Talk:Electrical injury

100%

Please post new comments at the bottom of the page to avoid confusion, and make headings using two equal signs (==). Remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).  Thank you!

Voltage vs. current

It is a matter of annoyance to me that people say things like "It's not the volts, it's the amps that kill you." Seeing something like:

With line currents above 2 milliamperes...

points out, I think, a great deal of confusion in this matter. Line current is not important; the current through your body is important. Line voltage is important, as it in part determines the current through your body.

I don't really know how to fix this article so it is factual, but doesn't rely too heavily on explanations of Ohm's law, etc. I also don't think it should look like a compromise between the "voltage" and "current camps", since there aren't really two points of view here. Idea? [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 23:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Upon further review, I'm not sure about a lot of the information here. For example, most other sources I find list currents about 10 times here for each of the effects (about 10-15mA for unable to let go of wires, hundreds of mA for fribulation). And to say that the voltages in homes are a deadly combination seems a bit alarmist. I'm going to do some more research before touching this one. [[User:CyborgTosser|CyborgTosser (Only half the battle)]] 00:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

agreed the figures do seem a bit low (maybe they are absoloute worst cases rather than likely values or something) generally below 50V or 60V is considered to be safe for humans to touch directly

mains can be deadly it all depends on the situation and the duration but the iee seem to belive based on thier research that a RCD with a 30ma trip and a fast trip time (im not sure how fast but its documented) will in almost all cases be sufficiant to save a healthy person in the event of a mains shock (though they do say it should not be used as the sole means of protection from direct contact.

the real danger at mains voltages without rcd protection comes if a shock leaves you unable to remove yourself from the source of shock (a grab on a live conductor is far worse than touching one) Plugwash 11:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Since mains current is AC, though, it cannot cause your muscles to contract. The alternating polarity will cancel out and you won't hang on. A strong DC current can make your muscles contract around the electrical source. Adam850 09:23, 26 January 2005 (UTC)

That's false. AC certainly can cause contraction of muscles. Muscles aren't motors, and the way in which electricity disrupts normal neuromotor control isn't a matter of superposition. --Blair P. Houghton 04:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I removed the dispute notice as no one has edited this article or said anything on the talk page for weeks and weeks. If anyone still has a problem with the facts as presented in this article, take the usual NPOV approach and cite sources to support the sides of the argument as presented by various schools of thought on the matter. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Electrocution - Electric Chair & animal use

Isn't it a bit POV to claim that throughout the world 'the Chair' is viewed as 'inhumane'? Isn't it rather the case that it's gruesome and sickening to watch (a rather different point). There is quite a bit of evidence (see Dr Grandin's animal husbandry web site) that an electric current of an amp or two is an efficient way of inducing unconsciousness in a large mammal, provided the current path is through the brain. (There was also at least one 19th century US medic who self-experimented (!) on the level of current sufficient to induce unconsciousness)80.177.213.144

Actually the entire concept of "capital punishment" is viewed as inhumane in most civilized countries in the world.

Atlant 29 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)

True (well more or less - though it wasn't the reason we in the UK abolished the penalty many, many years ago) - but in the present context, irrelevant :-) 80.177.213.144

I don't think it would be POV to claim that the electric chair is viewed as inhumane in Europe, at least. This depends on what kind of people you're talking about. The average joe seems convinced. For a good review of this stuff, go to the Florida death row site... they cover the bits about people not being killed by the initial shock, people suffocating, people catching fire while still conscious, etc... Zuiram 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fibrillation

The 100 to 200 mA region for fibrillation agrees with my best recollection (ARRL handbook in days of valves/tubes?), but where's the evidence that such fibrillation 'tears the tissue' and 'destroys the heart' - I though the whole point about fibrillation was that it _could_ be stopped, by a large electric shock, from a defibrillator - though of course time is of the essence, because a heart in fibrillation pumps no blood. Linuxlad 01:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Electrocution

I would like this article to define electrocution as how many amps/volts pass through the heart.

Do you mean how much does it take to cause death or just fibrillation or fibrillation followed by slow death....? Why so morbid?--Light current 05:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're asking how many "amps/volts" it takes to cause death, the answer is... it depends. The number varies with the individual person. LadyPlural (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

High- vs. low-voltage shocks

Breaing in mind we only respond to the current, why is it that hv shocks tend to hurt (sting) more but low voltage ones tend to 'shock' you more(ie take your breath away)?? Or is it just me? Any answers/ sugesstions?--Light current 02:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

well I'm not sure either but with static electricity I'd guess that either its the little plasma arc that basically burns you, or the high frequencies of the transient causing a faster more painful muscle contraction, which make it hurt so much more. btw a static shock is both high current and high voltage, its just very very short. keith 10:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Could be that the bad shcocks Ive had have been from 240v from left hand to leg (or left hand to right hand) and those are very shocking! They take your breath away. Its also possible that these mains shocks are longer in duration than you might get from a HV capcitor of a few pF. THe HV shocks are probably limited to much less current, and if they do not pass thro the chest, just tend to sting the entrance / exit points. Maybe we need to mention also the max safe amount of stored energy. I think its 2J.--Light current 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Impedance of the human body

I just hooked up an ohm meter to my body and it showed me these results:

Human Body Impedance Experiment Results

Body Area	Impedance
Face	1.5 Mega Ohm
Balls	2.5 Mega Ohm
Organ (the non-musical kind)	3.5 Mega Ohm
Thighs	3.0 Mega Ohm
Fingers	2.5 Mega Ohm
Soles	4.5 Mega Ohm
Feet	20 Mega Ohm to over 200 Mega Ohm (fluctuates constantly)

This data is not made up, I really did conduct this experiment just now. According to these numbers and using Ohm's law, how much current would the body be capable of letting through? Also, can someone verify these numbers? Caution: This should only be done by grown ups and NO CHILDREN. Thanks!

There isn't much point in 'verifying' the numbers. Try it again on a different day or using smooth and then rough electrodes or on skin recently washed with soap and then after washing with detergent or with a different test current or varying a multitude of other factors. The numbers will vary. The test with different test current illustrates that the body is not an ohmic material. The most important point is that the source voltage is not a useful guide to the degree of risk. The current that flows is a very rough guide, though the effects vary in an individual over a wide range unless the conditions are very carefully controlled. Controlled conditions are of course not available (except perhaps to an executioner or torturer) so one should treat any voltage over 24 volts as though it is potentially lethal. Electric shock is not the only hazard, even lower voltages can be dangerous if they cause arcing or heating. treesmill 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! It was illuminating!

Try again using wet skin, e.g. lick your fingers. I can get readings below 400K ohm that way. If I hold uninsulated metal objects in both hand, e.g. a pair of pliers, I can get the resistance between them under 100K. Wetting my lips and measring between the upper and lower lip gives 50K. Almost all the resistance we are measuring is in the outer layer of dead skin. Once that is bypassed, e.g. by sweat or other moisture or a puncture, or if contact area is increased, resistance drops sharply.--agr 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have just duplicated your experiments and you'll be pleased to know that I concur with your findings. The following are my results as conducted just now:

Human Body Impedance Second Experiment Results

Body Area	Impedance (ohm)
Between two fingers after licking them	Ohm meter consistently begins reading at 50K, and continues to rise to 170K (after which I stopped measuring). Meter was still rising when I stopped taking the measurement.
Between two uninsulated metal objects that I'm holding in wet licked fingers	Ohm meter begins at 130K, and continues to rise to 180K (after which I stopped measuring). Meter was still rising when I stopped taking the measurement.
Between upper & lower lip after wetting them with my tongue	25K

This is very cool. Especially interesting is the 25K Ohm reading between my wet lips. My faith in the veracity of this article is restored. And I really appreciate your input!

I shall now go back to playing Grand_Theft_Auto_III (man, I love that game!!!).

This is all assuming the body is a simple resistor though. The figures actually make it non-linear with respect to voltage, in the same way as other insulators or semiconductors - see this link which I found off Google. So the impedance at 110V is much less than the impedance at 1.5V, and as a result the effects are going to be more severe than your measurements suggest.

---

So everyone here is getting dry skin measurement way above 200k, yet, the article calls out 10k. And, with no citations! WTF? Also, the article states as low as 1k. From what I'm hearing in the discussion, you need to pierce the skin. Is there any data on the distribution of resistance across population under controlled conditions?

Update: Saw the ePanorama link. I hadn't even considered contact area (assumed <1cm²). Question for the Australian Standard AS3859-1991, who is going to have 100cm² of contact area?

Update2: I have heard that current flow through skin causes perspiration. Is this true? Could that explain the changes in resistance (higher current, more perspiration)? The footnotes state that the resistance at low voltage halves in the presence of conductive solutions.

Also, who touched 1000V with a large contact area, and long enough to make a measurement? Eet 1024 (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Concentration campers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.228.198 (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The resistance values in the article are ridiculously low every value i've ever taken has been in the megaohms. And consequently so are the claims that 32V can kill you. maybe if you plugged the terminals directly into your veins or something but def not through the skin. I work on electrocution circuits for a security company as a part-time job. The circuits we develop give out 10kV pulses and def won't kill you. The police tasers normally do 30kV - 50kV and have never killed anyone (not in this country anyway).

As for those values taken with wet lips etc you aren't measuring the resistance through your skin your just measuring it through the moisture on the surface of ur skin to another point on the surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.57 (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on unearthed sources

I am moving the following edit by 59.93.33.95 from the main article to here:

(The the answer for the question "How we are getting electric shock from independent voltage sources?" such as an unearthed generator unit or LPG ignitor etc are still unexplained)

In theory, to get a shock form an un-earthed (ungrounded) voltage source, you must touch both ends. However high frequency sources, such as a spark generator, will often have enough capacitative coupling to earth to cause a shock. Also a source of charge, such as lightning or a charged high-voltage capacitor, can produce a single-ended shock. Finally, one should never rely on the assumption that a particular generator is un-earthed, but always turn it off or disconnect from it before working on circuits.--agr 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

At mains frequency unearthed sources (generators or transformers) are good protection as long as the system connected stays small. However as the system grows both capactive coupling effects and the risk of an undetected fault earthing the source increase. If the system is a more than two wire system there is the aditional risk that the wire that ends up accidently grounded is not the neutral leading to some of the wires having the phase to phase voltage with relation to earth. Plugwash 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on what Plugwash said, you'll often find systems that are both deliberately unearthed and contain monitoring equipment to ensure that they stay that way. For example, it's fairly common in diesel-electric railroad locomotives that the traction generator/traction motor circuit be ungrounded to the loco's frame. But there will often be a monitoring system than looks for leakage between that circuit and the frame, triggering an alarm if a low-impedance connection (especially a DC connection) develops. This allows the detection of, for example, water in the traction motors.

Atlant 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive therapy

I don't think that ECT qualifies as a "disputed" therapy. It does have many detractors, but is very widely used and generally accepted by psychiatrists, so far as I can tell. People can read the article on the treatment itself for a full idea of the merits of the debate. If you disagree, feel free to add the qualifier back in, and explain yourself here. Mgcsinc 12:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

32 volts? =

"However, death has occurred from supplies as low as 32 volts." Is there a source for this information? Is the 32 volts AC (or DC)? If so, what's the corresponding lethal voltage for DC (or AC)? Calbaer 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally, low frequency AC (50 - 60 Hz) is significantly more dangerous than DC. And, it is the current flowing through your chest cavity that ultimately matters - if sufficient, it can cause death from fibrillation or suffocation. The danger of low voltage electrocution is markedly increased if your skin resistance is markedly lowered by extended immersion in water, by heavy perspiration, or worse, if the skin layers have been punctured. Under these conditions, the effective resistance (from hand to hand) may drop to ~1000 ohms, and sufficient current may flow to cause death at a surprisingly low voltage. The fatal current is approximately 30 mA (per the International Electrotechnical Commision (IEC)). This current level can flow through your body at a supposedly "safe" voltage of 30 volts. However, other studies have indicated that, at 60 Hz, a current of as little as 6 mA for 2-3 seconds can be sufficient to induce fatal fibrillation, suggesting even lower AC voltages can be fatal.

The lowest voltage electrocution recorded apparently occured from a supply of 5-7 volts. This apparently was sufficient to kill a US Navy electrician - however, it required penetration of the skin. However, even without puncturing, given sufficient contact area, moisture, and pressure it does appear to be possible to achieve 30 mA of current flow with only ~30 volts. See the following URL for an interesting discussion and pointers to some other references: [1] Bert 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

With a skin puncture, 12Vdc can easily be fatal. Without, I've heard 25Vdc cited as the max safe voltage. Zuiram 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Effects of electrocution

So what are the typical effects of getting electrocuted from common household appliances (like touching a socket)? Does a person need CPR and go to the hospital, or does he/she just “come to” after a while?  QuizQuick  17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

At low levels, no lasting effect. At higher levels, cardiac fibrillation that needs external intervention (a defibrillator) to recover from or you're quickly dead. At even higher levels, muscles may "clamp" and fibrillation might not occur. At even higher power levels, thermal burns occur. The article probably already says this.

And, of course, it all depends on whether the shock crosses your heart or just goes between, say, two fingers on one hand.

Atlant 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For your information, electrocution means death by electric shock... So the typical effects of getting electrocuted is... death!

|SUBZ3R0| 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Electrocution can also mean just to cause injury by electric shock - look at a dictionary not wikipedia. I've been knocked out by electrocution twice and both times it was quite fast I was concious again a few seconds after hitting the ground.

Conduction in water

If an electrified object is dropped into water, how far do the effects extend to? Say an electric wire fell into a stream at one end…how far away would a person in the water have to be to be clear of the danger?  QuizQuick  18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) anyone?

There are too many variables to give an answer. What sort of electric wire? Most supplies that might be dangerous will have some sort of protection which will remove the supply. How clean/pure is the water? Very pure water is a very good insulator, but the vast majority of impurities improve the conductivity considerably. How wide and deep is the stream? Again this will affect the conductivity and the other paths which the current might take to divert it from a person in the water. Drop an old fashioned electric fire into a bath and the occupant is likely to be severely shocked, and probably killed. Drop a household supply wire (the sort that might break away from an overhead line) into a stream and I guess that you would be safe 100 yards away, but I wouldn't risk it myself. treesmill 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional First Aid Step

When I started my electrical apprenticeship I was told one very important thing to do when applying first aid to an electric shock victim.

You should aways tap some of their bare skin with the back of your hand. If they are still electrically live, your hand and arm will contract away from the danger. Blaab 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Electroshock weapons are usefull

Apart from severe beatings, electric shock torture is the favourite method of the modern torturer. It leaves few visible signs on the victim's body, yet leaves a lasting impression on their mind. The fact that victims are strapped down, naked, during the torture, does not by it self, explain the sexual overtone to torture by electricity. Rather it is clear that this world's torturers actively seek up the sexual organs when applying the electricity to a victims body. Using the electrode like a substitute penis, the torturer humiliates his victim by penetrating his or her's erotic zones to great effect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.60.195.137 (talk • contribs).

How Long is It Until You Die?

Can electrocution kill you instantly, or do you die slowly?

You die quick. Heart failure is virtually instantaneous in electrocution. If you do not suffer heart failure you could suffer major internal burns (Think standing inside a very big microwave). In this case you are likely dead quickly or unconscious and linger a while till the inevitable. Depends on what you mean by slowly - seconds yes, hours or days likely no Lumberjack Steve 12:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is rarely instantaneous. It depends very much on the nature of the damage done by the electric shock. Even where speedy death is intended, as in execution by electric shock, death may take some minutes. In accidental shock the variety of circumstances is very great, so no general conclusion is possible. treesmill 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lethality and frequency

I have been looking through literature for information on the role of the frequency in the lethality of an electric shock. I am doing this as part of some research into what I suspect is an urban myth: that 60Hz is more deadly than 50Hz with all other factors being the same. Can anyone provide some input on this? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First aid instructions mangled

It is possible to read through the instructions and never call an ambulance! How? The rescuer is instructed to resuscitate the victom if he has first aid knowledge. If the victom is dead the victom will never be resusciated so the rescuer won't move on to the call the ambulance step. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.119.148 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

improper/illegal switch circuits

"It is possible to have a voltage potential between neutral wires and ground in the event of an improperly wired (disconnected) neutral, or if it is part of certain obsolete (and now illegal[citation needed]) switch circuits."

I can give an example from personal experience that is relevant to this text. At the top and bottom of a stairwell, there were lights operated by three way switches such that either light could be operated individually from the top or bottom (two switches in each location). The two lights were on separate breakers. The top light took its hot from the upstairs circuit and the bottom light from the downstairs circuit. The dangerous part was that the top light completed its circuit through the downstairs wiring and the bottom light through the upstairs wiring such that even though the downstairs circuit breaker was turned off and the downstairs light did not illuminate and even tested dead with an multi-meter, live power was present downstairs (presumably through the filament of the upstairs light) when the downstairs light fixture was removed for replacement and I got sparks when I disconnected one of the wirenuts. Instead of running 4 wires up/down the stairwell they needed to run 6 but they took a short cut. To complicate matters, they apparently switched the neutral side of the lights instead of hot (a bad practice that means you can be electrocuted changing a light bulb even though the switch is off). Thus, when I disconnected the neutral? wire nut at the downstairs fixture, the current from the upstairs light had nowhere to go except through the air (or me). Three way switches are prone to unsafe wiring because they often run a significant distance and opposite ends may be in different power domains. Thus it is tempting to save the cost of two extra wires, or because they didn't realize they needed two extra wires until after drywall was installed, to complete part of the circuit through the wrong power domain. I can't tell you what the laws are over time but this was one of several unsafe wiring practices used by the original contractor that built that housing development. The other unsafe practices resulted in many fires. One was the use of aluminum wire with fixtures that were not designed for aluminum. Another was backwiring (aluminum wire, even), and the third was that power to the entire first floor lighting circuit was routed up from the basement circuit breaker panel through an exterior moisture prone outlet (dumb, dumb, dumb). At least some of these practices were legal at the time and at least some of them are illegal now. One should always be aware when working on electrical circuits that bad wiring practices may result in live power where you would not expect it, even where it has previously been tested to be absent. Some of these examples also illustrate that unsafe wiring practices combined together, can be far more unsafe than the practices by themselves. 67.76.175.5 (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Electrical Outlets in Bathrooms

The practice in some areas, mentioned in the main article, of prohibiting electric outlets in bathrooms may prove detrimental to safety. There are a number of small appliances that are commonly used in bathrooms including electric toothbrushes, electric razors, hair dryers, portable heaters, and sometimes ultrasonic denture cleaners, radios, televisions, and telephones (with wall warts). The lack of outlets may result in the use of extension cords to non-GFI protected outlets in other rooms and which may also be more susceptible to moisture (a fire hazard), given their construction and location, than built in outlets. Use of a GFI protected outlet in the bathroom is safer than an extension cord to a non-GFI protected outlet in another room. Thus requiring GFI protected outlets may be safer than prohibiting outlets given that people in developed countries are going to use electrical appliances anyway. Providing a safe location for most of these appliances, such as a shelf with drainage located slightly lower than the wash basin/vanity with some clearance for drips and overflow. that reduces the likelyhood of overturning into a sink or tub would be an additional safety measure. In addition to the electrocution hazard, moisture in bathrooms provides a potential for electrical connections to deteriorate and this hazard is present in the electric lighting and heating fixtures that may be present in a bathroom whether or not outlets are allowed and this problem is exacerbated by heat in light or heating fixtures. The use of portable heaters is a special concern from a fire hazard perspective since they are high current appliances that may accidently be left on and bathroom circuits, or the heater itself, may be adversely affected by moisture, and unlike built in heaters, they may not be designed for use in a moist environment. Augmenting GFI outlets and light fixtures for bathrooms with a thermal cutoff would provide some protection against moisture induced resistive contacts. Designing in a safe location and point of connection for bathroom appliances is safer than forcing the user to improvise. Whitis (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Electrocution - neutrality

== By the way, are such statements about electrocution as "...all executions can be considered to be uncivilized and something to be eliminated." and "...executions are executions, and they're all bad." neutral? The article does say "From this point of view", but the article itself takes these points of view. Would it be better as: "merely the subjective impression of witnesses. It makes no difference whether the execution looks grisley or not. The only consideration in an execution is that very rapid and permanent loss of consciousness take place, and the electric chair accomplishes this." ? BlazingKhan (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Avoiding the Dangers of shock" section could use some cleanup

The section seems to have a lot of comments that work against each other, or comments that seem to have been added by people with some disagreements. It seems useful for someone who has experience in these areas to go back and clean up some of those sections.98.212.211.163 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

formatting changes: please can someone double check them

I altered the format of the article because it didn't appear to make sense, as there was an asterisk in the middle of the text which I was sure was meant to come out as a bullet for a footnote. Then I noticed there was a dangling sentence at the end of the paragraph, which I put in what looks like its proper place. Please check these changes, especially if you were the one who added the text in the first place. Here is the new version of the changes I made:

• Connecting electrical neutrals to plumbing is against the electrical codes, at least in the United States of America. This is for several reasons. One of these is that connecting any electrical lines to plumbing presents a danger to plumbers or anyone else working on or around plumbing. Also, with metallic plumbing, even small amounts of electric current through them over a significant length of time can cause corrosion to the pipes, the removal of their zinc linings - if they have any, and the breakdown of the solder in their joints.
• The ground wire (grounding conductor) of the system is allowed to be connected to plumbing. However as previously stated, the neutral (grounded conductor) is not allowed to be connected. NEC 250.52 Grounding Electrodes (A)Electrodes Permitted for Grounding (1)Metal Underground Water Pipe. This requires: a metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0m (10ft) or more and electrically continuous to the points of connection of the grounding electrode conductor and the bonding conductor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.166.179 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed: Lethality of a shock

The source used to make the claim that dry skin has a resistance of 10,000 Ohm (from which point to which?) is this physics 101 course from Arizona State University. Aside from being non-specific (resistance must be measured between specific points on the body, and will vary depending on this), it is also incompatible with what is claimed by most other sources - for example, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health gives a figure of 100,000 Ohm for resistance between different extremities in this official publication.

If the latter source is to be trusted - and it probably should, as even trivial experimentation with a meter can confirm that dry skin resistance between extremities is usually far above the conservative 100,000 Ohm even for large skin-conductor contact surfaces - then the voltage figures given in the following table for "dry skin" should be multiplied by 10.

• it is the energy [W.s or alike unit] which should be the unit here. lethality does not depend on V,I or P. i mean you can get 5 W shock but if it is in a very short time period that is not lethal. --Infestor (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Joules is the unit you're looking for. Energy = Power * time, Power = Voltage * current, Voltage = Current * Resistance. We can break this down to E = RI^2*t. As you can see if your theory is correct it'd still be affected largely by current. I disagree with it however as if the current is high enough to hurt you then it hurts you instantly. The pain doesn't build up as you wait. If this was true you could electrocute yourself with a 9v battery given a few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.57 (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous?

Im playing here with a a reactor for one fluorescent lamp (220V 36/40W) and a 9V battery, i place the 2 cables on the poles of the battery with my fingers touching them to give me a electric shock and sometimes it gives a stronger shock. Can that be dangerous (kill me)? 189.28.219.198 (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Avoiding danger of shock" - How to

I've added the how-to template due to, what sounds like, advice throughout the section:

• "It is strongly recommended"
• "insulated gloves and tools should be used"
• "isolate the operator from ground"
• "the neutral wire must be insulated"
• "being in the bath or shower will not only ground oneself", etc... -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk &#149; contribs)} 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)