I'm sure people would John, but I don't see how that makes it a poor analogy!
Light switch move - the result
- Thread starter bodgerx
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Yours would have been a good analogy if people were advocating 'jamming a stick' into electrical outlets to protect them - which I haven't noticed happening.
I would suggest that my analogy is better, since one is then comparing 'like with like' - both for gas and electricity, relating to some ('unnecessary', and quite possibly unsatisfactory) commercially-produced 'protector' being plugged in to an electrical or gas outlet in order to 'protect' it - and, as I implied, I think the only reason people are not buying and using gas ones is that (AFAIAA) they are not being offered for sale.
Kind Regards, John.
They would still be 'jamming a stick' into the outlet, it's just a commercially-produced 'stick'!
Fair enough - but my point remains. In terms of the language you're using, I think the only reason why they are not jamming commercially-produced sticks into gas outlets is because they can't find any such commercially-produced sticks to buy - rather than, as you suggested, because they would laugh at the suggestion that they should do it!
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Major thread hijack, but are you saying if you use MK sockets you don't need the protectors?
Because I use white MK sockets exclusively (and the socket protectors for my 2 year old)...
No, we're saying that you don't need the socket protectors whatever make of sockets you have. All 13A sockets are made and tested to a British Standard (BS1363) have integral shutters that prevent access to live parts. You should not interfere with those shutters by using socket protectors, which are not made to any standard and can cause damage to the sockets.
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 2,741
- Reaction score
- 453
- Country
At the risk of repeating what has been said endlessly before, the so-called protectors offer an ideal tool for the young enquiring mind to open the shutters. Without this tool they won't open.
Because some companies make money out of them, and some people are sufficiently gullible to buy them.
Because people have been led to believe the myth that they are necessary, and by pandering to that myth manufacturers and suppliers can make a little extra profit.
Indeed - but, to be fair to those who buy them, those organisations which have advocated (or even 'required') them, and maybe even some of the companies which manufacture them, they do, at first sight, "sound like a good idea" - so maybe 'gullible' is a little harsh. "Lacking in technical knowledge" might be fairer.
I certainly would not advocate or support the use of these things, but I think we need to remember that the arguments are essentially theoretical. We do not have, and probably never could have, any useful statistics about the relative risks - i.e. how many (if any) people have actually been harmed as a result of the use of these products and (even more difficult) how many (if any) people have avoided being harmed because of the use of them. I suppose the best argument is not an evidenced-based (risk-based) one, but merely the fact that they are unnecessary (and have the theoretical capacity to 'do more harm than good').
Kind Regards, John
As others have said, you absolutely do NOT need those protectors with any standards compliant socket.
But go to Fatally Flawed to see why you must NOT use them. Ie, it's not just that you don't need them, it's that their use is itself dangerous and you really must not use them if you want to keep your sockets in a safe condition.
So go round, pull out all those protectors, mangle them so that no-one else is tempted to try using them, and drop them in the bin. Then test every socket you've had them in.
I reckon you should be able to go round with a quality plug and "feel" how it goes in. You should be able to feel the resistance from the earth pin going into it's contact, followed by the L & N pins.
And spread the word !
I don't think that's a theoretical risk, Fatally Flawed does a pretty good job of demonstrating actual risk - damage to sockets (higher risk of overheating/fire, higher risk of ineffective earth connections) and making live contacts more accessible.
I'd suggest the main area where the risk is up for discussion is whether they provide a false sense of security. Do people pop these in, and then not worry about little Johnny poking things into sockets ?
As Fatally Flawed demonstrate, and has been pointed out here, it is actually quite hard to poke some random object into a live contact - but with some of the "safety" covers, it actually is easier. So combination of parents less concerned, and dangerous activity being easier = higher risk.
We've been over this ground many times before. In the absence of statistics, at the level of the 'bottom-line' (actual harm to human beings), we can only really talk about theoretical relative risks. Fatally Flawed can, indeed, demonstrate damage to sockets resulting from use of these products. I think they can even provide (or at least link to) videos of small children 'almost doing very dangerous things' as a result of their use (but not actually coming to harm - at least, not in the videos!). However, I don't think even they can produced even one well-documented case of anyone (child or adult) having been harmed as a direct result of use of these things.
The other side of the 'relative risk' equation is even more impossible. Without clairvoyance (or impractically large long-term surveys, given the extreme rareness of 'actual harm', if any), we can never really know how many, if any, people would have suffered harm had it not been for use of one of these products.
A very valid point - but one which also applies to safety measures which work (up to a point) as well as those which don't - seat belts, ABS and RCDs being the first three examples which come to mind. However, as you say, all considerations which need to go into the relative-risk melting pot.
'Higher risk', yes, but that is a theoretical concept, and still does not necessarily prove that anyone has ever been harmed as a result - or, more crucially, how this theoretical higher risk compares with whatever risk, if any, is associated with not using these products.
Last time I undertook an inspection of all the (countless!) sockets in my house, I found one whose shutters were permanently jammed open. Such possibilities have to be factored into the relative-risk equation.
As I said before, I would never support use of these covers - but the objective and critical man inside me accepts that this view is based on theoretical considerations, and might conceivably even be 'wrong'. The balance might, of course, 'swing' if properly-designed and manufactured covers were to become available, since many of the downsides of currently-available products relate to their unsuitability for plugging into a BS1363 socket.
Kind Regards, John
John, I have direct experience of a hazardous situation resulting from their use. My grandson pulled one from a socket, and broke it in the process. He put the broken piece in his mouth, and started to choke.
Now I know you'll say the same could have happened with any piece of plastic, which is true, but the socket cover is at best unnecessary and in this case has created a hazardous situation where no such situation would otherwise have existed.
Yes, risk is a theoretical concept. So what? Some of us have to manage a variety of theoretical risks, and we do so without creating additional risks by disabling existing safety devices.
For those who are concerned about children playing with socket-outlets, there are lockable covers available that cover the whole socket without interfering with the existing safety device (the internal shutters).
Now I know you'll say the same could have happened with any piece of plastic, which is true, but the socket cover is at best unnecessary and in this case has created a hazardous situation where no such situation would otherwise have existed.
Yes, risk is a theoretical concept. So what? Some of us have to manage a variety of theoretical risks, and we do so without creating additional risks by disabling existing safety devices.
For those who are concerned about children playing with socket-outlets, there are lockable covers available that cover the whole socket without interfering with the existing safety device (the internal shutters).
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
