Talk:Electrocution

ELECTROCUTION MEANS DEATH

Electrocution is derived from the words electro and (exe)cution to say someone has been electrocuted means they are dead. Survivors have had an electric shock. Popular usage / misuse of the word does not detract from the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazspark73 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Electrocution does not have to result in death, as this definition leads you to believe. ie. How do you revive someone who has been electrocuted? See http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/first_aid_action/flash/es_flash_elec_popup.shtml

I disagree wholeheartedly.

Electrocution, by definition, is death as a result of excessive shock. Popular misuse of the word does not change that.

if you are alive You Were NOT electrocuted, you were severly shocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.29.150 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears whether the definition includes injury short of death depends on the dictionary:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1: to execute (a criminal) by electricity
2: to kill by electric shock
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electrocute

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 2009:
e·lec·tro·cute / iˈlektrəˌkyoōt/ • v. [tr.] (often be electrocuted)
injure or kill someone by electric shock.
execute (a convicted criminal) by means of the electric chair.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-electrocute.html
--Mike8153 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

These should be referenced in the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

electrocution versus electrisation

Electrocution is a severe electrisation resulting on death. More on pathophysiological effects and protection principles? http://www.electrical-installation.merlingerin.com/guide/f-electrocution.htm

Nay, the Oxford English Dictionary says that: To electrocute is to INJURE OR KILL by electric shock. --80.229.152.246 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Collins English Dictionary by HarperCollins also defines Electrocution in this way.

EFFECT OF ELECTROCUTION

DOES ANYONE KNOW THE EFFECTS OF AC/DC CURRENT ON THE BODY...........THAT IS WHEN YOU ARE ELECTROCUTED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.60.104 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look up the definition using any dictionary at hand or trusted online non-user edited dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.1.35 (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are cooked from the inside along the path of the current. If AC current goes across your heart, it can also put you in fibrillation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.126.105.245 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was electrocuted when I was 13, I was flying a kite and hit a power line. Well needless to say I ended up in the hospital with burns to my hands and were ever I had metal on my body, and exit wounds were the electricity left body on my feet. I was in hospital for 6 weeks and then some follow up skin graft out patient work. Other than the physical damage, I have experienced some rather curious psychological issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious2009 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

EFFECTS OF AC/DC CURRENT ON THE BODY

Off the top of my head I believe I have been told that DC (Direct Current) is more dangerous than AC (Alternating Current). High voltage DC will cause the muscles to lock on more than AC. Hundreds/thousands of volts DC at high current we're talking here, not a flashlight battery!. As 'mains' AC changes direction 50/60 times per second it gives your muscles an opportunity to relax? Hmmm, maybe.

NOTE: the current is more important then the voltage as far as harm goes. 50,000 volts(!)sounds wild, but at LOW currents is (mostly) harmless. Kids don't try this at home!

More research needed! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DC makes you stick, AC blows you away. The voltage needn't be so high, as the effect can be noticed (albeit very minor) with a 9V battery on your tongue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well on your tongue of course.

1. Rather sensitive area
2. Good contact (spit is more conductive than skin? I'd think so)
3. Short distance ~10mm

If the resistance across tongue is below 200 ohms you're getting 45 millamps. The same current across your heart could possibly upset its rhythm. If you kept a 9V battery on your tongue for an extended time I imagine it could cause some damage(burn? nerve?). I'm not going to try it.

A static shock 10Kv+ you'd barely notice elsewhere, would be interesting on the tongue. Ever 'zapped' a cat/dog on it's nose? (accicdentally of course!)

I was thinking more of a few hundred volts DC, from a high current supply as against similar AC. I know the DC rating on switches is lower than it's AC rating, apparently as DC arcs more. As AC reverses flow it apparently breaks the arc. This might mean that if we'd gone with HV DC transmision lines they'd be even more dangerous? Arcs (to a person say) would last longer? Be more deadly? Arc over a longer distance than same AC HV? Any idea?

LOL Floydian,:) I was mis-reading your first line as "DC makes you sick, AC blows you away", 'blowing away' as in dead. Perhaps the font they use for these talk pages needs to be changed to a serif font, as they are supposed to be easier to read.

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just had a quick look at the Electric chair article which says;

"The decision to use AC was partly driven by Edison's claims that AC was more lethal than DC. However, at the very high currents used for the device, which could be as high as ten amperes, the difference in lethality between the two types of currents was approximately a factor of two, which was marginal"

Apparently electric chairs use AC, thought this would be easier/cheaper to step up in voltage than DC. I'm not sure if the inference that AC is 2x lethal is verfied. Edison was favoring DC power transmission, so his opinion is biased.

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

From this UNI of Michigan website http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/demobook/CHAPTER4.HTM

"Fatalities have occurred at voltages as low as 24 volts"!! Surprising
"Alternating current at 60 Hz is slightly more dangerous than direct current"

Table 4.1 Average Effects of Continuous ac or dc Electrical Currents on Healthy Adults

        Current   Biological Effect
           1 mA   threshold for feeling
       10-20 mA   voluntary let-go of circuit impossible
          25 mA   onset of muscular contractions
       50-200 mA  ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest 220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the fact that it is ac or dc doesn't matter in terms of how deadly it is. Both can easily kill you in the right situation. The voltage is somewhat irrelevant, as it is the current that makes it deadly. It only takes 50–100mA (don't quote that number, but it's close to it) to stop your heart. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What if your heart stops (eg, you technically die), but you are revived?

This question is what brought me to the article. The definition presented in the article leaves to possibility of someone being revived after being momentarily technically dead via electrocution. Did the VERY LOUD commenters that renounce this idea on this discussion page consider this scenario? I'm guessing not. So with that in mind, has anyone ever survived being electrocuted? 68.8.99.245 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)