!! spellx done
192  A Shock in Your Own Home
     The Washington Post  January 31, 1970

     This column is often addressed to lofty questions of cosmic, or
at least global, significance.  A few weeks ago it had to do with the
assessment of nuclear hazards, and this opened the back door to a
comparison with the homely problem of electric shock, to which I might
otherwise never have attended.

     Quite by coincidence, I also encountered an article by Professor
Charles F. Dalziel in this month's issue of the electrical engineers'
magazine, Spectrum.  He is emeritus professor of electric engineering
at the University of California, Berkeley.  A brief telephone 
conversation confirmed the suspicion that he occupied a somewhat lonely
place in the academic world for having maintained a systematic interest
in teaching about designing for safety at a professional level.
It is not obvious where we can find the skilled manpower to meet the
resurgent public and regulatory interest in promoting the safety of
domestic products.  Certainly it is not a high priority issue in 
contemporary engineering education, no more than preventive health and 
nutrition in the medical schools.

     About 1100 people a year are electrocuted in the U.S., more than a
quarter of these in their homes, and an equal proportion by 110-volt 
shocks at work. (The rest are high voltage, mostly occupational, 
accidents).  This ought to be judged as an outstandingly good safety
record -- less than two per cent of the fatalities from auto
accidents, and an even smaller proportionate cost for non-fatal 
injuries.  The result is even more remarkable when we consider that a
25-watt lamp bulb consumes much more than a lethal level of electric
power.

     We could then be proud of the standards established by the power
and appliance industries, and by the local building codes for safe 
wiring, and of the level of public sophistication that goes into 
handling this dangerous instruments, the watt.  We could also reflect 
that the  "electric safety bloc" also reinforces the economic interests
of the building trades unions and contractors.  Perhaps most important,
we have all experienced unpleasant jolts that rapidly condition us to
an aversion to raw electricity, which we then handle with a respect
that we sometimes deny to a projectile like an automobile on the 
highway.

     Many deaths from electric shock are, however, preventable by
simple technical devices.  (Experts in auto safety have begun to 
advocate a similar approach, but still have a certain distance to go in
developing public confidence in, for example, the reliability of 
protective gadgets like the shock-sensitive air bag).

     The particular device discussed by professor Dalziel is the GFI,
or "ground fault interrupter."  Lethal electric shocks are rarely
caused by currents that complete a circuit to both wires of a power
outlet.  Usually, the person has contacted only one wire, and the 
circuit is completed to ground through wet floors, pipes or the like.
The GFI is a transistorized device that can detect  even small currents
to ground, against the background of the much larger currents of
normal electrical service.  The GFI can then trip a circuit breaker to
shut off the main power in time to prevent serious injury, fire or
other hazard.  At the moment, the GFI is much more expensive than 
conventional fuses and circuit breakers.  Were it to be standardized in
general use, however, it certainly could be mass-produced for a final
cost of little more than present-day installations.

     Our greatest need is for public awareness of these and similar 
technical possibilities, to create a market for a safety-oriented
industry that could attract the most sophisticated thinking into new
approaches to these problems.  Safety begins at home, but should 
permeate our economy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------