Welcome to the wonderful world of the 2008 NEC.

Brought to you by the many manufacturers of fine electrical equipment.
Their new motto: It's OK. We'll be your parents for you."

(also tongue-in-cheek)

Quote the section so we know what you are talking about.

Why should I have to use tampon-proof receptacles?

OOPS!

I forgot my glasses.

Nevermind!

Oh Give Me a Break....

I'm going to start right now writing my proposal for the 2011 NEC, requiring intelligent switches for residential garbage disposals that will automatically detect when your hand is stuffed down inside the unit and prevent you or someone else from inadvertently turning it on.

Friggin' Nannies.

One arguement for is that CPSC data indicates about 2000 children a year go to the emergency room with injuries caused by sticking foreign objects into a receptacle.

House cost too much? Due to the marketing ploys of the industry, many of them are way bigger than they need to be, so make it a few square feet smaller or do without the granite counter tops. Either one will offset the cost of the tamper resistent receptacles and all the AFCI's.

How many electricians read the proposals & submit comments during the public comment period? Judging by the ROC, not many. You're certainly welcome to complain, but if you're not participating in the process, the words sound kind of hollow.

Sorry Tom, as I read it, this is basically fear-mongering foisted by NEMA for the express purpose of boosting per-device profits, while decreasing their liability exposure from unprotected receptacles.

There are already numerous after-market solutions available that serve the ostensible goal stated in 406.11. Plus, if the devices required by The Code are anything like the existing shutter covers, they're not all that hard for even a moderately persistent child to defeat anyway (read fundamentally flawed). The only way for them to be truly effective is if they are equally difficult and inconvenient for everyone else to use. I could easily see an ADA lawsuit stemming from this.

As for reading the proposals and commenting on them, I'm not an electrician, and the extent of my experience thereof is within my own home, as prescribed by the state of Minnesota. I therefore have no professional cause to regularly keep up with proposed Code changes. What concerns me is, the way you make it sound, it's not all that difficult for those with a vested interest to slide superfluous NEC proposals through. If that's true, then I've just lost a whole lot of respect for the NEC.

Be that as it may, the responsibility of keeping children safe ultimately falls on the parent. What it really comes down to is, how much more must we, as a society, pay for the negligence and sloth of others?

In another string about having a cloths washer on a GFCI, one of the posts suggested that civilization could be saved by protecting every circuit with a GFCI. All statistics need to be tempered by the overall population of 300 million plus.

Reminds me when our grown chiildren were a few years old, we put locking mechanisms on the cabinets to keep them out of cleaning fluids, etc. Took our one son about 10 minutes to figure out how to get in the cabinets.

We as a society pay for the negligence & sloth of others all the time.

When the child is treated in the emertgency room & the parents can't pay, we pay for it when we are charged more for our hospital visit to make up for the hospitals loss. Some childrens medical bills will be paid by the state (your tax dollars at work).. Sometimes the bill will be paid by their parents insurance, which also leads to higher insurance costs. We pay for it all.

The drawback is, all this is paid for after the injury. I'd rather see us pay for preventative measures.

You can pay for preventive measures till you are blue in the face and ignorance, negligence and sloth will prevail. Always interesting who our local law inforcement considers to be the worse offender. The fine for not wearing a seat belt is $200. The fine for speeding in a school zone is $120. I read the statistic about a couple of thousand kids being treated for sticking something in a receptacle. How about the 40,000 some thousand people killed in auto accidents every year not including those maimed. Yeh, we really need to protect those receptacles!

According to stats reported by NEMA, there are about 2,400 children each year who are sufficiently injured by poking something into a receptacle that they need to be treated in a hospital emergency room.

I'm a firm believer in the adage that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Since these statistics are presented by people with an agenda, I'm not sure whether I'm willing to believe them or not. Nevertheless, if it is true that there are 2,400 kids in the U.S. getting hurt each year, and these "tamper-resistant receptacles" can prevent most of that (not a foregone conclusion), then perhaps this rule is justified.

Here is a link that might be useful: Child injury stats

PROPER PARENTING can prevent many more of these injuries than regulation can.

NO ONE wants to take responsibility for anything any more in this country!

To the best of my knowledge, and as cited in the ROC, the statistics I referred to were generated by the CPSC and the numbers agree with a similar study done in Canada.

I agree totally with the Texasredhead that nothing is foolproof, but that is not a reason to give up trying to make electrical installations safer As for the 40,000 auto fatalities per year, the auto industry was notorious for dragging its feet regarding safety, until the feds forced them to change their ways. Deaths & mutilations are down. If you can ever track down a book called "America incorporated" you'll get a real eye opener about corporate greed & lack of safety.

I hope everyone enjoys their 4th of July weekend.

Tom

Again, out of 300 million population? How far do we have to go to protect us from ourselves? As John Stossel says, "give me a break!"

"How far do we have to go to protect us from ourselves?"

If I have ever agreed with a statement, THIS is it!!!

I think it would be unrealistic to assume that every one of those visits involved an injury that really needed medical attention. Obviously a physician would examine the patient and at least suggest some care or action even if no actual harm occurred. And that creates a statistic. For a short time in the early 1990's, the CABO building code was law in my area for residential construction. As a result, on one day, the cost of building a new house rose by about 2 1/2%. While difficult to identify with such precision, the fact remains that an additional dollar in cost of a house will eliminate some potential purchaser. I lived for a few years, in the area where I now live, prior to the availability of electric power. No refrigeration, no automatic heat or AC, no indoor plumbing- or any plumbing! We made it OK. We improved our house gradually as services and our finances permitted. If everything required today was required then, it probably would have taken 10 to 20 more years for us to have our own house.

I don't have access to read the code directly and take the point regarding the effectiveness or not of outlet shields and Texasredhead seems to take umbrage at my suggestion that GFCI of all outlets is a good idea, however, I do believe they are.

Some countries do require them. A whole-house model is what they usually specify and they work independent of the breakers, it might take some adapting to use in the North American market, but a retrofitted whole-house GFCI cost just over $200 Australian, a bit less in USD$. On a new house I'm sure the cost could be made lower.

Why does a commonsense safety item seem to trigger such a reaction? I don't think gfci=nanny state, it gives people in that split second a second chance, including mostly children. As for the 'proper parenting' argument, I agree somewhat, but can everyone say they will be there to stop them (or teach them no, if we get the chance) from harming themselves? The reality that we can't be there moment to moment, and accidents do indeed happen, is how some of this knee-jerk nanny state thing has come about.

Following the logic, every safety device ever invented is a bad idea because of the cost? Is car insurance a bad idea? I know if I'm out driving, 1) I want to be covered and 2) I want the drivers I'm sharing the road with covered too. In most places, it's compulsory, and I accept it as a good idea, as if it wasn't, inevitably people would be injured or killed by someone without coverage or means.

>Following the logic, every safety device ever invented is a bad idea because of the cost?

I don't know how logic led you here. Where was it ever suggested that safety devices were categorically "bad ideas?"

Again, there are already receptacle cover solutions available that will protect children in that brief three or four year window of vulnerability to their own impulses and curiosity. Beyond that window, such a permanent, state-imposed "safety" feature constitutes at best a nuisance. And even within that window, at worst, a false sense of security that will inevitably promote even less diligence on the part of the parent.

And don't even suggest that GFCI is in the same class as this nanny law. GFCIs work. And better yet, they work completely transparently and non-disruptively.

You give me a positive child-proof receptacle protection means, that doesn't require any extra steps (especially with that one behind the sofa that requires one to be half-contortionist just to plug into) and, fine, I'm there.

Hi,

I think that covers on plugs is OK as a fix, and it is backward compatible with existing sockets. In England (UK) this same issue was brought up, and the voltage being higher at 240v AC vs 120v AC in the USA.

The solution I liked the best was a new socket design. It was like a lock and key. Imagine a key with three fingers on it (Gnd, Live, Neutral). The Key goes into a key hole (the socket) which is spring loaded with a push in cover. To make a connection, insert the key plug and twist. This is a one hand needed task. Also if the child sticks his fingers into the socket, the cover will allow this to happen, BUT he still cannot access the power terminals because they are out of the way. The Key plug gets at those terminals because of the twisting motion.

I though that this was a great solution.

Best, Mike.

personally I don't really care. They wire the same, install the same, no skin off my nose. Just means that my costs will go up to cover the additional fee of the receptacles. I don't like how the hubble home selects have "TR" stamped right on them though, looks bad in my opinion.
Personally I'm more upset about the whole arc fault thing and how much nuisance tripping service calls we're going to have now. No more edison home runs gets to be a pain when you're doing circuit lay outs too.

"No more edison home runs gets to be a pain when you're doing circuit lay outs too."

I assume you mean MWBC's? What makes you say this?

arc faults take a dedicated neutral so you can no longer use a 3 wire for two circuits and share the neutral like before.

So you've never seen two-pole AFCI breakers before???
They certainly DO exist for just the reason you state.

Really PETEY? Tell me who? No one to my knowledge makes a combination AFCI that the code now requires that is two pole. CH only makes branch feeders and Square D doesn't make any.

Yes, two-pole AFCIs are available. Check out the Siemens offering. Siemens is one of my least-favorite brands. Other brands offer them also.

Here is a link that might be useful: Siemens AFCI

Ron, you're right. I never noticed the difference. Since I am not under the new code I never realized they didn't offer combination breakers in 2-pole. Nice. Luckily not every place in the country is requiring combination AFCIs and some not requiring AFCIs at all.

This is yet another JOKE about the 2008 NEC and related section of the 2005.
Let's pass a code requirement where the f*ing devices are not even available yet. Thank you NEC, lobbyists and lawyers.
It's nice to see our beloved NEC is just as much for sale as our govt is.

Sorry Bus. The one you referenced is a branch feeder and no longer compliant with the bedroom outlet requirements of NEC 2005 and later. It even says that right on the page.

Petey, the NEC did give special dispensation that ran out at the beginning of the year. You're officially SOL now if you have a multiwire circuit.

All of you want to complain about the new code but how may of you read ove rthe proposals adn gave your input during the public input window? If you didn't do that then I don't want to hear you complain.

Then don't read them!

I firmly believe that these would have passed no matter who complained prior.

These requirements eventually become law in most of the USA, potentially affecting most of the population of the USA. In fact, that is the hope and intent of the authors of the NEC. But I speculate that most of the population has never heard of The National Fire Protection Association. And most of the population does not regularly monitor the proposals issuing from this organization. Their rules for submitting comments and proposals appears to be designed to discourage such things. There is quite a process required in order to comment.

"All of you want to complain about the new code but how may of you read ove rthe proposals adn gave your input during the public input window? If you didn't do that then I don't want to hear you complain."

wow you obviously know how this whole thing works. I had no idea at all it was so easy. You mean all we have to do is give our input and we'll actually be heard? We don't have to have deep pockets and pay people off? See you guys later I'm off to rewrite the NEC. I had no clue it was this easy, I'm so stupid!

get a clue......

The concession was to allow branch feeder AFCI until the beginning of this year. Unfortunately that was neither extended nor has the industry progressed to provide combo AFCI stuff. Not a tremendous issue on new construction but can be extremely daunting on retrofits.

Generally safety upgrades are a nuisance at first until the economies of scale kick in. At first GFIs were really pricey (as were smoke detectors) now they're cheap to the point omitting them is unthinkable. Working my entire career in the elevator trade I've seen many safety upgrades that I questioned at first but once they become code and everyone has to use them, the cost and labor involved become neglidgeable. Not many people get electrocuted by hair driers anymore...and anecdotal stories aside, do you know anyone personally that was ever injured on an elevator?

For the last time, GFCI's are functionally TRANSPARENT--the user needn't do anything different to enjoy the benefits of them.

As for the efficacy of the tamper-proof receptacle: It has been surmised that the smart kids will be more likely to defeat it and dispatch themselves, leaving behind the stupid ones to grow up and author future proposals for the NEC.

:-b