Talk:Electrical injury

Voltage vs. current

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)

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)

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)

Please read my data below. Electrical current is the cause, thermal burns are secondary to electroporation. I am diagnosed by both Dr. Jeschke and Dr. Lee, they are the top medical experts in North America, Jeschke Canada. Lee, the united states. I hope everyone helps me spread the knowledge I have, and update this page. If you want to know more about this, visit www.einCanada.com Johnknollpec (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Claim about US/WWII

I agree with the decision to revert the removal of a piece of text and supporting cite. It was made without any edit summary, and a link presumptively supports the text unless there's an edit summary claiming to know otherwise. In short, the deletion fell short of what the community expects of editors, and the revert was justified.

It's hard to establish if the link actually supported the text as the article is only partly archived and the portion that is visible does not contain the claim. However edit history suggests it does not.

• Since 2006, there was a claim that the Nazis were "known to have used torture" (same language)[1]
• By Feb. 2008 the Nazi claim was cited to the Boston Globe [2]
• In June 2009 an IP editor, with zero prior edits & zero later edits, changed Nazis to U.S. Army without changing the citation.[3]

The article Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II supports a claim of situational, infrequent US torture citing Operation_Teardrop but neither article mentions electric shock.

In short, whether or not the recent edit was intended to be constructive (see IPv6 user's other edits), it was in fact constructive. I'm reinstating it. Oblivy (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I misread the ref when I checked it before restoring the material. It does mention US involvement in ECT (presumably electro-convulsive torture), but during the Korean War, not WWII. Thanks. Meters (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Section at top with practical knowledge

I know there's a lot of medical and electrical knowledge on this page, but I think it would be good to have a practical section at the top. I came to this page trying to understand some basic safety, without having to remember Ohm's Law and apply it. I imagine many users care about how to be practically safe.

For example, I wanted to understand why car manufacturers chose 48 volts and what were the safety concerns for that voltage. But there isn't anything on this page saying "below 2.5V of DC electricity is clearly safe." or "any level of electricity through the body is unsafe" or "24V of DC electricity in dry conditions does not cause muscle contractions".

That practical section should certain hedge on the side of cautious safety. E.g., assume wet conditions or whatever is most dangerous. And it can point to lower sections for specifics and the conditions for more lenient treatment.

Mdnahas (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see videos of the top North American experts in the United States and Canada, fully define electrical injury, I can point you to the videos on youtube.

I can not post them here, those links are not allowed. Johnknollpec (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Extra space and incomplete sentences

@Johnknollpec: Please don't add extra blank lines between paragraphs. There should only be one blank line.

Why did you revert my conversion of incomplete sentences to lists? We normally write in complete sentences here. GA-RT-22 (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am new to this. I am trying to add the wealth of information I have as a global advocate. I have direct conversations with the top medical experts across North America, they have provide medical for me. Johnknollpec (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Also could you please break your contributions up into smaller parts? If you're going to revert something I did, do the revert as a single edit, with an edit summary explaining why you reverted me. Then make your own additions another, separate edit. GA-RT-22 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am new to this. I am trying to add the wealth of information I have as a global advocate. I have direct conversations with the top medical experts across North America, they have provide medical for me Johnknollpec (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johnknollpec: Please stop your disruptive edits. Everything you add must have a citation to a reliable source. When you revert other editors' work, you need to explain why. Don't remove maintenance tags unless the problem has been resolved. Please discuss your concerns here on the talk page. GA-RT-22 (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am new to this. I am trying to add the wealth of information I have as a global advocate. I have direct conversations with the top medical experts across North America, they have provide medical for me Johnknollpec (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

All citations are ready for you review my friend. Please do not delete the thread below, just read and learn please. Johnknollpec (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johnknollpec: You first introduced these blanks lines and one-line incomplete paragraphs in this edit: [4]. Since then I have converted back to single-spaced paragraphs and lists several times, and you have reverted me each time. Please stop doing that until we have consensus as to whether your change is an improvement. I already asked you about this once, and you replied with a canned response that you copy and pasted from somewhere else, but you didn't answer the question. I'd like an answer this time. Why do you prefer double spaced paragraphs? Why do you prefer incomplete paragraphs to lists? GA-RT-22 (talk) 09:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Edits I am working on as a global advocate with connections to medical experts and other advocates

Johnknollpec (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not paste entire articles in here. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not delete the thread below, please read it, and learn from it please! Provide your input, but do not delete. Johnknollpec (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I already asked you not to do that, told you why, and told you that no one is going to review an entire article. I'm not sure what else to say. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I think deleting that is against the wiki rules is it not? I am trying to provide you the full scope to review, and you are in turn deleting my entries, that is against the rules is it not? Johnknollpec (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

My errors last night, were errors, you deleting my talks is against the rules, and I will report. Read this and stop being rude. Johnknollpec (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

As others have told you, placing an entire copy (actually two copies) of the article in the article talk page is borderline disruptive. I’ve collapsed it and urge you to hang out on Wikipedia for a couple months and participate to a smaller degree until you understand how things work, then look at rewriting entire articles. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Celjski Grad, if you are passionate about this page, then look at the information provided, and help update please. If not, then I will update this myself. I am providing you a wealth of information. Sorry for the inital sticker shock, however. I have provided you with a resource of knowledge on electrical injury. This will be posted eventually, and I will slow down, however I wont stop. I hope everyone in this discussion is interested in helping spread the knowledge. Please read the collapsed data I provided. Johnknollpec (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I am passionate about following wikipedia policies and contributing within the guidelines that we've all agreed on. I have no knowledge of the article subject and cannot help there. I can appreciate the work you've done on what may be improvements to the article, but remember that this is a collaborative project building on existing work by many other editors, and phrases like This will be posted eventually and I won't stop are concerning.

If you don't present your contributions in a more accessible way (i.e. not leaving two copies of a new article on the talk page), then other editors can't/won't be able to assess what's changed and provide input. If you make changes en masse as before they'll be reverted and you will likely be reported for persistent disruptive editing. I don't mean to sound like a schoolteacher, but many people have pushed back on your conduct since you arrived and pointed you in various directions to learn about appropriate editing but you don't seem to be listening. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Ive learned editing by section is much more effective. Thank you everyone for you patience while I accelerated up the learning curve. I am actively fixing errors I caused. Your help and patience is appreciated everyone. I am not trying to act malice or with malicious intent. 2604:3D09:7B70:7C00:9414:30D7:1902:D044 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Above was me not logged in. May I clean up the mess I made on this talk page. Delete these two articles. I see now how the mess up the left hand side, and apologize. Johnknollpec (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces

@Johnknollpec: The MOS says: "Use a non-breaking space ... between a number and a unit symbol". See MOS:UNITNAMES. I don't expect you to put in a non-breaking space when you add a new number with unit symbol. But when a non-breaking space is already present please don't convert it to a breaking space. You've done this at least twice now. I reverted you once, now you've done it again. GA-RT-22 (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry and please see my request to remove the mess I made on this talk page. I think I should not delete unless the group agrees. Thank you for your patience while I accelerated my learning curve. I am only now editing sections at a time, I have been using this method to fix junk I did. Again sorry and thank you. Johnknollpec (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Arc-flash hazards

I am working on fixing these citations. I know most of the CSA safety committee on electrical safety in Canada. I will be providing more information based on their published CSA standards etc.

Any inputs feedback would be greatly appreciated as I go. Thank you all again. Johnknollpec (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Please only include one copy of each citation. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Source verification

@Johnknollpec: I've checked a few of the source citations you've been adding and found several that don't support the material you've attached them to. Are you getting these from your LLM? You need to check these yourself before you put them in the article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Johnknollpec: Your LLM appears to have hallucinated the second half of the "Other International Centers" section. The citation does not exist.

@Aydoh8: Is there any reason I shouldn't revert to the last good version here [5] ? GA-RT-22 (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are just too many LLM hallucinations for me to check them all. I have reverted to an earlier version of the article. Please don't add any more non-existent citations. GA-RT-22 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)