"Jim Wilkins" fired this volley in news:lr96t1$vtm
:

Consumer devices that use exposed high voltage limit the current to
low levels, so to someone who can't tell cause from effect high
voltage can be misconstrued as being safer than line voltage.
-jsw

Please, Jim. I'm not dumb. But I'm not a smartass, either.

I am a professional (an EE, actually) skilled in pointing out the
obvious, and I speak fluent sarcasm.

Nobody quoting the NEC as his reference can be confused with the "average
consumer". This was a person who claims to fully understand electricity
and all of its hazards.

Since this has gone around and around, I must assume that I failed to
state my question properly. So, here goes another attempt:

To whomever it is who believes to the contrary: Please cite an
authoritative document that states clearly that higher voltage LINE
service - directly from the pole OR through non-GFCI breakers - is safer
against fatal hazard (any kind of fatality will do) than lower-voltage
LINE service similarly connected.

I do have a copy of the 2008 NEC, so that would be a good one to cite.

Don't divert the conversation to tasers or Tesla coils, or other
silliness. Just give me a clear cite about the narrow subject at hand,
and publish the exact wording here, so that we can be certain you have
not misconstrued the meaning; or just lied.

Don't redact or concatenate the text -- give the whole of the text that
says it. Allow us to look it up and confirm your exact wording, or deny
your lie/claim.

Don't cite numbers of consumers killed by 120VAC home service vs. high-
voltage professionals killed by their higher-voltage lines; that's a
matter of education and general public stupidity, not 'safety'. Cite
only that text in an official, authoritative document that says that high
voltage LINE service is safer than lower-voltage LINE service.

I await your meandering, incomprehensible, paranoic, and mostly insane
responses.

LLoyd