RCD types

I agree that all these different types are confusing and probably unnecessary. We need a range of delta In, and somewhat time delayed types, and possibly DC sensitivity, but the others are just slight variations of these basic categories. The Xray and CT scanner types are generally of a significant current rating and it is dubious as to whether these need RCD protection at all, even if they are fed from sockets. In fact we have little statistical information as to whether RCDs reduce fatal accidents at all, with the possible exception of some gardening accidents. A useful analysis back over perhaps 20 years should show a statistically significant reduction in electrical deaths, and fires, but in reality probably show nothing. Along with this goes a change in lifestyle where more equipment is used by uninformed people outdoors, the baseline should be the number of deaths in caravans, because these have had RCD protection longest.


The use of EFCIs (Earth fault circuit interrupters) in the US should also show a reduction in fires, and the statistics I looked at have disappeared form the net for some reason. There are some for various states, but a big job to correlate, particularly given differing reporting regimens. The deaths from electric shock on 115V in the States is very low anyway, and normal people do not play with 230V circuits very much (although often used for high consumption appliances) . Surely there must be a measurable effect somewhere when we have spent so much money on supposed protection measures? If there is no effect, why are we supposed to spend more money on obviously useless so called "protection" from our closest friend? I call electricity that because life without it would be very difficult indeed, and the poor  living standards in rural Africa attest to this, from personal experience.

I agree that all these different types are confusing and probably unnecessary. We need a range of delta In, and somewhat time delayed types, and possibly DC sensitivity, but the others are just slight variations of these basic categories. The Xray and CT scanner types are generally of a significant current rating and it is dubious as to whether these need RCD protection at all, even if they are fed from sockets. In fact we have little statistical information as to whether RCDs reduce fatal accidents at all, with the possible exception of some gardening accidents. A useful analysis back over perhaps 20 years should show a statistically significant reduction in electrical deaths, and fires, but in reality probably show nothing. Along with this goes a change in lifestyle where more equipment is used by uninformed people outdoors, the baseline should be the number of deaths in caravans, because these have had RCD protection longest.


The use of EFCIs (Earth fault circuit interrupters) in the US should also show a reduction in fires, and the statistics I looked at have disappeared form the net for some reason. There are some for various states, but a big job to correlate, particularly given differing reporting regimens. The deaths from electric shock on 115V in the States is very low anyway, and normal people do not play with 230V circuits very much (although often used for high consumption appliances) . Surely there must be a measurable effect somewhere when we have spent so much money on supposed protection measures? If there is no effect, why are we supposed to spend more money on obviously useless so called "protection" from our closest friend? I call electricity that because life without it would be very difficult indeed, and the poor  living standards in rural Africa attest to this, from personal experience.