New 406.11 - ECN Electrical Forums

It seems that changing the Code to sell products is the coming thing.
(New) "406.11 Tamper resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210.52, all 15- and 20- ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper resistant receptacles."
Add that to the expansion of 210.12 and you can have receptacles that are AFCI protected plus GFI protected and just to make it totally idiot proof the receptacle is tamper proof.
This may save energy since older people will never be able to make the system work.
Alan--

I don't understand where exactly we are in the process. Is that proposal something that's already been 99% approved, or is it a lame-brained suggestion from left field that's 99% sure to be rejected?

[This message has been edited by SolarPowered (edited 07-31-2006).]

As it stands now, the committees have accepted these changes. This is our time to raise cain if we disagree- and maybe the committee will back off!

After the comment period closes, the committees will meet again, and decide what they wish to submit to the conferences for approval.

If the conference attendees agree, the provisions will become part of the new code.

I also hope that the committee members visit ECN, and can get the feedback direct.

I also agree that 'tamper-proof' receptacles are an unnecessary general requirement. The code is supposed to set 'minimum' standards...and not be used to gradually "improve" things.

At a certain point the general population needs to understand where this BS is coming from and demand that their states stop accepting this stuff.
I always ask how much of this do you think survives the first year of installation?
When you make something so inconvenient people can't stand it they rip it out, then you have nothing.
The nanny state is out of control.

Heaven forbid kids hurt themselves and learn something...

Try to find a tamper resistant receptacle for a floor box or one that is GFI for the bathroom.
Stop the madness send in a comment form.
Alan-- [Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 08-04-2006).]

I imagine they'll become a tad easier to find if NEC 2008 requires them!

This seems no different than any other new code- NFPA identifies a safety risk that can/does cause death or injury, and mandates a technological fix, even if it create a nuisance. Yeah, it will cost a boatload more than the 50-cent contractor specials we're used to, but so does GFCI and AFCI protection. I'd argue that if it saves even one life in the next two decades, it's worth all the cost and effort.

I don't buy the "If it saves one life it was all worth it" argument. Especially coming from a government that still subsidizes tobacco. Mandating tamper-proof receptacles in all installations is ridiculous. AFCIs are great in theory but are far from proven as far as I can tell. Most of this kind of stuff is not so much safety driven as it is profit driven. Why don't we require seatbelts/airbags on school busses? Because it's not cost-effective to the manufacturers with the most lobby money. If receptacle were really a wide-spread safety concern the consumer market would be demanding an improvement, not the manufacturers. I wish I could invent a widget and then create legislation to require everyone to purchase it.

Maybe we are going at this the wrong way. We should be going after the polititians who adopt these stupid codes. If NFPA started seeing large numbers of AHJs who rejected the new codes they would change or die.
I think NFPA et al is a huge boondoggle in the first place. They started as a safety organization. Now they just seem to be selling books, CDs and classes.

Steve,

Quote

NFPA identifies a safety risk that can/does cause death or injury, and mandates a technological fix, even if it create a nuisance.

If you check the ROP you will find that the proposal for this requirement came from the manufactures who will reap the profits from the sale of more expensive wiring devices.
Don

The proposal came from NEMA, not any particular manufacturer. In the comments, one member of the NEC panel stated they supported it only if the proposed solution added less than 50 cents to the cost of each receptacle. They had a slew of other reservations in there, too- this is bound to be a controversial topic that will undoubtedly be discussed again before NEC 2008 is released.

Personally, I feel this is long overdue- the increased safety outweighs the inconvenience and cost factor, but if y'all want to continue to kill children to save a few bucks, feel free to put in your own comments to NFPA. You can gripe about nanny states all you want, but when code specifically REQUIRES receptacles to be placed all over the home, it's impossible to keep children away from them.

FYI, it's on page 418; I copy/pasted the full discussion from the PDF so you can all read the NEC panel's comments regarding this:

Quote

________
18-40 Log #1944 NEC-P18 Final Action: Accept
(406.11 (New) )
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA)

Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
406.11 Tamper Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified
in 210.52, all 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper
resistant receptacles.

Substantiation: 210.52 specifies the areas in dwelling units where receptacles
shall be installed. This proposal references those areas.

Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: The panel is concerned about the possible increased
insertion force required for our aging population. The panel requests data
concerning the amount of force necessary to insert a plug into the shutter and
the amount of force necessary to fully insert a plug into a tamper-resistant
receptacle.

Number Eligible to Vote: 12

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 1

Explanation of Negative:
WALL, C.: The submitter of the proposal has provided much data to identify
an issue with small children in dwellings and a proposed cost to implement a
solution. However, the submitter of the proposal has not provided sufficient
technical substantiation to mandate or justify the installation and use of
tamper resistant receptacles throughout all dwellings for all cases and in all
circumstances. Many dwellings do not contain small children and may only
be inhabited by adults, older children, the elderly or adults with physical
impediments. Also, there was no evidence provided that the operation of these
devices will not or cannot be circumvented by small children. The submitter
has not provided a fact-finding report showing the potential reductions of
the injuries with the implementation of the proposed solution of having all
dwelling unit receptacles as tamper resistant.
The submitter’s proposal will also mandate future installations of GFCIs and
AFCIs as tamper resistant. The submitter provided no evidence that the use
of the current protective devices such as GFCIs and AFCIs has proven totally
unreliable in all cases and where they may have been historically installed or
used. The submitter did present some anecdotal evidence that receptacle caps
could be removed by small children. However, this evidence does not discount
the use or effectiveness of receptacle caps in dwellings with small children.
We support the equipment device manufacturers producing tamper resistant
receptacles with only a $0.50 premium over standard receptacles. We believe
this first step by the device manufacturers to reduce the cost will be a giant
step in the use of those devices for future occupancies. However, each dwelling
owner needs to have the ability to decide if these devices are appropriate
for their circumstances and provide their desired protection. But, there is no
justification for such a broad, all encompassing mandate of tamper resistant
devices in all dwelling occupancies.

Comment on Affirmative:
COSTELLO, P.: This proposal addresses a long recognized problem in
dwelling units. While concerns may come up as to the need for installing
tamper resistant receptacles on areas such as fixed appliances, refrigerators,
sump pumps and washers, the additional safety that would be there when these
plugs are not in use would outweigh the advantages of allowing for exceptions
not requiring them.

KEMPEL, K.: The Panel Statement does not reflect the fact that the Panel
considered limiting the locations where tamper resistant receptacles are
required. It considered locations such as the receptacle for the refrigerator,
above stove for a microwave, above kitchen counters, in garages and outdoor
locations. Limitations were not included to avoid potential installation errors
and the minimal cost difference (based on the info in the substantiation).

LARSON, S.: The panel’s deliberation of this issue would benefit from
an accurate cost comparison between the standard and tamper-resistant type
receptacles manufactured for home use. Also, the panel should clarify that
this provision is invoked for new home construction only, and is not intended
to be applicable to new work in existing homes, nor to existing homes put
on the market for resale. If this is not the case, the panel should make this
clarification.

OWENS, T.: The concern that I have with this proposal is the availability
of tamper resistant GFCI receptacles. My understanding is that there are none
currently available and it is not known whether they will become available
prior to adoption of the Code. In most cases, this requirement can be met using
GFCI circuit breakers. However, in receptacle replacement conditions, a circuit
breaker may not be workable (i.e., a multi-wire branch circuit). This would
create a possible conflict within the Code where a receptacle may be required
to be both GFCI protected and tamper resistant. I think that this proposal
needs to be revisited during the comment stage to ensure that no conflicts or
unworkable.

[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 08-05-2006).]

Another solution in search of a problem. I see these like trigger locks. All you have done is give the inquizative kid a puzzle. If my arthritic father in law can get a plug cap in there a kid can get something in there. If nothing else, a plug cap and a finger.

PROBLEM SOLVED !
Having spent some time considering this Code change and the reason for it I have concluded that the problem can be solved using the existing Code with no additional expense or special material.
There is no reason to place receptacle outlets where small children can reach them except for habit and personal preference.
[Linked Image]

Install all receptacle outlets in dwelling units high enough on the wall to get them out of the reach of the little Rug----Darlings.
Before you revolt think of the receptacles in the kitchen and bathroom that are not near the floor. All those switches that are not near the floor. Why do we try to hide the outlets ? We should be proud of our work.
[Linked Image]

Instead of mandating tamper proof recptacles the Code should establish a minimum height for receptacles. (Note: maximum height is set at 5 1/2 Ft. 1.7 meters) This would also make them more accessable for seniors and people with diabilities.
[Linked Image]

This is a design consideration and does not need a product to solve it, and I don't believe it belongs in the Code.
Alan--

I am thinking more along the lines of large 'bubble covers' with locks that only qualified adult personal have the key for. [Linked Image]

Alan, I agree with the spirit if your post, and was thinking the same thing when I first read there were no exceptions- that even if the code DOES require receptacles to all be childproof/child resistant (what's up with this "tamperproof" stuff? There's nothing "tamper proof" about those designs!), that there should be exceptions to receptacles that are inaccessible to a child- EG, at least 60" off the ground, or located behind large appliances, such as refrigerators or washers.

This will impact the 12' rule, though, if people start using this to skirt the tamperproof claus- if the receptacles are 5' above the floorline, that could be no further than 6' apart for a 6' cord to reach one from any point along the floor.

This whole issue comes back to my "sustainability" question.
The industry has said this might only add 50 cents to the price of a device but that is going to double the cost for bottom feeding contractorts who install the cheapest ones they can find. It also brings up the question, if you can make the cheapest tamperproof device for 50 cents extra, how much extra is a "good one" going to cost?
How long is the cheap one going to last before it binds up and won't open at all?
What will the customer be presented with when they pry the "tamper proof" device off with a butter knife? If this ends up being the regular 5-15 after that, no harm, no foul but if it is just the bare contacts you have created a worse scenario. You know a large percentage of end users will keep using it if the plug still fits and the light comes on.

I am really mad at the whole mindset of the inspector/code making community that it was fine the last time it was inspected and they don't care what happens a week later.

ECM had an article on children's deaths in 2002:

Quote

Electrocution is the fifth leading cause of accidental death in the United States, according to the National Electrical Safety Foundation (NESF). According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), one person is electrocuted in the home every 24 hours. Electrocution, however, is not limited to children, as evidenced by OSHA statistics that demonstrate one person is electrocuted in the workplace every 36 hours.

If childproofing fixtures costs the US $2 billion/year (just throwing that number out, I have no supporting figures for it) and cuts the number of electrocuted children by half, that's roughly $10 million per life saved.

I don't have kids...

These are meaningless statistics unless you can say these child electrocutions were caused by putting foreign objects into a receptacle.
Frayed cords, defective equipment and sticking a finger in a lamp holder don't count, nor would a baby putting an extension cord in their mouth.
I think NFPA needs hard facts before they ram this down our throat.

I can't even get close to a statistic on receptacle related child electrocutions but US CPSC says 53 people (all ages) died from "installed household wiring" all causes in 1995. http://cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/shock95.pdf
When you try to look at death by domestic accidents electrocution does not even rate a category, much less any detailed breakdown.
I will try to get something from CDC who tracks childhood mortality but nothing is apparent so far on the web site

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?

Quote

"It's done this way in (name the foreign country)."

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--

Talking to a new Dad yesturday who told me his 8 month old has figured out all of the child-proofing items around the house (to include the outlets) that did not require considerable strength. So if we're really trying to keep kids safe, why not mandate that all outlets be on the cieling? Or just redesign the outlet and plug itself so that it is not energized until a standard key on every plug cap turns the outlet on. Or just make outlets of current design not enegized until the both prongs are fully inserted and identified as a plug somehow. (May a use for those little holes...)

... or just teach kids not to stick things in receptacles.

One of my proposed solutions to the problem was to locate all receptacles high enough to prevent the little darlings from reaching them. No Code change required.

One of my biker buddies went the other way. He had a couple of the receptacles in the living room hanging out on the conductors.
When I asked he said it discouraged people from bringing over small children.

I could see the merit to that too

In my state, our law makers will take the NEC and accept it, but they will eliminate a few things. Like right now my state still doesn't require Arc fault. I hope they have enough sense and not accept the tamper proof receptacles. We can only wait and see.

"If you check the ROP you will find that the proposal for this requirement came from the manufactures who will reap the profits from the sale of more expensive wiring devices.
Don "

So where's the problem?

If it is required,
They sell it, We buy and install it, the customer pays for it.Our price/device goes up as well as the profit mark.
(AFCI included)

The only problem I see, is if we give them away at the same price as now.
(I'm not in it for the paractice.)

Then who's problem is it realy? It is what it is.

I do think it is a stretch.. the safety thing.

Darwin was realy onto something!

The problem comes from trying to explain it to the customer.
You can justify GFI's , smoke detectors, enclosed closet lights (luminaires) and even AFCI's when the bugs are worked out. Even bubble covers could be justified.
But, try to explain why a house in a retirement center needs tamper proof receptacles behind the refrigerater, or for the garbage disposal. Then there are the countertop receptacles that were placed to accomodate the short appliance cords so the kids couldn't pull the coffee pot on their heads. The laundry receptacle behind the washing machine.
Explain why an outside GFI receptacle would need the tamperproof cover.
Tamper proof, why ?
So the manufacturer could make more money.
So the supply house could make more money.
So the contractor can make more money.
Tell that to your customer.
I'm sure they will understand.
Let us know how that works for you.

Hope your not upset with me, Not my intention.

We don't write the code, but do have input.
(I don't think it will fly, too much cost involved)

I have no idea on the TR GFCI anywhere.
I think a little parental supervision and education goes a long way. I never ate the lead paint on my parents window sill, or ... I digress...

We live in a feel good society now where common sense must be legislated. The intention is well understood. However it appears that this is another case of the pendulum swinging out of control again. The need to do something.. right or wrong is too great. Over reaction to a small problem. I don't have the #s, but they would be interesting.

I feel the end result would be worse, as mentioned before. Once we leave, the customer removes/destroys the device, now a greater hazard.

As a side note, when I had the little ones, I couldn't afford the new house, we bought the old one without GFCI and all the rest. I'm sure things aren't too different now.
Your analogy suggests that we should give away the work to save the customer (you and I) money. Costs go up and so don't are prices, no way around it.

New septic requirements.. they're still working
building code.. Carpenters still working.
Auto regs...Ins regs.. Trash pick up...
The plumbers still have work (and more money than me).

It is what it is.

(Greg, I like your friends idea, but I'm afraid my dog would get hurt)

Lelend, you hit the nail on the head.

I was told never to stick anything in the outlet when I was a kid. I did once. I never did again.

I saw a TV program on restoring a classic car (1960's vintage) and the host was replacing the original brakes with disc brakes because "drum brakes were adequate when this car first came out, but they won't do the job today".

?????

Did the car get heavier in the past 40 years??

Did the coefficients of friction for asphalt, concrete and rubber change??

There are a lot of folks out there that fail to realize that the world worked just fine prior to their birth.

When I see all the required safety things these days I wonder how my generation survived.
On the other hand I wonder how today's kids would survive if they ever left the "total safety" of the US.

I also saw something that today's kids aren't allowed to see in order to protect their frail little minds.

I got to see the coyote fall ALL the way to the ground and create a dust cloud when he hit. They edit those out of the roadrunner cartoons now...I guess they're afraid that some kid will push a cartoon coyote off a ledge without realizing the consequences of their actions.

Beep..beep

Originally Posted by ghost307

I also saw something that today's kids aren't allowed to see in order to protect their frail little minds.

I got to see the coyote fall ALL the way to the ground and create a dust cloud when he hit. They edit those out of the roadrunner cartoons now...I guess they're afraid that some kid will push a cartoon coyote off a ledge without realizing the consequences of their actions.

Beep..beep

Any person that thinks cartoons are real needs to go to the Kucoo-house...

I hope Falls omits this section when/if they adopt th '08 code.

Ian A.

This thread is drifting into areas that, I am told, some consider too 'political' for this forum.

Right now, we're stuck with the 2008 as voted upon. For those not happy with it, there are two basic approaches that can have an impact.

First of all, the NEC is "law" only so far as it is adopted by the AHJ. You have every right to attempt to influence the AHJ to adopt your point of view, rather than that of the NFPA.

Secondly, before the ink is dry on the 2008, the process will start all over for the 2011 edition. Personally, I am a bit miffed at those of you who failed to put forth your opinions into proposals last time around- or to speak up when things were in the 'discussion' stage. It's always easier to avoid making a wrong turn ... than it is to turn things around.

Is the code writing process open to manipulation? Absolutely "Yes;" there are at least two US Supreme Court cases that have addressed 'corrupted' codes. Even so, our flawed system still beats every other one out there.

SO- let's start working on 2011 - and get this nonsense sent back to the rubbish bin.

Originally Posted by renosteinke

Secondly, before the ink is dry on the 2008, the process will start all over for the 2011 edition. Personally, I am a bit miffed at those of you who failed to put forth your opinions into proposals last time around- or to speak up when things were in the 'discussion' stage. It's always easier to avoid making a wrong turn ... than it is to turn things around.

SO- let's start working on 2011 - and get this nonsense sent back to the rubbish bin.

I will agree with John with this one let this started on the 2011 cycle and get this a head start on this before it will do a " Deja va " on this matter

Merci , Marc

SO- let's start working on 2011 -

A better idea.. IMO---

Get on them now, so this does not hit in 08'

It's my understanding this is still in the AIP stage n(approved in principal).

I think the 2008 is on the way to the printers by now. I really expect to see copies popping up soon. I think the standards council released it last month. The last time the riff raff out in the field got to say something was in the comment phase as far as I know.

This is an interesting debate, because of course we have shuttered outlets here in the U.K.

Our current 13A standard receptacles were designed with shutters right from their inception in the late 1940s, and the older round-pin sockets were also re-designed to incorporate shutters in some versions.

Many (most?) people in this country tout shutters as being an important or even essential safety feature, but personally I've always wondered just how effective they really are.

For the first 30+ years the shutters were always opened by an operating pin located in the ground slot. Everybody over here who works with electrical fittings masters the knack of opening the shutters with a meter probe in the earth.

Then in the 1980s some manufacturers started using a rotating shutter mechanism which needs equal pressure on hot and neutral to open. Now we have MK and one or two others using complex shutter arrangements which supposedly need equal pressure on all three prongs to open. The ones I've seen seem more prone to jamming than the older earth-operated types.

I'm still not convinced that all these shutters are anything like as essential as some people seem to believe, even though we are talking about outlets delivering 240V to ground.

It seems particularly strange that shuttered outlets are considered so essential when one looks at all the other connectors in use which are not similarly protected -- The in-line IEC sockets on the end of power cords don't have shutters, a kid who removes a bulb from a bedside lamp could easily put his fingers into the open light socket etc.

Interesting points Paul.
No one likes change, and this is a big one in the states.
I'm sure we'll all adjust and the styles will evolve.

As you have eluded to, there are many more blaintant and acessable (electrical) hazards in every building that are not addressed.

I'm late on this one, but if the problem is electrocution, why not provide GFCI protection at the distribution panel?

Dave

Originally Posted by Tiger

why not provide GFCI protection at the distribution panel?

That's what we'll be getting here from next year as well as the shutters. At the moment, our code requires that any receptacle "likely" to be used to supply equipment outdoors must be RCD (GFCI) protected, but the revised 2008 code is going to extend the RCD requirement to all general-purpose receptacles. Our RCD is a 30mA trip though, not the 6mA or so of the American GFCI.

Don't forget either that a GFCI will not prevent severe shock or electrocution if somebody gets across line and neutral and there is not a simultaneous path to ground.

It is all about safety. Less than the Code creates undue risk. Reasonable but, wrong. The tamperproof receptacle is to protect small children just like the requirement for car seats is to protect small children. It makes as much sense to require child safety seats in all passenger cars as the requirement for tamperproof receptacles. Doesn't matter that the car is to be operated only by an elderly couple with no children. Maybe someone with a child will someday own the car.
The responsibility for protecting children begins with the parents. Electricity like fire, is hazardous. The parent needs to teach about the hazard, and keep the hazard away from the child.
It may take a village to raise a child but, we shouldn't raze the village for a child.