Shower fire revisited
- Thread starter winston1
- Start date
Yet again sorry
You can't even type your apologies correctly
Kind Regards,John
So what error do you believe I made?
Not at all - but I do wonder about the acceptability of product if the risk of a catastrophic failure when not in use is deemed by the manufacturer to be sufficiently great as to cause them to issue instructions to mitigate that risk.
We can only speculate about what happened in this case. The initiation of the fire is, I would have thought, much more likely to have occurred whilst normal (high) current was flowing (whilst the shower was being used) than when the shower was not being used. If that were the case, 'isolating' the supply after the shower had been used would not have prevented or affected the fire.
As I wrote earlier, whilst the first reaction of any of us on being faced with a 'shower on fire' is to remove the electricity supply, in reality that would probably have no effect on the existence or progression of the already-established fire.
Have you included this in the intended thread? Whatever, do I take it that you are referring to ...
Ofcom said:
Kind Regards, John
Yes I added it to your comment about keeping a phone is a fire proof box, which could also benefit from being RF shielded to remove that hazard too.
Maybe the one which was 'corrected' by your edit which turned;
... into ...Yet sorry
??Yet again sorry
I must confess that I thought the error was that your "Yet" was meant to be "Yep", rather than that the word "missing" was omitted
Kind Regards, John
Dear Licence Holder,
We are writing to make you aware of some important changes that we are proposing to make to your Wireless Telegraphy Act licence(s) issued by Ofcom.
In February and October last year, we issued two public consultations on our proposal to formally require licensees to comply with the internationally agreed levels in the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines for the protection of the general public from electromagnetic fields (EMF). We refer to these levels as the ICNIRP general public limits. In October, we also issued a Statement setting out our decision to formally require licensees to comply with the ICNIRP general public limits and we recently published an update on how we propose to implement that decision.
We are now writing to you to inform you of our proposal to vary the terms and conditions of your licence(s) to require you to comply with the ICNIRP general public limits. In accordance with the Wireless Telegraphy Act and your licence(s), we are giving you notice of our proposal by publishing a General Notice on our website.
This change could be part of a more general tightening of control. This could apply to all electronic equipment that emits electromagnetic radiation. It would create some serious problems for suppliers of Switch Mode Power Supplies and Switch Mode LED drivers,
We are writing to make you aware of some important changes that we are proposing to make to your Wireless Telegraphy Act licence(s) issued by Ofcom.
In February and October last year, we issued two public consultations on our proposal to formally require licensees to comply with the internationally agreed levels in the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines for the protection of the general public from electromagnetic fields (EMF). We refer to these levels as the ICNIRP general public limits. In October, we also issued a Statement setting out our decision to formally require licensees to comply with the ICNIRP general public limits and we recently published an update on how we propose to implement that decision.
We are now writing to you to inform you of our proposal to vary the terms and conditions of your licence(s) to require you to comply with the ICNIRP general public limits. In accordance with the Wireless Telegraphy Act and your licence(s), we are giving you notice of our proposal by publishing a General Notice on our website.
This change could be part of a more general tightening of control. This could apply to all electronic equipment that emits electromagnetic radiation. It would create some serious problems for suppliers of Switch Mode Power Supplies and Switch Mode LED drivers,
There might be other tightenings in the future of (totally different) requirements in relation to EMI, but that's a very different matter.
I really can't believe that anyone would ever suggest that the amount of (electromagnetic) ionising radiation emitted ('unintentionally') by SMPSUs could ever be remotely near levels which can do harm to human beings - particularly in a world that 'allows' people to put mobile phones and cordless phones (which intentionally emit radiation) closely to their ears (hence brains)!
Kind Regards, John
Heck you must have caught that quickly, I editted it what I would have described as instantly.Maybe the one which was 'corrected' by your edit which turned; ... into ... ??
I must confess that I thought the error was that your "Yet" was meant to be "Yep", rather than that the word "missing" was omitted
Kind Regards, John
I suppose that perceptions of "instantly" probably vary - you posted the original at 3:25 and edited it 25 minutes later at 3:50, giving me plenty of time to notice (and comment upon) the original
Kind Regards, John
You are mistaken. I never make things up.
This seems to suggest one of two things.
1. They are wrong.
2. They make poor quality gear that they don't trust to be permanently connected.
It would have probably occurred next time the shower was being used while someone (possibly non technical) was under it.
Why, it is an excellent example of MI being wrong. Not everyone on here has seen it.
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
