What's the difference?

[JohnW2]

Not every one is prudent. When they make something fool proof, they invent a better fool

All very true. However, there is a limit to how far one can (or, I would say, should) go in introducing regulatory requirements to protect fools. Not the least of the reasons is that, as you say, if one makes something 'proof against' currently-known types of fools, a new (and unanticipated) type of fool will simply evolve.

Now veering totally off-topic ....

Topically, it is a salutatory reminder that this is essentially much the same as with vaccines and virus mutations - if one introduces a vaccine to protect us against currently-known variants of a virus, a new variant of the virus will usually, sooner or later, come along to circumnavigate that protection.

... [rant] ...and, not being able to resist the temptation to voice my concerns about what is seemingly about to happen, if a government adopts a policy of allowing the number of cases of a viral infection to soar into the clouds, 'reassured' by the fact that (thanks to vaccines) that is not likely to result in 'unacceptable' numbers of hospital admissions and deaths, then they will have greatly increased the risk of new variants (possibly 'resistant' to current vaccines) appearing sooner, rather than later [/rant ]

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

... [rant] ...and, not being able to resist the temptation to voice my concerns about what is seemingly about to happen, if a government adopts a policy of allowing the number of cases of a viral infection to soar into the clouds, 'reassured' by the fact that (thanks to vaccines) that is not likely to result in 'unacceptable' numbers of hospital admissions and deaths, then they will have greatly increased the risk of new variants (possibly 'resistant' to current vaccines) appearing sooner, rather than later [/rant ]

Yep, that is what I see happening too. I do understand the financial issues a continuing lockdown would cause and maybe the mental plus other issues, but opening up they ought to maintain the 'softer' options such as distancing and masks.

 

[JohnW2]

Yep, that is what I see happening too. I do understand the financial issues a continuing lockdown would cause and maybe the mental plus other issues, but opening up they ought to maintain the 'softer' options such as distancing and masks.

Quite so. Were it not for all those other 'issues' (economic, mental health etc.), we would probably be talking about what 'additional measures' need to be taken (at least until most of the population is 'fully vaccinated'), not the abolition of all existing ones!

However, even though it's close to the 11th hour, I'm not convinced that the (legislated rules about) masks and social distancing in certain environments are necessarily going to 'go' next week. The government might (hopefully) be listening at least a little to what is being said by a significant proportion of 'public opinion', some politicians and the media etc. that abolition of those things could actually be counter-productive (in terms of economy etc.) - since it seems fairly clear that, far from rushing to the shops, hospitality venues, public transport, theatres/sports events etc. etc. a substantial proportion of people will probably be 'frightened off' going to such places if they know/fear that they might then find themselves surrounded by non-socially-distanced people who are not wearing masks. I think it's fair to say that I am one of that 'substantial proportion' - if mask-wearing and socially-distancing 'go', there are places I would fairly comfortably go to today (with those measures in place) that I probably wouldn't next week!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I think it's fair to say that I am one of that 'substantial proportion' - if mask-wearing and socially-distancing 'go', there are places I would fairly comfortably go to today (with those measures in place) that I probably wouldn't next week!

Likewise here. There have always been some around who ignored the rules, but the few made them easier to avoid.

 

[JohnW2]

Likewise here. There have always been some around who ignored the rules, but the few made them easier to avoid.

Quite. As I said, there is quite a bit of pressure coming on government from many directions, so I would not be surprised if they 'see the light' and 'U-turn' in relation to at least this one aspect of 'Freedom'.

This is about as serious a 'thread drift' as one could imagine, even for me, and in this forum Although it's obviously not a remotely appropriate forum, it's one place in DIYnot where I am 'amongst friends', so I might start another thread show that I can share some facts ,figures and thoughts on this tangential issue!

Kind Regards, John

 

[echoes]

I'll look out for that John. I sense some robust but civil disagreement!

 

[ericmark]

That's not really the ideal (safest) approach.

What one should do is ascertain whether something 'metal and touchable' needs to be earthed and only earth it if it is needed. To 'unnecessarily earth' pieces of touchable metal within a home (or wherever) actually slightly increases the risk of electric shocks.

'Earthing' touchable metal is, in some situations, essentially a 'necessary evil' but should really be avoided when it is not 'necessary'.

Kind Regards, John

I would agree, and we have seen with the Emma Shaw case where had the stop tap not been earthed she may have survived. We have removed the earth with shaver sockets in bathrooms for years, however this is a DIY site, and the big question is can the DIY guy work out which is the best option? So if not sure, then earthing seems to be the best option.

I did work on a Robins tunnel boring machine with an IT system, I hope never again will I need to work on an IT system, it was shocking, specially as very wet with iron laden water in Hong Kong. OK it was unusual, 11kV transformed to 10kV, to the TBM then dropped to 660 volt, then a star primary and delta secondary transformer to 220 volt phase to phase which was IT. Everyone walked around with a neon screwdriver and you tested each bit of metal before touching.

But the money was good, darn dangerous job, but good pay.

 

[JohnW2]

I would agree, and we have seen with the Emma Shaw case where had the stop tap not been earthed she may have survived. We have removed the earth with shaver sockets in bathrooms for years ...

I think you're talking about two totally different things. I was talking about the theoretical undesirability of 'unnecessarily' earthing touchable metal - and I suppose the tap you're referring to is an example of that, since it would have not represented a hazard if it had, say, been plumbed with plastic, and hence not 'unnecessarily earthed'.

However, you then mention the use of an isolating transformer to remove the earth-referencing of a shaver supply in a bathroom, which is nothing to do with earthed (or not earthed) touchable metal. Indeed, I have a brass shaver socket in one of my bathrooms and, although the output for shaver is floating, the brass faceplate of the accessory is very much earthed - so, at least in theory, would still be a hazard for anyone touching it simultaneously with touching something 'live' (e.g. the infamous 'frayed vacuum cleaner flex'!).

... however this is a DIY site, and the big question is can the DIY guy work out which is the best option? So if not sure, then earthing seems to be the best option.

Maybe, but the ideal for a DIYer who was not sure would be to ask fior advice (e.g. here), rather than just go around 'earthing everything', jsut in case earthing were needed.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

We have removed the earth with shaver sockets in bathrooms for years

but also added an isolating transformer with a floating secondary so there is no potential between the output of shaver socket and other conductive paths in the building

 

[JohnW2]

but also added an isolating transformer with a floating secondary so there is no potential between the output of shaver socket and other conductive paths in the building

As I said, not "also" but, in fact "only" - as I said, the brass shaver socket in my bathroom has a floating output (which is what matters) but the touchable brass faceplate is very much 'earthed'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

One reason for having the wiring earths go to the backbox terminal and then a flylead to the switch face is that some switches have surprisingly small earth terminals. Helping a friend out, we had a number of switches where the terminal simply wouldn't take all the CPCs, and it wasn't a complicated setup.

... [rant] ...and, not being able to resist the temptation to voice my concerns about what is seemingly about to happen, if a government adopts a policy of allowing the number of cases of a viral infection to soar into the clouds, 'reassured' by the fact that (thanks to vaccines) that is not likely to result in 'unacceptable' numbers of hospital admissions and deaths, then they will have greatly increased the risk of new variants (possibly 'resistant' to current vaccines) appearing sooner, rather than later [/rant ]

I suggest you need to read a bit wider. There has been scientific advice that delaying things would actually cause more health problems because it would push the resulting wave back into the autumn and winter when it will collide with the seasonal flu season - which is seasonal simply because this sort of thing thrives best in certain conditions. By doing it now, while conditions are not good for the virus, it will flatten the peak and more of the peak will be over before we get into flu season.
And that's before you get into the other consideration which is the harms specifically created by keeping restrictions.

Sometimes you get to the point where you just have to "rip the plaster off" and get on with life.

And yes, I do take this seriously. While most of us are "double jabbed", I have at least one relative who won't be for another few months - because she's pregnant, and who wants to be part of an unofficial clinical trial into whether the jab has any affect on the child ?

 

[JohnW2]

One reason for having the wiring earths go to the backbox terminal and then a flylead to the switch face is that some switches have surprisingly small earth terminals. Helping a friend out, we had a number of switches where the terminal simply wouldn't take all the CPCs, and it wasn't a complicated setup.

That certainly can be an issue when there are multiple cables. However, as I'm sure that I don't need to tell you, the downside of going to the box first is that, IF a 'separate' flylead is used (see **), one is doubling (from one to two) the number of local terminals which, if they became 'loose, could result in the accessorily becoming unsatisfactorily (if at all) earthed.

** my approach is that situation is to take one of the CPCs (ideally one which has come 'straight from the CU) through the earth terminal (without cutting it) and then on to the accessory. In that way, even if the ('additional') backbox terminal becomes 'loose' there is still a 'solid' earth connection to the accessory.

I suggest you need to read a bit wider. There has been scientific advice that delaying things would actually cause more health problems ....

As I 'threatened' above, I'll start a new thread about Covid and will reply to these comments of yours there. That won't be immediate since I have some things I need to do this evening (and not 'watching football', I'm afraid!), but it may be later this evening, or soon thereafter. Watch that space

Kind Regards, John