Its not up to me though (in general) - there's a lot of regulation now which requires RCDs, etc admittedly for new installations not just repairs to existing ones.
Do you mean it isn't less safe, or it isn't costly? I'm saying its one or the other.
Consumer unit
- Thread starter Ben1127
- Start date
Its not up to me though (in general) - there's a lot of regulation now which requires RCDs, etc admittedly for new installations not just repairs to existing ones.
Do you mean it isn't less safe, or it isn't costly? I'm saying its one or the other.
Sponsored Links
Yes, but you seem to want to exceed the regulations
Sorry, I meant it's not more vulnerable.
No, that is (IMO) false logicIF no-one has heard of anyone being 'saved' by and RCD and no-one has heard of anyone suffering serious injury/death as the result of 'a whole installation going off', then how can you conclude that the latter represents a greater risk?
We've never heard of either (until a moment ago) but you can still model the hazards and risks and quantify them. I've never heard of anyone having a win on a routlette table but given the odds and the number of venues, I can safely say that it's happened.
The problem with trying to use statistics here though is that someone getting killed by a RCD would likely be recorded. Someone being saved, where do you record that? It'd be like standing outside a railway station at 8am on a Monday morning asking people what mode of transport they commute to work by.
Sponsored Links
If properly installed, I doubt that a cable between a house and shed should be 'more vulnerable' (to damage)- in fact, it could well be less vulnerable. Amidst the many uncertainties, the one thing of which I think we can be sure is that an RCD is no guarantee against a lethal electric shock. Hence, whether a cable is between house and shed, within a house or whatever, to rely on an RCD to 'compensate for' an inadequately (mechanically) protected cable is therefore not very sensible, particularly if, as you suggest, the motive is cost-saving.
Kind Regards, John
I don't doubt you're right about that, but to compare potential death with 'inconvenience, worry and fear' is hardly an example of a 'level playing field'! As for the (minute, in both cases) relative risks of serious injury or death (i.e. 'level playing field) with and without a single RCD, as I said , we haven't got a clue.
Kind Regards, John
As you go on to say, we just don't have the data on which to base any such modelling. Even in those cases (and we've heard of virtually none) in which an electric shock causes an RCD to operate, we haven't a clue as to whether the shock would have been fatal in the absence of an RCD, and of that tiny number of people who die by electrocution we will never know how many (if any) of them would have died had RCD protection been in place. Nor do we know what (tiny) number of people have died by electrocution despite RCD protection. As for people suffering injury/death as a result of being plunged into darkness (and, more to the point, people NOT being injured/killed by being plunged into darkness), where on earth could one find that data?!
Eh? have you never stood by a roulette table or (more likley) switched on your TV at night. Some people usually win (something) with every spin of a roulette wheel!
Of course ... but in that case we know precisely what the odds are - that's totally different from 'not having a clue'!!!
Exactly - and, as I said, exactly the same for data about people NOT injured or killed as a result of their lights going off!
Kind Regards, John
Some time ago this debate about relative risks and the value of RCDs was voiced in at least 2 threads. One was about RCDs in an old person's wooden cabin and the other about collecting evidence of the effectiveness of RCDs (would it have been Eric?). Repeating here my story:
Failed washing machine and I pulled wrong plug out. Removed top, put hand down inside machine. Short elbow to machine body. A shock but no damage due to RCD. Short time later colleague - same scenario but there was no RCD. She spent months having skin grafts to her arm.
The comments on old or disadvantaged people having trouble with a sudden blackout are obviously valid, but for a workshop it would seem reasonable to assume an active aware person whose first instinct would be to stand still and work out where the CU or torch was placed.
Perhaps worth mentioning that, RCD or not, all non-hand held rotating tools should have a no volts switch to prevent reactivation when the supply is restored.
Failed washing machine and I pulled wrong plug out. Removed top, put hand down inside machine. Short elbow to machine body. A shock but no damage due to RCD. Short time later colleague - same scenario but there was no RCD. She spent months having skin grafts to her arm.
The comments on old or disadvantaged people having trouble with a sudden blackout are obviously valid, but for a workshop it would seem reasonable to assume an active aware person whose first instinct would be to stand still and work out where the CU or torch was placed.
Perhaps worth mentioning that, RCD or not, all non-hand held rotating tools should have a no volts switch to prevent reactivation when the supply is restored.
Not wishing to be unsympathetic but putting an arm inside a wrongly (not) isolated washing machine is not really the reason for fitting RCDs.
The reason for my original statement deducing that one RCD may be more hazardous than none was because of the recent thread in which you/John seemed to be implying that in most situations in the home the RCD would, because of insulation and resistance, not even be expected to work.
I therefore got the impression that it may be preferable not to have just one because of the 'danger' of the whole installation being switched off.
The reason for my original statement deducing that one RCD may be more hazardous than none was because of the recent thread in which you/John seemed to be implying that in most situations in the home the RCD would, because of insulation and resistance, not even be expected to work.
I therefore got the impression that it may be preferable not to have just one because of the 'danger' of the whole installation being switched off.
I don't think any sensible person would doubt that RCDs will sometimes prevent injuries and possibly (once in a blue moon, given how few people died by electrocution in the home even before we'd heard of RCDs!) prevent a death. The problem is the serious paucity of any 'facts and figures'.
Kind Regards, John
I understand 'where you are coming from' but my personal inclination is to be very sceptical about the realities of injuries/deaths due to the 'danger'of a house being plunged into darkness. If (as I suspect) they virtually never happen then, on balance, the potential benefit (particularly in relation to injuries, rather than death) of having a single installation-wide RCD probably outweighs that theoretical 'danger', even if even the RCD may sometimes (or even often) fail to achieve what one would hope.
Kind Regards, John
Ok. Fair enough.
We don't know which is the minutest.
We don't know which is the minutest.
No - sorry - the perils of hit-submit-and-run-away. There were no posts after paulc2's when I started mine.
Exactly. Of one thing I'm fairly sure - that either of those minute risks of serious injury or death would fade into insignificance in comparison with the corresponding risks associated with travelling on the roads or undertaking (non-electrical) DIY work!Ok. Fair enough. We don't know which is the minutest.
Kind Regards, John
In 1999, about 28,000 people were killed or injured falling from ladders and steps in the home.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
