120V is LETHAL,too-More people are killed on it than any other voltage in the US.
"Four Kitchen Gadgets You Shouldn't Buy"
- Thread starter sudsmaster
- Start date
Help Support :
yes 110 120 volts is letha
You mean 110 volts CAN be lethal, Rex.
Yes, people get electrocuted on 110, as I stated. It is relatively safe, unless you do something stupid or have an unfortunate set of circumstances that cause a lethal condition to occur. That was my point, people do stupid things and with 220 there would be a lot more deaths. 110 volts. is a much safer option.
Of course, more people get electrocuted with 110 volts than any other voltage.
That because that's what our houses are wired with. If our houses were wired with 90 volts, then more people in the U.S. would be killed with 90 volts than any other voltage. If our houses were wired with 220 as the primary current, then you would find that more people in the U.S. are killed by 220 than any other voltage.
For a given set of circumstances, 220 volts is a higher probability of being lethal than 110 volts. It's not that 110 volts cannot be lethal, its just that it usually just gives a nasty shock, unless adverse conditions exist.
I looked up the statistics from the U.S. Product Safety Commission. It 2001, 411 people were killed, in the U.S., by electrocution. It said 19 prcent were from large household appliances and 11 percent from household wiring.
Only 411 deaths out of over 300 million people.
I would say that 110 volts is very, very safe.
Yes, in can be lethal, but water can be lethal too, so can a Hostess Twinkie.
If someone chokes on a Hostess Twinkie, that Twinkie was lethal to them. So you don't say Twinkies are lethal. You say they CAN be lethal. Virtually anything can be lethal, under the right circumstances.
So I'll edit what I said, and state that 220 volts has a greater chance of causing a lethal event than 110 volts. Therfore, it would probably be less desireable than 110 volts as the primary voltage in U.S. households.
You mean 110 volts CAN be lethal, Rex.
Yes, people get electrocuted on 110, as I stated. It is relatively safe, unless you do something stupid or have an unfortunate set of circumstances that cause a lethal condition to occur. That was my point, people do stupid things and with 220 there would be a lot more deaths. 110 volts. is a much safer option.
Of course, more people get electrocuted with 110 volts than any other voltage.
That because that's what our houses are wired with. If our houses were wired with 90 volts, then more people in the U.S. would be killed with 90 volts than any other voltage. If our houses were wired with 220 as the primary current, then you would find that more people in the U.S. are killed by 220 than any other voltage.
For a given set of circumstances, 220 volts is a higher probability of being lethal than 110 volts. It's not that 110 volts cannot be lethal, its just that it usually just gives a nasty shock, unless adverse conditions exist.
I looked up the statistics from the U.S. Product Safety Commission. It 2001, 411 people were killed, in the U.S., by electrocution. It said 19 prcent were from large household appliances and 11 percent from household wiring.
Only 411 deaths out of over 300 million people.
I would say that 110 volts is very, very safe.
Yes, in can be lethal, but water can be lethal too, so can a Hostess Twinkie.
If someone chokes on a Hostess Twinkie, that Twinkie was lethal to them. So you don't say Twinkies are lethal. You say they CAN be lethal. Virtually anything can be lethal, under the right circumstances.
So I'll edit what I said, and state that 220 volts has a greater chance of causing a lethal event than 110 volts. Therfore, it would probably be less desireable than 110 volts as the primary voltage in U.S. households.
I don't consider ANY LV utility supplied voltage "safe" if you contact it.Too many folks get the attitude-"Its only 120V-it won't hurt me"that gets people killed.I won't say any utility supplied voltage is "safe".the higher voltages-people usually take precautions-but not always with 120V.and just about anyone who has worked on electric devices has gotten "bit" by 120V to remind them to disconnect the device from the outlet before working on it any further.Power company lineman give 120V,240V or any "secondary" or LV voltages the same respect as the higher voltage "primary" or medium dist voltages.and on the power pole-no breakers or fuses-except the one on the primary of the pole transformer!Some pole transformers have sec breakers in them,but need high short circuit current to trip them.so lots could happen in that time.
Ok, this is a serious threadjack and I apologize, but let's get it out into the open. It SHOULD be in a separate thread.
You can feel 1 milliamps of current. That's 0.001 amps. 5 milliampres of current, or 0.005 is painful to the touch.
60 milliamps, or 0.060 amps of current is enough to cause irregular heart rhythms and has the potential of being fatal.
100 milliamps, or 0.1 amps of current can cause severe muscular contractions. This can lead to two situations, either the person "jerks" away from the shock, releasing themselves from the live lead, or they "grab on" to it, resulting in death. This also causes fibrillation.
200 milliamps, or 0.2 amps results in guaranteed electrocution. It will also burn the individual and it will result in them not being able to breathe.
Now, Ohms law consists of three things. Voltage, Current and Resistance. The formula to ohms law is = E = I * R where E is voltage, I is current and R is resistance.
Now as well, it also depends how the current is flowing. Is it flowing from the hand through the arm, through the heart, down the leg and foot into ground?
Let's take it a step further. Let's calculate the required resistance required to allow for 60 milliamps of current to flow. The internal resistance of the human body is between 300 to 1,000 ohms. Dry skin has a resistance of 1000 to 10k ohms. For the sake of demonstration, lets say the human touching the wire has about 2500 ohms of resistance.
At 115 volts, 60 Milliamps of current flowing would require 1916 ohms of resistance. 2500 ohms at that voltage would cause only 46 milliamps of current flow. Our victim would experience pain, but they would be mostly OK.
At 230 volts, 60 Milliamps of current flowing would require 3833 and 1/3 ohms of resistance. 2500 ohms at that voltage would cause 92 milliamps of current flow. Our victim would quite possibly either jerk away from the hot wire or grab onto it and end up being electrocuted.
At 50,000 volts, 60 Milliamps of current flowing would require 83.3 Kiloohms. At 2500 ohms, 20 amps of current would flow. (That's a Megawatt of power by the way.) Electrical workers who are exposed to this kind of power are usually cooked inside and out by the time they can physically remove them from the power lines.
So, what does this mean? It means that at higher voltages, you need more resistance to result in the same amount of current flow. Or, you need a higher resistance to keep the current flow low enough to prevent it from being lethal.
The reason why there isn't as many electrocutions in Europe as opposed to Canada is the following:
- UK Electrical is nuts. You can't put your finger across the tongs of the plug then plug it in, because only the tips are conductive. The plugs are also fused, but unless they have a GFCI built in, that fuse isn't going to save anyone.
- Most 230-240 volt systems I've seen have a switch on the plug. People are taught, plug in, switch on.. then switch off, unplug.
- Other electrical systems use that famous shucko (sp?) style plug which is much safer than North American plugs.
- Perhaps there is greater education involving government propaganda films?
There are less fatalities because those electrical systems are better designed and engineered.. You have to keep in mind that due to World War 2, the electrical infrastructure in Europe was rebuilt with much more advanced and safer technology.
My theory is as well, with the higher voltages across the pond, one would have a likelihood of "jerking" away from the hot lead, but I'm not about to find out myself!
I hope all of you found this educational. If this discussion is to be continued, it should be in a separate thread.
Thanks.
You can feel 1 milliamps of current. That's 0.001 amps. 5 milliampres of current, or 0.005 is painful to the touch.
60 milliamps, or 0.060 amps of current is enough to cause irregular heart rhythms and has the potential of being fatal.
100 milliamps, or 0.1 amps of current can cause severe muscular contractions. This can lead to two situations, either the person "jerks" away from the shock, releasing themselves from the live lead, or they "grab on" to it, resulting in death. This also causes fibrillation.
200 milliamps, or 0.2 amps results in guaranteed electrocution. It will also burn the individual and it will result in them not being able to breathe.
Now, Ohms law consists of three things. Voltage, Current and Resistance. The formula to ohms law is = E = I * R where E is voltage, I is current and R is resistance.
Now as well, it also depends how the current is flowing. Is it flowing from the hand through the arm, through the heart, down the leg and foot into ground?
Let's take it a step further. Let's calculate the required resistance required to allow for 60 milliamps of current to flow. The internal resistance of the human body is between 300 to 1,000 ohms. Dry skin has a resistance of 1000 to 10k ohms. For the sake of demonstration, lets say the human touching the wire has about 2500 ohms of resistance.
At 115 volts, 60 Milliamps of current flowing would require 1916 ohms of resistance. 2500 ohms at that voltage would cause only 46 milliamps of current flow. Our victim would experience pain, but they would be mostly OK.
At 230 volts, 60 Milliamps of current flowing would require 3833 and 1/3 ohms of resistance. 2500 ohms at that voltage would cause 92 milliamps of current flow. Our victim would quite possibly either jerk away from the hot wire or grab onto it and end up being electrocuted.
At 50,000 volts, 60 Milliamps of current flowing would require 83.3 Kiloohms. At 2500 ohms, 20 amps of current would flow. (That's a Megawatt of power by the way.) Electrical workers who are exposed to this kind of power are usually cooked inside and out by the time they can physically remove them from the power lines.
So, what does this mean? It means that at higher voltages, you need more resistance to result in the same amount of current flow. Or, you need a higher resistance to keep the current flow low enough to prevent it from being lethal.
The reason why there isn't as many electrocutions in Europe as opposed to Canada is the following:
- UK Electrical is nuts. You can't put your finger across the tongs of the plug then plug it in, because only the tips are conductive. The plugs are also fused, but unless they have a GFCI built in, that fuse isn't going to save anyone.
- Most 230-240 volt systems I've seen have a switch on the plug. People are taught, plug in, switch on.. then switch off, unplug.
- Other electrical systems use that famous shucko (sp?) style plug which is much safer than North American plugs.
- Perhaps there is greater education involving government propaganda films?
There are less fatalities because those electrical systems are better designed and engineered.. You have to keep in mind that due to World War 2, the electrical infrastructure in Europe was rebuilt with much more advanced and safer technology.
My theory is as well, with the higher voltages across the pond, one would have a likelihood of "jerking" away from the hot lead, but I'm not about to find out myself!
I hope all of you found this educational. If this discussion is to be continued, it should be in a separate thread.
Thanks.
120 volts is relatively "safe" in comparison to higher voltages, Rex.
Everything we are talking about is relative in this discussion. We are talking about the relative safety of 110v versus 220v in primary household wiring.
411 deaths, even with 300 million people is too many, for sure. But this is a phenominally low number which means 120 volts is safe for household use.
In the year 2000, the CDC indicated that 3308 people died from drowning in the U.S.
That's over eight times the number of deaths due to electrocution. You know how many politicians and extremist often lie with statistics. They would probably say water water is eight times as lethal as electricity, ha.
I attached the link for the chart. I found it very interesting, and I think all of you will to.o Sad due to the deaths of poeople, but interesting from a statistical viewpoint.
630 people were killed in water transport (boating, etc.) I guess boating is more lethal than 110 volts.
327 were killed from accidental strangulation or suffocation, in bed. That's close to not too much less than deaths due to electrocution. It indicates that of the 419 deaths by electrocution, 99 were from transmission lines. So if we subtract these, that leaves 320 deaths. So now, the number of deaths in the U.S. from electrocution are less than the number of deaths of strangulation or suffocating from bedding.
In fact, electrocutions from 110 volts may even be less because the statistics do not indictate how many were killed by household 220 volts versus 110 volts.
So the bottome line is, statistially, you are less likely to be killed by 110 volts than by going to bed.
I guess that means beds are more lethal than 110 volt household current. I would therefore step out on a limb and say that 110 volts is relatively, "safe".
http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Everything we are talking about is relative in this discussion. We are talking about the relative safety of 110v versus 220v in primary household wiring.
411 deaths, even with 300 million people is too many, for sure. But this is a phenominally low number which means 120 volts is safe for household use.
In the year 2000, the CDC indicated that 3308 people died from drowning in the U.S.
That's over eight times the number of deaths due to electrocution. You know how many politicians and extremist often lie with statistics. They would probably say water water is eight times as lethal as electricity, ha.
I attached the link for the chart. I found it very interesting, and I think all of you will to.o Sad due to the deaths of poeople, but interesting from a statistical viewpoint.
630 people were killed in water transport (boating, etc.) I guess boating is more lethal than 110 volts.
327 were killed from accidental strangulation or suffocation, in bed. That's close to not too much less than deaths due to electrocution. It indicates that of the 419 deaths by electrocution, 99 were from transmission lines. So if we subtract these, that leaves 320 deaths. So now, the number of deaths in the U.S. from electrocution are less than the number of deaths of strangulation or suffocating from bedding.
In fact, electrocutions from 110 volts may even be less because the statistics do not indictate how many were killed by household 220 volts versus 110 volts.
So the bottome line is, statistially, you are less likely to be killed by 110 volts than by going to bed.
I guess that means beds are more lethal than 110 volt household current. I would therefore step out on a limb and say that 110 volts is relatively, "safe".
http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
220 v appliances and lethality
For 220v small appliances, if you live anywhere where they are Indian communities, check out Indian stores. Often they have 220v appliances that folks buy and take to relatives when they go to India.
If your home as 220v it would be relatively easy to wire up some outlets in your kitchen. Be sure it is an appliances where the phase difference either a) doesn't matter or b) the power supply handles 50 or 60 Hz.
As for lethality, I agree: if more folks had 90v power, then the most number of people would be electrocuted with that. Here's an amusing case in point: The Violence Policy Center came out with a scolding statement when it was released that, in 2009, more people in Colorado died from gunshots than from traffic accidents. There are 8 other states that this was true with as well. What they did not mention is this: First, Colorado is one of the highest suicide states in the country. Second, most people kill themselves while shooting themselves. Third, lots of people kill themselves in areas with lovely views so this can be their last sight. Well, we have A LOT of that here. And finally, Third, the bad economy has raised the suicide rate amazingly.
For 220v small appliances, if you live anywhere where they are Indian communities, check out Indian stores. Often they have 220v appliances that folks buy and take to relatives when they go to India.
If your home as 220v it would be relatively easy to wire up some outlets in your kitchen. Be sure it is an appliances where the phase difference either a) doesn't matter or b) the power supply handles 50 or 60 Hz.
As for lethality, I agree: if more folks had 90v power, then the most number of people would be electrocuted with that. Here's an amusing case in point: The Violence Policy Center came out with a scolding statement when it was released that, in 2009, more people in Colorado died from gunshots than from traffic accidents. There are 8 other states that this was true with as well. What they did not mention is this: First, Colorado is one of the highest suicide states in the country. Second, most people kill themselves while shooting themselves. Third, lots of people kill themselves in areas with lovely views so this can be their last sight. Well, we have A LOT of that here. And finally, Third, the bad economy has raised the suicide rate amazingly.
Again-----How many times does it have to be repeated-120V WILL KILL YOU!!So handle it with care!You can give all of the statistics and theory you want-120V is LETHAL.I take care either at home or the transmitter site.Again any of the utility supplied voltages are dangerous if not used properly.Yes,there are other hazards in the home or workplace or whatever,the power supply voltages are among them.Its just---take care.For some that say 120V is "safe" care to hang onto it??Don't wish to do that.Any of the voltages are safe as long as they are used properly.Just keep exposure to them to a minimum.Unplug or disconnect devices before working on them or whenever you can be exposed to the voltages.
Rex. You don't seem to get it. Yes. 110 volts can kill. We all know that. We probably havae all known that since about age of five or six. So why do you keep telling us that over and over?? Neither I, nor anyone on this site, ever said 110v can't kill you. I said it several times if fact. Maybe you should go back and reread.
Something that can kill you can still be considered safe under normal circumstances. There aren't too many things that can't kill us in this environment, if the conditions are right. Under normals circumstances 110v just gives a nasty shock. Generally when it kills someone, they have done something stupid or a "non-ordinary" circumstance exists. For example, if someone had one hand on a conductor and the other hand on the a grounded surface, and their skin happened to be wet, which reduces resistance. Even then, death is not guaranteed, a lot depends on the health of the person and the contact time with the current.
Once again, the whole discussion is on the relative merits and safety of 110v versus 220 for standard household wiring. If we keep our systems as it is (current outlets, plugs, etc.) and we converted to 220, there is little doubt that many more of the thousands who get shocked, but not killed, every year would be dead.
No, once again 110 volts is NOT lethal. 110 volts is POTENTIALLY lethal. That is it has the potential to be lethal in the right circumstances. So do Twinkies when you swallow and they lodge the wrong way in a persons airway and they choke to death. 220v has a GREATER potentiality of being lethal.
How many get shocked, but not killed each year in their home. Probably thousands. Why aren't they dead. Why do you just get a nasty shock and live to laugh about it latter. I have had many. Under normal circumstances 110 volts is not lethal to the human body. But yes, we both agree it can be potentially lethal if conditions are right. Evidently they aren't right too often when only 300 people a year, out of 300 million, succumb.
Therefore I will state, once again, that 110 volts is a safe voltage level to use in a residential setting. Why? Because it does not normally kill a person when one is exposed to it.
Something that can kill you can still be considered safe under normal circumstances. There aren't too many things that can't kill us in this environment, if the conditions are right. Under normals circumstances 110v just gives a nasty shock. Generally when it kills someone, they have done something stupid or a "non-ordinary" circumstance exists. For example, if someone had one hand on a conductor and the other hand on the a grounded surface, and their skin happened to be wet, which reduces resistance. Even then, death is not guaranteed, a lot depends on the health of the person and the contact time with the current.
Once again, the whole discussion is on the relative merits and safety of 110v versus 220 for standard household wiring. If we keep our systems as it is (current outlets, plugs, etc.) and we converted to 220, there is little doubt that many more of the thousands who get shocked, but not killed, every year would be dead.
No, once again 110 volts is NOT lethal. 110 volts is POTENTIALLY lethal. That is it has the potential to be lethal in the right circumstances. So do Twinkies when you swallow and they lodge the wrong way in a persons airway and they choke to death. 220v has a GREATER potentiality of being lethal.
How many get shocked, but not killed each year in their home. Probably thousands. Why aren't they dead. Why do you just get a nasty shock and live to laugh about it latter. I have had many. Under normal circumstances 110 volts is not lethal to the human body. But yes, we both agree it can be potentially lethal if conditions are right. Evidently they aren't right too often when only 300 people a year, out of 300 million, succumb.
Therefore I will state, once again, that 110 volts is a safe voltage level to use in a residential setting. Why? Because it does not normally kill a person when one is exposed to it.
The only item I have from the original list of four is the Foreman grill. I don't know what model it is, but the grill plates are fixed in position and do not come off. I always felt that electric can openers represented wretched excess, and vowed never to own one. I have two "Swing-A-Way" manual can openers which are both over 30 years old and still function OK. I have a crippled finger on my right hand from an animal bite some years ago, and distant early warnings of arthitis in both hands, but I can manage the can opener just fine.
philr
Well-known member
I can't imagine not having an electric can opener. I have 3 and I use them very often. I have a manual can opener that I used when I went to camping or fishing trips but I haven't used it in years!
I have a juicer but I don't use it much. It's an old model and it ain't easy to clean. It looks like a perforated washer tub and after a while, it gets seriously unbalanced...
I never used a countertop grill but my mother has one and she uses it frequently. I think it's too big to be easily stored after use but she found a spot fot it!
I have friends who use their bread maker quite often. I don't think I'd use one id I had one but some people like it!
I have a juicer but I don't use it much. It's an old model and it ain't easy to clean. It looks like a perforated washer tub and after a while, it gets seriously unbalanced...
I never used a countertop grill but my mother has one and she uses it frequently. I think it's too big to be easily stored after use but she found a spot fot it!
I have friends who use their bread maker quite often. I don't think I'd use one id I had one but some people like it!
