24 Nov
2014
24 Nov
'14
7:54 p.m.
On 2014-Nov-24, at 6:55 PM, Peter Corlett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:11:45PM -0500, William
Donzelli wrote:
...
> Refs:
>
http://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/news-and-campaigns/policies-and-res…
> http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fire-causes/electrical
...
For the UK, the page contradicts itself in claiming
eight deaths due to
"Installations" but ten due to "Electricity supply - Wiring, cabling,
plugs".
That is some four or five times less lethal per capita than the USA.
I earlier tried looking up some empirical stats but (as expected) concluded that
wasn't likely to be helpful, there are too many variables, including social and legal
issues, to easily conclude a relation to voltage. For example, in my jurisdiction one is
still allowed to wire one's own house, regardless of ability, which could skew
accident stats negatively compared to a jurisdiction where only 'professionals'
are allowed to touch any part of the installed electrical (I don't know what the rules
are in the EU).
Fires and electrocutions are caused by *current*, and
the voltage is very much
a red herring. America should be treating its 110V supplies with the same
respect the rest of the world gives to 220V, and not just half-jobbing it due
to myths about the lower voltage being inherently safer.
Fires are caused by power not current; but you're right, there's plenty of power
at the end of both
a typical 120V circuit and 240V circuit to start a fire. As such, electrical fire risk is
treated seriously on both sides of the pond.
But I would quite suggest that the electrocution/shock-injury risk relation - based on
the known physics & biology - between 12V, 120V, 240V, and 600V is an increasing and
non-linear one. Trying to deny or toss off the difference in the 120-240V region as
inconsequential just looks like an attempt at rationalisation.