DIYbanter - View Single Post

Bud--

wrote:
On Sep 16, 11:26 am, bud-- wrote:
bud-- wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:30:44 -0500, bud--
wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:25?am, bud-- wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Sep 14, 1:17 am, bud-- wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:04 am, David Nebenzahl
I think you meant to type "GFCI", no? I don't think my client
wants to
pay for them fancy newfangled GRCI breakers ...
Yeah why bother installing something that saves lives, bet they
want
to save bucks on their new vehicle by deleting safety belts? and
why
not remove and sell off the air bags too.
Maybe if you learned to read you could figure out what John and
Dave said.
if the solder joint detoriates for whatever reason it can
overheat and
since its not in a box cause a fire..
Another item you have been challenged on in the past. In years of
doing
service work I never saw a solder joint that "deteriorated". I saw 2
that failed that were "cold joints" when they were made. One was
K&T.
Anecdotal evidence (clare's younger brother) proves the real
hazard is
Romex. I am confident you will now demand removal of all the
hazardous
Romex wiring out there.
It is certainly as strong as your anecdotal evidence.
Or has an insurance company come up with actual casualty data?
--
bud--
K&T typically has one outlet per room, necessitating lots of
extension
cords. beyond the unsafe stuff the OP admitted on post one and ii
pasted, do you still think K&T is safe and effective?
The number of outlets in a room has nothing to do with whether K&T is
safe. My house, originally wired with rigid pipe, had one or two
outlets
per room when it was built.
The anecdotal evidence in this thread (clare) clearly indicates
Romex is
unsafe.
nothing lasts forever despite how much you protest
Still missing - the insurance casualty data that shows K&T is
unsafe. An
insurance company did not present any such data in one of the links
that
was posted.
The only links that have been posted do not support your crusade
against
K&T.
I believe the electricians in this newsgroup do not agree with you.
all those required NEC safety codes are totally unnecessary,
The NEC still has a section on K&T. Among the limited applications is
reconnecting in a rewire. Why is it still there?
and state
farm is out to lunch refusing to insure homes with K&T/
In Minnesota, State Farm put a surcharge on houses that did not have
the service replaced in some time period (don't remember what it
was). They were reversed by the state insurance regulator. I remember
there was no insurance casualty data that supported the surcharge.
In one of the links provided, an insurance company that was
challenged "provided no justification for its position".
As I have said, K&T is probably the latest redlining technique.
those defending K&T are just attempting to defend their refusal to
upgrade their homes.......
The house I live in has never had K&T.
The links provided do not support your fetish.
I don't remember anyone else who did either. Why don't you get any
support???
Still no insurance casualty information that shows K&T is a problem.

It's not casualties, it's property loss they are woried about.

I understand insurance casualty to be insurance loss information.

The vast majority of houses with K&T are under wired, so a lot of
extension cords, and often overfused to allow use of all the stuff
everyone wants to use. Remenber, many houses had only 2 or 3 fuses
originally. Even 6 15 amp circuits is inadequate for most homeowners
today.

Then maybe insurance companies could evaluate if houses had "adequate"
outlets and circuits.
As I wrote before, my house was wired with rigid pipe and originally had
maybe 1 or 2 outlets per room.
I still believe K&T denials are just redlining.

And to repeat from one of the 2 links in this thread, the report from a
state insurance regulator on a challenge to insurance denial, the
insurance company "provided no justification for its position that knob
and tube wiring per se automatically provides grounds for nonrenewal".

--
bud--

That's from ONE case that went to trial. Maybe the insurance company
just decided that it wasn't worth the cost to go do the collection of
data, make that data to the standards that a court would require,
provide all the necessary expert witness testimony instead of just
paying the $100K or whatever the judgement would be.

It was a hearing before the Maine insurance regulator, not a trial. It
resulted in an order to provide insurance because the insurance company
"provided no justification for its position".
As I said, Minnesota ordered State Farm(?) to drop a surcharge for
services that had not been recently upgraded.

And you are saying that insurance companies should base their rates and
policies on someone's opinion, not casualty (or loss if you prefer)
data? I guess insurance companies could fire the people that analyze
data. I think women have more accident, so they get higher rates.

The notion that insurance companies just go around "redlining" for no
reason is silly.

The notion that insurance companies have gone around "redlining"
neighborhoods is well documented. The neighborhood are likely to have
old houses. Old houses may have K&T. They also tended to have a black
population (maybe coincidence?)

They have their factors which affect how much they
may or may not pay out depending on multiple factors.

Like casualty [loss] data?

Personally, I
would not want to insure a 100 year old house with hacked up knob and
tube as described in the original post.

Personally I wouldn't want to insure my kid's house (when he bought it)
with hacked up Romex and other wiring.

Hacked up, along with not many outlets, is a separate issue.

IMHO K&T is safer than the early Romex (which also did not have a ground).

And what about the early 60 degree rated Romex that is buried in
insulation? Twice the heat, wires in close proximity?

Maybe insurance companies could look at the condition of the wiring?
They could at least look at casualty data. No indication yet that they did.

I guess I'd guiltu of
"redlining", whatever exactly that term means.

It was (maybe metaphorically) drawing a "red line" on a map and not
insuring houses in that area. I believe it is illegal in many (all?)
states, so insurance companies may use other means to accomplish the
same thing.

Insurance companies
are in the business of making money. Denying to take policy when
there is not substantial increased risk makes no sense.

Which goes back to the same question - what is the evidence there is
increased risk? Still missing.

Anecdotal evidence in this thread (clare's younger brother) proves Romex
is hazardous.

--
bud--