Steve, that's sort of where I was leading with this thread ....
"If it saves even one life .... " is how the discussion starts; yet such is false logic.
The argument is faulty, as it assumes a static situation. What it does not consider is how increased expenses deter any attempt to improve things. A person might have the means for a $20 improvement, but not for a $200 one - so nothing gets done.
For example, I spoke to a man today. He wanted everything "brought up to code" in a 1961-built house he had just bought. Well, some recent changes in the NEC, combined with a few PoCo issues, mean that the required service change is going to be expensive. As a result, I seriously doubt it will ever happen. The end result? Future tenants will continue to use ungrounded circuits, and the guy will 'handyman' in things to 'just get by.'
The end result will be less safety, not more. Perhaps the question we need to ask is "how manylives with the proposed change cause to be lost, by deterring any attempts to improve things?"
