NHS Bans Socket Covers

[the snooper]

The Police I believe coined the phrase "wife beater" for cans of Stella Artois that often featured in such callouts.

Probably, ultimately though it's the bloke not the fact he's drunk

 

[brightspark]

our lass would make a priest swear clip her one and u would get one back

 

[Welderpaul]

Playing devils advocate here.....

I have a two year old bundle of joy who isn't left up to her own devices, doesn't play unattended etc.

If i had to weigh up which of the following was most likely to happen:

A.
A socket cover, BS or no BS, made from plastic which is a non conductive material, suddenly became conductive and the nearly new split load RCBO/MCB/RCD board which it's connected to didn't trip, and she happened to be touching the socket cover at the time

B.
She found two items which would fit into an unprotected socket, one went in the earth, followed by a conductive one in the live.

I think option B is the most likely out of the two, so i have socket covers. I've assessed the risks and made my choice

 

[voipio]

Have there been any reported fatalities arising from the use of said plastic plug covers?

 

[roofman]

What confuses me is why we need such a lethal voltage when large parts of the world gets by with a small sting on the hand via 120V

 

[the snooper]

Playing devils advocate here.....

I have a two year old bundle of joy who isn't left up to her own devices, doesn't play unattended etc.

If i had to weigh up which of the following was most likely to happen:

A.
A socket cover, BS or no BS, made from plastic which is a non conductive material, suddenly became conductive and the nearly new split load board which it's connected to didn't trip, and she happened to be touching the socket cover at the time

B.
She found two items which would fit into an unprotected socket, one went in the earth, followed by a conductive one in the live.

I think option B is the most likely out of the two, so i have socket covers. I've assessed the risks and made my choice

I'd do the same, never heard of any incidents from using them although I suspect they have saved a few kiddies from a belt or death

 

[roofman]

This sort of internet mass hysteria can be a set up and started by a company who just happens to have an alternative about to hit the markets...Large companys hire staff to do this sort of media damage,they also do it with polititions who get caught in public toilets with a copy of "young hot men"during an election campaign

 

[brightspark]

my take on it is if there plugged in to socket and theres apliances un plugged near the socket sat on floor kiddies cant pick them up and try plugging them in.. they see u do it and try and copy

 

[Swift&Bold]

Hehe....Health & Safety 'experts' eh?
All cast from the same mould it seems

 

[CornishPete]

I thought the op was joking at first! I have young children and have always used said covers. They are a pain for us to get off so I don't think the kids would have a chance. Even if they did we're back at square 1; the socket internal slider prevents things being inserted. What the op is suggesting is banning them because they 'could' cause a problem if they are incorrectly used? Surely this is true of anything? Why don't we ban screwdrivers just in case they are incorrectly used to jab in a socket?! What's to stop children putting something in the earth first that opens up the sliders? I checked a few of the plugs in my house and most can be put in upside down and open the sliders, for that reason ill keep using the safety inserts as at lest they'll have to be taken out first! I'm not a qualified electrician but I have eyes, ears and common sense which is better than a bit of paper in my book.
I also agree with the comments about being preached too by so called experts. If you ask a question on an electrician forum you won't get an answer, instead a dozen replys telling you if you have to ask you shouldn't do it, get an electrician. Cheers for the help!

 

[Sidewinder]

Most probably because most people don't like being preached at by a self proclaimed expert who can't be bothered to set out his argument in his opening statement but just assumes we will do as he instructs?
Personally I find socket covers irritating as I struggle to remove them with arthritic fingers but having read the Fatally Flawed website and your comments about socket covers being dangerous I can find no figures for deaths or injuries caused by the things apart from my own experience of having stepped on one with bare feet and I wouldn't call that an injury, more of a wild swearing incident!

It's not my reasoning in the OP, the reasoning and decision has been made by the NHS H&S & Engineering departments, having taken external evidence from many sources.
I was not part of that base of evidence.
I am merely passing on what the NHS estate has decreed.

 

[Swift&Bold]

.....and me

 

[Sidewinder]

I thought the op was joking at first! I have young children and have always used said covers. They are a pain for us to get off so I don't think the kids would have a chance. Even if they did we're back at square 1; the socket internal slider prevents things being inserted. What the op is suggesting is banning them because they 'could' cause a problem if they are incorrectly used? Surely this is true of anything? Why don't we ban screwdrivers just in case they are incorrectly used to jab in a socket?! What's to stop children putting something in the earth first that opens up the sliders? I checked a few of the plugs in my house and most can be put in upside down and open the sliders, for that reason ill keep using the safety inserts as at lest they'll have to be taken out first! I'm not a qualified electrician but I have eyes, ears and common sense which is better than a bit of paper in my book.
I also agree with the comments about being preached too by so called experts. If you ask a question on an electrician forum you won't get an answer, instead a dozen replys telling you if you have to ask you shouldn't do it, get an electrician. Cheers for the help!

However, do you realise the facts about said "covers".
1. They are not required to meet ANY dimensional standards.
2. They are not required to be made from ANY specification of non-conductive material.
3. They are not required to be subjected to ANY electrical testing.
4. They are not required to be subjected to ANY dimensional quality control.
5. They are not required to meet the dimensions of a plug to mate with a BS1363 socket outlet, thus the pins can be longer, shorter fatter or thinner than those required by BS1363 and there is nothing to control these dimensions.
6. The BS1363 socket outlet is designed ONLY to accept pins of specific dimensions, there are several legitimate operating mechanisms for the shutters, e.g. earth pin insertion, simultaneous insertion of two correctly sized and shaped live pins, simultaneous insertion of all 3 pins of correct dimension and shape. Thus if the pins of the "socket cover" do not meet the design requirements ob BS1363 then the socket can be damaged by them, and ironically the safest mechanism where all 3 pins must be inserted simultaneously and be the correct dimensions are the most at risk from damage.
7. They are not required to meet ANY strength or durability standards.

So, why use them, the BS1363 socket is inherently safe, as per the IET link in the NHS alert, so from the arguments here, it seems that you lot know better than HSE, BSI, the IET, the NICEIC, NAPIT, the ECA, the collective minds of the NHS estates engineering & H&S departments, the engineering and safety people who work with Barnados children's homes, STROMA, and the collective minds of all of the electricians and electrical engineers that have been involved in the work and research to date that has gone into evaluating these devices.
So, why are you lot not running these organisations then?
You are obviously more intelligent that the collective minds of all of these organisations and their member companies, and their employees.

 

[Sidewinder]

But you're not 'merely passing on' really.

What you're doing is essentially saying "WOW, LOOK EVERYONE, TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW! SAVE THE KITTENS! (Oh, and if you disagree I'll imply you're stupid and I'm much better than you)..."

Well, that's how it comes across to me at any rate.

You can make up your own mind, I have passed on the information provided by the NHS, and those who have been working with them, and the collective engineering minds behind this.

YOU, asked for small simple words in your request for why, so I gave you what you wanted, simple.
That they are dangerous, ans should not be used, and I'm telling you that.
Now if you had asked for a full engineering explanation you would have got one.
I gave you the level of answer that your question suggested you wanted from were I read it, now if you wanted a different answer then you should have worded your question differently.
So, I answered your question in the tone that I read that you wanted it answered, if my answer was phrased not to your liking then you should have phrased your question in a better manner.

 

[Sidewinder]

And even with that 'weight of evidence' you said it was impossible to open the shutters by incorrectly inserting a 'proper' plug, then pretty much implied that I faked a photo showing me doing it.

I stand by my statement that any pin that will fit through the faceplate holes cannot be sufficiently large as to damage the contacts.

That is not what BS1363 states though.
BS1363 states specific dimensions, these are enshrined in statute law, but, that is ignored.
What you or I think with regard to what should or should not fit is irrelevant, the product standard is what matters, and the sockets, should be designed and built to the product standard, however, that is not always the case.
Also, these devices do not have to be made to the product standard, thus they can damage the socket.
If you want to change this or feel that BSI are incorrect, you are welcome to speak to them directly, however, at this point in time the fact remains that the sockets, to be legal for sale, must comply with BS1363, which limits the size of the pins.
The "socket covers" do not have to meet this standard, thus, there is the potential for damage.
Thus, the NHS are correct, and you are wrong.
Now please contact BSI and get this put right please I implore you, that way you would be doing everybody a favour, however, until then this is what we have to live with.
The web site for BSI is: http://www.bsigroup.com/
I'm sure that they will change the standards once you can prove the error of their ways, which it seems you feel that you can.

 

[Sidewinder]

No, I have not said that, you are misunderstanding.
Why are you suggesting that?

 

[CornishPete]

did any of the organisations do any research about how many accidents the covers have prevented? Or did they just conclude that there is a hypothetical chance of someone misusing them and advise to ban them? Even if one child does use it upside down then lick the socket and gets blown up or whatever, if it prevents 99 other children from doing it then surely they are a good thing?
speaking of hypothetical situations, if there were two identical rooms, both with a hundred toddlers, a hundred sockets, and two hundred screwdrivers but one room had socket covers fitted, which one would end up with most dead toddlers?! If you seriously think the one without the covers is safest then you've obviously been fed far too much BS and not the 3163 kind!

 

[Sidewinder]

did any of the organisations do any research about how many accidents the covers have prevented? Or did they just conclude that there is a hypothetical chance of someone misusing them and advise to ban them? Even if one child does use it upside down then lick the socket and gets blown up or whatever, if it prevents 99 other children from doing it then surely they are a good thing?
speaking of hypothetical situations, if there were two identical rooms, both with a hundred toddlers, a hundred sockets, and two hundred screwdrivers but one room had socket covers fitted, which one would end up with most dead toddlers?! If you seriously think the one without the covers is safest then you've obviously been fed far too much BS and not the 3163 kind!

The issue is not that of accidents, the issue, if you have read the details is that the so called "socket covers" can damage the BS1363 sockets that they are, supposed, to protect, because a BS1363 socket is ONLY designed to accept a BS1363 plug.
The dimensions of both are very closely controlled by the standard, these stupid devices are not controlled by the standard.

 

[Sidewinder]

On page 3 onwards, you argued that using a plug to open the shutters proved nothing, because "they might not comply, just be stamped as such". Also that my initial photo proved nothing because it was too cropped (implying that I had doctored either the photo, plug or socket).

Every combination I have at my disposal operates in such a fashion, so your insistence that the BS precludes such an eventuality means that if you're correct, none of them can possibly comply.

No, you are not, reading my posts, in relation, and in reply to your questions.
Now there are several allowed methods of opening the shutters on a BS1363 socket.
Inserting the earth pin is just one.
Now, not all manufacturers stick with just the earth pin actuation mechanism.
YOU, have stated that any pin that fits through the face plate must operate the socket OK.
Now I disagree with that because that is not what BS1363 states.
Now taking this point alone, if you are so convinced that you are right, then I will once again guide you to BSI and you have their website address, take this up with them.
So, that is that point sorted, if you are right, contact BSI & they will change the standard once you prove them wrong.

So you can now forget that point and refer any further discussion to BSI, and they will consider your points and change the standard if you are right.

Please let us know how you get on.

 

[CornishPete]

how does it damage the socket?
I thought the issue was putting it in upside down?