Ring Main at Consumer unit

I think that is the way your post reads Andy. I am not trying to misrepresent you, but you said in simplified terms "because it doesn't comply with.... it is a C2". The implication of that is anything non-compliant is a C2, even if you don't mean it that way.


The problem I am trying to discuss here is the very complex one of assessing the "level of danger". Above someone said, again simplified, "given the right conditions, this could go bang". Is an Earth fault inherently dangerous? I think not, this is exactly why we have CPDs of various kinds, Zs Values within range, and all the other things. This kind of fault presents negligible fire danger, so ADS itself is dangerous now? I think not. In fact, given a bit more abuse a sheathed cable suffers from the same risk, and we virtually never see that fault it in real installations.


Some might say that using electricity at all is "dangerous" because there is a tiny risk of death. This is equally not borne out in practice because the number of deaths is tiny. Therefore we must make a reasonable assessment of the level of danger. This is where there is a problem, it is entirely to the Inspectors gain to magnify this risk, particularly if he is going to "repair" the defects he finds and therefore needs to convince the customer that the work is necessary.


You may have noticed the use of "risk" is present in the current Covid 19 scare. The words "safety or safe" is in every sentence from the Government or media. The risk is grossly overstated, and there is no cost/benefit analysis of the actions. About 1600 people die in the UK every day. Looking at the ONS statistics shows something very interesting, that after the first peak (actually old peoples home scandal) average death numbers have been less than the last 5 years for many weeks, the interval of data. Therefore I suggest that Covid is making the risk to most of us less! The real cause is not that, it is that a lot of old, ill or unlucky people died last year, rather than this year, which has slightly modified the statistics, the average age at death having changed very little.


Understanding risk is completely tied up with statistical outcomes. It is extremely easy to tell lies with badly produced statistics, or measuring the "wrong" or unsound data. It is done all the time, for many reasons, some deliberate some due to error or misunderstanding. The problem with statistics is also one of whether the result is "statistically significant" or not, a mathematical construction as to the likelihood of the statistic being true or not. With very low rates of outcome, the actual number change say from 4 a year to 10 a year has no value, although it is often posted as though it does.


With a very large number of installations and a very low number of deaths the statistics say that "on average they are very safe, whatever defects may be present". Your reply may be "but this one might be the unlucky one", it could but the level of risk is tiny compared to other causes of death, the roads for example. As we exist in this "dangerous" environment where we will die sometime, a consequence of life, risk should be comparative, not absolute, as otherwise, life might be staying in bed. Note that something like 3/4 of people die in bed, so statistically, that might not be a good idea, however safe it sounds!


Back to the OP, consider the potential risk, it is exceptionally tiny, did anyone die from touching primary insulation like this in the last 50 years, as long as it was in good condition? The answer to that is almost certainly NO, so it cannot be a C2. It is simply not statistically potentially dangerous.

I think that is the way your post reads Andy. I am not trying to misrepresent you, but you said in simplified terms "because it doesn't comply with.... it is a C2". The implication of that is anything non-compliant is a C2, even if you don't mean it that way.


The problem I am trying to discuss here is the very complex one of assessing the "level of danger". Above someone said, again simplified, "given the right conditions, this could go bang". Is an Earth fault inherently dangerous? I think not, this is exactly why we have CPDs of various kinds, Zs Values within range, and all the other things. This kind of fault presents negligible fire danger, so ADS itself is dangerous now? I think not. In fact, given a bit more abuse a sheathed cable suffers from the same risk, and we virtually never see that fault it in real installations.


Some might say that using electricity at all is "dangerous" because there is a tiny risk of death. This is equally not borne out in practice because the number of deaths is tiny. Therefore we must make a reasonable assessment of the level of danger. This is where there is a problem, it is entirely to the Inspectors gain to magnify this risk, particularly if he is going to "repair" the defects he finds and therefore needs to convince the customer that the work is necessary.


You may have noticed the use of "risk" is present in the current Covid 19 scare. The words "safety or safe" is in every sentence from the Government or media. The risk is grossly overstated, and there is no cost/benefit analysis of the actions. About 1600 people die in the UK every day. Looking at the ONS statistics shows something very interesting, that after the first peak (actually old peoples home scandal) average death numbers have been less than the last 5 years for many weeks, the interval of data. Therefore I suggest that Covid is making the risk to most of us less! The real cause is not that, it is that a lot of old, ill or unlucky people died last year, rather than this year, which has slightly modified the statistics, the average age at death having changed very little.


Understanding risk is completely tied up with statistical outcomes. It is extremely easy to tell lies with badly produced statistics, or measuring the "wrong" or unsound data. It is done all the time, for many reasons, some deliberate some due to error or misunderstanding. The problem with statistics is also one of whether the result is "statistically significant" or not, a mathematical construction as to the likelihood of the statistic being true or not. With very low rates of outcome, the actual number change say from 4 a year to 10 a year has no value, although it is often posted as though it does.


With a very large number of installations and a very low number of deaths the statistics say that "on average they are very safe, whatever defects may be present". Your reply may be "but this one might be the unlucky one", it could but the level of risk is tiny compared to other causes of death, the roads for example. As we exist in this "dangerous" environment where we will die sometime, a consequence of life, risk should be comparative, not absolute, as otherwise, life might be staying in bed. Note that something like 3/4 of people die in bed, so statistically, that might not be a good idea, however safe it sounds!


Back to the OP, consider the potential risk, it is exceptionally tiny, did anyone die from touching primary insulation like this in the last 50 years, as long as it was in good condition? The answer to that is almost certainly NO, so it cannot be a C2. It is simply not statistically potentially dangerous.