Shower fire revisited

[SUNRAY]

It is not nonsense. It is frequent and people should care if the errors are dangerous like this one you will have seen before.

OH my oh my.... that boring old chestnut yet again.

 

[SUNRAY]

It is not nonsense. It is frequent and people should care if the errors are dangerous like this one you will have seen before.

OH my oh my.... that boring old chestnut yet again.

 

[SUNRAY]

It is not nonsense. It is frequent and people should care if the errors are dangerous like this one you will have seen before.

OH my oh my.... How stupidly predictable can an idiot be? That boring old chestnut yet again.

 

[SUNRAY]

I have done. Saying that the shower isolator should be used after every shower is wrong.

Except this case appears to prove that MI's instruction may be, in fact possibly definitely, correct as the fire could not have possibly occured if the isolator had been operated after the last use.

So once and for all please stop this stupid assertation that the isolator should be [EDIT:] left on when the shower is not in use.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I'm not personally necessarily suggesting that one doesn't - but, as I've said, adding an isolation switch introduces an extra thing to go wrong (we see quite a lot of posts about problems with shower isolators) and, perhaps more importantly, is the fact that at least 'burned wires' (hence perhaps a risk of fires) seems much more common in shower isolators than in showers themselves. ... so it's not a totally one-sided decision, with only 'laziness' on one side of the argument.

In practical terms, one issue which has not been mentioned is that, even for the lazy, it is not too much effort to install a ceiling-mounted isolator (with a pull cord) on the ceiling IF the supply to the shower comes from above. However, if the supply comes from below, it is much more of a mission (which might put off even the non-lazy) to fit an isolator, not the least because of the restrictions as to where any sort of switch is allowed to be located in a room containing a shower.

I don't like pull cords, nor the switches attached to them. Cords break and in the case of a shower on fire, you need to be out of the room where the fire is. My bathroom has the shower isolator and light switch just outside. The shower isolator is only used for the rare occasion when I work on the shower. The only down side to them being outside the door, is kids can turn them off when you are inside

 

[bernardgreen]

It is frequent and people should care if the errors are dangerous like this one you will have seen before.

Winton1 Change the record. no change the image, if it is frequent then you should have many other examples.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So once and for all please stop this stupid assertation that the isolator should be switched off when the shower is not in use.

Have you omitted a "not"?

 

[JohnW2]

I have to say, I'm in agreement with RF here. An isolator is a no-brainer. An easy to reach DP means of isolation that will result in minimum inconvenience to other users of the installation if deployed.

The extent to which it is a 'no-brainer' probably depends upon how often it is going to be used. If (as seems to be the norm, rather than the exception) it is 'never' going to be switched off, then maybe one would have to ask whether it is a 'brainer' or 'no-brainer' to install something which was never, or virtually never, going to be used.

Also, WRT failed switches, I have not knowingly had a DP switch failure due to a poor connection in any of my installations.

Nor have I, but most of the switches I know about are ones that I have installed myself ('properly') . However, we do see quite a lot of stories (here and elsewhere) about problems with shower isolators - the most common seemingly being 'fried' neutral conductors (presumably as a result of loose terminations).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

We could stop calling them isolators.

 

[JohnW2]

I must admit that we switch off after every shower (Mira Sport). The manufacturer's booklet says to do this so what would my insurer say if there was a fire? I like the idea that there is no electricity coming into the bathroom apart from the lights.

Fair enough.

As a matter of interest, do you do the same (switch it off 'at the mains' after each use) with your oven/cooker, microwave, washing machine, dishwasher, dryer, TV etc. etc.?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

We could stop calling them isolators.

We could. Certainly (unlike the situation with 'fan isolators') none of these discussions have had anything to do with 'isolation' - they are all about the desirability of having a local 'emergency switch' available.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Except this case appears to prove that MI's instruction may be, in fact possibly definitely, correct as the fire could not have possibly occured if the isolator had been operated after the last use.

So once and for all please stop this stupid assertation that the isolator should be switched off when the shower is not in use.

Manufacturers often print ar$e covering instructions, as an aid to passing blame onto the customer for faults and failures. There is an instruction not to put any metalwork in a microwave oven, in fact it causes no problems if there is only one solid metal item (no hinges or joints in it) and it cannot make contact with the metal sides of the oven.

 

[JohnW2]

Manufacturers often print ar$e covering instructions, as an aid to passing blame onto the customer for faults and failures.

They do, but I wouldn't be too surprised if a clever lawyer (or even Trading Standards) managed to turn that "ar$e covering" on it's head. If the manufacturer is implying that something catastrophic (like catching on fire) might happen to their product when not in use if it were not isolated from the electricity supply, then one might question its "fitness for purpose" and/or compliance with relevant Standards/regulations/legislation.

Imagine if you (or Trading Standards, or a Court) were to read on MIs something like "since this mobile phone may spontaneously burst into flames when not in use, it must be stored in a fire-resistant enclosure when not being used"

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Have you omitted a "not"?

Yet again sorry

 

[SUNRAY]

They do, but I wouldn't be too surprised if a clever lawyer (or even Trading Standards) managed to turn that "ar$e covering" on it's head. If the manufacturer is implying that something catastrophic (like catching on fire) might happen to their product when not in use if it were not isolated from the electricity supply, then one might question its "fitness for purpose" and/or compliance with relevant Standards/regulations/legislation.

Are you trying to infer nothing can fail?

It appears from the origin of this thread that's what happened and equally could readily be sighted by the manufacturer in their defence if such a body were to attempt to turn it on its head.

Imagine if you (or Trading Standards, or a Court) were to read on MIs something like "since this mobile phone may spontaneously burst into flames when not in use, it must be stored in a fire-resistant enclosure when not being used"

Kind Regards, John

That raises another tangent as so often happens.

There is now an OfCom requirement for ALL RADIO USERS to do an EMF compliance calculation and retain the result for every item of transmitting equipment in every mode it can operate in and every combination of equipment.

This includes ALL radio equipment and the big question is how many people actually know what radio equipment they are using?