Re: Automatic fire sprinklers

[Evan <evan.news.reply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 12, 1:14=A0am, Smitty Two <prestwh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article
> <31630eaa-97ac-4a4a-8206-4034a836a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>
> =A0Evan <evan.news.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Right, 20 people safe TODAY...
>
> > Want to tell me how many fatalities there were from those
> > electrocution
> > accidents 30 or 40 years ago before they became required ?
>
> > How far back did your statistical analysis go there Smitty ?
>
> > ~~ Evan
>
> I'll tell you what, Evan, you tell me how many people you *think* were
> electrocuted (killed) in 1980 (30 yrs. ago) in their homes, in the
> United States, by 120VAC. Then I'll see - no guarantees - whether I can
> dig up the actual number. (Like I said, the number is so damn miniscule
> that it's extremely hard to find.) I don't think there's one single
> thing that accounts for fewer deaths. Not one.
>
> G'head, give me your best guess.


You were the one spouting numbers...  20 per year...  I am not going
to
guess, it is up to you to back your statistics and conclusion reached
from
a very shaky and recent data set to say that the requirements for
GFCI's
in bathrooms and other damp locations had NO effect at all on the
number
of fatalities...  All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

You want to use statistics you need to use them properly and have
access
to more than a few years of data to make such concrete claims...

Its all on you Smitty...  Either find those numbers going back say to
the
time when homes were mostly electrified or admit you only looked up
the most recent numbers which BEST supported your statements and
move on...

~~ Evan