?? why?

[EFLImpudence]

Why?

Why not?

It is a terrible turn of phrase.

I smacked the tiles off the wall where the shower was

EFLI, not sure why you asked, initially it was an electric shower, then replaced with a thermostatic mixer valve.

Because - as you did - people worry excessively about water and nearby electric cables but are quite happy to have, indeed do not even consider it as such, an electric supply for an electric shower in zone one.

 

[ebee]

My comment was solely in response to your mention of MF joints and that is only relevant when there are 'joints' (through which current flows, or may/could flow).
However, contrary to what I was previously thinking, secure seems to now be saying that there was a joint between two cables - in which case, at the least, the joint would have to be MF.

Are you related to bernard? The same can be said (as bernard often does say), of any electrical accessory mounted on a potentially damp wall. One can't deny the theoretical possibility you mention but the chances of it ever doing appreciable harm in practice must surely be vanishingly small - even more so behind glazed tiles than in one of bernard's damp walls.

In any event, as I said, my comments were about the requirement (or not) for 'MF' terminations/joints - and MF JBs are not required to offer (and do not offer) any protection against water or moisture!

Kind Regards, John

John it is the combination of damp walls and tiling too but also the raised risk of the possibility of a hot sweaty naked body with possible increased area of contact , food for thought

 

[morqthana]

I have known very many properties that have had countless 'brown JBs' under the floorboards, and can't recall having personally ever been aware of any of them resulting in any problems - so I do have to wonder how common the perceived 'problem' actually is. Indeed, even if they are not particularly 'well made' or particularly 'substantial', I'm not sure that they would be likely to result in problems when left undisturbed under floorboards for a few decades!

My experience too - round JBs (dark brown, black, brown, & white) under the floorboards, been there for decades, all absolutely fine when checked.

Some did have

the ends of the conductor are too long, and poke out the far end.

which yes, is less than ideal workmanship, but not a danger or a risk to the integrity of the connection.

 

[JohnW2]

John it is the combination of damp walls and tiling too but also the raised risk of the possibility of a hot sweaty naked body with possible increased area of contact , food for thought

As, I said, to my mind vanishingly improbable.

As I also said, the glazed tiles (and waterproof grout) would actually provide a substantial degree of protection of a human being from any 'damp walls' behind them - and that assuming the the walls became 'so damp' (and in contract with electrically live' parts) as to be appreciably conductive.

If you drive cars, cross roads, use tools and ladders etc. etc. etc. (let alone smoke, drink alcohol or 'jump out of aircraft' ), I think you have far greater things to worry about than the 'risk' you are considering

 

[morqthana]

... 'jump out of aircraft'

You forgot cave diving and free climbing.

Or wingsuit flying. I read once that that is the sport with no, or the lowest number of, injuries.

 

[JohnW2]

You forgot cave diving and free climbing.

I gave but one example of an undeniably 'hazardous (but legal and 'accepted') activity'

I am reminded of my 'passionate' disagreement with the legal requirement for car drivers and front seat passengers to wear seat belts. Although I am personally equally passionate in my support of the ('voluntary') use of seat belts, it makes no sense to me that a society in which it is legal for sane adults to smoke, drink or engage in any of those 'hazardous leisure pursuits' etc. should impose a legal requirement for those in the front of a car to wear seatbelts.

Such a legal requirement makes sense in terms of 'minors' (I suppose including 17 year-old drivers) or those without mental capacity to 'decide for themselves', and is slightly less clear-cut for rear-seat passengers, since, if unrestrained, they could fly forwards in the event of an impact and do harm to those in the front seats.

 

[Risteard]

As, I said, to my mind vanishingly improbable.

As I also said, the glazed tiles (and waterproof grout) would actually provide a substantial degree of protection of a human being from any 'damp walls' behind them - and that assuming the the walls became 'so damp' (and in contract with electrically live' parts) as to be appreciably conductive.

If you drive cars, cross roads, use tools and ladders etc. etc. etc. (let alone smoke, drink alcohol or 'jump out of aircraft' ), I think you have far greater things to worry about than the 'risk' you are considering

Jumping out of aircraft (e.g. aeroplanes, helicopters or hot air balloons) is incredibly safe. Use a parachute if you want to jump again.

 

[morqthana]

I am reminded of my 'passionate' disagreement with the legal requirement for car drivers and front seat passengers to wear seat belts.

Crash helmets?

Although I am personally equally passionate in my support of the ('voluntary') use of seat belts, it makes no sense to me that a society in which it is legal for sane adults to smoke, drink or engage in any of those 'hazardous leisure pursuits' etc. should impose a legal requirement for those in the front of a car to wear seatbelts.

Given a dispassionate, rational, evidence-based analysis of the harms of all recreational drugs, why isn't tobacco a controlled substance?

 

[securespark]

Or alcohol?

Because the Government is making a forking mint out of it.

 

[JohnW2]

Jumping out of aircraft (e.g. aeroplanes, helicopters or hot air balloons) is incredibly safe.

It is - but, I would suggest, not quite as incredibly safe as being naked and wet in a show when there are live conductors in a box behind the tiling.

 

[JohnW2]

Crash helmets?

Yep, the same with them.

Given a dispassionate, rational, evidence-based analysis of the harms of all recreational drugs, why isn't tobacco a controlled substance?

Because of changing attitudes over time. If alcohol or tobacco were first to appear today, there is not a chance in hell that they would be 'accepted', and would be regarded, treated and legislated for in just the same way as heroin, cocaine, MDMA and whatever. Maybe even coffee and tea etc.! Much the same as many 'everyday medicines' - if they were to appear for the first time today, I very much doubt that the likes of paracetamol and aspirin would be 'accepted', at least as non-prescription over-the-counter products.

In all of the cases, effectively changing things retrospectively ('turning the clock back') would be next-to-impossible.

 

[JohnW2]

Or alcohol? Because the Government is making a forking mint out of it.

Yes - but as I've just written, that situation (or the resultant revenue) would never have arisen if alcohol were first to appear today.

Mind you, as I've recently pointed out, until they do something about it (which they surely must before long), although they are currently also making a "forking mint" out of fuel excise duty, they are encouraging the population to stop using the fuels which generate that revenue for them - without, as yet, finding a way of 'taxing' EV usage so as to regain/retain the equivalent of the fuel duty that vehicle users currently pay!

 

[securespark]

They have indeed found a way....EVs will soon be taxed at a rate higher than the current zero rate. Anything up to £190 for EVs and hybrids within a couple of years.

 

[ebee]

Yep, the same with them.

Because of changing attitudes over time. If alcohol or tobacco were first to appear today, there is not a chance in hell that they would be 'accepted', and would be regarded, treated and legislated for in just the same way as heroin, cocaine, MDMA and whatever. Maybe even coffee and tea etc.! Much the same as many 'everyday medicines' - if they were to appear for the first time today, I very much doubt that the likes of paracetamol and aspirin would be 'accepted', at least as non-prescription over-the-counter products.

In all of the cases, effectively changing things retrospectively ('turning the clock back') would be next-to-impossible.

Our Generation were brought up on Aspirins. Would they be allowed today? A few years back I had a GP Prescription and collected it and the assistant aske me if I had take Aspirins before?
I looked deadpan

 

[JohnW2]

They have indeed found a way....EVs will soon be taxed at a rate higher than the current zero rate. Anything up to £190 for EVs and hybrids within a couple of years.

That's a separate issue, the 'temporary' zero tax being there only to try to persuade people to change to EVs!

Even when EVs are taxed as much as ICE cars, until something more is done the EV users will continue enjoying not having to pay the equivalent of the 52.9 p per litre that everyone else is currents paying for their petrol/diesel!