Look Here for Information:

ELECTRICAL ACCIDENTS INFORMATION CENTRE

Just read a rather worrying fact on that site:
This is not good!.

The only problem with all of these statistics is that you have to look carefully for any other common factors. Did they all come from the same area, for example, or did they all work at a particular place over the years?

There's a fact on that website, that I beg to differ with.
It states there, that Alternating current is 3 times more dangerous (shock-wise) than Direct current.
I would say that DC would be more dangerous,
because it has no "Current-Zero", and AC has a habit of throwing people away from contact, whereas with DC, your hands clench, and that's where they stay.
Also, I don't know where they got the arbitrary number of 3 from?
What are your thoughts on this?.

FWIW, the US NEC formally considers ‘low voltage’ to be “…voltage no greater than 30 volts rms, 42 volts peak, or 60 volts dc.” The “60 volt” revision is a bit newer than the 30/42V limitation, and seems to have been a purely political move by The Bell System. IIRC, the submitted NEC proposal to bump up the DC value was accepted by the CMP without any significant substantiation several editions ago, primarily because telecomm central-office battery runs about 52-54 volts and the 42-volt limitation seems to have interfered with the “Bell Way of Doing Things.”

Trumpy
Any time statistics are used, I always remember an old saying-- "there are lies, damn lies and statistics."


[This message has been edited by nesparky (edited 04-22-2003).]

nesparky,
Yeah, I guess you're right, never had it put as plainly as that before!.

If the statistics come from any government department, they probably have a margin of error of something like +/-5000%!

I think that the general problem with many statistics is that they are taken out of context and then can't be taken literally.

Bill

One could say that a gross majority of auto accidents involve people wearing glasses, but who would come to the conclusion that corrective lenses would cause an accident?

Also, 85% of statistic are made up...

If the first part of your statement was true someone could read the raw data from another angle and deduce that People with Glasses are more likely to have an auto accident, which makes wearing glasses while driving more dangerous than not wearing them. Right?

Yup, that was the point I was trying to make!

95% is a hard number to beat though...

That reminds me of the report of an investigation into auto accidents in this country some years ago.

The report stated that X percent of accidents involved a car hitting a lamp-post. The conclusion of the report was that "in general, lamp-posts are badly positioned."

You can twist statistics and perverse logic to say almost anything you want them to say.

Paul,
That's a bit of a strange one about the lamp-posts.
Just goes to show doesn't it, never believe statistics, I suppose.

Do you guys have the little "news in brief"
things in the newspapers that quote these statistics, everything from your chances of being run over by a fast moving bus to finding true love, personally they are all one in the same, oops, better not tell the girlfriend about that one!.