| Tom Horne 2007-10-08, 5:25 pm |
| Gerald Newton wrote:
> It is interesting to note that the person making the proposal worked
> for a company that provides this service. The additional requirement
> to be added to 100.16 was: "The marking [arc flash warning label]
> shall indicate the incident energy, the flash protection boundary, and
> the shock protection boundaries"
> This proposal was rejected, but it brings to light a trend by persons
> to increase work and business by changing the NEC.
>
Gerald
Surely you are mot implying that financial self interest played a part
in this proposal rather than the proposers selfless concern for the
safety and welfare of electricians like myself? The next thing you'll
be saying is that Arc Fault Circuit Interrupter requirements in the NEC
are a solution inn search of a market; I err mean problem. You may end
up thinking that the North American Electrical Manufacturers would stoop
to getting provisions inserted into the electric code that have little
to do with the legitimate interest of State and local government in
assuring the publics safety. What that will lead to is creeping
socialism.
"He owns the tools so he makes the rules and he wants it kept that way.
What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA. HEY.
"The Business of America is Business." President Calvin Coolidge 1925.
--
Tom Horne
Who believes that the business of America is FREEDOM!
|