Three prong outlets

[Chris Lewis]

According to I-zheet M'drurz :

We have about four now. Tom, volts500, me, and my coauthor in the electrical wiring faq. There's lots of people who figure the four of us are reputable ;-)

Cite someone, _anyone_, who suggested this was the case.

The hazards of aluminum wire are extremely well known. Nobody questions that aluminum wiring can be very hazardous in some circumstances.

Most jurisdictions now have restrictions on its use.

Yet, _no_ jurisdiction I know of has mandated its removal.

So, why would it be any different for any other similar hazard?

The Canadian regulatory body (CSA) and provincial government regulatory bodies have _all_ banned the use of BX cable sheath as a grounding conductor.

They must have had a reason, eh?

Can you cite one for aluminum? Do you doubt that aluminum can be hazardous?

Here's one where BX contributed:

check out page V-11. What kind of wire was that? ;-)

[I-zheet M'drurz]

Just as expected. You can't.

If what you claim is true, it would be. More sidestepping and tapdancing snipped. I've made my point.

Fairy tale.

[Tom Horne]

That simply is not true. The US national electric code places heavy restrictions on the use of flexible metallic conduit as an Equipment Grounding Conductor (EGC). viz.

250.118 Types of Equipment Grounding Conductors. The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit conductors shall be one or more or a combination of the following: (5) Flexible metal conduit where both the conduit and fittings are listed for grounding. (6) Listed flexible metal conduit that is not listed for grounding, meeting all the following conditions: a. The conduit is terminated in fittings listed for grounding. b. The circuit conductors contained in the conduit are protected by over current devices rated at 20 amperes or less. c. The combined length of flexible metal conduit and flexible metallic tubing and liquid tight flexible metal conduit in the same ground return path does not exceed 1.8 m (6 ft). d. The conduit is not installed for flexibility.

Most of the "Flex" that is available is not listed for grounding. The pot metal fittings that are often used with flex are not listed for grounding.

-- Tom H

[Chris Lewis]

Nonsense. Clear example: the hazards of aluminum wiring are well known. It does cause fires. I've _personally_ seen five burned out aluminum connections, three of which _would_ likely have caused a fire except we were there to notice and put it out.

Have they mandated a removal of all aluminum wires from buildings?

No.

Not only are you ignorant, you're dishonest.

The link I provided was to the report following 85 people being killed in the

1980 MGM Grand hotel fire in Las Vegas. _Because_ of cable armor corroding, overheating, and starting a fire.

I don't think any of those 85 people considered it a fairy tale.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Aluminum wiring does not cause fires. Poor connections and improper installation causes the fires. That is why it is not mandated to be yanked out of houses as it can be corrected. Aluminum has long been used as a conductor for lines from pole to house also with no problem. Ed

[Chris Lewis]

According to Edwin Pawlowski :

I agree with you (tho some experts don't) in that bad workmanship/materials is the key to problems with aluminum. I was using "aluminum wiring" in a more general sense - _including_ the range of typical installations (wrong devices, using push-in terminals (the cause of my near fires) etc) seen in practise.

The same is also true with using BX armor - using it as a ground is certainly now a no-no. Especially here where it hasn't been legal for a very long time. That "can be corrected" too.

That wouldn't necessarily stop a regulatory agency issuing a recall.

Or, more to the point, if you assume that it "can be corrected", then they could easily require mandatory inspections of aluminum wiring and repair of problems instead. As many jurisdictions do with furnaces (NG installations have mandatory inspections every 3-10 years here).

But they haven't done that either.

So we have a situation where a regulatory body _could_ have chosen to take actions for a known and well-established hazard, but has chosen not to.

Thus, the fact that regulatory bodies have not required BX removal (or inspections) doesn't mean that regulatory bodies believe that BX-used-as-grounding is "okay".

[I-zheet M'drurz]

So, you've just admitted that your "example" is BULLSHIT. Nothing more than BULLSHIT.

Well, I guess it's still a fairy tale too.

[Chris Lewis]

Of coure not. In fact, it proves it even more. With faced with a _similar_ hazard (bad aluminum installations versus BX cable used as ground), they didn't recall it (as many people wanted). They didn't even insist on mandatory inspections. They just modified code a bit.

Only in your world. Which one is that?

Still claiming that 85 dead people in the MGM Grand Hotel, in part due to cable armor being used as a ground, in 1980 was a fairy tale?

Or are you ignoring it, hoping nobody will notice?