Ok, this is probably a very stupid question, so apologies, but..

The is no earthing in my bathroom, i.e. the radiator, hot and cold pipes to
bath, basin, toilet, also the plugs and overflows. The only thing that is
earthed is the 8.5kw shower.

Anyway looking on t'internet it appears that I need to cross bond all of the
above items with earth wire and then connect to the earth terminal in the
shower isolating pull cord switch.

Ok, here is the stupid question, currently (pardon the pun), there is no
danger of me getting an electric shock, as I never do, and never will take
any electrical item into the bathroom, and secondly the electric shower has
been connected correctly. So if I was to carry out the earthing work as per
regs, then wouldn't I be increasing the chances of an electric shock.

Basically I have a irrational fear that somehow the earth lead will someday
work its way out of the terminal in the bathroom isolater switch and then
make contact to the live terminal, and now suddenly all the earthed stuff is
live.

I want to get the bathroom upto spec, but I genuinely feel It'll make the
bathroom less safe.

See I told you it was a stupid question :-}

Jon

jon wrote:
Ok, this is probably a very stupid question, so apologies, but..

The is no earthing in my bathroom, i.e. the radiator, hot and cold
pipes to bath, basin, toilet, also the plugs and overflows. The only
thing that is earthed is the 8.5kw shower.

Anyway looking on t'internet it appears that I need to cross bond all
of the above items with earth wire and then connect to the earth
terminal in the shower isolating pull cord switch.

Ok, here is the stupid question, currently (pardon the pun), there is
no danger of me getting an electric shock, as I never do, and never
will take any electrical item into the bathroom, and secondly the
electric shower has been connected correctly. So if I was to carry
out the earthing work as per regs, then wouldn't I be increasing the
chances of an electric shock.
Basically I have a irrational fear that somehow the earth lead will
someday work its way out of the terminal in the bathroom isolater
switch and then make contact to the live terminal, and now suddenly
all the earthed stuff is live.


Not so, electricity takes the path to earth with least resistence, IE
straight down the copper pipes, hence the copper strips running up church
walls to lightning conductors on the roof, in other words, I could stand on
a church roof during a thunderstorm wearing nothing but a suit of armour and
not get struck by lightning because I'm not earthed as well as the lighning
conductor.

I want to get the bathroom upto spec, but I genuinely feel It'll make
the bathroom less safe.

See I told you it was a stupid question :-}

Jon

It's a common misconception, but stainless steel sinks have been earthed
this way for decades without anyone getting fried while washing dishes, any
power getting to the sink will not be felt by the person with wet hands
because they offer too much resistance in comparison to a copper pipe
straight into the ground.

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:06:41 GMT, "Phil L"
wrote:

jon wrote:
Ok, this is probably a very stupid question, so apologies, but..

The is no earthing in my bathroom, i.e. the radiator, hot and cold
pipes to bath, basin, toilet, also the plugs and overflows. The only
thing that is earthed is the 8.5kw shower.

Anyway looking on t'internet it appears that I need to cross bond all
of the above items with earth wire and then connect to the earth
terminal in the shower isolating pull cord switch.

Ok, here is the stupid question, currently (pardon the pun), there is
no danger of me getting an electric shock, as I never do, and never
will take any electrical item into the bathroom, and secondly the
electric shower has been connected correctly. So if I was to carry
out the earthing work as per regs, then wouldn't I be increasing the
chances of an electric shock.
Basically I have a irrational fear that somehow the earth lead will
someday work its way out of the terminal in the bathroom isolater
switch and then make contact to the live terminal, and now suddenly
all the earthed stuff is live.


Not so, electricity takes the path to earth with least resistence, IE
straight down the copper pipes, hence the copper strips running up church
walls to lightning conductors on the roof, in other words, I could stand on
a church roof during a thunderstorm wearing nothing but a suit of armour and
not get struck by lightning because I'm not earthed as well as the lighning
conductor.

I want to get the bathroom upto spec, but I genuinely feel It'll make
the bathroom less safe.

See I told you it was a stupid question :-}

Jon

It's a common misconception, but stainless steel sinks have been earthed
this way for decades without anyone getting fried while washing dishes, any
power getting to the sink will not be felt by the person with wet hands
because they offer too much resistance in comparison to a copper pipe
straight into the ground.



But then we have the question of plastic pipes ..???...lol


Stuart

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:49:35 GMT someone who may be "jon"
wrote this:-

The is no earthing in my bathroom, i.e. the radiator, hot and cold pipes to
bath, basin, toilet, also the plugs and overflows. The only thing that is
earthed is the 8.5kw shower.

Anyway looking on t'internet it appears that I need to cross bond all of the
above items with earth wire and then connect to the earth terminal in the
shower isolating pull cord switch.

Far better to connect the bonding to the earth terminal in the
shower.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Owain" wrote in message
...
jon wrote:
Ok, this is probably a very stupid question, so apologies, but..
The is no earthing in my bathroom, i.e. the radiator, hot and cold pipes
to bath, basin, toilet, also the plugs and overflows. The only thing that
is earthed is the 8.5kw shower.
Anyway looking on t'internet it appears that I need to cross bond all of
the above items with earth wire and then connect to the earth terminal in
the shower isolating pull cord switch.
Ok, here is the stupid question, currently (pardon the pun), there is no
danger of me getting an electric shock, as I never do, and never will
take any electrical item into the bathroom, and secondly the electric
shower has been connected correctly. So if I was to carry out the
earthing work as per regs, then wouldn't I be increasing the chances of
an electric shock.

Not in normal circumstances.

Basically I have a irrational fear that somehow the earth lead will
someday work its way out of the terminal in the bathroom isolater switch
and then make contact to the live terminal, and now suddenly all the
earthed stuff is live.

Which would not give you an electric shock. To get an electric shock there
has to be a voltage (*potential difference*) between two points. The
bonding is not there to earth the bathroom, it is there to join every
conductive part entering the bathroom to form an equipotential zone. This
equipotential bonding prevents the difference in potential (voltage)
rising to a dangerous level.

To take an admittedly extreme and theoretical example, and I do not
recommend this in practice, you should stick a 240V live cable in your
mouth while standing in the bath and not feel the slightest tingle
PROVIDED that the bath (and thus you) was also at 240V through the
equipotential bodning.

However as your bath is not bonded your "faulty earthed" shower could be
at 240V and your bath will probably have some form of earth through the
plumbing, so there is a potential difference and the possibility of
current flow through your body. D'you want to phone an undertaker now?

It is actually somewhat safer not to have any conductive parts entering
the bathroom ie use plastic pipe in which case bonding is not required.
However, as most bathrooms tend to be "earthy" having all the conductive
parts bonded together and then earthed via the circuit protective
conductors (earth wires in circuit cables) means that any fault to earth
will cause sufficient fault current to flow to operate the MCB or RCD
suitably quickly.

Owain

Have a look at

http://www.niceic.org.uk/downloads/NL139supp.pdf

as well

Adam

"Owain" wrote in message
...
jon wrote:
Ok, this is probably a very stupid question, so apologies, but..
The is no earthing in my bathroom, i.e. the radiator, hot and cold pipes
to bath, basin, toilet, also the plugs and overflows. The only thing that
is earthed is the 8.5kw shower.
Anyway looking on t'internet it appears that I need to cross bond all of
the above items with earth wire and then connect to the earth terminal in
the shower isolating pull cord switch.
Ok, here is the stupid question, currently (pardon the pun), there is no
danger of me getting an electric shock, as I never do, and never will
take any electrical item into the bathroom, and secondly the electric
shower has been connected correctly. So if I was to carry out the
earthing work as per regs, then wouldn't I be increasing the chances of
an electric shock.

Not in normal circumstances.

Basically I have a irrational fear that somehow the earth lead will
someday work its way out of the terminal in the bathroom isolater switch
and then make contact to the live terminal, and now suddenly all the
earthed stuff is live.

Which would not give you an electric shock. To get an electric shock there
has to be a voltage (*potential difference*) between two points. The
bonding is not there to earth the bathroom, it is there to join every
conductive part entering the bathroom to form an equipotential zone. This
equipotential bonding prevents the difference in potential (voltage)
rising to a dangerous level.

To take an admittedly extreme and theoretical example, and I do not
recommend this in practice, you should stick a 240V live cable in your
mouth while standing in the bath and not feel the slightest tingle
PROVIDED that the bath (and thus you) was also at 240V through the
equipotential bodning.

Cheers, the mother-in-law visits on the weekend, i'll test your theory then.

Jon

She was so ugly not even the tide would take her out...

Mungo :-) [Ni real disrespect to your mother-in-law Jon]

jon wrote:

The is no earthing in my bathroom, i.e. the radiator, hot and cold pipes to
bath, basin, toilet, also the plugs and overflows. The only thing that is
earthed is the 8.5kw shower.

Anyway looking on t'internet it appears that I need to cross bond all of the
above items with earth wire and then connect to the earth terminal in the
shower isolating pull cord switch.

Common misconception this. That is about regs applying to new installs,
there is no reason you would need to add crossbonding. The safety
benefit of crossbonding is approximately zero since the level of
protection against electrocution is already extremely good.

In terms of safety benefit per time and money spent, retrofitting
crossbonding is a non-starter. Your stairs are 1000s of times more
likely to kill you, as are various other things.

fwiw you'll normally find most of the above are already earthed. You
can test with a meter if you want.


NT

First, lightning is completely irrelevant to the OP's question.
Second, leakage currents are irrelevant. That suit of armour puts the
human inside a Faraday cage. Therefore a direct lightning strike that
might kil the exposed human would become not harm the human inside that
conductive armour.

Third, there may be many paths to earth. But when only one has
significantly less impedance (not just resistance) - is electrically a
much shorter path - then a lightning bolt will take only that path to
earth. This is why lightning rods, properly earthed, provide a cone of
protection. This is why long distance transmission lines - the most
likely item to be struck - are at little risk from lightning being
beneath a well earthed catenary wire.

But again, all this is irrelevant to the OP's post about bathroom
safety ground. Note to the OP - bathroom is not earth grounded.
Bathroom grounds are for human safety. Details in another post.

dave wrote:
On 11 Mar 2006 10:45:47 -0800, "Mathew Newton" wrote:
Frankly this is ridiculious. There are such things as "leakage currents" and
even lightning conductors will melt if the pulse/energy duration lasts long
enough. And, there is more than ONE path to earth in the real world.

The leakage current through your suit of armour may well be enough to see you
off. I don't suggest you try it.


I bet you wouldn't be willing to put your money where your mouth is..?

Solutions defined with detail in that www.niceic.org.uk .pdf
document demonstrate techiques that have been standard or are slowly
becoming standard most everywhere in the past 30 years. This was
required in North America starting about 1970. Best way to address
electric safety starts by not worrying what you do or do not use in the
bathroom. That picture of a human in a bathtub using a hairdryer to
blow a sailing boat is what you - the owner of a building - must
address.

Start by putting all incoming electrical service on a GFCI - also
called RCD. One that trips at leakage currents lower than a building
wide RCD. These 'one circuit' type RCDs should trip at something
around 10 mA. This mA number will vary with different countries and
codes. But any bathroom with electricity should have a dedicated
GFCI/RCD type protector regardless of whether required by local codes.

jon wrote:
"Owain" wrote in message
...
To take an admittedly extreme and theoretical example, and I do not
recommend this in practice, you should stick a 240V live cable in your
mouth while standing in the bath and not feel the slightest tingle
PROVIDED that the bath (and thus you) was also at 240V through the
equipotential bodning.

Cheers, the mother-in-law visits on the weekend, i'll test your theory then.

Solutions defined with detail in that www.niceic.org.uk .pdf
document demonstrate techiques that have been standard or are slowly
becoming standard most everywhere in the past 30 years. This was
required in North America starting about 1970. Best way to address
electric safety starts by not worrying what you do or do not use in the
bathroom. That picture of a human in a bathtub using a hairdryer to
blow a sailing boat is what you - the owner of a building - must
address.

Start by putting all incoming electrical service on a GFCI - also
called RCD. One that trips at leakage currents lower than a building
wide RCD. These 'one circuit' type RCDs should trip at something
around 10 mA. This mA number will vary with different countries and
codes. But any bathroom with electricity should have a dedicated
GFCI/RCD type protector regardless of whether required by local codes.

jon wrote:
"Owain" wrote in message
...
To take an admittedly extreme and theoretical example, and I do not
recommend this in practice, you should stick a 240V live cable in your
mouth while standing in the bath and not feel the slightest tingle
PROVIDED that the bath (and thus you) was also at 240V through the
equipotential bodning.

Cheers, the mother-in-law visits on the weekend, i'll test your theory then.

In article .com,
"w_tom" writes:
Solutions defined with detail in that www.niceic.org.uk .pdf
document demonstrate techiques that have been standard or are slowly
becoming standard most everywhere in the past 30 years. This was
required in North America starting about 1970. Best way to address
electric safety starts by not worrying what you do or do not use in the
bathroom. That picture of a human in a bathtub using a hairdryer to
blow a sailing boat is what you - the owner of a building - must
address.

Hair driers used in baths was a US-specific problem.
We had put rules in place to prevent that before WWII.
Even other countries which still haven't don't have the
same problem the US did with electrocutions in baths.

Start by putting all incoming electrical service on a GFCI - also
called RCD. One that trips at leakage currents lower than a building
wide RCD. These 'one circuit' type RCDs should trip at something
around 10 mA. This mA number will vary with different countries and
codes. But any bathroom with electricity should have a dedicated
GFCI/RCD type protector regardless of whether required by local codes.

You are wrong on just about every count here with regards
to UK regs.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On 12 Mar 2006 10:22:10 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article .com,
"w_tom" writes:
Solutions defined with detail in that www.niceic.org.uk .pdf
document demonstrate techiques that have been standard or are slowly
becoming standard most everywhere in the past 30 years. This was
required in North America starting about 1970. Best way to address
electric safety starts by not worrying what you do or do not use in the
bathroom. That picture of a human in a bathtub using a hairdryer to
blow a sailing boat is what you - the owner of a building - must
address.

Hair driers used in baths was a US-specific problem.
We had put rules in place to prevent that before WWII.


Even other countries which still haven't don't have the
same problem the US did with electrocutions in baths.


Run that last part past me again please ......lol




Stuart

In article ,
Stuart writes:
On 12 Mar 2006 10:22:10 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

Even other countries which still haven't don't have the
same problem the US did with electrocutions in baths.

Run that last part past me again please ......lol

Oh dear... It was meant to say...

Even other countries which still haven't [put rules in place] don't
have the same problem the US did with electrocutions in baths.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Even other countries which still haven't [put rules in place] don't
have the same problem the US did with electrocutions in baths.

So why does a UK article on bathroom protection (www.niceic.org.uk)
show a British citizen in a bathtub using a hairdryer to move a sailing
ship? Clearly they are not discussing only hairdryers in the bathtub.
Clearly they are discussing and I was discussing any electrical
appliance, light, etc in a bathroom. An RCD that trips on low
amperage ground fault currents is a very effective solution to bathroom
human safety - no matter what is required by code. This because the
average bathroom in any country contains electrical appliances and
lamps.

Does www.niceic.org.uk discuss bathroom electrical safety
everywhere but the UK? I don't think so. They use a 'hardryer in a
bathtub' as an example of what even UK bathroom wiring should consider
possible. Stupid? Yes. And possible in any nation that has
electricity in bathrooms. An RCD for bathroom circuits has been
standard in the States since 1970 because sometimes people use
electrical appliances in the wrong place. If not yet required in the
UK, well, RCD for bathrooms is a safety solution long overdue and
strongly encouraged.

w_tom wrote:
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Even other countries which still haven't [put rules in place] don't
have the same problem the US did with electrocutions in baths.

So why does a UK article on bathroom protection (www.niceic.org.uk)
show a British citizen in a bathtub using a hairdryer to move a sailing
ship? Clearly they are not discussing only hairdryers in the bathtub.
Clearly they are discussing and I was discussing any electrical
appliance, light, etc in a bathroom. An RCD that trips on low
amperage ground fault currents is a very effective solution to bathroom
human safety - no matter what is required by code. This because the
average bathroom in any country contains electrical appliances and
lamps.

Does www.niceic.org.uk discuss bathroom electrical safety
everywhere but the UK? I don't think so. They use a 'hardryer in a
bathtub' as an example of what even UK bathroom wiring should consider
possible. Stupid? Yes. And possible in any nation that has
electricity in bathrooms. An RCD for bathroom circuits has been
standard in the States since 1970 because sometimes people use
electrical appliances in the wrong place. If not yet required in the
UK, well, RCD for bathrooms is a safety solution long overdue and
strongly encouraged.

While what you say probably applies in the US, its wrong on nearly all
points wrt to the UK.

Why does someone show a picture or make a claim? Because they have an
agenda maybe?


NT

wrote:
While what you say probably applies in the US, its wrong on nearly all
points wrt to the UK.

Well that reasoning is good and sufficient for an English major. But
a technical person would your entire post. Why? Where are the list of
details for why "its wrong on nearly all points wrt to the UK". Fine
to have an opinion if you keep it to yourself. But when details of
"why" are not provided, then it becomes a post so typical of political
extremists such as Rush Limbaugh. If your post has merit, then it
includes technical WHYs. Without the 'whys' - those essential
technical details - it is simply what propagandists, political
extremists, and liars do.

If RCDs do not provide human safety to UK bathrooms, they why? Why
is electricity at 230 volts in UK bathrooms not a threat when
electricity in Canada and US at 120 volts has been considered dangerous
since 1970s. Why is UK electricity not dangerous in UK bathrooms -
especially when RCDs are so inexpensive?

On 12 Mar 2006 23:06:11 -0800 someone who may be "w_tom"
wrote this:-

If RCDs do not provide human safety to UK bathrooms, they why?

In the past five years there has been a requirement to fit an RCD to
certain things in certain parts of bathrooms. Whether this makes
people safer has yet to be seen. Personally I suspect that the
improvement in safety will be limited.

Why is electricity at 230 volts in UK bathrooms not a threat

Who says it is not a hazard? The fact that the IEE has for a very
long time had special regulations about rooms containing baths [1]
and showers indicates that it is a hazard.



[1] at one time it was fixed baths and showers, but this was dropped
a little time ago after tin baths became largely items of historic
note only.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article .com,
w_tom wrote:
Does www.niceic.org.uk discuss bathroom electrical safety
everywhere but the UK? I don't think so. They use a 'hardryer in a
bathtub' as an example of what even UK bathroom wiring should consider
possible. Stupid? Yes. And possible in any nation that has
electricity in bathrooms.

The only socket outlet allowed in the UK in a bathroom is a shaver type
(two pin) fed via an isolation transformer of around 1 amp.

All appliances like hairdriers come with fitted 13 amp 3 pin plugs which
wouldn't fit a shaver socket.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

w_tom wrote:

If RCDs do not provide human safety to UK bathrooms, they why? Why
is electricity at 230 volts in UK bathrooms not a threat when
electricity in Canada and US at 120 volts has been considered dangerous
since 1970s. Why is UK electricity not dangerous in UK bathrooms -
especially when RCDs are so inexpensive?

The "hair-dryer picture" referred to in the NIC article is there only as
an an illustration of why mains-voltage socket-outlets are still not
permitted in UK bath & shower rooms.

Hand-held appliances are now allowed if hard-wired and are in Zone 3 or
beyond ( 0.6 m from the bath or shower tray). The supply to a portable
appliance in Zone 3 must be protected by a 30 mA RCD. The RCD in this
case is providing supplementary protection against electric shock by
direct contact. Other than this, RCD protection is not required for
direct contact protection - this being ensured by requirements for
adequate insulation and for the use of equipment with suitable IP ratings.

Protection against shock by indirect contact (i.e. contact with parts
which are live as the result of a fault) is achieved by means of earthed
equipotential bonding and automatic disconnection of supply ('EEBADS').
The regulations give design principles which are based on the IEC
touch-voltage curve, and seek to prevent the appearance of dangerous
voltages between accessible metal parts for an excessively long time.
Automatic disconnection of supply here is preferably (and usually)
achieved by an overcurrent device - i.e. the rupture of a fuse or
tripping of an MCB. However the standard does recognise the use of RCDs
for this purpose when the earth fault loop impedance is too high to
ensure operation of the overcurrent device - such as where there is no
metallic earth path to the earthed point of the substation transformer
(TT-system).

In bathrooms and other areas of high shock risk local supplementary
equipotential bonding is required to reduce touch voltages further.

--
Andy

w_tom wrote:
wrote:

While what you say probably applies in the US, its wrong on nearly all
points wrt to the UK.

Well that reasoning is good and sufficient for an English major. But
a technical person would your entire post. Why? Where are the list of
details for why "its wrong on nearly all points wrt to the UK". Fine
to have an opinion if you keep it to yourself. But when details of
"why" are not provided, then it becomes a post so typical of political
extremists such as Rush Limbaugh. If your post has merit, then it
includes technical WHYs. Without the 'whys' - those essential
technical details - it is simply what propagandists, political
extremists, and liars do.

If RCDs do not provide human safety to UK bathrooms, they why? Why
is electricity at 230 volts in UK bathrooms not a threat when
electricity in Canada and US at 120 volts has been considered dangerous
since 1970s. Why is UK electricity not dangerous in UK bathrooms -
especially when RCDs are so inexpensive?

Go get a clue what youre talking about before throwing accusations
around. Fool.


NT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
w_tom wrote:
Does www.niceic.org.uk discuss bathroom electrical safety
everywhere but the UK? I don't think so. They use a 'hardryer in a
bathtub' as an example of what even UK bathroom wiring should consider
possible. Stupid? Yes. And possible in any nation that has
electricity in bathrooms.

The only socket outlet allowed in the UK in a bathroom is a shaver type
(two pin) fed via an isolation transformer of around 1 amp.

All appliances like hairdriers come with fitted 13 amp 3 pin plugs which
wouldn't fit a shaver socket.

FWIW square pin sockets are allowed in bathrooms, but with various ifs
and buts. Must only be accessible with a tool, appliance must be
equi'd.


NT

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:06:11 UTC, "w_tom" wrote:

wrote:
While what you say probably applies in the US, its wrong on nearly all
points wrt to the UK.

If RCDs do not provide human safety to UK bathrooms, they why? Why
is electricity at 230 volts in UK bathrooms not a threat when
electricity in Canada and US at 120 volts has been considered dangerous
since 1970s. Why is UK electricity not dangerous in UK bathrooms -
especially when RCDs are so inexpensive?

Because in nearly all cases, there is no need for them as there is no
accessibility to that electricity. Lighting is governed by rules that
include the type of safety holder that can be used. Electrical outlets
are banned in most zones, except for transformer isolated ones.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

But electricity exists in that bathroom. Zones were the old way of
safety when RCDs did not exist. A human with wet feet could walk a
meter inside that same room and touch something electric - two wire or
three wire. And yet somehow that is considered safe? Zones were once
considered sufficient protection. But today, the RCD for any
electrical light, switch, or outlet anywhere in a bathroom is now
considered necessary. 20th Century code requirements, because the
technology once did not exist, are not sufficient for 21st Century
humans.

The original point posted to the OP. Current technology is now so
cheap and so effective that a best solution for all bathroom circuits
is the RCD. Low cost of that solution is why that solution has been
standard elsewhere for 30 years: all bathrooms electricity provided
only by local RCD circuit. The most 'electrically at risk' human is
one with wet skin. Not just in a bathtub. Wet skin is when natural
electrical protection is severely diminished. Wet humans can be
anywhere in that bathroom. Therefore we routinely install RCD devices
for any electricity in that bathroom.

I am so surprised that some UK residents would only worry about
legalities and not worry about the risk. Any wet human anywhere in
that bathroom is at major risk. Any electricity anywhere in a bathroom
should be via an RCD device as has been standard in NA for the last 30
years. This because an RCD solution is so effective AND because the
protection is so inexpensive.

The original poster jon was asking about electrical safety in the
bathroom. RCDs have long been a basic and most well proven solution
to electrical safety in bathrooms. Exceed code requirements. Install
21st Century safety - the RCD. Safety standards proven and used
standard for decades. Safety standards that still are not standard in
the UK where some insist 20th Century safety codes are sufficient.

Any doubt about that bathroom safety? Install an RCD. So effective.
So inexpensive. Long been available in the UK. Considered necessary
where bathroom electrical safety is taken seriously.

Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:06:11 UTC, "w_tom" wrote:
If RCDs do not provide human safety to UK bathrooms, they why? Why
is electricity at 230 volts in UK bathrooms not a threat when
electricity in Canada and US at 120 volts has been considered dangerous
since 1970s. Why is UK electricity not dangerous in UK bathrooms -
especially when RCDs are so inexpensive?

Because in nearly all cases, there is no need for them as there is no
accessibility to that electricity. Lighting is governed by rules that
include the type of safety holder that can be used. Electrical outlets
are banned in most zones, except for transformer isolated ones.

On 13 Mar 2006 23:35:07 -0800 someone who may be "w_tom"
wrote this:-

Any doubt about that bathroom safety? Install an RCD. So effective.
So inexpensive. Long been available in the UK. Considered necessary
where bathroom electrical safety is taken seriously.

Another series of assertions, with nothing to back them up other
than the sort of assertions one sees in a sales brochure.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

If it was only an assertion, then you responded with technical facts
as to why it is not so. David Hansen posted a denial without a
single supporting fact or reason. IOW David Hansen posted the
assertion - as demonstrated by no citations, no numbers, and no proof
that RCDs provide no human safety.

Meanwhile, RCDs are routine in other nations for bathroom safety.
This necessary because - just another fact, David - humans are at
greatest risk when wet.

But David - show us you have basic knowledge. Show us how the RCD
does not protect human life. The only assertion is a 'nay saying'
propaganda statement - devoid of any technical facts.

David Hansen wrote:
Another series of assertions, with nothing to back them up other
than the sort of assertions one sees in a sales brochure.

If it was only an assertion, then you responded with technical facts
as to why it is not so. David Hansen posted a denial without a
single supporting fact or reason. IOW David Hansen posted the
assertion - as demonstrated by no citations, no numbers, and no proof
that RCDs provide no human safety.

Meanwhile, RCDs are routine in other nations for bathroom safety.
This necessary because - just another fact, David - humans are at
greatest risk when wet.

But David - show us you have basic knowledge. Show us how the RCD
does not protect human life. The only assertion is a 'nay saying'
propaganda statement - devoid of any technical facts.

David Hansen wrote:
Another series of assertions, with nothing to back them up other
than the sort of assertions one sees in a sales brochure.

On 14 Mar 2006 01:08:04 -0800 someone who may be "w_tom"
wrote this:-

But David - show us you have basic knowledge.

"Mine's bigger then yours" discussions are not my thing. However, I
am familiar with BS 7671 and have designed, installed and maintained
electrical systems (though only up to 33kV).


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 07:35:07 UTC, "w_tom" wrote:

But electricity exists in that bathroom. Zones were the old way of

(long US-centric rant snipped)

are banned in most zones, except for transformer isolated ones.

You do go on, don't you? But you totally missed the point, and, frankly
I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Fine. Now show us how an RCD would not provide a wet human in a
bathroom with protection.

BTW, what is BS7671; what does it define - or its title?

David Hansen wrote:
"Mine's bigger then yours" discussions are not my thing. However, I
am familiar with BS 7671 and have designed, installed and maintained
electrical systems (though only up to 33kV).

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:09:21 UTC, "w_tom" wrote:

BTW, what is BS7671; what does it define - or its title?

Oh dear. He really is groping in the dark.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

w_tom wrote:

Fine. Now show us how an RCD would not provide a wet human in a
bathroom with protection.

An RCD protecting a circuit feeding equipment in a bathroom would not
protect someone from the effects of contact with metalwork earthed via
different paths which could, due to faults
_elsewhere_in_the_electrical_installation_, be at dangerously different
potentials. This is why BS 7671 mandates the use of local supplementary
equipotential bonding as a primary safety measure.

BTW, what is BS7671; what does it define - or its title?

BS 7671 _is_ the UK Wiring Regulations:

BS 7671:2001
Title: "Requirements for electrical installations."
Subtitle: "IEE Wiring Regulations. Sixteenth edition."

BS 7671 is to a significant extent harmonised with European (CENELEC)
and international (IEC) standards (IEC 60364 series and CENELEC HD 384
series).

--
Andy

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:09:21 UTC, "w_tom" wrote:

BTW, what is BS7671; what does it define - or its title?

Oh dear. He really is groping in the dark.

I thought it was quite funny. Mr Tom, you have made so many errors and
missed so much that no-one so far has shown any interest in explaining
it all for you. I dont have all day either. If you split up your
enquiry into several threads you might possibly get more detailed
feedback.


NT

On 14 Mar 2006 09:14:35 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

I thought it was quite funny. Mr Tom, you have made so many errors and
missed so much that no-one so far has shown any interest in explaining
it all for you. I dont have all day either.

Indeed. A number of people have made technical points which remain
unanswered, except for slogans that probably came from a sales
brochure. Personally I have made no technical points, as others beat
me to it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:07:50 +0000 someone who may be Andy Wade
wrote this:-

An RCD protecting a circuit feeding equipment in a bathroom would not
protect someone from the effects of contact with metalwork earthed via
different paths which could, due to faults
_elsewhere_in_the_electrical_installation_, be at dangerously different
potentials. This is why BS 7671 mandates the use of local supplementary
equipotential bonding as a primary safety measure.

And the results speak for themselves. I gather significantly fewer
people die in the UK due to the "strict" requirements. This is one
of the reasons why the IEE has held out against some changes and I
think they are right to do so.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 14 Mar 2006 16:23:16 GMT someone who may be "Bob Eager"
wrote this:-

BTW, what is BS7671; what does it define - or its title?

Oh dear. He really is groping in the dark.

Indeed. I'm sure a search engine would reveal the answer to this
question in seconds.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article .com,
"w_tom" writes:
If it was only an assertion, then you responded with technical facts
as to why it is not so. David Hansen posted a denial without a
single supporting fact or reason. IOW David Hansen posted the
assertion - as demonstrated by no citations, no numbers, and no proof
that RCDs provide no human safety.

Sorry, I didn't go into more detail, but it was difficult
to know where to start. Every point you made in article
.com was
incorrect with respect to the UK. RCD is largely irrelevant
in UK bathrooms, as we don't allow any portable appliances,
a ruling which is even more effective than RCDs.
Neither do we permit whole building RCDs, as you put it,
nor "all incoming electrical service" RCDs (at least for
the purpose you are thinking of).

Meanwhile, RCDs are routine in other nations for bathroom safety.
This necessary because - just another fact, David - humans are at
greatest risk when wet.

We already had a much more effective solution, since before
WWII.

But David - show us you have basic knowledge. Show us how the RCD
does not protect human life. The only assertion is a 'nay saying'
propaganda statement - devoid of any technical facts.

No one said it didn't.

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:19:25 UTC, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

In article .com,
"w_tom" writes:
If it was only an assertion, then you responded with technical facts
as to why it is not so. David Hansen posted a denial without a
single supporting fact or reason. IOW David Hansen posted the
assertion - as demonstrated by no citations, no numbers, and no proof
that RCDs provide no human safety.

Sorry, I didn't go into more detail, but it was difficult
to know where to start. Every point you made in article
.com was
incorrect with respect to the UK. RCD is largely irrelevant
in UK bathrooms, as we don't allow any portable appliances,
a ruling which is even more effective than RCDs.

That was what I meant when I said that he'd missed the point!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Andy Wade wrote:
w_tom wrote:
Fine. Now show us how an RCD would not provide a wet human in a
bathroom with protection.

An RCD protecting a circuit feeding equipment in a bathroom would not
protect someone from the effects of contact with metalwork earthed via
different paths which could, due to faults
_elsewhere_in_the_electrical_installation_, be at dangerously different
potentials. This is why BS 7671 mandates the use of local supplementary
equipotential bonding as a primary safety measure.

That equipotential bonding was standard and so proven effective long
ago in the 20th Century. Today and even three decades ago,
equipotential bonding alone was no longer sufficient for any location
where humans are wet.

IEC 60364-4-471, as was also posted here repeatedly, strongly
recommends use of a RCD of high sensitivity (30 ma) in the following
cases:
Socket-outlet circuits in wet locations at all current ratings
Circuits supplying laundry rooms and swimming pools
In short, an RCD where wet humans may even remotely come in contact
with deadly electricity.

Apparently BS7671 still does not require what has become so standard
for decades elsewhere in the world. The original poster was asking
about how to make his bathroom safer. The simplest and a so effective
solution is the low current RCD as even *strongly* recommended by IEC
60364-4-471.

With RCD, anything that is electrically hot and touched by a human
means that human is not harmed. Indeed, a 1960s demonstration of RCDs
would throw a radio into a bathtub containing a live human (I could not
believe they did that demonstration - but they did). The RCD meant a
wet human was not harmed.

Meanwhile if your statement demands all metal components be connected
with equipotential bonding, then you are arguing strawman style. That
requirement for equipotential connections was never in doubt as the
original poster noted. But equipotential bonding has long been
considered insufficient where wet humans might contact electricity -
such as anywhere in a bathroom. That was even the point of a
www.niceic.org.uk .pdf document.

Those in denial - who 'feel' BS7671 is sufficient for human safety in
a bathroom - somehow declare advantages of that RCD as wrong. Deny and
yet forget to even provide one good technical reason. Such replies -
without supporting facts - are classic of the lesser educated. They
just know and need not justify their conclusions. They just know and
that www.niceic.org.uk .pdf document is lying. RCD for all
bathroom electricity has been standard requirement for decades in other
nations and is even *strongly* recommended by IEC 60364-4-471. But if
BS7671 does not require it, then it is not necessary - the IEC must
also be wrong.

Due to other responders, I am quickly losing respect for the British
education system. A responsible post that declares something wrong
would also provide supporting facts and citations. So many posters
here just deny - AND cannot even properly respond to a request for the
title of BS7671. How crude. But again, symptoms of inferior education
or technical insecurity. I hope your peers display greater
intelligence and logical thought. And thank you for providing the
title from BS7671 that so many others could not do.

Meanwhile the OP is strongly encouraged - as was stated so many times
before - to install a RCD for all bathroom electricity. This having
been standard for bathroom safety for so many decades elsewhere. This
being so much human protection for so little money. This protection
having been standard elsewhere for so long as to even be recommended by
IEC standards.

Of course, some here will reply with how wrong the IEC and the world
is. Somehow those posters know better and are too important to say
why.

Meanwhile the OP is strongly encouraged - as was stated so many times
before - to install a RCD for all bathroom electricity. This having
been standard for bathroom safety for so many decades elsewhere. This
being so much human protection for so little money. This protection
having been standard elsewhere for so long as to even be recommended by
IEC standards.

Of course, some here will reply with how wrong the IEC and the world
is. Somehow those posters know better and are too important to say
why.


Bugger just the bathroom. Whole house RCD 30ma protection for me!.....
--
Tony Sayer