This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Details of BS7671:2018 Amendment 1 are here.

Details of Amendment 1 of BS7671:2018 is available here: https://electrical.theiet.org/bs-7671/updates/


Regards,


Alan.
Parents

  • mapj1:

    Money should only be spent to save lives, here or elsewhere, when it is cost -effective to do so. Anything else is a netloss to society.




    Or save QUALYs - quality adjusted life years. I recently had a conversation with my GP about my lipid levels. So I am a bloke who is over 50 and my blood pressure was a bit high. By spending a little each week on lipid and blood pressure reducing medication, the NHS reduces my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. That reduces the risk that the NHS will have to care for an invalid. However, the important thing is that the NHS mustn't spend more on screening and treating those who screen positive, than it saves on treating those who suffer an adverse event. And don't forget to add into the equation that if I died from a sudden heart attack, the Navy would stop paying my pension and I would never receive a state pension.


    Relevance to the thread, or at least the way that it has drifted, is that cost-benefit analyses are v. complicated.


    Concerning Mike's point, ever the scientist, but I do think that it is reasonable (but not necessarily desirable) to place a value on a life, which may tip the balance one way or another.

Reply

  • mapj1:

    Money should only be spent to save lives, here or elsewhere, when it is cost -effective to do so. Anything else is a netloss to society.




    Or save QUALYs - quality adjusted life years. I recently had a conversation with my GP about my lipid levels. So I am a bloke who is over 50 and my blood pressure was a bit high. By spending a little each week on lipid and blood pressure reducing medication, the NHS reduces my risk of having a heart attack or stroke. That reduces the risk that the NHS will have to care for an invalid. However, the important thing is that the NHS mustn't spend more on screening and treating those who screen positive, than it saves on treating those who suffer an adverse event. And don't forget to add into the equation that if I died from a sudden heart attack, the Navy would stop paying my pension and I would never receive a state pension.


    Relevance to the thread, or at least the way that it has drifted, is that cost-benefit analyses are v. complicated.


    Concerning Mike's point, ever the scientist, but I do think that it is reasonable (but not necessarily desirable) to place a value on a life, which may tip the balance one way or another.

Children
No Data