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?
#147983 - 04/20/0306:16 PMRe: Electrical Accidents Info Centre (UK)
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?.
#147984 - 04/20/0307:57 PMRe: Electrical Accidents Info Centre (UK)
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.”
#147985 - 04/22/0301:57 AMRe: Electrical Accidents Info Centre (UK)