Yes, I've heard that said ... or, another variation, that the code is 'written in blood.' I'm not buying it. Nice rhetoric, but to imply that anything but the most aggressively expansive, "power of the pen" code application is akin to murder is simply irresponsible.
Codes, like all laws and all exercises of government authorty, are prescribed within limits- at least, in this country. The NEC itself recognizes this in its' introduction, where it speaks of the "practical" safeguarding of electricity.
We carry that through to the current example, where the code again limits its' application to 'likely' situations. Had the code panel wanted everything imaginable bonded, they would have said so.
Is there room for professionals to have differences of opinion in their judgement calls? Of course there is. That's why they're called 'professionals.'
If any code publisher wants to make the claim that theirs is a 'tombstone' document, I fully expect every sentence of code to be followed by the FPN "This line added in memory of Lotsa Sparks, whose untimely demise would have been avoided had only this change been in effect on March 32, 1874, when he was electricuted." Less specific than that, and it's just so much kant.
