Parrilla (torture) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 August 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Electrical injury. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Electrical engineering Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Electrical injury. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "A necessary but lethal utility that calls for care". Daily Nation. 2 October 2005. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help)

Please post new comments at the bottom of the page to avoid confusion, and make headings using two equal signs (==). Remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).  Thank you!

It is a matter of annoyance to me that people say things like "It's not the volts, it's the amps that kill you." Seeing something like:

With line currents above 2 milliamperes...

points out, I think, a great deal of confusion in this matter. Line current is not important; the current through your body is important. Line voltage is important, as it in part determines the current through your body.

I don't really know how to fix this article so it is factual, but doesn't rely too heavily on explanations of Ohm's law, etc. I also don't think it should look like a compromise between the "voltage" and "current camps", since there aren't really two points of view here. Idea? [[User:CyborgTosser| CyborgTosser ( Only half the battle)]] 23:38, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Upon further review, I'm not sure about a lot of the information here. For example, most other sources I find list currents about 10 times here for each of the effects (about 10-15mA for unable to let go of wires, hundreds of mA for fribulation). And to say that the voltages in homes are a deadly combination seems a bit alarmist. I'm going to do some more research before touching this one. [[User:CyborgTosser| CyborgTosser ( Only half the battle)]] 00:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

agreed the figures do seem a bit low (maybe they are absoloute worst cases rather than likely values or something) generally below 50V or 60V is considered to be safe for humans to touch directly

mains can be deadly it all depends on the situation and the duration but the iee seem to belive based on thier research that a RCD with a 30ma trip and a fast trip time (im not sure how fast but its documented) will in almost all cases be sufficiant to save a healthy person in the event of a mains shock (though they do say it should not be used as the sole means of protection from direct contact.

the real danger at mains voltages without rcd protection comes if a shock leaves you unable to remove yourself from the source of shock (a grab on a live conductor is far worse than touching one) Plugwash 11:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since mains current is AC, though, it cannot cause your muscles to contract. The alternating polarity will cancel out and you won't hang on. A strong DC current can make your muscles contract around the electrical source. Adam850 09:23, 26 January 2005 (UTC) reply

That's false. AC certainly can cause contraction of muscles. Muscles aren't motors, and the way in which electricity disrupts normal neuromotor control isn't a matter of superposition. -- Blair P. Houghton 04:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the dispute notice as no one has edited this article or said anything on the talk page for weeks and weeks. If anyone still has a problem with the facts as presented in this article, take the usual NPOV approach and cite sources to support the sides of the argument as presented by various schools of thought on the matter. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the main page here is a typical Wikipedia page where figures are quoted and even referenced, but the average reader is left none the wiser as to the truth of the matter.

Here is my layman's understanding of this, written in simplistic terms.

The most basic "unit" of electricity is "charge". Imagine the charge unit is a ball. The dangers associated with this ball are dependent on two things:

1. How hard the ball is.

2. How fast the ball is moving.

By extending this metaphor to an electrical charge unit:

1. The "hardness" of the ball is analogous to the "energy" of the charge unit - it's voltage (V).

2. The "speed" of the ball is analogous to the "flow" of the charge unit - it's current (A).

Now, a very hard ball (ie, high energy charge unit) might do you no harm at all if it moves towards you very very slowly (ie, with very low current)

A very soft ball (ie, a very low energy charge unit) might do you no harm at all even if propelled towards you at high speed (ie, with high current)

So really the dangers associated with our "ball" (charge unit) are a combination of these two factors: "hardness" (voltage/energy) and "speed" (current). Therefore it is the ELECTRICAL POWER of the charge unit that determines it's lethality or otherwise, because:

electrical power (measured in watts) = electrical energy per charge unit(measured in volts) x electrical current (measured in amperes)

Threfore it is not really the level of voltage or current alone that is lethal, but the level of electical POWER ("wattage" if you like) that determines lethality.

That is my layman's take on this. Feel free to disagree and comment. I will not be making changes to the main page. John2o2o2o ( talk) 14:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Honestly, it's a pretty terrible 'layman's take'. It is marginally better if you reverse your definitions of voltage and current, making voltage the speed of the ball and current the size of the ball. Of course, the simplification of electrical activity to 'layman's terms' is a holy war unto itself. I've always subscribed to the plumbing analogy - voltage is the water pressure and current is the amount of water flowing through the pipe. (roughly analogous to the cross sectional diameter of the pipe) I think the 'watt' is a better name for the basic unit of electric power, (because it is) and because the equation for power 1w=1V x 1A is fairly easy for most people to grasp, even when you introduce the concept that 1W can be provided by inversely varying amounts of volts and amps- this works well with the plumbing analogy. If someone wants to go much beyond this, they should probably just study a textbook :) chriswatts ( talk) 04:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

If you're asking how many "amps/volts" it takes to cause death, the answer is... it depends. The number varies with the individual person. LadyPlural ( talk) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Breaing in mind we only respond to the current, why is it that hv shocks tend to hurt (sting) more but low voltage ones tend to 'shock' you more(ie take your breath away)?? Or is it just me? Any answers/ sugesstions?-- Light current 02:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

well I'm not sure either but with static electricity I'd guess that either its the little plasma arc that basically burns you, or the high frequencies of the transient causing a faster more painful muscle contraction, which make it hurt so much more. btw a static shock is both high current and high voltage, its just very very short. keith 10:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Could be that the bad shcocks Ive had have been from 240v from left hand to leg (or left hand to right hand) and those are very shocking! They take your breath away. Its also possible that these mains shocks are longer in duration than you might get from a HV capcitor of a few pF. THe HV shocks are probably limited to much less current, and if they do not pass thro the chest, just tend to sting the entrance / exit points. Maybe we need to mention also the max safe amount of stored energy. I think its 2J.-- Light current 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC) reply

What you describe probably says more about the source of the current: that is, your HV source is not capable of supplying high current. Likewise your LV source can.

If the source can supply say, 10, or 500 Amps of current, the higher the voltage, the more dangerous because the current is proportional to the voltage. A car battery can output over 100 Amps for a short time thru a low resistance wire. But with high resistance dry hands, almost no current, you can't feel it, it's harmless. But you might accidentally melt/ruin a screwdriver with it. High Voltage carpet static can't supply much current (for long).

"House current" is limited to 20 Amps by the fuse or breaker, much more than is deadly, but 1,000s of deaths don't happen yearly because it is not as dangerous as mythology suggests. It's kinda pussy. ...just enough to work a little more than one floor heater or big toaster or hair dryer. But a 10 Amp fuse in front of 20 Kilo Volts household, would kill thousands by accident, and cause many fires. The high voltage could push high current through the high resistance of a human body. 20 KV is in the ballpark of major carpet static, which has no punch nor duration, functions of the pussy power supply. While high current does the killing, it needs high voltage to push it and a supply capable of sustaining it. Cheers!
-- 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8A2:C7BE:2556:7899 ( talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford reply

I just hooked up an ohm meter to my body and it showed me these results:

This data is not made up, I really did conduct this experiment just now. According to these numbers and using Ohm's law, how much current would the body be capable of letting through? Also, can someone verify these numbers? Caution: This should only be done by grown ups and NO CHILDREN. Thanks!

There isn't much point in 'verifying' the numbers. Try it again on a different day or using smooth and then rough electrodes or on skin recently washed with soap and then after washing with detergent or with a different test current or varying a multitude of other factors. The numbers will vary. The test with different test current illustrates that the body is not an ohmic material. The most important point is that the source voltage is not a useful guide to the degree of risk. The current that flows is a very rough guide, though the effects vary in an individual over a wide range unless the conditions are very carefully controlled. Controlled conditions are of course not available (except perhaps to an executioner or torturer) so one should treat any voltage over 24 volts as though it is potentially lethal. Electric shock is not the only hazard, even lower voltages can be dangerous if they cause arcing or heating. treesmill 00:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply! It was illuminating!

Try again using wet skin, e.g. lick your fingers. I can get readings below 400K ohm that way. If I hold uninsulated metal objects in both hand, e.g. a pair of pliers, I can get the resistance between them under 100K. Wetting my lips and measring between the upper and lower lip gives 50K. Almost all the resistance we are measuring is in the outer layer of dead skin. Once that is bypassed, e.g. by sweat or other moisture or a puncture, or if contact area is increased, resistance drops sharply.-- agr 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Update: I have just duplicated your experiments and you'll be pleased to know that I concur with your findings. The following are my results as conducted just now:

This is very cool. Especially interesting is the 25K Ohm reading between my wet lips. My faith in the veracity of this article is restored. And I really appreciate your input!

I shall now go back to playing Grand_Theft_Auto_III (man, I love that game!!!).

This is all assuming the body is a simple resistor though. The figures actually make it non-linear with respect to voltage, in the same way as other insulators or semiconductors - see this link which I found off Google. So the impedance at 110V is much less than the impedance at 1.5V, and as a result the effects are going to be more severe than your measurements suggest.

So everyone here is getting dry skin measurement way above 200k, yet, the article calls out 10k. And, with no citations! WTF? Also, the article states as low as 1k. From what I'm hearing in the discussion, you need to pierce the skin. Is there any data on the distribution of resistance across population under controlled conditions?

Update: Saw the ePanorama link. I hadn't even considered contact area (assumed <1cm²). Question for the Australian Standard AS3859-1991, who is going to have 100cm² of contact area?

Update2: I have heard that current flow through skin causes perspiration. Is this true? Could that explain the changes in resistance (higher current, more perspiration)? The footnotes state that the resistance at low voltage halves in the presence of conductive solutions.

Also, who touched 1000V with a large contact area, and long enough to make a measurement? Eet 1024 ( talk) 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Concentration campers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.228.198 ( talk) 16:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The resistance values in the article are ridiculously low every value i've ever taken has been in the megaohms. And consequently so are the claims that 32V can kill you. maybe if you plugged the terminals directly into your veins or something but def not through the skin. I work on electrocution circuits for a security company as a part-time job. The circuits we develop give out 10kV pulses and def won't kill you. The police tasers normally do 30kV - 50kV and have never killed anyone (not in this country anyway).

As for those values taken with wet lips etc you aren't measuring the resistance through your skin your just measuring it through the moisture on the surface of ur skin to another point on the surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.57 ( talk) 10:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I was looking for resistivity of through the skin not over the skin when I came across this page. Firstly the version I saw the had wrong units. (Ohm/cm^2) so I have removed it. But this is not a specific measurement and will depend on how far apart the electrodes were what was the contact area. Need a better reference. I will return to this page if I find something useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.43.172 ( talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I've made hundreds of measurements over the decades, and typically measure between 5 and 200 K ohms, with 20K as the number I call "typical," (with warm, humid (slightly sweaty, unwashed hands) conditions,) yet I would not dispute any of the much higher results above, due to measurement and meter variables. Probably for higher consistency, try measuring holding a tin can in each hand, for much higher surface area and much lower resistance values. But just holding standard test leads, simple squeezing them gives wildly different, lower readings. The bottom line is: the human body is NOT a simple resistor with fixed values in this context.

Regarding the taser specs, I'm guessing those high voltages are measured on open, unloaded devices, and due to their small size cannot maintain that voltage under load (in use). That's what prevents death. More so with cheap units, which at the same open voltage, may not have enough punch to be effective. An extreme example of this is 20KV household static, which drops to near zero almost instantly under load..the ultimate cheap power supply. Another example are those harmless high voltage trick gag shocking "books" etc. So open-circuit voltage measurements doesn't mean much when comparing different taser brands. (I explain some theory above.) —Cheers!
-- 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8A2:C7BE:2556:7899 ( talk) 20:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford reply

I am moving the following edit by 59.93.33.95 from the main article to here:

(The the answer for the question "How we are getting electric shock from independent voltage sources?" such as an unearthed generator unit or LPG ignitor etc are still unexplained)

In theory, to get a shock form an un-earthed (ungrounded) voltage source, you must touch both ends. However high frequency sources, such as a spark generator, will often have enough capacitative coupling to earth to cause a shock. Also a source of charge, such as lightning or a charged high-voltage capacitor, can produce a single-ended shock. Finally, one should never rely on the assumption that a particular generator is un-earthed, but always turn it off or disconnect from it before working on circuits.-- agr 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

At mains frequency unearthed sources (generators or transformers) are good protection as long as the system connected stays small. However as the system grows both capactive coupling effects and the risk of an undetected fault earthing the source increase. If the system is a more than two wire system there is the aditional risk that the wire that ends up accidently grounded is not the neutral leading to some of the wires having the phase to phase voltage with relation to earth. Plugwash 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Expanding on what Plugwash said, you'll often find systems that are both deliberately unearthed and contain monitoring equipment to ensure that they stay that way. For example, it's fairly common in diesel-electric railroad locomotives that the traction generator/traction motor circuit be ungrounded to the loco's frame. But there will often be a monitoring system than looks for leakage between that circuit and the frame, triggering an alarm if a low-impedance connection (especially a DC connection) develops. This allows the detection of, for example, water in the traction motors.

Atlant 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC) reply

There is also ground current, where grounds that are relatively distant can have a significant voltage difference between them for a number of reasons. This is typically accidentally discovered by a worker connecting a grounding line in a ground bus and the worker touches both conductors. It's happened to me once and I rapidly learned a lesson.

There are also induced currents in conductors, where an electromagnetic field is changing parallel to the line, such as a crossing power line, EMP from lightning or other sources (such as arc welders), or even geomagnetic impulses from a CME striking the Earth's magnetic field. That has caused significant fires, such as from one nuclear test in the former USSR and in telegraphs having their paper catch fire in the later 1800's. All of which is found on Wikipedia. Wzrd1 ( talk) 03:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

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) reply

--try @least 2 places in the U.S that use ECT as a punishment. If you refuse to shower in the brown water that the bad neglected piping system in the building produces ...they zap ya. MPC, better known as Manhattan Psychiatric Cener is the culprit.

Please don't record my IP because they may say i'm crazy for telling the truth and put me in there. But truly, i wonder where the money they get from the state goes?

Thorn2myenemies ( talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)thorn. reply

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) reply

The article sub-section heading "Electroconvulsive therapy" is inappropriate for the whole sub-section - I've changed it to "Medical uses", with "Electroconvulsive therapy" as one of these uses. Bricaniwi ( talk) 08:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC) reply

"However, death has occurred from supplies as low as 32 volts." Is there a source for this information? Is the 32 volts AC (or DC)? If so, what's the corresponding lethal voltage for DC (or AC)? Calbaer 01:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Generally, low frequency AC (50 - 60 Hz) is significantly more dangerous than DC. And, it is the current flowing through your chest cavity that ultimately matters - if sufficient, it can cause death from fibrillation or suffocation. The danger of low voltage electrocution is markedly increased if your skin resistance is markedly lowered by extended immersion in water, by heavy perspiration, or worse, if the skin layers have been punctured. Under these conditions, the effective resistance (from hand to hand) may drop to ~1000 ohms, and sufficient current may flow to cause death at a surprisingly low voltage. The fatal current is approximately 30 mA (per the International Electrotechnical Commision (IEC)). This current level can flow through your body at a supposedly "safe" voltage of 30 volts. However, other studies have indicated that, at 60 Hz, a current of as little as 6 mA for 2-3 seconds can be sufficient to induce fatal fibrillation, suggesting even lower AC voltages can be fatal.

The lowest voltage electrocution recorded apparently occured from a supply of 5-7 volts. This apparently was sufficient to kill a US Navy electrician - however, it required penetration of the skin. However, even without puncturing, given sufficient contact area, moisture, and pressure it does appear to be possible to achieve 30 mA of current flow with only ~30 volts. See the following URL for an interesting discussion and pointers to some other references: [1] Bert 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

With a skin puncture, 12Vdc can easily be fatal. Without, I've heard 25Vdc cited as the max safe voltage. Zuiram 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

So what are the typical effects of getting electrocuted from common household appliances (like touching a socket)? Does a person need CPR and go to the hospital, or does he/she just “come to” after a while?  QuizQuick  17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

At low levels, no lasting effect. At higher levels, cardiac fibrillation that needs external intervention (a defibrillator) to recover from or you're quickly dead. At even higher levels, muscles may "clamp" and fibrillation might not occur. At even higher power levels, thermal burns occur. The article probably already says this.

And, of course, it all depends on whether the shock crosses your heart or just goes between, say, two fingers on one hand.

Atlant 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC) reply

For your information, electrocution means death by electric shock... So the typical effects of getting electrocuted is... death!

|SUBZ3R0| 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Electrocution can also mean just to cause injury by electric shock - look at a dictionary not wikipedia. I've been knocked out by electrocution twice and both times it was quite fast I was concious again a few seconds after hitting the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.57 ( talk) 10:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Amongst other things, I'm an experienced electronics technician. I'm also a retired medic. I'll tell, from personal experience and from experience, one CAN have an abnormal heart pattern that the heart self-corrects.

I've personally "been lit up" more than a few times, either carelessness, bad insulation of a live circuit, either way, I've had a number of times I have taken significant current. ONE time, I'm QUITE certain, in retrospect, that my heart was stopped for a second or so. It was more a sensation of something missing in sensation (heartbeat). And the circuit designer telling me that I drew over three amps from one arm to the other, with a 27KV, low current source, riding on a 130 volt DC source, which destroyed said power supply. I was confused beyond the norm for getting a 27 KV hit. I was disoriented. I'm very rarely disoriented. Then, I felt that odd sensation disappear with a thump in my chest and general weakness from a rather severe shock (lactic acid excess in the muscles). From my EMT-P training, it seems that my heart was either flat lined or in some form of fibrillation, then an escape beat corrected the pattern for me to discuss it today. :) I've also personally observed it in a patient when a lightning strike hit the covered bleachers at a military rifle range that was occupied by troops awaiting transport away from the electrical storm. One man was down, no pulse. CPR was initiated promptly. An ambulance arrived and we helped hook the patient up to the ECG. CPR was halted for that, due to the location and some other mechanical issues of the scene. As we were observing PEA on the monitor, a massive escape beat occurred and somewhat normal QRS pattern ensued (a few oddities that are consistent with acidosis from prolonged time without circulation). Floored all of us present! Said patient was hospitalized for a day, then released. That said, it's all OR for those cases. And I'd NOT hope that my heart, with its dozens of pacers, could restart itself in an emergency after I was severely shocked. But, the heart IS well documented to be able to restore a normal or as near normal as possible pattern after significant events happen. But then, there's the kid that gets hit in the chest by a baseball. So, we don't take chances. Wzrd1 ( talk) 03:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

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) anyone? reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

"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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

== 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Joules is the unit you're looking for. Energy = Power * time, Power = Voltage * current, Voltage = Current * Resistance. We can break this down to E = RI^2*t. As you can see if your theory is correct it'd still be affected largely by current. I disagree with it however as if the current is high enough to hurt you then it hurts you instantly. The pain doesn't build up as you wait. If this was true you could electrocute yourself with a 9v battery given a few minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.57 ( talk) 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• That's taking the point a bit far: lethality is certainly dependent on duration of shock. When the current is high enough to cause burns, the severity of the burns will become greater as the shock is sustained. Your counterpoint of a 9V battery doesn't apply because a 9V battery isn't enough to induce any kind of damage to begin with. Compare it to being burned in the chest with a clothes iron - if the burn lasts less than a second, it'll be extremely painful. If it lasts more than a few seconds, it's likely to be lethal. -- Giftiger wunsch ( talk) 15:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) Shocksurvivor ( talk) 12:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

lolwut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 ( talk) 06:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I was shocked very badley while wet and standing in water trying to unplug the dryer I had a drill in my hand it was horrific/ This was last night. So I didn't die, however I am experiencing shocking pain vertigom breathlessness, etc. Now I am getting ringing in my ears. nerve pain and more. Do I go to the er or ride this out. Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.114.64 ( talk) 23:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

needs some

IMO the page should be moved to Electrical injury the more common term. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

It depends. Electric shock doesn't always result in injury. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) M. reply

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) reply

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 ^{dubious – discuss})

4) Frequency (maximum lethality unfortunately occurs at 50 to 60 Hz, both DC ^{dubious – discuss} 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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 doi: 10.1114/1.1305527 and a more detailed one at doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/20/2/701. 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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. S B H arris 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

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. S B H arris 17:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Keep, for the above the above reasons. Perchy22 ( talk) 04:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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) reply

I fixed this up a bit. The topic had already been addressed higher in the article. S B H arris 00:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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". [2] 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) reply

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 [3], 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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? -- Chetvorno ^TALK 21:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC) reply

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) reply

• As this subject is generally applied to people, I disagree that the page should be renamed to specify its focus on the consequences of electric shock on humans.― Biochemistry🙴❤ 19:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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 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 {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply