Talk:Electrical injury

message: Isn't it a bit POV to claim that throughout the world 'the Chair' is viewed as 'inhumane'? Isn't it rather the case that it's gruesome and sickening to watch (a rather different point). There is quite a bit of evidence (see  Dr Grandin's animal husbandry web site)  that an  electric current of an amp or two is an efficient way of inducing unconsciousness in a large mammal, provided the current path is through the brain. (There was also at least one 19th century US medic who self-experimented (!) on the level of current sufficient to induce unconsciousness)80.177.213.144
:Actually the entire concept of "capital punishment" is viewed as inhumane in most civilized countries in the world.
:Atlant 29 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)
True (well more or less - though it wasn't the reason we in the UK abolished the penalty many, many years ago) - but in the present context, irrelevant :-)  80.177.213.144
:I don't think it would be POV to claim that the electric chair is viewed as inhumane in Europe, at least. This depends on what kind of people you're talking about. The average joe seems convinced. For a good review of this stuff, go to the Florida death row site... they cover the bits about people not being killed by the initial shock, people suffocating, people catching fire while still conscious, etc... Zuiram 21:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrocution - Electric Chair & animal use 

message: The 100 to 200 mA region for fibrillation agrees with my best recollection (ARRL handbook in days of valves/tubes?), but where's the evidence that such fibrillation 'tears the tissue' and 'destroys the heart' - I though the whole point about fibrillation was that it _could_ be stopped, by a large electric shock, from a defibrillator - though of course time is of the essence, because a heart in fibrillation pumps no blood.  Linuxlad 01:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fibrillation 

message: I would like this article to define electrocution as how many amps/volts pass through the heart.
:Do you mean how much does it take to  cause death or just fibrillation or fibrillation followed by slow death....? Why so morbid?--Light current 05:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrocution 

message: I don't think that ECT qualifies as a "disputed" therapy.  It does have many detractors, but is very widely used and generally accepted by psychiatrists, so far as I can tell.  People can read the article on the treatment itself for a full idea of the merits of the debate.  If you disagree, feel free to add the qualifier back in, and explain yourself here.  Mgcsinc 12:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many, many mental health practitioners now (2010) who actively "dispute" the benefits of ECT - see the main article on Electroconvulsive therapy. I'm just a layman (but I hear this discussed in current affairs media regularly) so can domain experts please cite. Thanks, Bricaniwi (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Electroconvulsive therapy]] 

message: If an electrified object is dropped into water, how far do the effects extend to? Say an electric wire fell into a stream at one end…how far away would a person in the water have to be to be clear of the danger?  QuizQuick  18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many variables to give an answer. What sort of electric wire? Most supplies that might be dangerous will have some sort of protection which will remove the supply. How clean/pure is the water? Very pure water is a very good insulator, but the vast majority of impurities improve the conductivity considerably. How wide and deep is the stream? Again this will affect the conductivity and the other paths which the current might take to divert it from a person in the water. Drop an old fashioned electric fire into a bath and the occupant is likely to be severely shocked, and probably killed. Drop a household supply wire (the sort that might break away from an overhead line) into a stream and I guess that you would be safe 100 yards away, but I wouldn't risk it myself. treesmill 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conduction in water 

message: When I started my electrical apprenticeship I was told one very important thing to do when applying first aid to an electric shock victim.
You should aways tap some of their bare skin with the back of your hand.  If they are still electrically live, your hand and arm will contract away from the danger. Blaab 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were taught WRONG. For LOW VOLTAGE cases, that would be sufficient, but for high voltage, you'd be, for all intents and purposes, welded to the victim. Think of that 7KV line, the victim is in full contact that you cannot observe, yet you touch the victim with the back of your partially extended hand. Your arm now contracts, bringing you into FULL contact and FULL CURRENT.
I will go with what I was told by an old industrial electronics tech, kick the SOB clear. DO NOT TOUCH. If you don't have a board or other non-conductive item and MUST, kick them.
Once you touch, you're in an embrace that could give you eternity in a way that you'd prefer to avoid.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional First Aid Step

message: Apart from severe beatings, electric shock torture is the favourite method of the modern torturer. It leaves few visible signs on the victim's body, yet leaves a lasting impression on their mind. The fact that victims are strapped down, naked, during the torture, does not by it self, explain the sexual overtone to torture by electricity. Rather it is clear that this world's torturers actively seek up the sexual organs when applying the electricity to a victims body. Using the electrode like a substitute penis, the torturer humiliates his victim by penetrating his or her's erotic zones to great effect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.60.195.137  (talk • contribs).
:It's not sexual at all. It's VULNERABLE IN ALL WAYS. Something with a profound impact upon the psyche. 
Electrical shocks to the "erotic zones" isn't sexual. "Erotic zones" are called that for one reason, LOADED with nerve endings. So, electrical stimulation REALLY lets the victim know that the torturer is interested in whatever said torturer is interested in.
NOT an opinion, but the source information is rather classified. There are declassed versions around somewhere, but it's late...Wzrd1 (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electroshock weapons are usefull 

message: Can electrocution kill you instantly, or do you die slowly?
: You die quick.  Heart failure is virtually instantaneous in electrocution.  If you do not suffer heart failure you could suffer major internal burns (Think standing inside a very big microwave).  In this case you are likely dead quickly or unconscious and linger a while till the inevitable.  Depends on what you mean by slowly - seconds yes, hours or days likely no Lumberjack Steve 12:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rarely instantaneous. It depends very much on the nature of the damage done by the electric shock. Even where speedy death is intended, as in execution by electric shock, death may take some minutes. In accidental shock the variety of circumstances is very great, so no general conclusion is possible. treesmill 02:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the other comments about high-voltage, i.e. 230,000V, accidental deaths, where death is instant due to the body "evaporating". I imagine high-voltage judicial executions would be much more efficient, i.e. quick and reliable, than the current electric chair protocols of approx only 2,500V, but would not be publicly acceptable because of the mess they would make of the bodies, and the execution chambers, and any unprotected official observers. The problem with execution by electric shock is that even though the circumstances can be largely controlled, there are still many variations, e.g. in body size and shape, skin resistance, etc., that it is difficult to pick the voltage that is just high enough to kill without making the person bleed or burn or their blood boil. Fortunately, there are few human beings who can bear to experiment enough to improve the technique. Also, the time required to lead the person into the execution chamber, strap them into the chair, attach the electrodes correctly, put the mouthpiece in and the mask on, and check and adjust the controls, must, because we are dealing with a conscious, aware human being, who understands what is about to happen to them, all this preparation time must be included in the psychological terror of the subjective experience of "How Long is It Until You Die". Bricaniwi (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How Long is It Until You Die?

message: Um, why is there detailed and intricate description of electrical torture on both this talk page and in the actual article? That is disturbing and fulfills no knowledge except that of the dark thoughts of a sadist. No one wants to know a subjective account of  the details of torturing someone with electricity. Remove the subjective account of electrical torture. Write that in your diary instead, and also reflect on how you would feel being the electrocuted one. Most forms of sadism do not utilize empathy as it deeply disturbs them and reveals their own fantasies as evil. Samhebert12 (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: This is Someone Just Expressing Sadistic Fantasy

message: I have been looking through literature for information on the role of the frequency in the lethality of an electric shock.  I am doing this as part of some research into what I suspect is an urban myth: that 60Hz is more deadly than 50Hz with all other factors being the same.  Can anyone provide some input on this? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lethality and frequency 

message: It is possible to read through the instructions and never call an ambulance! How? The rescuer is instructed to resuscitate the victom if he has first aid knowledge. If the victom is dead the victom will never be resusciated so the rescuer won't move on to the call the ambulance step.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.119.148 (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely correct. Psychic implantation Wikipedia will be nearing beta test soon.
If someone who is reading English Wikipedia about this hasn't seen even ONE show with CPR, they must be that living under a rock guy in a certain insurance commercial. Even a 80+ woman knew it, using a plunger, as she couldn't bend enough to help her husband knew it (a new device has been patented, based upon that).Wzrd1 (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First aid instructions mangled 

message: "It is possible to have a voltage potential between neutral wires and ground in the event of an improperly wired (disconnected) neutral, or if it is part of certain obsolete (and now illegal[citation needed]) switch circuits."
I can give an example from personal experience that is relevant to this text.   At the top and bottom of a stairwell, there were lights operated by three way switches such that either light could be operated individually from the top or bottom (two switches in each location).   The two lights were on separate breakers.   The top light took its hot from the upstairs circuit and the bottom light from the downstairs circuit.    The dangerous part was that the top light completed its circuit through the downstairs wiring and the bottom light through the upstairs wiring such that even though the downstairs circuit breaker was turned off and the downstairs light did not illuminate and  even tested dead with an multi-meter, live power was present downstairs (presumably through the filament of the upstairs light) when the downstairs light fixture was removed for replacement and I got sparks when I disconnected one of the wirenuts.   Instead of running 4 wires up/down the stairwell they needed to run 6 but they took a short cut.   To complicate matters, they apparently switched the neutral side of the lights instead of hot (a bad practice that means
you can be electrocuted changing a light bulb even though the switch is off).   Thus, when I disconnected the neutral? wire nut at the downstairs fixture, the current from the upstairs light had nowhere to go except through the air (or me). Three way switches are prone to unsafe wiring because they often run a significant distance and opposite ends may be in different power domains.   Thus it is tempting to save the cost of two extra wires, or because they didn't realize they needed two extra wires until after drywall was installed, to complete part of the circuit through the wrong power domain.   I can't tell you what the laws are over time but this was one of several unsafe wiring practices used by the original contractor that built that housing development.    The other unsafe practices resulted in many fires.   One was the use of aluminum wire with fixtures that were not designed for aluminum.  Another was backwiring (aluminum wire, even), and the third was that power to the entire first floor lighting circuit was routed up from the basement circuit breaker panel through an exterior moisture prone outlet (dumb, dumb, dumb).   At least some of these practices were legal at the time and at least some of them are illegal now.  One should always be aware when working on electrical circuits that bad wiring practices may result in live power where you would not expect it, even where it has previously been tested to be absent.   Some of these examples also illustrate that unsafe wiring practices combined together, can be far more unsafe than the practices by themselves.
67.76.175.5 (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats pretty bad. I remember one time when we fitted RSD safety switches to a house and every single one would continually switch. I found out that EVERY power outlet had neutral and earth the wrong way around. In some cases whole suburbs have been built like this. The explination seems to be different colour codes on the outlets, ie. a bad batch came and no one ever checked them nor tested the outlets properly...--Dacium (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a 120 volt tickle from my own home, once. It seems that the person who put the lighting fixture in place in the kitchen didn't pay attention to neutral and hot. I, of course got lazy and didn't pull the fuse (yes, fuse, the panel was replaced later). One hand touched the circuit, the forearm felt the tingle and I QUICKLY pulled my hands out and removed the fuse, cursing at my idiocy the entire time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  improper/illegal switch circuits 

message: The practice in some areas, mentioned in the main article, of prohibiting electric outlets in bathrooms may prove detrimental to safety.   There are a number of small appliances that are commonly used in bathrooms including electric toothbrushes, electric razors, hair dryers, portable heaters, and sometimes ultrasonic denture cleaners,
radios, televisions, and telephones (with wall warts).   The lack of outlets may result in the use of extension cords to non-GFI protected outlets in other rooms and which may also be more susceptible to moisture (a fire hazard), given their construction and location, than built in outlets.   Use of a GFI protected outlet in the bathroom is safer than an extension cord to a non-GFI protected outlet in another room.   Thus requiring GFI protected outlets may be safer than prohibiting outlets given that people in developed countries are going to use electrical appliances anyway.   Providing a safe location for most of these appliances, such as a shelf with drainage located slightly lower than the wash basin/vanity with some clearance for drips and overflow. that reduces the likelyhood of overturning into a sink or tub would be an additional safety measure.   In addition to the electrocution hazard, moisture in bathrooms provides a potential for electrical connections to deteriorate and this hazard is present in the electric lighting and heating fixtures that may be present in a bathroom whether or not outlets are allowed and this problem is exacerbated by heat in light or heating fixtures.  The use of portable heaters is a special concern from a fire hazard  perspective since they are high current appliances that may accidently be left on and bathroom circuits, or the heater itself, may be adversely affected by moisture, and unlike built in heaters, they may not be designed for use in a moist environment.   Augmenting GFI outlets and light fixtures for bathrooms  with a thermal cutoff would provide some protection against moisture induced resistive contacts.   Designing in a safe location and point of connection for bathroom appliances is safer than forcing the user to improvise.  Whitis (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall (haven't read EXACTLY WHEN), a change to the electrical code that REQUIRES GFCI outlets in bathrooms or within a certain distance to a water outlet/sink.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrical Outlets in Bathrooms

message: == 
By the way, are such statements about electrocution as "...all executions can be considered to be uncivilized and something to be eliminated." and "...executions are executions, and they're all bad." neutral?  The article does say "From this point of view", but the article itself takes these points of view.  Would it be better as: "merely the subjective impression of witnesses. It makes no difference whether the execution looks grisley or not.  The only consideration in an execution is that very rapid and permanent loss of consciousness take place, and the electric chair accomplishes this." ?  BlazingKhan (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrocution - neutrality 

message: The section seems to have a lot of comments that work against each other, or comments that seem to have been added by people with some disagreements.  It seems useful for someone who has experience in these areas to go back and clean up some of those sections.98.212.211.163 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Avoiding the Dangers of shock" section could use some cleanup 

message: I altered the format of the article because it didn't appear to make sense, as there was an asterisk in the middle of the text which I was sure was meant to come out as a bullet for a footnote. Then I noticed there was a dangling sentence at the end of the paragraph, which I put in what looks like its proper place. Please check these changes, especially if you were the one who added the text in the first place. Here is the new version of the changes I made:
*Connecting electrical neutrals to plumbing is against the electrical codes, at least in the United States of America. This is for several reasons. One of these is that connecting any electrical lines to plumbing presents a danger to plumbers or anyone else working on or around plumbing. Also, with metallic plumbing, even small amounts of electric current through them over a significant length of time can cause corrosion to the pipes, the removal of their zinc linings - if they have any, and the breakdown of the solder in their joints. 
*The ground wire (grounding conductor) of the system is allowed to be connected to plumbing. However as previously stated, the neutral (grounded conductor) is not allowed to be connected. NEC 250.52 Grounding Electrodes (A)Electrodes Permitted for Grounding (1)Metal Underground Water Pipe. This requires: a metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0m (10ft) or more and electrically continuous to the points of connection of the grounding electrode conductor and the bonding conductor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.166.179 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ancient question, ancient code reference, reality answer. First, zinc isn't coming off of any water pipes in the US, as water supply was either lead or later, copper. Second, while true, it WILL erode with time and oxidation (I helped a friend out, who, as I, was shocked when I moved the shoddy ground that was causing computer crashes, to get baptized by said eroded pipe. We quickly moved a NEW ground line to a better ground, as the code did NOT REQUIRE a grounding rod, we got lucky in terms of labor and expense. I double grounded said replacement. One fails, the other survives and less arc damage.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting changes: please can someone double check them 

message: The source used to make the claim that dry skin has a resistance of 10,000 Ohm (from which point to which?) is this physics 101 course from Arizona State University. Aside from being non-specific (resistance must be measured between specific points on the body, and will vary depending on this), it is also incompatible with what is claimed by most other sources - for example, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health gives a figure of 100,000 Ohm for resistance between different extremities in this official publication.
If the latter source is to be trusted - and it probably should, as even trivial experimentation with a meter can confirm that dry skin resistance between extremities is usually far above the conservative 100,000 Ohm even for large skin-conductor contact surfaces - then the voltage figures given in the following table for "dry skin" should be multiplied by 10.
*it is the energy [W.s or alike unit] which should be the unit here. lethality does not depend on V,I or P. i mean you can get 5 W shock but if it is in a very short time period that is not lethal. --Infestor (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed: Lethality of a shock

message: Im playing here with a a reactor for one fluorescent lamp (220V 36/40W) and a 9V battery, i place the 2 cables on the poles of the battery with my fingers touching them to give me a electric shock and sometimes it gives a stronger shock.
Can that be dangerous (kill me)?
189.28.219.198 (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangerous? 

message: I've added the how-to template due to, what sounds like, advice throughout the section:
*"It is strongly recommended"
*"insulated gloves and tools should be used"
*"isolate the operator from ground"
*"the neutral wire must be insulated"
*"being in the bath or shower will not only ground oneself", etc... -- MacAddct  1984 (talk •  contribs) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Avoiding danger of shock"  - How to 

message: I dispute the contents of this whole page. Being involved with electric shock research for the past 8/9 years having 13 books about electrical Shock injury such as Electrical Stimulation and Electropathology by J. Patrick Reilly and Electrical Trauma: The Pathophysiology, Manifestations and Clinical Management by R.C Lee (who I have met)E.G. Cravalho andJ.F. Burke and I have over 30,000 medical and legal reports about the subject. However I am not able to do all the editing of this page myself as I suffer from brain injury and have poor grammar skills. However I would like to help by giving you my website where you can find a lot of good ideas. http://electricshock.thruhere.net/index.html
Shocksurvivor (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: lolwut  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disputing this whole page" 

message: The article says: "AC tends to cause continuous muscular contractions that make the victim hold on to a live conductor, thereby increasing the risk of deep tissue burns. On the other hand, mains-magnitude DC tends to interfere more with the heart's electrical pacemaker, leading to an increased risk of fibrillation."
Well, I'm no expert on this subject, but isn't it the other way around?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.16.26 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly 11 months later ... I've just discovered this call for help! Dear 97.117.114.64, I certainly hope you did go to the ER with those symptoms! Anyone else reading this, have no doubt that anyone experiencing such symptoms after a shock should be checked and monitored by a medical person (http://merck.com/mmpe/sec21/ch316/ch316b.html etc.) Bricaniwi (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AC and DC 

message: IMO the page should be moved to Electrical injury the more common term.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends. Electric shock doesn't always result in injury. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. BUT, electrical injury SHOULD have a link to THIS page. Common knowledge is that electrocution is lethal. Even IF it isn't. THIS is more toward lethal electrical shock death, rather than getting "bitten".Wzrd1 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Problems with citation 10 (it is actually missing). Unfortunately it's the most important citation in this article. 79.35.81.160 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, it's the same book as citation 1, just a different page. I'll make that more clear. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I've moved potentially dangerous unsourced info below. Please find citations for them before reinserting.
1) Current (the higher the current, the more likely it is lethal - current NOT voltage kills)
4) Frequency (maximum lethality unfortunately occurs at 50 to 60 Hz, both DC and higher frequencies are safer than the mains)
DC tends to cause continuous muscular contractions that make the victim hold on to a live conductor, thereby increasing the risk of deep tissue burns. On the other hand, mains-magnitude AC tends to interfere more with the heart's electrical pacemaker, leading to an increased risk of fibrillation. AC at higher frequencies holds a different mixture of hazards, such as RF burns and the possibility of tissue damage with no immediate sensation of pain.
A common misconception is that higher frequency AC current tends to run along the skin rather than penetrating and touching vital organs such as the heart due to the  skin effect. This is false, as the human body has far too high a resistance for this effect to occur. While there will be severe burn damage at higher frequencies, it is normally not fatal.
-Temporal User (Talk) 12:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah I felt the same way. The article that I linked below explains it in much more detail, especially on the quantitative side. DC is considerably more safer than 50 Hz AC, and 10kHz AC apparently on par with DC again.
Egh0st (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the requirement of citation and disagree about disregarding it. Anyone with time to source it, DO IT AND THANKS. I don't have the time. I PERSONALLY have had RF burns, they ARE substantially different. BUT, skin effect does NOT work on HUMAN skin the same as it works on a, currently, metallic conductor. Hence, the necessity of nested, in that case, sourcing. It's a LOT complicated and poorly understood.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially Dangerous Unsourced Info 

message: Since the data in the current version looks rather incomplete and sometimes plain wrong, I actually did try to dig the reputable article out on skin resistance in various circumstances (different area of contact, dry/wet, AC/DC etc).
In my honest opinion, http://www.vias.org/feee/safety_05.html is the best article. Most other results on google just copypasting various figures like (500,000 to 500 Ohms subject to condition, which is not enough on quantitative side). Data from this one imo should be included in the article.  
Egh0st (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The monograph by Reilly, J. Patrick (which is cited in this article) is generally considered quite reliable. Besides being printed by an established academic publisher, the author works (or worked) at JHU Applied Physics Laboratory, and the book gets cited in compliance testing standards and similar serious documents. You can also read a review at  and a more detailed one at . Most of the other sources in this article are of the "don't do this" variety, with few concrete references to actual studies. A freely available one is: http://ecmweb.com/mag/electric_basics_electric_shock/ Tijfo098 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

text: If you're curious, the numbers from the IEC standards are derived from studies on live subjects (below the dangerous levels), and from studies on cadavers, with some correction factors applied to the latter which themselves are calculated by comparing variations in response between live and dead subjects at the same levels. Reilly explains this. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

text: His book actually has way more data (DC, other frequencies, paths other than hand-to-hand, children, even cows!), but I'm too lazy to post all that here; even in the table I gave I removed some intermediate lines. There's also the issue of WP:COPYRIGHT in extensive copying from the same source. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Any source that doesn't give confidence intervals or other variance measures should be regarded with suspicion. It's at best simplifying things for the general public. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that what an encyclopedia exists for? I'll not pick up Britannica to conduct heart surgery or design a computer. It's GENERAL INFORMATION. If you want far more specific and exhaustive information, perhaps a specialty wiki would be appropriate.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper Source on Human Skin Resistance (Finally!) 

message: I propose that Electrocution be merged into Electric shock. The Electrocution article is a stub at the moment and the content would better fit in Electric shock and it would be more easily explained. The Electrocution article is a small article and the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. CJ Drop me a line! • Contribs 09:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The electrocution article doesn't even have a derivation of the word (though the electric chair article does. I've put in an electrocution subheader in the lethality section here. Since the electrocution article offers no new info, I think "merge" is poor choice and you can just "PROD" (propose deletion) on the article, not a merge. SBHarris 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, it can't be deleted easily because it has has a bunch of foreign terms that mean "electrocution". We don't do a simple redirect from electrocute because we need a way to redirect Electrocute (band) to the band, but not in one step from "electrocute." So I've been bold and converted the bad stub to a dab page at electrocution (converting to a redirect there would work, but you lose the equivalent foreign terms).  I'll dab the electrocute wiki, referencing the band and the lethality section of electric shock. SBHarris 17:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suggest that electrocution remain as is. It refers to a specific condition that is the current, at least, US perception. *I* may know better. *YOU* may no better, but popular perception is of import in looking up an article. As this is an English database and the majority ARE American, seeking advice and information, the article should reflect the popular idiom.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Keep.  Electrocution is death by electricity whereas anything less than fatal is an electric shock.  Not enough people know the difference as is.Stereorock (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Keep, for the above the above reasons. Perchy22 (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Pathophysiology
:Factors in lethality of electric shock
::"Voltage (the higher the voltage, the lower the resistance and the more likely dielectric breakdown occurs)"
::::Higher voltages do NOT lower resistance, Dielectric breakdown does but that's not what it says.
::::Possible correct meanings
:::::1 the higher the voltage, the higher the passable resistance and the more likely dielectric breakdown occurs)
:::::2 the higher the voltage, the more likely dielectric breakdown occurs, lowering the resistance of the body)
or what I think should be under the voltage title
:::::3the higher the voltage, the farther the body is penetrated and the more likely internal organ damage)97.88.149.218 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohms Law ??? 

message: There is absolutely no support for this statement. There is no citation, no news articles on Google, and Guinness does not list him on their website. Whoever posted this got a good laugh for a while, but it should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.1.225 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to re-open this thread.  The statement does not appear to have any legitimate sourcing, and no other information (such as the year the incident occurred) seems to be available.  Can anyone provide a reference to a specific edition of the Guinness Book of Records in which the statement appears?  If not, we should remove it.  Tevildo (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Mythbusters gets the glory for proving you can polish a turd, but Wikipedia does it more often.  Original edit cited "Harry F. Mgcrew".  Someone "fixed the typo" to Mcgrew later, presumably without consulting the source since it didn't have one.  Nother got rid of "for all intensive purposes" here, and this one fixed "Guiness" to "Guinness".   Sometimes I think we do too much copy editing here - it makes it look like something that is scarcely literate was actually written carefully. Wnt (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I've taken this out for now.  Nominally, the statement about "Mcgrew" is an unsourced WP:BLP, and as such, it is supposed to get taken out while we figure out what happened.  (Because of wiki-scrapers, this kind of stuff actually does get thrown back at people - see , which at least currently lists the Wikipedia article under all those people named Harry Mcgrew)  The sourcing even for the other one is so weak and sensationalistic I still feel bad about leaving that in - I doubt the person really was grounded.  I mean, the intensity of a burn goes up by the *square* of the voltage, plus the fudge factor on the resistance - when you get to a voltage that high and see someone survives, you're basically pushing the limit of how well insulated you can be before you stop calling it a shock. Wnt (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. This is an actual newspaper article about Latasa, but there's no indication in it that the accident was notable - it's obviously very unusual to survive such a shock, but the cartoon is the only reference we have for it being a record.  We're probably better off without both of the statements. Tevildo (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I think the newspaper article makes it worth mentioning - though we should qualify it as simply a case that electric shock can be survived.  Also, there is so much "citogenesis" from this article to the broader literature, I'm inclined to add those details as an antidote:  "burns over 40 percent of his body.  His entire body, with the exception of his eyelids, was paralyzed."  Ouch.  Mothers, be careful what miracles you pray for! Wnt (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  340,000 volts and Harry F. Mcgrew 

message: A topic which this article doesn't touch on is the lack of painful shock when the body is subjected to electric current of high enough (RF) frequency. This has apparently been experienced by Tesla coil fanatics, who allow the radio frequency streamers from these devices, at hundreds of thousands of volts, to pass through their body without experiencing shocks.  Around the turn of the century, there was a whole field of quack medicine called electrotherapy, pioneered by Paul Oudin and Jacques d'Arsonval in which high voltage RF current from Tesla coils was applied to the body for therapeutic purposes (  Thomas Curtis (1916) High Frequency Apparatus, p.6).  The lack of pain is well documented in these sources, where it is speculated that alternating current with frequency above about 15 kHz changes direction too rapidly to allow the nerve membrane to depolarize, so it doesn't trigger nerves and muscles.  But I can't find anything about this effect in modern sources.  Does anyone know about this? --ChetvornoTALK 21:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of shock from radio frequency current  

message: This page should be titled Human electric shock and not Electric shock.
I am a wildlife biologist and the page name confused me. All of the material is about humans. 76.126.49.228 (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human vs living things electrocution 

message: The article mentions in passing that electric shocks can propel the victim away from the source of electricity:
"while not delivering enough initial energy to propel the person away from the source"
but never mentions this again, and nor does it explain the mechanism of action of said propulsion. This is an omission which should be rectified.--greenrd (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propulsion effect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Electric shock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150503033705/http://www.cetri.org/mechanism to http://www.cetri.org/mechanism
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120317093225/http://www.ncis.org.au/web_pages/Feb%202012%20FACT-SHEET%20-%20Electrocution%20related%20deaths.pdf to http://www.ncis.org.au/web_pages/Feb%202012%20FACT-SHEET%20-%20Electrocution%20related%20deaths.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131210211811/http://www.theiacp.org/research/CuttingEdge/EMDT9Steps.pdf to http://www.theiacp.org/research/CuttingEdge/EMDT9Steps.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100305072316/http://academic.reed.edu:80/poli_sci/faculty/rejali/rejali/articles/electric.html to http://academic.reed.edu/poli_sci/faculty/rejali/rejali/articles/electric.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/EUR46/014/2006
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150523143211/http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org:80/state/ to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electric shock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080118082229/http://www.judgerc.org/history.html to http://www.judgerc.org/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130090902/http://www.csao.org/Uploadfiles/Magazine/VOL11NO1/shock.htm to http://csao.org/uploadfiles/magazine/vol11no1/shock.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified