If there was no evidence of RCDs saving lives or reducing fires, we should probably be removing them by now.

However, there is plenty, I suspect that most of us who own a tool box have met with a tripping RCD only to discover that the cause was a situation that could have been more  dangerous without it.

So why are there not similar tales to the 'RCD saved my life' from the AFD using places that have now had them for some years.

Note that the introduction of the RCD and similar current balance devices took many decades and was not driven by regs or standards bodies.

As to junk standards, in electronics and comms at least there are far too many that are not worth the paper they are written upon and are generally ignored, whether the original authors were motivated by pubic interest or commercial greed, only the technically useful should remain,

As a clear example of 'cover blown' for commercial pressure on the standards process,  and selective mis use of versions of standards, - is there a sensible standard for EMC from Power line comms devices anyone ? trying to certify PLT/PLC to EN 55022:1998 because you cannot possibly claim a pass using the later versions is probably the most egregious example I can think of right now of  manufacturers gerrymandering with standards (in that case to sell a product that should not really be able to claim CE compliance).
Actually Tim from Elmac explains it rather better than I can in a few lines without getting cross.

here, the controversy.

My point is though rather  like the (former) PMs parties, if makers can get away with misrepresentation and abusing using the standards process with one set of standards once, it can probably happen again to another.

We should not assume that either the processes or the folk agitating to change things are always  'snow white'.

Mike

If there was no evidence of RCDs saving lives or reducing fires, we should probably be removing them by now.

However, there is plenty, I suspect that most of us who own a tool box have met with a tripping RCD only to discover that the cause was a situation that could have been more  dangerous without it.

So why are there not similar tales to the 'RCD saved my life' from the AFD using places that have now had them for some years.

Note that the introduction of the RCD and similar current balance devices took many decades and was not driven by regs or standards bodies.

As to junk standards, in electronics and comms at least there are far too many that are not worth the paper they are written upon and are generally ignored, whether the original authors were motivated by pubic interest or commercial greed, only the technically useful should remain,

As a clear example of 'cover blown' for commercial pressure on the standards process,  and selective mis use of versions of standards, - is there a sensible standard for EMC from Power line comms devices anyone ? trying to certify PLT/PLC to EN 55022:1998 because you cannot possibly claim a pass using the later versions is probably the most egregious example I can think of right now of  manufacturers gerrymandering with standards (in that case to sell a product that should not really be able to claim CE compliance).
Actually Tim from Elmac explains it rather better than I can in a few lines without getting cross.

here, the controversy.

My point is though rather  like the (former) PMs parties, if makers can get away with misrepresentation and abusing using the standards process with one set of standards once, it can probably happen again to another.

We should not assume that either the processes or the folk agitating to change things are always  'snow white'.

Mike

Your comments are very apt Mike. CISPR22 basically prevents any RF power line communication over even a small distance. The attitude of the EU is that radio communication is "old hat" and should be ignored! Using high levels of RF on power lines (or the telephone POTS line) is terrible for low HF communication particularly around 3-4 MHz, but again has been "ignored" by vested interests.

The use of carbon in the AFDD specification is obviously a problem, because it does not mimic a real electrical installation, so why is it there? Clearly the reason (as I have discovered in tests) is because real faults do not cause significant arcs, and that is because seriously large temperatures and power input is needed to ionise metals. Electrical fires (in general conditions) occur due to poor connections with a significant resistance, indeed in larger power systems very large powers may be dissipated in a small space causing metals to melt, and molten metal is excellent for igniting pretty much anything, because it has a very high temperature and high heat capacity. AFDDs are as far as I have been able to discover are a solution looking for an almost non-existant problem, and the lack of evidence from the USA and Germany only reinforces this view. If they had proved effective we would have all the evidence waved high, we do not.

The response from the Communications Regulator for HF interference with Amateur licensed communications is quoted as being zero interest. I wonder why?