BAS has a valid point. If one is lucky, one can "get away" for years with ignoring measures that are designed to protect one if something goes wrong, but that's no guarantee that one will continue to be lucky in the future - in context, the fact that nothing catastophic has happened to an electrical installation for many years does not mean that it necessarily is 'safe' (or necessarily ever has been 'safe') or that nothing nasty or catastrophic is going to happen in the future.
I am approaching the 50th anniversary of when I started driving. Like BAS, I would not have come to any harm if I had never worn seatbelts during that 50 years (or not benefited from the presence of airbags in more recent years) - but that is not going to stop me wearing the seatbelt (or expecting my car to have airbags) tomorrow and beyond. "Good luck" has a habit of eventually running out!
Survivor bias means that all the people who didn't wear their seatbelts, and had fatal crashes, won't be coming on her to tell us about it, so we may get the impression that it isn't a serious risk.
Unforutnately, there are also people who were buckled up and who did have airbags and were killed when they otherwise would not have been. They won't be coming on here to tell us about it either.
Survivor bias means that all the people who didn't wear their seatbelts, and had fatal crashes, won't be coming on her to tell us about it, so we may get the impression that it isn't a serious risk.
Sure, but I think we're at risk of getting distracted by this tangential discussion about seat belts. In context, the point is that if one is 'lucky' enough not to be involved in any serious crashes for many years, then one cannot possibly die in a crash during that period, whether one wears seatbelts or not - BUT one's 'luck' may run out tomorrow. That is analogous to 'being lucky' in not suffering as a result of living with an 'unsafe' electrical installation for many years - but, again, that 'luck' may run out tomorrow.
It may be "tangential" to "discuss" it, but I do think it a very useful analogy to highlight the fallacy behind the "Why should I consider rewiring because it's been fine for the last X years" argument.
It's a POP to design systems and equipment etc that work perfectly safely as long as nothing goes wrong. No electrical circuits or accessories or appliances would ever need an earth if nothing ever went wrong. Nor MCBs or RCDs. No car would ever need seat belts or air bags if nothing ever went wrong. Motorways would not need Armco barriers if nothing ever went wrong. Aircraft would not need integral fire suppression, or oxygen supplies if nothing ever went wrong. Ships would never need lifeboats if nothing ever went wrong.
It may be "tangential" to "discuss" it, but I do think it a very useful analogy to highlight the fallacy behind the "Why should I consider rewiring because it's been fine for the last X years" argument.
I agree totally (and have said so) - but when people start talking about things like the small minority of cases in which seatbelts may do harm (which has little by way of analogy to the house wiring situation), or even about survivor bias, I think we are at risk of being 'distracted' by the analogy.
Isn't leaving your wiring when you know it's dodgy as sensible as driving your car with known leaking brake hydraulics? You know you're going to have an "accident" if you do nothing about it. It's an accident waiting to happen but somehow I doubt the OP cares.
If I remember the thread correctly, the OP said he didn't have an earth on his 'electrics' even though he hadn't looked behind a socket, and everyone believed him. I believe he has since said that the sockets actually do have an earth. So this is very much like any house built around then.
Since then the OP has been harangued for not wanting to add an earth to his wiring.
Isn't leaving your wiring when you know it's dodgy as sensible as driving your car with known leaking brake hydraulics? You know you're going to have an "accident" if you do nothing about it. It's an accident waiting to happen but somehow I doubt the OP cares.
I'm not defending the OP's position but, in terms of what you say, it would be "...as (not very!) sensible..." IF the OP knew that there were aspects of his wiring system which were inevitably (or almost inevitably) going to result in an "incident" if he did not do something about it.
Whereas leaking brake hydraulics will inevitably result in an incident if nothing is done about it, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of very dodgy wiring systems which have been present, 'without incident', for many years, or decades. The point which most of us have been making is that that past 'luck' is no guarantee that things won't change in the future!
A better analogy would probably have been that of driving a car whilst continuing to wear a known faulty seatbelt. In an extremely high proportion of cases that would have no consequences (as I said, my seatbelt has not been called upon to work 'in anger' in ~50 years driving), but that's no guarantee that continuing to do that will not result in the driver's death "tomorrow".
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.
Please select a service and enter a location to continue...
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local