I've just read a newspaper report on the death by electrocution of Jenny
Tonge's daughter.
A metal utensil rack in her kitchen had become live as a result of one of
its mounting screws
piercing a cable.
The coroner observed that the cable was only 10mm deep in the wall insted of
50mm.
Have the regulations changed? I don't think any cables in my house are sunk
that deep.

Nick.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:48:31 +0100, "Nick" no_bother@all wrote:

I've just read a newspaper report on the death by electrocution of Jenny
Tonge's daughter.
A metal utensil rack in her kitchen had become live as a result of one of
its mounting screws
piercing a cable.
The coroner observed that the cable was only 10mm deep in the wall insted of
50mm.
Have the regulations changed? I don't think any cables in my house are sunk
that deep.

Nick.



This would depend on the direction and location of the cable.

It is permissible to run cables horizontally or vertically from a
wiring acessory - e.g. light switch, socket etc. at any depth

This is also permissible in a band extending 150mm out from the corner
of a room and 150mm down from the top of a wall.

Cables running elsewhere (e.g. vertically or horizontally but not in
line with a wiring accessory) have to be protected with a very stout
earthed shield or buried to 50mm or more.

So.... in this case, either cables were run incorrectly or a kitchen
fitter was careless, or the young lady suffered the attentions of
Darwin.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:59:08 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

So.... in this case, either cables were run incorrectly or a kitchen
fitter was careless, or the young lady suffered the attentions of
Darwin.

Next thing, the powers that be will want a Part P equivalent for kitchen
fitters... :-(

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:48:31 +0100, "Nick" no_bother@all wrote:

I've just read a newspaper report on the death by electrocution of Jenny
Tonge's daughter.
A metal utensil rack in her kitchen had become live as a result of one of
its mounting screws
piercing a cable.
The coroner observed that the cable was only 10mm deep in the wall insted
of
50mm.
Have the regulations changed? I don't think any cables in my house are
sunk
that deep.

Nick.



This would depend on the direction and location of the cable.

It is permissible to run cables horizontally or vertically from a
wiring acessory - e.g. light switch, socket etc. at any depth

This is also permissible in a band extending 150mm out from the corner
of a room and 150mm down from the top of a wall.

Cables running elsewhere (e.g. vertically or horizontally but not in
line with a wiring accessory) have to be protected with a very stout
earthed shield or buried to 50mm or more.

So.... in this case, either cables were run incorrectly or a kitchen
fitter was careless, or the young lady suffered the attentions of
Darwin.


.andy

The report also mentioned that the cable 'meandered' across the wall so all
is now clear.

Thanks,
Nick.

The coroner observed that the cable was only 10mm deep in the wall insted
of
50mm. Have the regulations changed? I don't think any cables in my house
are
sunk that deep.

It is an either/or thing, which the report doesn't make clear.

Your choices:

1. Bury 50mm deep (so nothing reaches the cable)
2. Run in prescribed locations (fitter knows not to drill above sockets
etc.)
3. Provide mechanical protection (so the drill blunts itself on a metal
casing)
4. Surface run (so you can see where it is and avoid it)

Personally, I don't think 50mm is enough. Drilling for a rawlplug will
frequently go deeper than this. I tend to use brown plugs and 60 or 70mm
screws.

Christian.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:48:31 +0100, "Nick" no_bother@all wrote:

I've just read a newspaper report on the death by electrocution of Jenny
Tonge's daughter.
A metal utensil rack in her kitchen had become live as a result of one of
its mounting screws piercing a cable.

The real question here (from our viewpoint) is whether Article P
would have been any help.

We have standards for this work. Following them would have made this
accident far less likely - you can still puncture a cable, but you
have to try pretty hard. The standards weren't followed though - the
only remaining question is whether this fitter would have been seen as
any more "competent" under Article P than a DIY installer?

Cable detectors are useful, but they're not a solution of themselves.
This rack was installed by the husband, and banning all minor DIY
except by qualified kitchen fitters is a "solution" I think few would
seriously consider. The fault was primarily, and blame-wise, with the
bad cabling and not with the rack-hanging.

I'm still unconvinced that this new legislation achieves anything.
When the professionals can deliver a crude bodge like this, it's not
the DIY installer who needs to be tied up in red tape.

--
Smert' spamionam

Christian McArdle wrote:
The coroner observed that the cable was only 10mm deep in the wall insted
of
50mm. Have the regulations changed? I don't think any cables in my house
are
sunk that deep.

It is an either/or thing, which the report doesn't make clear.

Your choices:

1. Bury 50mm deep (so nothing reaches the cable)
2. Run in prescribed locations (fitter knows not to drill above sockets
etc.)
3. Provide mechanical protection (so the drill blunts itself on a metal
casing)

I can't imagine an easy way to do this.
If 'hubby' has a 3mm HSS drill in drill set on "ramming speed", and
just presses a bit, it'll go through most stuff easily.

On 12 Oct 2004 08:03:32 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 07:59:08 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

So.... in this case, either cables were run incorrectly or a kitchen
fitter was careless, or the young lady suffered the attentions of
Darwin.

Next thing, the powers that be will want a Part P equivalent for kitchen
fitters... :-(

In practice that is what will be needed.

When I had my kitchen remodelling done by a team of two fitters a
couple of years ago, one was a CORGI fitter so that he could do hobs
etc. and the other was already a qualified electrician.
The CORGI guy basically didn't do enough gas fitting as a component of
his work to pay for the membership.
I expect that the other's NICEIC tax may cover his electrical work.

Guess who's going to pay......

Now where was John Redwood's number??........



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:16:23 +0000, Ian Stirling wrote:


I can't imagine an easy way to do this. If 'hubby' has a 3mm HSS drill
in drill set on "ramming speed", and just presses a bit, it'll go
through most stuff easily.

Heavy duty metal conduit would stop most masonary bits surely? OK - you
did say HSS, so I'd agree with that stated, but I would assume that
sensible DIYers would use the correct type of drill bit???

As my Dad used (and still does) say - you can make something "fool proof",
but not "bloody fool proof".

He witnessed the aftermath from when a substation attendant happily threw
an 11kV oil filled switch handle through the "off" into the "earthed"
position depsite the fact that to go past "off" needed a 90deg twist of
the handle to prevent accidental mis-operation.

Fortunately the operator ended up bent over the now low switch handle by
the time the dead short blew the 1/2 inch thick several-foot-square metal
lid off the switch, caused it to frisbee over him, across the room and
demolish a pair of steel blast doors into the street.

LEB renewed the switch, attendant renewed his trousers.

Timbo

If 'hubby' has a 3mm HSS drill in drill set on "ramming speed", and
just presses a bit, it'll go through most stuff easily.

Possibly, but you're not expected to use a 3mm HSS in a wall. A masonry bit
might be a more reasonable choice and these are as useful as a piece of
celery for drilling into thick walled metal conduit. The rules are to give
reasonable protection against foreseeable actions, not to save people
specifically intent on commiting suicide.

Besides, have you ever tried drilling metal? Even a quality bit won't go
through like cheese through a thick walled pipe. The difference in
resistance will be collosal compared to the substrate material
(plaster/brick) and be very obvious to the perpetrator.

Christian.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Now where was John Redwood's number??........

It was probably John Redwood or one of his chums who first
introduced the compulsory CORGI membership if working on gas for
gain. Check out

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/artic...em.php?id=1390

"... If the shadow minister’s speech represents the Conservative
Party’s "new vision", then housebuilders can only hope Blair or
Brown occupies No.10 Downing Street after the next election.

But should the Conservatives manage to oust Labour, we will have to
rely on civil servants at the Treasury and the new housing and
planning ministry telling the new Tory ministers their policies are
hopelessly incomplete, contradictory and would have disastrous
consequences for the economy, the housing market and the British
people’s aspirations to home ownership."

John Stewart, HBF director of economic affairs,
Housebuilder August 2004

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:48:33 +0100, Andy Dingley wrote:

When the professionals can deliver a crude bodge like this, it's not
the DIY installer who needs to be tied up in red tape.

Hear, hear. I hope they can track down the installer and/or his
company and slap a manslaughter(*) charge on them or at the very least
neglegance.

(*) Or whatever the correct legal word is for causing such a death.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Tony Bryer wrote:
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Now where was John Redwood's number??........

It was probably John Redwood or one of his chums who first
introduced the compulsory CORGI membership if working on gas for
gain. Check out

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/artic...em.php?id=1390

Didn't see anything about CORGI in there

In article , Neil Jones wrote:
Didn't see anything about CORGI in there

Sorry, should have stated a new paragraph. Conservatives talk about
deregulation but their record suggests otherwise.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:20:26 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Now where was John Redwood's number??........

It was probably John Redwood or one of his chums who first
introduced the compulsory CORGI membership if working on gas for
gain.

Could be. I was thinking of his new role as shadow minister for
deregulation......


Check out

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/artic...em.php?id=1390

"... If the shadow minister’s speech represents the Conservative
Party’s "new vision", then housebuilders can only hope Blair or
Brown occupies No.10 Downing Street after the next election.

But should the Conservatives manage to oust Labour, we will have to
rely on civil servants at the Treasury and the new housing and
planning ministry telling the new Tory ministers their policies are
hopelessly incomplete, contradictory and would have disastrous
consequences for the economy, the housing market and the British
people’s aspirations to home ownership."

John Stewart, HBF director of economic affairs,
Housebuilder August 2004

Mmmm.... Looking at several of his articles, it strikes me that
there is more than a touch of political motivation.....



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Now where was John Redwood's number??........

Appalling person.

It was probably John Redwood or
one of his chums who first
introduced the compulsory CORGI
membership if working on gas for
gain. Check out

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/artic...em.php?id=1390

"... If the shadow minister's speech represents the Conservative
Party's "new vision", then housebuilders can only hope Blair or
Brown occupies No.10 Downing Street after the next election.

But should the Conservatives manage to oust Labour, we will have to
rely on civil servants at the Treasury and the new housing and
planning ministry telling the new Tory ministers their policies are
hopelessly incomplete, contradictory and would have disastrous
consequences for the economy, the housing market and the British
people's aspirations to home ownership."

John Stewart, HBF director of economic affairs,
Housebuilder August 2004

Well said Mr Stewart. You can't allow those fools back into power.

"Neil Jones" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Now where was John Redwood's number??........

It was probably John Redwood or one of his chums who first
introduced the compulsory CORGI membership if working on gas for
gain. Check out

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/artic...em.php?id=1390

Didn't see anything about CORGI in there

The Queen has Corgi's.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Mmmm.... Looking at several of his articles, it strikes me that
there is more than a touch of political motivation.....

No, an appreciation of reality. At a local ward meeting our
Conservative councillors were decrying the fact that an application
they'd refused for demolishing 2 bungalows and replacing them with
flats had been allowed on appeal. The grounds for refusal had been on
the lines of changing the character of the area, not genuine
technical matters. What they should have told the local residents is
what their party was more than happy to tell redundant steelworkers:
that this was market forces at work and they should accept it.

The housebuilders can see that if the Conservatives were to get in,
scrap all Prescott's housing targets, and just leave it to local
councils to decide what was built and where, the result would be - as
the article says - a victory for Nimbyism.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In article om,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Hear, hear. I hope they can track down the installer and/or his
company and slap a manslaughter(*) charge on them or at the very
least neglegance.

I'm not quite sure why the press reports make a point of not naming
the firm but given that people had got shocks or tingles off this
rack before I think that what you suggest is OTT. If it were a public
building and it came out at an inquest that the 'manager' knew of a
potential hazard and had failed to do anything about it, then it
would surely be him on trial.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

If it were a public building and it came out at an inquest that the
'manager' knew of a potential hazard and had failed to do anything
about it, then it would surely be him on trial.

A building manager should be properly trained to assess health and safety
risks as part of his overall responsibility for which he/she is paid. In a
domestic situation, the occupants are not deemed to be so qualified and may
need to rely on the competence of contractors carrying out improvement work
to determine what is safe or not.

Christian.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Now where was John Redwood's number??........

It was probably John Redwood or one of his chums who first
introduced the compulsory CORGI membership if working on gas for
gain. Check out

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/artic...em.php?id=1390

Here is the articel in full. Nice one too..

industry news
housebuilder Issue: August 2004
john stewart's housing viewpoint:

CASTLES IN THE SKY

Anyone with doubts about the present government's policies for housing
supply should take a look at emerging Conservative policies. Things could
only get worse, argues John Stewart
In a key speech on 24 May, John Hayes, shadow minister for housing and
planning, set out his new vision for housing policy. There was much in the
early part of his presentation that housebuilders would warmly welcome.

He said the idea of the home "should become a defining theme for
Conservatives".
The Conservatives are committed to:

 help more people to afford a home of their own
 ensure everyone has a warm, safe home - built to last
 give local communities control over how they develop
 protect and enhance our precious environment
 regenerate urban Britain, building high quality homes on brownfield sites.

For housebuilders, probably his most important statement was that "there are
far too many people in our otherwise wealthy society who either do not have
a home or else the kind of home they deserve". This seems to suggest Hayes
recognizes Britain suffers from an undersupply of housing. He reinforced
this interpretation when he said "frustrated aspirations to home ownership,
overcrowding and fuel poverty are painful symptoms of what's wrong with
Britain". He quoted Shelter's estimate of 500,000 households officially
overcrowded. Later in his speech, Hayes referred to figures showing rising
numbers of people who are homeless, in B&B and temporary accommodation or
sleeping rough.

Hayes said the Conservatives oppose "the over-mighty planning system" which
is "bureaucratic, unresponsive and esoteric" and "frustrates developers". He
claimed heavy handed regulation limits the scope of innovative development,
but fails to stem urban sprawl.
He said: "Conservatives know that the energy of the market powers the drive
to social renewal". We believe that private developers should build
long-lasting homes in character and scale with the built environment and
local landscape, BUT to do so we know they need an efficient planning system
which assists their businesses to plan". He added that, "the market and
government can be good servants of the common good".

So we have an acceptance of housing shortages, rejection of an over-mighty
planning system, and a belief in the power of markets. A promising start.

TORY POLITICS

Sadly, the speech quickly lurched into the crude politics of nimbyism.

Hayes said he would use his speech to "expose the twin threats posed by
Labour's gargantuan housebuilding plans - to Britain's precious countryside
and to the prospect of urban renewal". The deputy prime minister was arguing
that Britain needs at least two million more houses, "more than enough
houses to gobble up land equivalent to two cities the size of Birmingham".
For every year, "two towns the size of Middlesbrough will eat into England's
shires"; "mile after mile of the world's finest countryside. would be
bulldozed"; "much of rural Britain would be concreted over - destroying vast
swathes of the world's finest countryside."

Hayes condemned the government's regional authorities, which "would overrule
the wishes of local people and impose sprawling developments on reluctant
communities".
Having initially referred to evidence of housing shortages - far too many
people do not have decent homes - and the consequences of such shortages -
frustrated home ownership aspirations, overcrowding, homelessness - he
contradicted himself by firmly rejecting any notion of shortages, quoting
2001 census evidence produced by CPRE showing there is a surplus of
dwellings over households.

He said Labour would lead us to believe that housebuilders "are desperate
for more land" when in fact "planning permission has already been granted
for 250,000 homes". As this represents about 1.7 years supply of new housing
at current build rates for England, or 1.5 years supply for Great Britain,
it is not clear how 250,000 permissions does anything other than support the
belief that housebuilders are desperate for more land.

Hayes said a Conservative government would crack down on the problem of
empty homes. Those who oppose development always quote the 700,000 empty
homes in England, but fail to acknowledge that around half are short-term
"transactional vacancies" due to house moves, refurbishment, the death of an
occupant, etc, and that many of the rest are in the wrong places, or
obsolete house types, or in markets with very low demand. Bringing empty
homes into occupation is clearly highly desirable, but any contribution to
solving the housing supply crisis could only ever be small. It is very
misleading to argue that "before Labour destroys more of Britain's
countryside it would seem sensible to fill these empty homes".

Hayes said Conservative housing policy "has been inspired by many meetings
with developers, pressure groups, charities and housing experts". It is
difficult to imagine any developer endorsing the policies put forward in
Hayes's speech, but the fingerprints of the CPRE are everywhere.

AFFORDABILITY CRISIS FIRST PRIORITY

The Conservatives' first priority addresses the crisis of affordability,
according to Hayes. In particular her referred to the affordability problems
faced by first time buyers and key workers.

Yet his proposed solutions would make the situation even worse.
The big idea at the heart of the Conservative Party's help for first time
buyers is to promote shared ownership to "help people to afford the homes
that are available".

In addition, building on the right-to-buy policy, they would "promote and
extend transferable discounts to help tenants buy a home in the
marketplace."

But these two policies would worsen the affordability crisis because both
would add to demand when demand is already outstripping supply, driving up
prices even further. Neither would do anything to improve supply.

The real solution to the affordability crisis seems to lie in the
Conservative Party's broader economic policies.

Quoting a House of Commons select committee report, which concluded that a
major housebuilding programme would be unlikely to reduce house prices,
Hayes said it is "low interest rates, macroeconomic factors and the relative
unattractiveness of alternative investment opportunities which drive up
house prices". So one must conclude that a Conservative government would use
macroeconomic policies, and particularly higher interest rates, to choke off
demand and drive down house prices in order to improve affordability.

This interpretation is supported by remarks by Archie Norman in an earlier
House of Commons debate on the Barker Review. This does not seem like a
policy designed to appeal to existing home owners or Tory voters, nor indeed
to first time buyers.

LOCAL POLITICS

Conservative planning policies rest on devolving power to local planning
authorities: "Local people - not Mr Prescott - should decide what kind of
houses they want and where they should be built."

But Hayes fails to explain how giving power to local communities would
ensure enough homes were built. Some communities would plan to meet housing
need and demand, but many others would cut back, or even stop housebuilding
altogether. The inevitable result would be housing shortages, especially in
the more buoyant and desirable areas of the country.

There is always a wider strategic dimension, as well as a local dimension,
to housing provision, just as there is for health, education or transport.
Governments have to ensure institutional structures provide a proper balance
between bottomup and top-down decision-making.

Conservative policies stress the need to use brownfield land - a "brownfield
first" policy: "We will review the planning, regulation and tax treatment of
contaminated land with a view to making it safe and then developing more of
it".

Yet Hayes condemns the government's efforts to meet its brownfield target.
These have "crammed high-density housing into suburban back gardens. More
than half of the 'brownfield land' which the government claims has been
previously developed is people's backyards, gardens and the like". He adds
that, "Labour is doing nothing to prevent 'town cramming'."

This seems to suggest the Conservatives would relax Prescott's higher
density targets in PPG3 and stop development in people's backyards. If so,
then, to quote Hayes own figures, the half of all brownfield development in
suburban backyards would cease, and at least some of the remaining urban
brownfield land would be developed at lower densities to avoid "town
cramming". Such policies would bring a drastic reduction in housing supply.
They are entirely inconsistent with meeting housing need and improving
affordability.

AND FINALLY...

Towards the end of his speech, Hayes refers to growth of the buy-to-let and
second home markets as one area of concern, and family breakdown as another.
Unfortunately he offers no policy prescriptions to help solve these two
concerns.

If the shadow minister's speech represents the Conservative Party's "new
vision", then housebuilders can only hope Blair or Brown occupies No.10
Downing Street after the next election.

But should the Conservatives manage to oust Labour, we will have to rely on
civil servants at the Treasury and the new housing and planning ministry
telling the new Tory ministers their policies are hopelessly incomplete,
contradictory and would have disastrous consequences for the economy, the
housing market and the British people's aspirations to home ownership. hb

(John Stewart is HBF director of economic affairs. His analysis of economic
and housing market trends is published monthly in Housing Market Report. )

In article , "Steve Firth" %
says...
Dave Liquorice wrote:

Hear, hear. I hope they can track down the installer and/or his
company and slap a manslaughter(*) charge on them or at the very least
neglegance.

From the details given, it's impossible to say if the electrical
installation was at faut or if the kitchen isntaller (or possibly DIYer)
was at fault.

The electrical cable may well have been installed correctly, but the
kitchen installer could have made the error of not realising that a
cable ran horizontally or vertically from a fitting.

If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be
understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the rack
without electrocuting themself.


Presumably a loose screw fretted its way through the insulation.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
cable ran horizontally or vertically from a fitting.

If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be
understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the rack
without electrocuting themself.

If the drill bit just hit the live wire you might not get a shock because

a) Quite likely holding onto plastics parts of drill

b) Possibly not touching any other earthed item.

Birds sit on live wires everyday without ill effect!

Michael Chare

On 12 Oct 2004 (Steve Firth) wrote:

If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be
understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the
rack without electrocuting themself.

Part of the problem is that modern drills are either double-insulated
or battery powered so are not earthed. Consequently if the drill bit
touches a live conductor and you're holding the drill only by it's
plastic case then you won't notice. You'd then put in a plastic wall
plug which would insulate the screw. But it's difficult to see how the
rack could have been dead when fitted and live some time later unless
something was disturbed or the wall became damp.

When I had my Bridges drill with an earthed, die-cast case it could be
guaranteed to blow the fuse if I touched a live wire with the drill bit.
I did once manage to chop through the cable with the hedge trimmer
attachment so cleanly that it didn't blow the fuse, but the resistance
of 100m of 5a cable could have had something to do with it.

--
Richard Porter
Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

In article ,
Tim wrote:
As my Dad used (and still does) say - you can make something "fool
proof", but not "bloody fool proof".

The TV version is foolproof, idiot proof but never c**t proof...

--
*Caution: I drive like you do.

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

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
The coroner observed that the cable was only 10mm deep in the wall
insted
of
50mm.

Personally, I don't think 50mm is enough. Drilling for a rawlplug will
frequently go deeper than this. I tend to use brown plugs and 60 or 70mm
screws.

With SDS drills now commonplace, I bet most holes go most of the 100mm or
150mm that the drill bit allows before the inexperienced user has time to
stop. I doubt there are many forms of protection that would stop a 5kG SDS
either.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:24:44 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Hear, hear. I hope they can track down the installer and/or his
company and slap a manslaughter(*) charge on them or at the very least
neglegance.

From the details given, it's impossible to say if the electrical
installation was at faut or if the kitchen isntaller (or possibly DIYer)
was at fault.


Reading the wording, it would appear that that is exactly how the
verdict is intended - i.e. sitting on the fence.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

All critics of this installation are ill informed.
The poor womans death was avoidable, as is all domestic electrocutions
All house holders know that electricity is dangerous but choose not to
have their system checked and modernised usually because of the cost.
Well here we have an example of the cost, a womans life.
A modern electrical installation to BS7671 is safe.
The choice to have one or not is a free choice, the owner of this home
chose not to.
jim

On 12 Oct 2004 12:55:08 -0700, (Jim) wrote:

All critics of this installation are ill informed.
The poor womans death was avoidable, as is all domestic electrocutions
All house holders know that electricity is dangerous but choose not to
have their system checked and modernised usually because of the cost.
Well here we have an example of the cost, a womans life.
A modern electrical installation to BS7671 is safe.
The choice to have one or not is a free choice, the owner of this home
chose not to.
jim

The cable was wrongly installed by the fitter and by virtue of being
at an angle the installation was not compliant with BS7671.

However, even if it had been, the person installing the rack could, by
not being aware of the cable routing, have drilled into the side of
the cable.

So while it's true that an installation to the standard can be
considered safe as far as it goes, there is nothing that will protect
those who are not aware of where to expect that cables might be.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:22:10 +0100, Christian McArdle wrote:

In a domestic situation, the occupants are not deemed to be so
qualified and may need to rely on the competence of contractors
carrying out improvement work to determine what is safe or not.

Quite, it appears that the cable was not installed to the regs, ie not
within the H or V bands from a visible fitting. The DIYer was not
aware of the problem as it developed over time as the screw chaffed
through the insulation due to small movements from the rack as it was
used.

Who ever installed that cable not within the accepted areas carries
most of the responsiblity for this death. It's short cuts and other
slip shod work from builders or contractors (I hesitate to call them
"professionals") that tends to make me DIY.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Michael Chare wrote:

If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be
understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the rack
without electrocuting themself.

If the drill bit just hit the live wire you might not get a shock because

a) Quite likely holding onto plastics parts of drill

b) Possibly not touching any other earthed item.

Birds sit on live wires everyday without ill effect!

Yes, then you have a screw to get into place while holding onto the
metal rack. How does that work?

Even if the screw connected the live wire to the plate rack, and you touched the
rack, you would only get a shock if current could flow through your body to
earth. It likely would not do this if you were wearing rubber soled shoes and
standing on a non conducting dry floor.

I once rented a flat with a faulty cooker. After a while I noticed that I got a
shock if I put a pan one on of the rings whilst still holding onto a tap.

Michael Chare

In article , Michael Chare Munderscor
writes
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Michael Chare wrote:

If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be
understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the rack
without electrocuting themself.

If the drill bit just hit the live wire you might not get a shock because

a) Quite likely holding onto plastics parts of drill

b) Possibly not touching any other earthed item.

Birds sit on live wires everyday without ill effect!

Yes, then you have a screw to get into place while holding onto the
metal rack. How does that work?

Even if the screw connected the live wire to the plate rack, and you touched the
rack, you would only get a shock if current could flow through your body to
earth.

Yes but I suspect that this time she had a grip on the rack which caused
muscle contraction and then her leg may well have been forced into
contact that bit more with the earthed dishwasher.

All due to the duff electrical cable routing installation in the first
place. IMHO that is..

And had a whole house RCD been fitted she'd be around today.....
It likely would not do this if you were wearing rubber soled shoes and
standing on a non conducting dry floor.

Possible wet hands?..

--
Tony Sayer

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Richard Porter
saying something like:

But it's difficult to see how the
rack could have been dead when fitted and live some time later unless
something was disturbed or the wall became damp.

The feed to the cooker hood may have been taken off the back of the main
cooker switch which was switched off at the time of the rack
installation.

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article , "Steve Firth" %
says...
Dave Liquorice wrote:

Hear, hear. I hope they can track down the installer and/or his
company and slap a manslaughter(*) charge on them or at the very least
neglegance.

From the details given, it's impossible to say if the electrical
installation was at faut or if the kitchen isntaller (or possibly DIYer)
was at fault.

The electrical cable may well have been installed correctly, but the
kitchen installer could have made the error of not realising that a
cable ran horizontally or vertically from a fitting.

If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be
understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the rack
without electrocuting themself.


Presumably a loose screw fretted its way through the insulation.

The screw did frett through the insulation according to the reports, and the
kitchen was fitted by some builders from huddersfield, acordiing to the
Telegraph

Jim wrote:
All critics of this installation are ill informed.

(Jim is also a critic. Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, thus
Socrates is mortal. What, dear readers, can we similarly and
syllogistically conclude about Jim? ;-)

The poor womans death was avoidable, as is all domestic electrocutions
Nah. Deliberate suicides are not avoidable; nor can extreme stupidity be
defended against under the engineering balance which the Regs (thank
gawd) represent. It'll be a sad sad day when the IEE engineering
regs-writers get replaced by CYA lawyers...

All house holders know that electricity is dangerous but choose not to
have their system checked and modernised usually because of the cost.

You appear to be claiming that a 60quid periodic inspection would have
found the fault which proved fatal in this case. I dispute such a claim
- I don't believe that it's standard operating procedure to measure the
potential wrt earth of every bit of metalwork in every room (or even
just in the kitchen) which isn't obviously part of an appliance. In this
case, there was a metal cutlery/utensil rack above the cooker; what
proportion of sparkies doing a periodic inspection would have thought to
measure its potential (or even wave a voltstick in its direction)?

We've noted that an RCD on the relevant circuit would've prevented this
fatality. But BS7671 doesn't necessarily require that the final circuit
on which a cooker hood sits is RCD protected. It will be if it's fed off
a downstairs ring, by virtue of the "reasonably foreseen to supply
portable appliances outside the equipotential zone" rule; but not if
it's fed off a lighting circuit (not uncommon, nothing wrong with it),
or off a radial dedicated to fixed appliances in the kitchen.

Well here we have an example of the cost, a womans life.
A modern electrical installation to BS7671 is safe.
The choice to have one or not is a free choice, the owner of this home
chose not to.

"Safe" is a relative, not an absolute, term. It's clear that (as is
usually the case with accidents in reasonably-managed situations)
multiple factors contributed. Here, they we initial poor routing of
the cooker hood cable; failure of the householder to check for buried
cables when installing the metal rack on the wall; failure of the
occupants to react more decisively to the "tingle" they felt. We can
argue the toss about the relative contributions of these factors. But
only the first of these is a Regs-compliance issue, and that (as I've
argued above) would *not* be picked up by an after-the-fact inspection,
as the poorly routed cable was not visible. The other two factors
concern education and common sense in the general population; a purely
technical fix is not appropriate (no, not even mandating "every circuit
shall have its own RCBO" - as has been pointed out many times over the
years in this group, loss of lighting during fires causes more
fatalities and injuries than are prevented by RCD protection on lighting
circs).

Stefek

Steve Firth wrote:

Yes, now explain the screw.

The electrician acting as expert in the coroner's court reported that
the screw and rack had shifted slightly over time: the report in the
Evening Standard reads thusly: "Evidence to the inquest from electrical
engineer David Latimer, who examined the kitchen, was that a screw from
the rack had caught the side of the electrical cable. Over the years the
rack and screw had moved slightly so that eventually the screw touched
the live wire in the cable."

The claim is thus that the screw had just (by less than a millimeter,
say) missed the live conductor when being installed, but (guessing) had
penetrated the sheath and nicked the inner insulation of the L
conductor; and the "slight movement" - maybe the rack sagging under load
making the screw tilt upwards slightly in response - had finally caused
the screw to make contact with the conductor.

The "shift over time" idea is needed to account for the rack having been
tingle-free for the initial 3 years? or so of fault-free operation - had
the circuit merely been turned off during the initial putting up of the
rack, the rack would've been live from the first time the circuit was
re-energised.

It's a plausible explanation of an implausible event; statistically,
even the implausible happens once in a while.

HTH - Stefek

In message , Steve Firth
writes
If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be
understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the rack
without electrocuting themself.

Last year I helped a friend replace her kitchen cupboards. When we took
down one of them there was a neatly drilled hole in the plaster behind
it with no rawl plug in it but with some very nice and quite artistic
black scorch lines radiating from it for about 1/2" all around and a
pencilled note saying "do not use"! It must have been interesting to
observe!
It was also directly above a 13A twin outlet that was still in use,
after digging a hole in the plaster it was clear that the live had been
neatly cut. The circuit had been used for years with a break in the live
side. Oh and there were only wired fuses in a very overloaded and
similarly blackened CU which has now been replaced with a new split load
one.

Darwin must love DIYers.

--
Bill

In article ,
Bill wrote:
Last year I helped a friend replace her kitchen cupboards. When we took
down one of them there was a neatly drilled hole in the plaster behind
it with no rawl plug in it but with some very nice and quite artistic
black scorch lines radiating from it for about 1/2" all around and a
pencilled note saying "do not use"! It must have been interesting to
observe!
It was also directly above a 13A twin outlet that was still in use,
after digging a hole in the plaster it was clear that the live had been
neatly cut. The circuit had been used for years with a break in the live
side. Oh and there were only wired fuses in a very overloaded and
similarly blackened CU which has now been replaced with a new split load
one.

Darwin must love DIYers.

Hmm. Have you evidence this was caused by DIY? Most wouldn't rest after
such an incident and get it fixed. Not so many so called pros - especially
kitchen fitters who seem to be on piece rate. It's not their problem after
they leave - especially if things still 'work'.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

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

Steve Firth wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:

If the installer was Ms Tonge herself then the error may perhaps be
understandable. OTOH I can't see how someone managed to install the rack
without electrocuting themself.

If the drill bit just hit the live wire you might not get a shock because

a) Quite likely holding onto plastics parts of drill

b) Possibly not touching any other earthed item.

Birds sit on live wires everyday without ill effect!

Yes, then you have a screw to get into place while holding onto the
metal rack. How does that work?

Last screw, with it sitting on the bit of the screwdriver held
in aforementioned insulared drill?

On 12 Oct 2004 (Steve Firth) wrote:

Richard Porter wrote:

Part of the problem is that modern drills are either double-insulated
or battery powered so are not earthed.

Yes, now explain the screw.

Now read the rest of my post.

--
Richard Porter
Mail to username ricp at domain minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."