# Emergency Disconnect Question



## larryn (Nov 6, 2017)

As the new NEC requires an outside emergency disconnect for some applications, does this mean that now the main indoor panel is considered a subpanel requiring the separation of neutrals and grounds? Thanks for your replies.


----------



## rjniles (Aug 1, 2011)

If the first disconnect is outside, the inside panel needs the neutrals and grounds separated. This would apply to new construction.

If as part of a service change a outside disconnect is added, you would have to run 4 wires to the inside panel. 

Don't ask me how my house is wired.

Sent from my RCT6213W22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

So what does this new code say? You now have to have a disconnect outside for residential services?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

larryn said:


> As the new NEC requires an outside emergency disconnect for some applications, does this mean that now the main indoor panel is considered a subpanel requiring the separation of neutrals and grounds? Thanks for your replies.


What changes require this?

And yes, if you put the main disconnect outside, then everything after that is just a subpanel.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

It's likely not a new code , maybe a new requirement of the power provider. Ours spec's it for Residential , with rare variances. Rare means you are either a high end attorney, or have a son or nephew who is a V.P. of the power co.


----------



## larryn (Nov 6, 2017)

Article 230.85 of the 2020 NEC which was effective in late August, 2019 requires an emergency disconnect for all 1 and 2 family dwelling units. Below is a discussion of this new rule:

The 2020 change: 
Language now exists in Article 230.85 for emergency disconnects on the exterior of one- and two-family dwelling units so that first responders may quickly disconnect power to a structure. Language in Article 445.18 also addresses emergency generator shutdown. 
The rationale for change:
Aside from fire dangers, first responders often must account for electrical hazards during emergencies. Fires are chaotic, with firefighters rushing to ventilate buildings on rooftops, breaking through windows and opening walls in seconds. With that, there’s a real danger of coming in contact with energized conductors and equipment.
Typically, first responders look to turn the power off before entering a blaze, but many homes’ panelboards are in basements. Terminating power at the transformer, which could be atop a pole, is not something any untrained person should attempt. This change mandates placing emergency disconnects near the service entrance equipment outside of a structure. 
What might the future hold?
Concerns were raised during requirement debates that safety disconnects allow anyone to terminate the power to a home. The NEC’s response was to allow the installation of disconnect locks to thwart unauthorized power access. While the locks will not impede firefighters or other first responders and may provide a level of comfort to the homeowner, contractors will still have to explain the expense of safety disconnects, especially in locations where it’s not common practice to add outdoor service panelboards. When bidding on new jobs, technicians should stress the importance of safety to justify costs to consumers.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Can you post the actual code article please?


----------



## larryn (Nov 6, 2017)

Hackwork, here is most of 230.85 from the 2020 NEC: 

Emergency Disconnects. For one-and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit current rating equal to or greater than the available fault circuit, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. (it goes on to describe how to mark the disconnects).


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

Williambecker1 said:


> Bidding Consultants Get a Quote Services Bid estimates to and manage prices at each stage of construction.Estimates We assist you producing milestone.


Another spammer: maybe try learning English before trying to post in a foreign language!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

larryn said:


> Hackwork, here is most of 230.85 from the 2020 NEC:
> 
> Emergency Disconnects. For one-and two-family dwelling units, all service conductors shall terminate in disconnecting means having a short-circuit current rating equal to or greater than the available fault circuit, installed in a readily accessible outdoor location. If more than one disconnect is provided, they shall be grouped. (it goes on to describe how to mark the disconnects).


Thanks.

This is a MAJOR change to the way we do things.

I guess I will be buying a lot of those 200A Square D QO outdoor disconnects from Home Depot for $120.

Out PoCo gives us the meter for free and in their book it says a meter/main is not allowed. Although meter stacks with mains are often used in apartments so I don't know why they say that.


----------



## larryn (Nov 6, 2017)

Here's one I found on the Lowes site. I suppose it will comply with the new code provision? 

GE CB Enclosure 2-Circuit 200-Amp Main Breaker Load Center. It sells for $108 in Asheville, NC.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

larryn said:


> Here's one I found on the Lowes site. I suppose it will comply with the new code provision?
> 
> GE CB Enclosure 2-Circuit 200-Amp Main Breaker Load Center. It sells for $108 in Asheville, NC.


As long as it is suitable for use as service equipment and outdoor rated, it should be good to go.


----------



## JRaef (Mar 23, 2009)

2020 NEC? Heck, we are still on the 2014 in California, so I probably won't have to worry about 2020 until after I hang it all up...


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

So does it say anything about the new disconnect having to have over current protection? Without over current protection it cant be the service disconnect.


Sounds more like a cold sequence disconnect that the utility requires on certain services. This would not be the service disconnect in this situation. Although since in the cold sequence scenario is a utility requirement it is not covered under the NEC. 



Interesting on how this will play out. How about a mushroom button outside with a contactor near the main in the basement?


----------



## Kevin (Feb 14, 2017)

HertzHound said:


> How about a mushroom button outside with a contactor near the main in the basement?


I would like that in theory, but If I had to install a disconnecting means, I would put it outside. With a contactor in the basement, once the basement floods with 6 or 7 fire hoses dumping water on It, you could still get shocked/electrocuted. At least with the disco outside, water in the basement isn't an issue.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk


----------



## larryn (Nov 6, 2017)

Most states are using the 2017 code, with many of the remaining states using the 2014 code. So, I suppose no one will have to use one of these disconnects for awhile anyway. I believe that its still a good idea to personally comply with the requirements of the most up to date code when the provisions make sense. This one is certainly sensible as it can save the life of a fire responder. It also allows you to kill all the current in the main panel (now sub-panel) when doing inside work. I just worry that vandals will be shutting off power to homes and residents will come home to a freezer full of thawed food !!


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

JRaef said:


> 2020 NEC? Heck, we are still on the 2014 in California, so I probably won't have to worry about 2020 until after I hang it all up...



My buddy down in Huntsville, AL is still on the 2002 NEC inside the city limits. Single family houses don't need AFCI (local amendment), and MWBCs on single pole breakers.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

larryn said:


> Most states are using the 2017 code, with many of the remaining states using the 2014 code. So, I suppose no one will have to use one of these disconnects for awhile anyway. I believe that its still a good idea to personally comply with the requirements of the most up to date code when the provisions make sense. This one is certainly sensible as it can save the life of a fire responder. It also allows you to kill all the current in the main panel (now sub-panel) when doing inside work. I just worry that vandals will be shutting off power to homes and residents will come home to a freezer full of thawed food !!



Many, many, many places have outside disconnects, and the vandals haven't been too much of a problem.... But when I was a kid, we used to walk to the mall. There was a strip mall we passed through with all the disconnects on the wall. We would run by and open them all. What a bunch of a**holes.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

larryn said:


> Most states are using the 2017 code, with many of the remaining states using the 2014 code. So, I suppose no one will have to use one of these disconnects for awhile anyway. I believe that its still a good idea to personally comply with the requirements of the most up to date code when the provisions make sense. This one is certainly sensible as it can save the life of a fire responder. It also allows you to kill all the current in the main panel (now sub-panel) when doing inside work. I just worry that vandals will be shutting off power to homes and residents will come home to a freezer full of thawed food !!


It can save the life of a fire responder? How many lives are lost right now?


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

> Emergency Disconnects. For one-and two-family dwelling units



Why call it an emergency disconnect? Why not just say the Service disconnect must be located outdoors. To me the wording means that the emergency disconnect does not need overcurrent protection and the service disconnect can still be indoors. So no need to separate neutrals and grounds because the panel in the basement is not considered a sub panel.


Have to see the real wording of the new article.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

I don't know if it's a state or multiple local amendments but here in Nevada, we've had to put a disconnecting means on the exterior of every building for as long as I can remember. 

If it's a switch or breaker, it needs to be nearest to the point that the service conductors enter the building. 

If it's a shunt-trip, it has to have a red triangle, 12" on each side and the location has to be approved by the fire marshall.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

CoolWill said:


> JRaef said:
> 
> 
> > 2020 NEC? Heck, we are still on the 2014 in California, so I probably won't have to worry about 2020 until after I hang it all up...
> ...


Do you know which state is on the oldest code, and what year is it on?


----------



## larryn (Nov 6, 2017)

HertzHound, I believe that its being called an "Emergency Disconnect" by the NEC because the history of these is that they were/are used by emergency responders, mostly firemen, when they risk their lives to go inside a building to search for people. The real wording of 230.85 is in an earlier post in this thread. Hackwork asked, "how many lives are lost right now?" Well, I don't know the answer to that but if I were a firefighter and I was entering a burning building, I would prefer the power to be killed before I entered instead of waiting for a short to trip the main.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

larryn said:


> Hackwork asked, "how many lives are lost right now?" Well, I don't know the answer to that but if I were a firefighter and I was entering a burning building, I would prefer the power to be killed before I entered instead of waiting for a short to trip the main.


One of the problems with the world is that we have people trying to save us from boogiemen. 

The feelings of firefighters don't mean a thing. It's either dangerous or it isn't. If no one is getting hurt, then it's not dangerous. So changing the entire way that we do things and making Americans pay billions of dollars more is a crappy thing to do. 

Oh, but the code is there to make corporations profit, I forgot about that fact.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

HackWork said:


> larryn said:
> 
> 
> > Hackwork asked, "how many lives are lost right now?" Well, I don't know the answer to that but if I were a firefighter and I was entering a burning building, I would prefer the power to be killed before I entered instead of waiting for a short to trip the main.
> ...


So a certain percentage of people need to die before we make a change for safety reasons? 

Also, Can’t they just pull the meter to kill the power if they were worried about it?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Once again this proves how the NEC writers don't live in the real world and only exist to make manufacturers more profit. This rule would be impossible to comply with in vast areas of the Northeast with large cities particularly Boston, NYC, Philly and others where metering is indoors fed from underground networks. There would literally be no place to install an outdoor disconnect. I'm sure this rule will be amended out of the NEC in many places because it takes the top 5 for stupid rules the NEC has ever made.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Incognito said:


> So a certain percentage of people need to die before we make a change for safety reasons?
> 
> Also, Can’t they just pull the meter to kill the power if they were worried about it?



There's vastly more services without outdoor disconnects here than with them, and yet it has not been a safety concern for many decades now until the manufacturers decided they need more profit.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

MTW said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> > So a certain percentage of people need to die before we make a change for safety reasons?
> ...


There are no outdoor services here with disconnects, but you have to admit it would be safer for everyone in an emergency like a fire or flood, regardless of how you feel about the NEC.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> So a certain percentage of people need to die before we make a change for safety reasons?


 Yes. If people aren't dying or getting hurt, then there is no safety issue at all. 

There are hundreds of millions of dwellings in this country alone, and no issues with firefighters and electricity. That is pretty conclusive evidence saying that there is no danger.



> Also, Can’t they just pull the meter to kill the power if they were worried about it?


 Exactly. That has worked fine for decades. This new code is bologna.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> There are no outdoor services here with disconnects, *but you have to admit it would be safer for everyone in an emergency like a fire or flood*, regardless of how you feel about the NEC.


This is one of those things I just don't understand how people can dream up.

If no one is getting hurt in a situation, how can you make it safer? What is safer than 0 injuries and deaths?


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

HackWork said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> > So a certain percentage of people need to die before we make a change for safety reasons?
> ...


And there were hundreds of miles of knob and tube but we changed that. Was it because of a large percentages of deaths?

Large percentages of people don’t have to die for an idea to be a safer method, common hack, you know that. Your just siding with the anti NEC argument.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> And there were hundreds of miles of knob and tube but we changed that. Was it because of a large percentages of deaths?
> 
> Large percentages of people don’t have to die for an idea to be a safer method, common hack, you know that. Your just siding with the anti NEC argument.


I never said large percentages, you did. I’m asking for any percentage whatsoever. Where are any of these injuries or deaths other than in your imagination?

There is absolutely no reason for this code change.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

HackWork said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> > And there were hundreds of miles of knob and tube but we changed that. Was it because of a large percentages of deaths?
> ...


Ok. Playing on words but whatever. How’s this. 

So there has to be a death or deaths for a code to change? Even if the idea and or design is safer? Or can you explain how it would not be safer?


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> Yes. If people aren't dying or getting hurt, then there is no safety issue at all.
> 
> There are hundreds of millions of dwellings in this country alone, and no issues with firefighters and electricity. That is pretty conclusive evidence saying that there is no danger.
> 
> Exactly. That has worked fine for decades. This new code is bologna.


As I just said, there are millions of dwellings in big cities in the northeast with the metering in the basement. Do firefighters run into the basement first to pull the meter or shut off the main breaker? :no::no: I have zero desire to do this research but would be curious to see if any actual fire fighting organizations called for this rule.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> Ok. Playing on words but whatever. How’s this.
> 
> So there has to be a death or deaths for a code to change? Even if the idea and or design is safer? Or can you explain how it would not be safer?


I’m not playing on words, I’m being very clear. I’ve explain this three times already. If no one gets hurt out of millions and millions of instances of something happening, then there is absolutely no danger.

The hundreds of millions of dwellings out there without outside disconnects are not hurting anyone, therefore putting outside disconnect on will not make anything safer. 

You are just looking to argue with me like usual. You even said yourself that the firemen can pull the meter just as easily if they choose to.


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

Incognito said:


> Also, Can’t they just pull the meter to kill the power if they were worried about it?



Yes that's how they do it if needed. We don't have fancy locks on the meters. just a wire seal. Ill ask a guy I work with tomorrow. He has been a volunteer fire fighter for 30 years. Chief for a few. I'm curious how many meters he's pulled compared to just throwing water on it.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

I don't know about anyplace else but here in Nevada, we had the newfangled smart meters foisted on us a few years ago. 

If the meter is self-contained (no CTs), then all the firemen need to do is call the PUCO and they can kill the service in less than a minute. 

Seems to me that the only place an outside disconnect would be needed at all is a large service that had CTs. 

Seems to me that it an exception should be made for any service that the PUCO can disconnect remotely. 

Seems to me that, once again, safety has been perverted to not only corporate profit but also reduced to rigid regulation without any actual thought or even the slightest bit of common sense. 

Just make another law..........yes....that's the answer......


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

HackWork said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. Playing on words but whatever. Howâ€™️s this.
> ...


Would it be safer?

Forget what is existing and forget statistics, would it be safer?

Of course you won’t answer that without pointing out statistics and existing installations as your defence but you are smart enough to know it would be safer.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> Would it be safer?
> 
> Forget what is existing and forget statistics, would it be safer?
> 
> Of course you won’t answer that without pointing out statistics and existing installations as your defence but you are smart enough to know it would be safer.


No, it would not be safer, as I explained to you four times now.

If no one gets hurt from something, then it’s not dangerous, and therefore you can’t make it safer. How do you make something safer than zero injuries out of millions of instances? You refuse to answer that question.

You don’t want me to point out statistics and existing installations because that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no danger, and therefore no way to make it safer. How sad is it that you want to ignore clear facts and only consider feelings.


----------



## HertzHound (Jan 22, 2019)

Why stop at residential services? Aren't the same hazards there for all occupancy? 



I've seen sparks shooting out of a 1" rigid riser like a roman candle. Should the disconnect go at the weather head?


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

Incognito said:


> can you explain how it would not be safer?


Suppose a fire started in the legally required disconnecting means.

Suppose a person with a medical condition that requires power dies because a ruthless young vandal shuts the legally required disconnecting means off.

Suppose the legally required disconnecting means fails when the house is full of people who are not familiar with the layout and are now in total darkness. 

I'm very hesitant to add another point of failure to anything unless the need can be conclusively proven. 

I have no use for any sort of legally required safety device that could introduce more hazard than it mitigates. 

In my opinion, this requirement is nothing more than firemen with more ego than brains exercising control over the public.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

HackWork said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> > Would it be safer?
> ...


So shutting off the power before entering a house on fire or flooded is not safer? 

You just have such a hard time admitting that don’t you? Even though you know it is true. 

All because I haven’t provided you with proof that there have been injuries and deaths due to it, you honestly are saying it is not safer to turn off the power first?


----------



## 460 Delta (May 9, 2018)

HackWork said:


> Oh, but the code is there to make corporations profit, I forgot about that fact.


You left out the most important part, the envelopes full of cash under the table.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> So shutting off the power before entering a house on fire or flooded is not safer?


 No, it is not safer. 

How many more times can I say it?



> You just have such a hard time admitting that don’t you? Even though you know it is true.


If it was true I would admit it.

What you are saying is absolutely false, and proven so by the empirical evidence that no one is getting hurt. Once again, you can’t make something safer if there is no danger.


> All because I haven’t provided you with proof that there have been injuries and deaths due to it, you honestly are saying it is not safer to turn off the power first?


How many more times do I need to say it? I’ve said it six or seven times now and supported it each time.

You are clearly trolling


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

rjniles said:


> If the first disconnect is outside, the inside panel needs the neutrals and grounds separated. This would apply to new construction.
> 
> If as part of a service change a outside disconnect is added, you would have to run 4 wires to the inside panel.
> 
> ...


My house was built in 88 and I have an outside breaker, and 3 wire feeding my panel. Most of the houses in my hood are wired that way.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

It’s amazing how against the NEC you guys are. Even though it is well known as one of the first things that should be done in an emergency, especially a flood. 

Google “ what do I do if my house is flooded” and look at the steps suggested. If not the first thing suggested it will be the second thing to turn off the power. 

Yet you guys are so against authority, the government and the rules that you won’t admit it. Or maybe the manufacturers also payed google?? LMAO


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> It’s amazing how against the NEC you guys are.


 We aren't against the NEC. We are against code that is only added for garbage reasons. We actually think for ourselves, and we use logic and facts instead of feelings and assumptions.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

HackWork said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> > Itâ€™️s amazing how against the NEC you guys are.
> ...


Your logic is going in a flooded basement without turning the power off first is safer than turning it off?

Wrong, you know it, he’ll everyone knows it.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> Your logic is going in a flooded basement without turning the power off first is safer than turning it off?
> 
> Wrong, you know it, he’ll everyone knows it.


So you are still inventing scenarios up in your head, while ignoring the actual facts? I mean you literally told me not to use statistics and the existing evidence LOL.

I’m going to let you have the last word. I hope the evil outside disconnect boogie man doesn’t get you tonight.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Soooooo,,,,, I know I said this before , but I guess I'm gonna have to repeat it. I live where all the houses have the main disco outside - it's a two pole breaker generally. Annnnnd I have been a continuous resident of the island since 1976. I have never had anybody shut off my outside disconnecting circuit breaker in a malicious or trickery manner ever. Annnnnd I have never met anybody who claims it happened to them here ever. It is just a fantasy to worry about it, maybe if they switched you guys all of a sudden , somebody would have to do it just to see the effect it has, but be serious, it just doesn't happen here, ever...... It don't...... so what me worry?


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Digital meters totally ruin the logical basis for such a Code provision.

The Service can be disconnected digitally -- wherever it's installed.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 14, 2017)

HertzHound said:


> Why stop at residential services? Aren't the same hazards there for all occupancy?
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen sparks shooting out of a 1" rigid riser like a roman candle. Should the disconnect go at the weather head?


I was thinking on the pole and it will open the hots and the grounded conductor... that way the whole building is safe... 

Every fire building I've seen that had an overhead service was disconnected at the pole while the fire department was fighting the blaze. 

I agree that this can be safer should a disconnect be installed outdoors, but even then, there is still a live portion on the home.

I think it would be better to either train some of the crew how to operate a hot stick, to kill the tranny on the pole or pad mount, or, as my city does, keep POCO on call 24/7. POCO can do the disco at the pole/pad mount. Fire? Great, fire department is on route, and POCO is also on route. Problem solved.

Even better, force the POCO to install remotely controlled disconnects on their transformers so they can cut the power from anywhere, anytime. 

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Sometimes firefighters get hurt.


https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/lo...cle_beba5c5e-38ac-52c9-8013-be0135afb2a6.html


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

COOP utility up here requires the main outside. This code change has been in the works for a while.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Sometimes firefighters get hurt.
> 
> 
> https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/lo...cle_beba5c5e-38ac-52c9-8013-be0135afb2a6.html


Of course they do. And so do home owners. We all know there is a possibility of shock when there is an emergency situation.

Why professional electrical workers on this site are arguing otherwise just because they do not like the NEC is ridiculous. I guarantee any of these guys, if called by a customer with a flooded basement, would tell the customer to turn off the power before entering the basement. They also would not enter themselves.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Sometimes firefighters get hurt.
> 
> 
> https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/lo...cle_beba5c5e-38ac-52c9-8013-be0135afb2a6.html


 It's a commercial building. And you don't know if they wanted to shut the power down or not.



Incognito said:


> Of course they do. And so do home owners. We all know there is a possibility of shock when there is an emergency situation.


 There are possibilities of dying or getting hurt in every aspect of life. If there are decades of evidence with hundreds of millions of situations in which people don't get hurt, then there is no safety risk, and therefore nothing to make safer.



> Why professional electrical workers on this site are arguing otherwise just because they do not like the NEC is ridiculous.


 You keep saying that, but you are wrong. And since I know you are not stupid, the only other answer is that you are trolling.

No one here hates the NEC, the NEC is filled with lots of great regulations that keep people safe. But it is also filled with a lot of garbage that was put there due to typical greed. And on top of that, it is also filled with a lot of design issues that have nothing to do with safety.

You are mad because we are not blindly following what other people say without question.

It will cost billions of dollars to put outside disconnects on dwellings. And for what? So you feel good, and corporations make more money. Good job.



> I guarantee any of these guys, if called by a customer with a flooded basement, would tell the customer to turn off the power before entering the basement. They also would not enter themselves.


 You are dead wrong. You made this up in your head.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

@HackWork, I though you said you will let me have the last word? Lol


Simple question. (Which you will not answer without a bunch of crap about billions of dollars and billions of old installations and manufacturers making codes and bla bla bla)

Here it is.
Should the power be shut off before entering a flooded basement?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> @HackWork, I though you said you will let me have the last word? Lol
> 
> 
> Simple question. (Which you will not answer without a bunch of crap about billions of dollars and billions of old installations and manufacturers making codes and bla bla bla)
> ...



I did say that, and I went to sleep. But I woke up to find you posting more lies that could not go unanswered.

It’s funny how you call statistics and evidence “a bunch of crap”. That shows that you are trolling. The safety that you preach is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. When actual facts are brought up you keep saying to ignore them and that you don’t want to speak about them.

As for your question, I already answered that. I said no. I’ve never shut the power off before entering a flooded basement. Nor have I seen anyone do that. 

I am amazed by your lunacy. Slightly under a half a million Americans die every year due to smoking. Almost 500,000 people die. Many of them die slowly and suffer. The only reason why cigarettes are still legal is because the billions of dollars that are made by the corporations who spend a good portion of that lobbying the lawmakers.

Now you are here preaching safety, yet you haven’t cited a single death that this code change would save. The only reason why this code was put into place is the same reason as I mentioned above, the corporations lobbying for a profit. You are so worried about saving a perceived single life that you’re going along with code changes that will cost billions of dollars. But the 480,000 people that die in our country every year are perfectly OK with you.

It amazes me how some people will blindly follow whatever they are told when it is clear that they are being suckered.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

The hangup here is "safer" vs. "less risky". It cannot be safer if there has never been an injury from it. Anything times 0 is still 0. Is there a risk from energized conductors during a fire event? Sure. But that risk must be very small as evidenced by the little-to-no injuries from it.

It would be less risky if there were a disconnect. It would be even less risky if the disconnect was at the pole. And still less risky yet if we just didn't use electricity at all.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

HackWork said:


> .
> I’ve never shut the power off before entering a flooded basement. Nor have I seen anyone do that.


Well you should. 









But again, your response to this will be “billions of people die other ways so this is not actually dangerous, and manufacturer bla bla bla.” Why do you keep posting that stuff? Just because more people die other ways does not make this safe.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> Well you should.


 You asked me a question and I answered you. I didn’t come here for a lesson on dealing with floods.


> But again, your response to this will be “billions of people die other ways so this is not actually dangerous, and manufacturer bla bla bla.” Why do you keep posting that stuff?


 Again you tell us that we should ignore facts. Instead we should go by your feelings.


> Just because more people die other ways does not make this safe.


You are correct. However, the fact that no one dies due to not having a disconnect on the outside of the house proves that it is in fact safe.

Honestly, how many more times does that need to be explained to you?


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

Incognito said:


> ...you guys are so against authority, the government and the rules that you won’t admit it.





Seems your icon is a li'l off.....












There, that's better.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

HackWork said:


> You asked me a question and I answered you. I didn’t come here for a lesson on dealing with floods.
> Again you tell us that we should ignore facts. Instead we should go by your feelings.
> 
> You are correct. However, the fact that no one dies due to not having a disconnect on the outside of the house proves that it is in fact safe.
> ...


Not ignoring facts, I’ve just heard your explanation on how because something is more dangerous it makes this not dangerous, which I do not agree with and have heard already. Your responses are getting more and more predictable.

Yes I agree many people die other ways. Does that mean that this is not dangerous? No it does not 

Do I believe it is dangerous to enter a flooded basement with the power on? Yes I do and yes people have been injured and have died because of it.

How many more times do YOU need that explained?

I have made my opinion on this very clear and have provided evidence. You feel different, I don’t care. 

If a customer or friend/family member called me with a flooded basement I will continue to tell them not to enter until the power is off. 

Now you can have the last word, I’m done with this conversation.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 14, 2017)

Incognito said:


> Not ignoring facts, I’ve just heard your explanation on how because something is more dangerous it makes this not dangerous, which I do not agree with and have heard already. Your responses are getting more and more predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If a family member needed to enter a flooded basement, I would pull the meter myself so I know the power is off. I've entered flooded basements... only with the power off.

Sent from my Samsung using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Incognito said:


> Not ignoring facts, I’ve just heard your explanation on how because something is more dangerous it makes this not dangerous, which I do not agree with and have heard already. Your responses are getting more and more predictable.
> 
> Yes I agree many people die other ways. Does that mean that this is not dangerous? No it does not
> 
> ...


Once again you are either lying or straight up trolling. I never once said that because something is more dangerous that this is less dangerous. Why would you lie about that?

You have not provided evidence of anything. Everything you have posted has been made up in your head. You have not shown us how It would be any safer, since no one gets hurt.

This entire discussion is about firefighters, I don’t know where flooded basements came into this, it’s clearly just an excuse that you imagined.

Even with outside disconnects on every house, firefighters won’t shut the power down any more often than the do now. They currently have the ability to shut the power down to every house by pulling the meter, which is something that you yourself mentioned in one of your earlier posts. So adding an outside disconnect will not make anything safer.

I will reiterate for the last time, if there are millions of instances of something happening, and in none of those instances someone gets hurt, then you can’t make it safer. The only thing you would be doing by adding more restrictions is appears your own feelings.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Let’s say it is 100 years ago and they are building a skyscraper. They want to put an observation deck on the top with no railing, people could walk right up to the edge and look off. You come along and say it may be safer to put a railing up. At that time, everyone would agree with you, including me.

Fast forward to present day, the building has been there for 100 years and millions of people have been on that observation deck without a single person falling off. That would prove that putting a railing up would not be any safer. At this time, you can factually say that a railing would not increase the safety. There is solid evidence to back that up. Saying that it would be safer is simply untrue.

That is why when we change electrical code, it is supposed to be substantiated in fact, not fallacy. But unfortunately we change electrical code in order to make manufacturers money, and they’re going to make a lot off of this change. Outside disconnects are expensive.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

"More people die from X so there is no reason to make Y safer." -Not a valid discussion. Pulling a meter is not an approved disconnecting means.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> "More people die from X so there is no reason to make Y safer." -Not a valid discussion.


 No one ever said that. That is a lie that was made up to distract from the fact that no evidence could be obtained to support his view.

What I pointed out was the hypocrisy in the government letting 480,000 people die a slow and painful death due to smoking, all because the lobbyists pay them off. But then they want to implement code to save lives, when no lives are actually lost- again, all because the lobbyists pay them off.

And people actually defend this practice, it's sad. Why don't you use your Antifa beliefs against *that* fascism? 



> Pulling a meter is not an approved disconnecting means.


 Nothing that the fire fighters do in their work is approved by electrical or any other building code.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Anyone who has ever watched fire fighter videos for more than 5 minutes on YT knows that the fire department always calls the poco for a disconnect if they believe the house is unsafe. 
This often happens when the fire spreads to the exterior near the service entrance causing the service drop to sag of fall off the house. Oh, that's right, the FD will call the poco to disconnect at the pole and make it safe. There's not a bit of good an outdoor disconnect will do in that situation.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

HackWork said:


> No one ever said that. That is a lie that was made up to distract from the fact that no evidence could be obtained to support his view.
> 
> What I pointed out was the hypocrisy in the government letting 480,000 people die a slow and painful death due to smoking, all because the lobbyists pay them off. But then they want to implement code to save lives, when no lives are actually lost- again, all because the lobbyists pay them off.



Your analysis is off point and irrelevant. The NEC wants every residence to have an exterior disconnect. Unless you can prove that would be more dangerous than not having a disconnect you're just blowing hot air.


> And people actually defend this practice, it's sad. Why don't you use your Antifa beliefs against *that* fascism?



Safer firefighting conditions = fascism? :vs_laugh:


> Nothing that the fire fighters do in their work is approved by electrical or any other building code.



The real issue is the NEC considers the IAFF a higher authority than some guy in New Jersey.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Your analysis is off point and irrelevant.


 It's relavent in that I wanted to say it, and it makes a good point about how both our government and it's brainwashed servants work.



> The NEC wants every residence to have an exterior disconnect.


 No, the NEC does not have any wants or needs. The manufacturers do. 



> Unless you can prove that would be more dangerous than not having a disconnect you're just blowing hot air.


 Nope, I am not just blowing hot air. 

Unless YOU can prove that installing outside disconnects on every 1 and 2 family dwelling will save people who haven't been getting hurt in the first place, it is YOU who is just blowing hot air. 



> The real issue is the NEC considers the IAFF a higher authority than some guy in New Jersey.


 You pulled IAFF out of your ass. They are not who got this code changed you ignoramus.

That is the sad thing, the CMP would have never changed the code for the IAFF. They don't have nearly enough money for the payoffs.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Y
> 
> Safer firefighting conditions = fascism? :vs_laugh:



Be honest here - you're not really against fascism at all as long as you benefit from it.


----------



## 460 Delta (May 9, 2018)

Incognito said:


> It’s amazing how against the NEC you guys are. Even though it is well known as one of the first things that should be done in an emergency, especially a flood.
> 
> Google “ what do I do if my house is flooded” and look at the steps suggested. If not the first thing suggested it will be the second thing to turn off the power.
> 
> Yet you guys are so against authority, the government and the rules that you won’t admit it. Or maybe the manufacturers also payed google?? LMAO


I think what we have here is a fundamental difference in world view based largely on a national origin. The US was founded because of excessive governmental oversight and heavy handed tactics from Britain which led to war and bloodshed. The mistrust of the government still remains here to a small extent, but the memory is fast fading.
Canada was basically given their freedom from Britain without a shot fired, hence the lack of mistrust of governmental oversight.
I think US citizens have a greater fear of their government than do most other citizens of other countries.
In Appalachia, where I live, it was founded and settled by the Scotch-Irish, some of the most distrustful of outsiders and authority types you can imagine. We can see a conspiracy by the government behind every tree, and the last thing any of us want is another power grab to take another link out of our chain.
When we see or hear of an unfounded "safety" rule, we are immediately on edge.
I think what is driving a lot of this back and forth here and in other threads with the disagreements, is the difference in the US and Canadian countries foundations.
Flame away, I expect it.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

HackWork said:


> It's relavent in that I wanted to say it, and it makes a good point about how both our government and it's brainwashed servants work.


You're as free as anybody to opine. It would be better to have substantiation. The NEC isn't the government.


> No, the NEC does not have any wants or needs. The manufacturers do.


Wrong. The NEC wants every residence to have a disco.


> Nope, I am not just blowing hot air.
> 
> Unless YOU can prove that installing outside disconnects on every 1 and 2 family dwelling will save people who haven't been getting hurt in the first place, it is YOU who is just blowing hot air.


FFs used to pull meters when fighting a residential fire- this has on occasion lead to disaster prompting FFs to have to call and wait for the utility to arrive. Common sense necessitates exterior disconnects would solve the waiting problem.


> You pulled IAFF out of your ass. They are not who got this code changed you ignoramus.
> 
> That is the sad thing, the CMP would have never changed the code for the IAFF. They don't have nearly enough money for the payoffs.


What payoffs? You pulled payoffs out of your ass.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You're as free as anybody to opine. It would be better to have substantiation. The NEC isn't the government.
> Wrong. The NEC wants every residence to have a disco.
> FFs used to pull meters when fighting a residential fire- this has on occasion lead to disaster prompting FFs to have to call and wait for the utility to arrive. Common sense necessitates exterior disconnects would solve the waiting problem.
> What payoffs? You pulled payoffs out of your ass.


This is typical of communist thinking. You fall in line like a lemming to authoritarian rules. I would expect nothing less.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

460 Delta said:


> When we see or hear of an unfounded "safety" rule, we are immediately on edge.


Anyone with even a shred of intelligence would think the same way. 

The main issue that I can see here is that stupid people are easy to lead. They'll so whatever they're told and never question anything. 

Smart people are easy to lead too. But only if those in power are actual leaders who put the best interests of their followers ahead of their own.

Self-serving non-leaders will find it impossible to lead start people to their own doom. 

One of the quickest and easiest ways to reduce smart people to the point they'll blindly obey is to continually bombard them with completely idiotic rigidly enforced regulations. 

Safety is the big one these days, years ago it was the environment but when even the dumbest of people began to see through the hype, it was replaced with safety. 

Eventually, as more and more people see that safety is nothing more than a vehicle the government uses to control people, they'll abandon it and start up with another means of domination.

And smart people will se it for what it actually is right away. Foolish ones will not.


----------



## Helmut (May 7, 2014)

see post 37.

No disconnect needed, unless you're a burglar.


----------



## Recta Fire (Jan 19, 2019)

EPO button under every residential meter. The button would open a switch at the substation killing power to neighborhood= safety for the whole streetí ½í±�í ¼í¿¼


----------



## Jerome208 (May 10, 2013)

Sir, I am not a regular here and I have no dog in this fight but your line of argumentation seems more to do with continuing a lost cause argument than any real substantiation, such as the NEC "wanting" anything.


I think HW has the upper hand here.





LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> You're as free as anybody to opine. It would be better to have substantiation. The NEC isn't the government.
> Wrong. The NEC wants every residence to have a disco.
> FFs used to pull meters when fighting a residential fire- this has on occasion lead to disaster prompting FFs to have to call and wait for the utility to arrive. Common sense necessitates exterior disconnects would solve the waiting problem.
> What payoffs? You pulled payoffs out of your ass.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Jerome208 said:


> Sir, I am not a regular here and I have no dog in this fight but your line of argumentation seems more to do with continuing a lost cause argument than any real substantiation, such as the NEC "wanting" anything.
> 
> 
> I think HW has the upper hand here.


He follows me around from thread to thread looking for a way to "get me".

Back to the subject, I have told this story but I will tell it again. When the code changed to require tamper resistant (TR) outlets I did not like it. I said that it was the typical manufacturer BS of getting code changed to sell more expensive devices. And I posted my feelings.

A member of this forum told me that I was wrong and posted the statistics showing that thousands of kids went to the ER every year due to burns or shocks from sticking things into outlets. Those statistics were what was used in the required substantiation for the code change proposal.

I immediately reversed myself, admitted I was wrong, and never complained about the requirement for TR outlets again.

I am willing to do that again, if either of the 2 people fighting for outside disconnects show the statistics and substantiation that is _supposed_ to be required for code changes. 

But as you saw, neither even attempted to post facts. One went so far as to say 4-5 times that he did not want to talk about statistics and history of existing situations. It's so sad when pesky facts get in the way of someone's feelings :vs_laugh: :biggrin:


----------

