On Feb 19, 4:30 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 19, 3:07?pm, "dpb" wrote:

....

It would certainly be nice if you didn't knee-jerk react to every
mention of K&T you see, haller...

There's absolutely nothing in OP's post that indicates any reason
whatsoever that the k&t in his house is of any concern whatsoever.
The dual bogeymen of sale value and insurance don't hunt in many
jurisdictions as we've already gone 'round with and there's not even a
hint here that either has any bearing on the question or work
undertaken.

you ignore the complete lack of safety grounds, GFCI, AFCI, and the
lkely overloading of such circuits and excess use of extension cords
since K&T had few outlets very far apart.......

Obviously you havent walked thru whats left of a home after a fire,
and seen the devastation both physical and menta such a event can
bring.

It AMAZES me people will think NOTHING of spending 15 grand and up for
a new vehicle but refuse to invest a fraction of that on a critical
home system.

yeah whatever,,, I think the biggest protesters are those who have K&T
and are trying to justify THEIR decision to ignore the issue.- Hide quoted text -

I don't know that there's any justification for a blanket assertion of
anything here--

All OP really said was there aren't grounds on the lighting and
receptacle circuits. Doesn't address whether there are grounded
appliance circuit(s) or even, possibly, GFCI outlets, etc. elsewhere.
Maybe, maybe not -- but that wasn't the question raised and there's
insufficient data to confirm/deny. Same goes for extension cords,
etc., -- maybe, maybe not. I've seen k&t houses wired quite
adequately for numbers of outlets and others not so much. Again, it's
simply a leap to assert what the situation is for any given house
sight unseen.

You also have no idea of how many house fires I have seen nor who I
know directly or indirectly that have been involved. I'll only say
the number is greater than zero and of that number the number is zero
wherein k&t wiring was to blame.

We had this discussion only a short time ago and as I noted there, I
have been involved in old housing retrofits for quite some time and
have found cases where deemed it mandatory to replace it where it was
in bad enough condition and others where it just wasn't the most cost-
effective thing to do with limited funds.

Again, my real problem is the universal "one size fits all" advice on
the basis of no firm data other than a preconceived notion of "k&t
bad, must go".