wrote in message
...
On Friday, 3 July 2015 01:30:27 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/06/2015 22:11, nt wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 June 2015 16:21:45 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:

What has the situation in the past got to do with recommendations
one would make now?

how ever else do you propose to assess what difference smoke alarms
have made?

Not by making wild claims of huge reductions in death rate and falsely
attributing that solely to smoke alarms, that is for sure. As Robin
pointed out, peak death occurred at a time when alarms were already well
established, and the recent falls in death rate do not correlate well
with the numbers of installed alarms. The data point to a much deeper
and more nuanced relationship.

Sure, I accept that data needs improving. Are you able to offer better
figures?

(you do realise that people also install smoke alarms for reasons in
addition to saving their lives? Or is this another case where you house
going up is smoke is of no concern, just that you don't die in the
process?)

ok, I accept you're not focussed on the biggest risks, and determined to
be silly.

'People receiving a mains voltage electric shock per year (15+):
2.5 million* Of whom received a serious injury: 350,000**'

Did you read the ** footnote?

yes... did you have a point?

You are claiming that their figures are implausible,

correct. it plainly is.

without apparently
taking into account their definition of serious injury. The footnote
goes some way to explain why the number is so high.

the footnotes explain why the claims are so ridiculous. I have explained
this before. There is patently no basis for your claim they've been
overlooked.

If that is correct, we would have, with average life expectancy
apx 80, 80x350,000 people in the uk who have been seriously
injured by

The figures are for those over 15 anyway, and if including those
who are 80 now, they would predate modern wiring practices.

yes...

So your sums are nonsense as well.

no, they're just rough ballpark which is enough to make the point. Feel
free to offer better figures if you have them.


You are also assuming that those shocked each year are unique -
when in reality some adults will be far more likely to receive a
shock than others. You will have many "serial offenders" here.

I don't recall making that assumption

the "80x350,000 people" sum was a bit of a give away.

if you want to calculate it more precisely, despite the huge changes in
wiring safety over the years, you're free to provide the necessary figures
and calculate it. A ballpark is all it takes to make the relevant point.

shock. That's 28 million! The most basic sanity check shows that
to be wildly unrealistic.

How many people have you met who claim to have *never* received an
electrical shock?

can't say I've asked. Why would I?

Many would meet the "serious" injury threshold set out
in the footnote.

which is not, in any sensible definition, serious injury


No, it shows you did not read the footnote. Their definition of
serious injury :

**Based on a survey of 4,032 adults in Great Britain aged 15+ who
have personally experienced an electric shock that resulted in
injury while at home or in the garden in the past twelve months
including all those who experienced one or more of the following
injuries: Severe pain, Skin burn without scarring, Bruising from a
fall or severe muscular contraction, Temporary blindness, Heartbeat
disturbance, Persistent pain or numbness, Higher blood pressure,
Skin burn with scarring, Broken bone(s), Difficulty breathing.'

At the risk of stating the utterly obvious, more or less all mains
shocks involve considerable pain.

Indeed. That is also part of the justification for using RCDs - they
limit the duration of the shock and greatly reduce the pain.

Its also normal to experience
elevated heart rate & blood pressure. None of these, according to any
sensible definition, constitute serious injury.

Permanently elevated heart rate and blood pressure certainly count as
serious injury. Even temporary elevation will be a serious complication
for people with certain pre-existing conditions.

for most it does not constitute any injury, let alone serious injury


Nor do Bruises. The
data is complete bunk.

The data (while questionable) are by no means bunk. They have elevated
the figures by including some types of injury that one might argue are
less serious. However it is also very clear that even if the figures
were an order of magnitude out, for what you consider to be a serious
injury,

clearly they're a good 2 orders of magnitude out for _any_ injury.

you still have more than adequate justification for fitting
RCDs, and at worst, comparable justification to that for fitting smoke
alarms.

A number of which are recoverable from. From memory, there was
something like 5k - 10k in the most serious categories

a little different to 2.5 million then!

You do understand that not *all* shocks result in broken bones or
cardiac arrest?

shaking head

The 2.5 million figure is the estimate of the number of mains voltage
shocks received by adults each year - not those enduring life changing
effects. Are you now being deliberately obtuse?

shocks yes, not serious injuries as you claim. It would be bizarre to call
pointing out the massive difference obtuse


And to make that more precise, since shock protection measures
have greatly improved in the last 80 years, the actual figure
would be far higher, if their claim were true. You always need to
look at the source and assess the data. Its pretty obvious
they're a group promoting increase of electrical safety, and
pretty obvious that a lot of people mislead & even lie routinely
when they have an agenda to pursue.

I fully accept they have an agenda, and that they have over stated
the figures for serious injury by including less serious injuries
into the "serious" category.

However, Even if 10x out (which is unlikely)

I agree 10x is unlikely. 100-1000x is far more likely. ISTR an
estimate of 600x from a few years ago, but don't remember where it
came from.

Even 1000x would be one serious injury per day. The hospital treatment
stats I have seen in the past indicate the figure is well above that
however.

Still we should be able to resolve this question shortly:

http://www.rospa.com/home-safety/res...tion-database/

that would still be plenty of justification for the current
regulations on the use of RCDs.

I think we all agree RCDs in new installs are a good thing. What was
being debated is the merits of retrofitting, where the cost & time
involved are a good bit more.

There is not that much difference in cost between a new CU installation,
and a retrofit IME. The latter takes a little longer, but not
dramatically - only enough to label and disconnect the existing wiring.

The muddle continues I see.
When fitting a new CU, adding RCD protection costs a few tenners and takes
maybe a few minutes of extra time connecting neutrals.
Retrofitting RCDs requires a new CU installing, costing more money & time.

If you haven't got it yet that I'm interested in deaths not injuries,
then there's no point us continuing.

I understand you have a narrow focus on deaths. That's fine by me. If
you are content to tolerate the far more typical outcome of an electric
shock, (i.e. pain and injury), rather than spend a couple of hundred
preventing / reducing the risk then by all means carry on.

I don't accept that assessment

However you then go on to give misleading advice to people contemplating
on fitting RCDs based on that very narrow viewpoint. For the vast
majority of people looking at retrofitting RCDs for the protection of
their families, the protection from death aspect is certainly a very
"nice to have" bonus, but since its also a very low likelihood
occurrence - its not a big part of the decision making process. The real
motivation for most will be the greatly enhanced protection from injury
and pain that matters more.

in your opinion.
I'd far rather escape a death scenario to live another day than escape a
shock.

Well, you're free to show us fatality figures that support that. You
never have. All you've offered is junk stats that claim wild levels
of injuries. This is precisely one of the reasons such decisions are
so often made on mortality, not injury stats, the latter are far less
reliable.

Not much help when we are trying to prevent injury rather than mortality
though...

you, not we

I am confused since you talk about all these risks that are higher
priority, and yet don't seem to be able to state what any of them
are.

What makes you think that?

2010 mortality: 158k circulatory diseases 141k cancer & neoplasms 67k
respiratory diseases 25k digestive diseases 19k dementia & mental
disorders 18k nervous system diseases 17k accidents & injuries 12k
genitourinary diseases 8k senility 5k diabetes

You appreciate we are all going to die from something eventually?

I hope you have something more useful to say than the bleeding obvious

We are discussing protection from accidental injury in the home,

no, you are

not
long term lifestyle choices / genetic predispositions and eventual
outcomes on health.

indeed this has nothing to do with genetics

Now which of the above can you fix in the home for a couple of hundred
quid?

As I've said before in this thread, the general concensus among experts is
that 50% of deaths due to heart disease & cancer, ie 149,500 deaths each
year, can be prevented by eating properly, not smoking and getting a
little exercise.

That is very arguable indeed given that you have to die of something
and you are still likely to die of either heart disease or cancer. It would
be more accurate to say that you may well be able to delay dying of
either of those since you will likely die of one or the other eventually.

A couple of hundred quid covers that.

That is very arguable too.

If you'd rather spend your £200 on avoiding an unknown small number
of injuries each year that's your call. But don't expect me to say its a
good choice.

It makes more sense to do both.

As I've said before.

I'm beginning to think no reason will come forth from
you on this. If it doesn't I'll call it a day on this thread.