ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues New 406.11

This is just anecdotal evidence, but I recall being zapped on more than one occasion while growing up. None of those zaps were due to sticking a foreign object into a receptacle.

It is already somewhat difficult to seriously harm yourself by that that way. Generally, if there is a good ground nearby, there is already a requirement for a GFCI. So you typically need to simultaneously push two metal objects into the hot and either the neutral or ground to hurt yourself. It would take a bit of doing for a two-year-old to do that. Not impossible by any means, but it's not something that has a high probability of occuring.

And if said two-year-old is pushing two things into the receptacle, I believe that they are designed to open in that case, because it is indistinguishable from plugging in a plug.

After you have the "child-proof" recepticles in place for a couple years, little Timmy figures out how to get around the child-proofing, then he teaches even-litteler Johnny, who sticks a butter knife in a receptacle, gets shocked, and never does so again

-Will

A study of people who have recieved electric shocks has revealed than 100% of respondants had been injured to some degree, but not a single respondant to the survey had died! Conclusion? Electrical outlets are perfectly safe and a fun thing to play with.


-----
I actually had someone on another forum suggest in all seriousness that all children be encouraged to stick things in outlets so they could get shocked and learn their lesson... "Childproof" outlets are clearly not "childproof" or "tamperproof" but one would hope that a child sophisticated enough to know he's got to jam two screwdrivers in the outlet to make it work will also know how dangerous it is. Would also give more time for the parent to catch him...

BTW, what IS the cost of a human life? Is there some lawsuit statistic out there as to what point it's cheaper to let kids die and get sued than to legislate a preventative measure? I mean, as far as inconveniences and added costs go, childproof outlets are very innocuous. I mean, at 50 cents an outlet, that's, what, about $50 tacked onto a house? I bet every single one of you wastes at least that much in 12-2 during rough-in.

[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 08-08-2006).]

"If it saves but one life" is an illogical presumption upon which to base an argument.

For example... this "logic" was advanced in support of some gun-related legislation. Fortunately, substantial research had been just completed, showing that ' as the study title put it, "more guns = less crime." Lack of access might prevent some accidents, while easy access prevents many, many deliberate killings.

I suspect that the same is true in this case as well.
Even making additions to building codes has been shown to substantially increase the cost of building a house- with the unexpected result of more folks, living longer in worse conditions, as the price is beyond their reach.

In our daily work, we see this all the time. With a requirement to bring remodels up to the current code, costs go up,up,up.

Also, attempts to address one risk often result in the creation of another risk. To use an extreme example, most places would require an Amish homeowner to have electrical service as a condition of getting the C of O- introducing all the dangers of electricity where they are neither needed or wanted!

There is a role for individual and parental responsibility. Babies in the house? Plastic outlet fillers are cheap, and already available FREE from many sources.

I'm sure someone will say "It's done this way in (name the foreign country)." Sure, it is... and their entire electrical set-up is completely different. If nothing else, their plugs are HUGE, more akin to our range plugs, and it is a lot easier to insert a variety of common objects into them. As for our receptacles- I have trouble getting my probe tips in the skinny slots!

What will be next? Locking shuters on toasters?

And they use 240V, which is a lot more dangerous than 120V.

Steve I still say the issue is sustainability. Sure that 50 cent shutter will work for a little while but what will happen when the homeowner can't get the plug to go in? They are going to break this thing off. Then what do you have?
We don't mind trying to guess what the dumbest kid might do when we design these things but we then ignore what the dumbest adult might do saying we have no control over that. You can certainly make an educated guess.
What is he going to be presented with when he pries the "tamper proof" device off with a butter knife? As I said, if it ends up being a regular 5-15 under there, no harm no foul but if it is the bare contacts you have made a one in a million problem an imminent one.
Prying the tamper proof device off when it binds up is a lot more likely scenario than a kid sticking 2 objects in there at the same time.

I have several problems with this proposed requirement:

1. Just what are the statistics on deaths from very young children sticking foreign objects into receptacles? If there are thousands of kids dying every year, then, yes, I think we need to do something about it. If the answer is that it's very rare, then that's a completely different matter.

2. The requirement for all residential receptacles to be tamperproof is rather draconian. I'd like to be able to put Hubbell's HBL8200 nickle-plated hospital-grade receptacle at the sink in my master bathroom (downstream from a GFCI, of course) to withstand the steamy showers and daily plugging and unplugging of hair dryers and razors. I can't do that under the proposed rule. Yet, infants aren't likely to be hanging around in the master bath (especially mine, since my kids are all well past that stage).

2a. I'm quite concerned that I'm going to be limited to cheap, "residential-grade" crap by this rule.

2b. What would this requirement actually look like in practice? There's already a rule for "tamper-proof" exension cords. Every extension cord with a cube-tap at the end comes with this completely useless piece of plastic that's supposed to cover up the unused positions. I have no reason to think that the $.49 "contactor specials" from China are going to be any better than this.

2c. The "unitended consequences"--when said $.49 "contractor specials" break, and they certainly will, what hazards are going to occur due to peoples "work arounds"?

2c&1/2. I note that extension cords now all come with a Tyvek sheet of warnings, which no one ever reads, zip-tied to the cord. Just how many fires and electrocutions have occured because of the zip-tie cutting into the insulation?

3. The "if it saves one life" argument: Our society has limited resources. If we are going to spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to save lives, we should spend them in a way that's going to produce the best results. Is that "tamper-proof" receptacles? AFCI's? Searching for a cure for leukemia? Abating lead-based paint in the slums? Teaching kids safety around electricity?

3a. Are these "tamper-proof" receptacles really a way to effectively save lives? Why aren't we required to use them with tamper-proof screws, so they can't take off the cover plate, and bypass the "tamper-proof" feature entirely?

3a&1/2. How about that cover plate? Most of them, Junior can shatter by hitting it with practically anything. I've seen a lot a receptacles around with partially or compeletely missing cover plates, because the one that was there broke. That produces an extremely dangerous situation around young children. How many deaths are caused by this? Might we not save more lives by simply requiring that cover plates be unbreakable?

[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 08-08-2006).]

I would like to see a 10 year moritorium on code changes. The confusion from "churn" in the code is worse than any added safety you would get from most changes. Electricity hasn't changed that much from when Edison sold it and we act like the principle of how wire and switches work changes every day. The code was originally just a guideline for minimum levels of safety. Now it has become a marketing tool.

Are you mad enough to send in a comment to the Code ?
It won't change unless we make it change !
Alan--
Comments may be sent on line to www.nfpa.org
The document is 70 / NEC / A2007 cycle.


[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 08-17-2006).]

Posted three comments on the proposal yesterday. Took less than an hour.
Alan--