From the (human) safety point of view, all we really need is what is currently called ELV, which goes down to zero.
Though I would point out that even ELV isn't unconditionally safe.
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html[/QUOTE]
That's strictly true, but it is scraping the barrel in a big way. The chances of an ELV voltage doing serious harm (or killing) is incredibly small, at least in relation to a relatively healthy person. With only a couple of dozen domestic electrocutions per year in the UK, one wonders whether any of them have
ever been due to ELV!
FWIW, it is theoretically not even necessary to have the low resistance resulting from broken skin (as in your link), hence relatively high currents through the body, for ELV to be fatal. There are plenty of people walking about with (often unknown to them) hearts which are so electrically unstable that they are constantly at risk of spontaneously developing a fatal rhythm disturbance. In people like that, a tiny electric shock, even maybe only 1mA (on the threshold of 'feelability') might be enough of a 'final straw' to kill them - but, again, that is an incredibly unlikely occurrence.
What we can presumably agree about is that what you/we call "Low Voltage" definitely is potentially dangerous, even though that is not how most of the general public would interpret the phrase. As was recently said, a sign saying "Warning - Low Voltage" would be verging on the ridiculous as far as the general public are concerned!
Kind Regards, John
