Oh, I have, Steve. There are more 'could' and 'possibly' qualified statements than actual conclusions there!
Absent from the summary is that there simply wasn't such a thing as 'outdoor' equipment for much of the period under study. For example, I have yet to see a fuse box that would pass today's NEMA-3R test; I wonder just when such tests (there were different UL and NEMA standards until quite recenlty) were codified.
The vast bulk of the hazards were the sort of things we feature here, in our photo sections. In other words, we're not talking about the lack of bubble covers, AFCI's, or making extension cords out of 4-squares. It's our "usual suspects:" over-fusing, double-lugging, over-lamping, lamp cord as permanent wiring, flying splices, 3-prong receptacles on ungrounded systems, etc.
In contrast, there's little evidence of components failing simply because of age- and little evedince to support the bulk of code changes (or additions) in our lifetime. The report fails to address the electrocution and fire statistics that it presents; that is, we have no idea what share of these losses would have been avoided had only the (say) 1940 NEC been followed.
I want to contrast this to the attitudes espoused - most vocally - by the 'home improvement' crowd. The dangers lay not in whether the house has fuses or FPE breakers ... but, rather, in that extension cord cobbled on to the knob & tube, and the 30 amp fuse feeding the #14 to the overlamped lights.
