Re: Too safe ?
- From: Ian Smith <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Mar 2009 13:08:24 GMT
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Rob Morley <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18 Mar 2009 19:40:24 GMT
Ian Smith <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar, Adrian Godwin <adrian.110504@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Maybe you didn't see the bit about the covers which when correctly
Another own-goal by the 'think of the children' lobby :
http://www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/
Except it's nothing but proof by assertion - I can't see anything
that actually justifies the assertion that they do make it more
dangerous. Is there actually any evidence provided that plug-in
covers do increase the danger? If so I can't find it - only the
assertion that they must do.
fitted allow insertion of e.g. a paper-clip into the live terminal.
I did. What I seem to have missed is the bit that demonstrates that
it is impossible to do something equivalently easy and dangerous when
you just rely on the shutters. Perhaps you could show me where that
bit is?
That is - I fully agree that the covers do not eliminate 100% every
conceivable risk associated with mains sockets. But that is a
completely different matter from showing that they do not make matters
safer.
Showing that a risk remains with covers fitted is not the same as
showing that a greater risk occurs with covers fitted. The website
shows the former, while claiming the latter.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Too safe ?
- From: Rob Morley
- Re: Too safe ?
- From: David Hansen
- Re: Too safe ?
- References:
- Too safe ?
- From: Adrian Godwin
- Re: Too safe ?
- From: Ian Smith
- Re: Too safe ?
- From: Rob Morley
- Too safe ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Lords reject London anti-bike chaining law
- Next by Date: Re: Too safe ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Too safe ?
- Next by thread: Re: Too safe ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|