't. I have no feeling one way or the other about them however if there is a chance that the studies are accurate I think this is a small price to pay to avoid the electromagnetic field's.

I see it the same way. IMO EMFs are a problem for some people like headache ect. And increasing cancer risk in some cases shouldn't be ignored either. But IMO all that's trivial. If the system is wired to code, with care, EMFs become a none issue in nearly all cases.



Anyway, this is the analogy that I use and it is not to far off:


A properly wired system: EMFs are a drop of water.


An incorrectly wired system: EMFs are a large swimming pool.


What would you rather have in your home from a toxicity standpoint? However, if this is July Ill take the pool

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Since we are on the subject on flaw I see in the NEC and NESC is that the neutral is treated more like a ground wire than a current carrying conductor. I can explain if need be.

In the NEC, I see the grounded conductor being treated as a current carrying conductor, and the few cases in previous codes where the same conductor could be used as both the grounded and the grounding conductor are for the most part been removed from the code, with exceptions for existing installations installed under previous codes. Of course on the line side of the service equipment we do use a common conductor, but the NEC cannot change that. That change would have to be in the NESC.

 

[meternerd]

Well....I'm so far down the thread that nobody will read this, but here's my take....An elderly lady in a rest home called about twice a week to complain about the EMF in her apartment. Said it was "melting her brain". I, as the meter/relay tech was responsible for addressing complaints about EMF from customers. Most were more of a complaint from the 60 Hz hum. I used a Milligauss meter to measure EMF levels around equipment. The highest were near microwaves and electric blankets. But...none were near the electric meter or the overhead power lines. I turned off her TV, which was humming, and she thought I was a miracle worker. I cannot say that nobody is sensitive to EMF, but I've been in the utility business for over 40 years and have worked around extremely high EMF fields in substations for a long time. Neither I, nor anybody I know, ever had any issues. Yes, you could feel the static from the high voltage lines and you could measure the fields even on a Fluke if you held it in the air, but physical effects? Not convinced. Definitely can affect electronics, though. Just turn your AM radio on when you drive under a power line. If true, wouldn't an MRI machine cause people to explode?