bathroom earthing question

[David Hansen]

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

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

[Andrew Gabriel]

Sorry, I didn't go into more detail, but it was difficult to know where to start. Every point you made in article 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).

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

No one said it didn't.

[Bob Eager]

That was what I meant when I said that he'd missed the point!

[w_tom]

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 (

[tony sayer]

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

[David Hansen]

On 15 Mar 2006 02:03:24 -0800 someone who may be "w_tom" wrote this:-

And that is largely what BS 7671 says. However, bathrooms are considered so dangerous that (230V) sockets are not permitted in them, other then isolated shaver sockets. The results speak for themselves, which is why the IEE have yet to give in to pressure to abandon this long held policy.

Not many laundry rooms in the UK, but BS 7671 covers swimming pools.

Electricity is not deadly, provided it is treated properly.

In theory, provided it is the sort of fault which the device will operate on.

Excellent, personal abuse.

Only a fool or a liar would say that anything is sufficient for human safety. There is no such thing as 100% safety. However, the IEE point out that their approach means UK bathrooms are safer, something they backed up with figures the last time I checked.

Utterly incorrect. They have done no such thing. Building your whole rant on this "misunderstanding" is fascinating.

Excellent, more ranting.

Some of us are able to use a search engine to find out information, we don't expect to be spoon-fed.

[meow2222]

The ways to rig that to make it a safe demo seem obvious. I certainly would not volunteer to sit in a bath, or throw a mains appliance in a bath, when real mains was connected since RCDs have a noticeable failure rate, they dont offer perfect protection, and the consequnce would be a very long time in a box or in jail.

Since its elementary to feed low v down that mains lead and change connections inside the radio, only a moron would choose to do it with an unrigged radio. Youd have to replace the rcd amplifier supply dropper so it worked on low v.

Now what about those who offer a slew of mistaken facts and erroneous arguments but cant see the errors in them? Why do you assume youre right here, especially when you have not even looked at the reasons for other points of view. Not very logical is it.

Welcome Dr Drivel.

Ah yes, we owe you a free education, to write pages and pages explaining all your cockups to you. None of us have anything better to do.

One more self centred American.

NT

[w_tom]

Curious that those opposed to RCDs for bathroom protection also post emotional tirades rather than technical fact. Notice how David Hansen avoids challenging the IEC that *strongly* encourages used of RCDs in bathrooms. It's easy to insult the messenger when one does not have basic technical knowledge. Those insults suggest to the OP and to lurkers of where David's opposition to well proven technology comes from. Technology that has been standard for more than 30 years where effective human safety is the norm. RCD for bathrooms has long been necessary in other nations because it is so effective. Because equipotential bonding is no longer sufficient for human safety. Because electricity anywhere in a bathroom from any type of electrical outlet is a serious threat to humans with wet skin.

[David Hansen]

On 16 Mar 2006 02:19:21 -0800 someone who may be "w_tom" wrote this:-

Excellent, another rant.

You may have the last word, I'm not feeding a troll any more.

[Andy Wade]

It recommends RCDs for circuits feeding socket-outlets in wet areas. Since BS 7671 does not permit LV socket-outlets in UK bathrooms (even beyond the zoned areas), other than shaver sockets incorporating an isolating transformer, this is not terribly relevant. I have already mentioned that a hand-held appliance such as a hair-dryer does require RCD protection if installed in zone 3.

[w_tom]

The original poster who is not entirely sure what is and is not inside his walls - is encourgaged to install an RCD on that entire circuit - including lights - so that any danger - from human mistake, transformer leakage, unexpected equipment failure that does not trip a circuit breaker, - anything else - will not endanger human life. Due to failures by humans or failures created by surprises, we install RCDs as recommended by the IEC. A solution that is standard elsewhere is recommended because the solution is so effective AND is so inexpensive. A solution that was not available when equipotential grounding and isolation transformers were only viable solutions.

Today we have this w> It recommends RCDs for circuits feeding socket-outlets in wet areas.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Bob Eager" saying something like:

Fer gawd's sake, nobody mention surge and spike supression. I'm fairly convinced wtom is a 'bot of some kind. Either that or a sad bastard.

[meow2222]

Putting the bathroom feed on an RCD is likely to increase bathroom accidents rather than reduce them. But Mr Tom wont have the foggiest idea why. Mr Tom doesnt like numbers it seems.

NT

[tony sayer]

Why do you think that?.....

[meow2222]

How many people get electrocuted or injured by electricity in bathrooms in uk? How many people fall over and get injured or die when the lights go out? British bathrooms area case where the rcd has just about no benefit in terms of reducing numbers, yet its risks are if anything greater, since a shower/bath situation is more liable to produce a fall than dry rooms.

NT

[tony sayer]

Yep how many?..

Well in the UK you wouldn't have the bathroom on a lone RCD would you?...

[w_tom]

But again meow2222 ignored what the OP requested. He is not sure if his wiring is sufficiently up to code and safe. The RCD would provide sufficient protection and, in some cases, actually detects a wiring problem long before a human is harmed. Just another reason why other nations have, for multiple decades, upgraded electrical codes to demand RCDs in every bathroom AND in other places where wet humans would be at risk. A solution both so effective AND so inexpensive. A 21st Century solution that was even necessary in the 20th Century for human safety.

Amazing that some in the UK so disparage human life as to discourage a superior safety solution that is even recommended by IEC as well as is standard in other nation's electrical code. A solution considered essential where humans get wet.

So why do you argue irrelevant details? Irrelevant to what the > How many people get electrocuted or injured by electricity in bathrooms

[Bob Eager]

(snip rant)

He's definitely a bot.