Second Hand or Cheap Electrical Goods

[JohnW2]

Which quotes:"The research from ESC reveals a dangerous level of ignorance about the perils of electricity in UK households. In the past year, almost one million people have repaired an appliance while it is still plugged in; despite the fact this can result in a fatal or serious injury. Other electrical ‘confessions’ included knowingly using faulty plugs or sockets (12.2 million people), ignoring burning smells coming from an appliance or socket (1.5 million people) and trailing cables near hot surfaces or cookers (2 million people)."

That's all quite credible - which, I suppose, underlines my amazement that deaths due to electrocution are consistently barely into 'double figures' per year. However, as I said, most of the ESC figures are based on extrapolation from pretty small surveys, so one has to interpret them with some caution.

One could, of course, probably get at least as many (probably far more - there are probably very few drivers who don't do at least one 'iffy' thing during the course of a year!) 'confessions' from people about things they'd done whilst driving but, just as with the electrical ones, on the vast majority of occasions they 'get away with it'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[dimstthomas]

That's all quite credible - which, I suppose, underlines my amazement that deaths due to electrocution are consistently barely into 'double figures' per year.

I wonder what percentage of electric shocks lead to serious injury and death. As a child I had at least two electric shocks from mains electricity, but apart from jolting my arm back and scaring (not scarring!) me they had no lasting effects.

 

[JohnW2]

I wonder what percentage of electric shocks lead to serious injury and death. As a child I had at least two electric shocks from mains electricity, but apart from jolting my arm back and scaring (not scarring!) me they had no lasting effects.

Well, if you work with those ESC figures (despite my reservations about them), they indicate 2.5m electrical shocks per year of which 350,000 resulted in 'serious injury' (a figure I am very doubftul about) and 19 deaths in the home. That computes as 14% resulting in 'serious injury' (which I very seriously doubt, given any sensible definition of 'serious') and 0.00076% resulting in death.

I really don't understand what these 'serious injury' figures are all about. Electrical shock, per se, does not result in any lasting damage (one either survives it or doesn't) - except in the extremely rare situation in which someone 'dies' but is successfully rescuscitated, but with brain injury. The only real scope for 'serious injury' (say, requiring hospitalisation) results from electrical burns or concsequential injuries (falls etc. result in cuts, broken bones, head injuries etc.) and ther are, in my experience and in terms of available (hospital) statistics, pretty rare.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Electrical shock, per se, does not result in any lasting damage (one either survives it or doesn't)

Not true

There are several ways electric shock can cause permanent damage. Burnt out nerves leading to lost of sense of touch and/or loss of muscle control.

Internal burns to vital organs can happen and these do not heal.

Severe muscle contractions during the shock can result is torn muscles and/or tendons. Dislocation of joints can happen and in a rare cases the muscle contraction can break bones.

In normal use only about 1/6 of a muscles fibre is active at any time. Under electric shock stimulus all the muscle fibres can contract giving 6 times the power.

 

[JohnW2]

Electrical shock, per se, does not result in any lasting damage (one either survives it or doesn't)

Not true. There are several ways electric shock can cause permanent damage. Burnt out nerves leading to lost of sense of touch and/or loss of muscle control. Internal burns to vital organs can happen and these do not heal.

I'm not sure why you say 'Not true' ... as I went on to say (in the bit of my post you didn't quote), although non-fatal electric shock, per se, does not result in lasting damage, the effects of electrical burns (external or internal) can. However, the sort of internal 'burn injuries' to which you refer are extremely rare, not the least because they would often be asociated with a degree of general burning that was not compatible with life. As an autopsy finding in those with very severe electrical burns, you're right, but lasting effects of such internal burning in survivors is extremely rare.

Severe muscle contractions during the shock can result is torn muscles and/or tendons. Dislocation of joints can happen and in a rare cases the muscle contraction can break bones.

Indeed, - again, as I said, those 'consequential' injuries due to 'mechanical' effects do occur - but, again, they are rare.

In my past I've seen a few people who were dead having suffered severe effects of electricity (including extensive burns), but IIRC they were all due to jumping/falling onto live train rails (or, in one case, coming into contact with overhead train cables). At least some such cases probably don't even feature in the statistics for 'electrical deaths', since they often also have extensive other non-electrical injuries (usually due to impact with a train), such that it's impossible to ascertain the cause of death, which may well therefore just be recorded as generic 'trauma'. I've also seen a lot of people with minor electrical burns - although none I can recall that I would really classify as 'serious'. I therefore remain very doubtful about these alleged 350,000 'serious injuries' per year.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And these were the figures used to justify Part P:

1. Note how many are fire related, which might be nothing to do with electricity - just a source of heat to set fire to curtains or a pan of chip fat.
   
2. Note how the figures for injuries are 2 orders of magnitude less than Rachel's.
   
3. Realise that Rachel is parroting figures from people who have no idea how accurate they are.
   
4. Realise that these people do not care how accurate, because they just want to create FUD.
   
5. Realise that ESC ≡ NICEIC
   
6. Wonder what scam they are proposing to foist on us to make more money.

 

[SimonH2]

http://www.esc.org.uk/public/news-and-campaigns/press-releases/news/article/confusion-between-landlords-and-tenants-exposes-millions-to-serious-electrical-dangers/

I'd be less sceptical of anything they said if they could get some very basic facts right - anyone spot the error in A Residual Current Device (RCD) is a life-saving device that protects against dangerous electric shock and reduces the risk of electrical fires.

 

[JohnW2]

I'd be less sceptical of anything they said if they could get some very basic facts right - anyone spot the error in A Residual Current Device (RCD) is a life-saving device that protects against dangerous electric shock and reduces the risk of electrical fires.

I suppose that if you wanted to be generous (although I'm not sure why you'd want to be!), one might entertain the thought that some 'electrical fires' might conceivably result from L-CPC faults which don't draw quite enough current to operate an OPD!

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

I was mainly referring to the "protects against dangerous electric shock" bit. It's bad enough that people think it prevents it, but for a body campaigning for electrical safety to promulgate the myth is pretty bad.

"reduce the risk", yes; "protect against", no.

 

[RF Lighting]

It's like saying air bags prevent car crashes.

 

[JohnW2]

I was mainly referring to the "protects against dangerous electric shock" bit. It's bad enough that people think it prevents it, but for a body campaigning for electrical safety to promulgate the myth is pretty bad. "reduce the risk", yes; "protect against", no.

Oh, I see - sorry for misunderstanding. Whilst I agree that it could probably mislead, I guess that's a pretty fine semantic point - does 'protection' have to mean 'complete and guaranteed protection'? Most things which are said to 'protect' do so with less that 100% success, and/or only up to some limit, don't they?

At least they didn't say that an RCD limits shock currents to 30mA, which is the usual 'misinformation'!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

It's like saying air bags prevent car crashes.

Isn't it more like saying that air bags "protect against serious injuries due to car crashes" - which most people would regard as a reasonable statement, even though they do not eliminate all serious injuries?

Kind Regards, John

 

[RF Lighting]

No. RCDs are getting hyped up left right and center as the wonder device that prevents electric shock. As we know they don't. They merely reduce the severity of the injuries if an electic shock happens.

Just like an air bag won't prevent a car crash, but if a crash happens, the air bag will help to reduce the severity of any injuries.

 

[JohnW2]

No. RCDs are getting hyped up left right and center as the wonder device that prevents electric shock. As we know they don't. They merely reduce the severity of the injuries if an electic shock happens. Just like an air bag won't prevent a car crash, but if a crash happens, the air bag will help to reduce the severity of any injuries.

I'm uncomfortable about arguing here, since I agree totally with the spirit of what you say - but, in terms of the words, I really don't think that, at least in everyday usage (haven't looked up the dictionary definition) 'protect against' is necessarily taken to mean 'prevent'.

However, in context, I totally agree that the ESC should definitely not be writing anything which could be construed as adding to the 'hyping up' to which you refer.

Kind Regards, John

 

[martinxxxxxx]

[*] Realise that ESC ≡ NICEIC

Is this true?, if so, I learn so much on here that I did not know,