If 220 is somehow more dangerous than 110, then there will be
statistics (i.e., excess death rate from electrocution) to show that.
Are there such statistics? Do more people die from electric shock in
the 220 countries?

Neil

On 11/19/05, Jinx <joecolquitt@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > Maybe 220V power is more likely to put the
> > current above the cardiac disruption level?
>
> ISTR from the recent thread on 12VDC shocks that very
> high voltages are more likely to put the whole heart into
> shock (like hospital defib paddles, which basically "reset"
> the heart's electrical system), whereas lower voltages might
> cause fibriliation to just some parts, which is more dangerous,
> as then those parts of the heart are out of synch with others.
> Or something like that. I'd have thought 220V is not high
> enough, and under the right conditions 110 and 220 will
> kill, especially 220
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>


--
http://www.pixpopuli.com

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist