|
|
|
|
|
|
by rtpg
676 days ago
|
|
|
Of course I've seen the opposite all the time. People who find issues with the conventional reasoning, and then apply their own _extremely faulty reasoning_ to reach their own conclusion! Someone having incorrect reasoning doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they do not know (in the sense of knowing something for the right reasons) Case in point: OP decided to wash the toaster in the dishwasher. Their story about walking through water assuming that their hair dryer experiment validated them walking through water with a bunch of sockets.... they are applying super hand-wavy reasoning in the same way as the critics are! The funny thing about the whole piece is that while "an unplugged toaster through the washing machine is probably fine" is not a huge leap, so much in the PS is indicative of how I would not really trust this person much for their decision making |
|
|
Yes, electricians often have plenty of experience with getting shocked. But all it takes is one dumb mistake and you quickly die a horrible death, with muscles locked up unable to self-rescue in a location where immediate bystanders will risk their own lives to rescue.
What kind of dumbass proudly tells about wading into electrified flooding in front of colleagues when there wasn’t even any urgent reason to do so? What would it have cost to simply wait and cut the power first, calling the power company if necessary if a breaker box could not be safely reached for some reason (unlikely)?
And many/most circuits outside code-compliant kitchens and baths aren’t GFCI, and GFCI doesn’t protect against all electrocutions (you can be electrocuted in a short without a ground fault). Now consider electrical fires from getting sloppy with damaged wiring and electrical devices, which are a leading cause of deaths from fire.