> It seems to me that a few conditions need to be in place for you to
> be electrocuted, hence most of the times you would be OK. The
> problem is that with so many variables you can not be sure that you
> would not be electrocuted, you may be unlucky

A mains lead in a pool is Russian Roulette. 5 out of 6 you might not
be shocked. The question is which path the electricity takes. If you
are between it and a ground point chances are you'll take a hit. A
couple of examples. Caravans (mobile homes) with incorrectly-
wired extension leads. The whole vehicle is live, insulated somewhat
from ground by the tyres. You step out, put one foot on the ground,
it's curtains. And lightning strikes. They'll go through the skin of a
vehicle (car, plane etc) without affecting the occupants. In a similar
fashion, if you happen to be wet and get struck by lightning, the
electricity may pass on the outside of the body rather than through it.
That doesn't mean to say though that a lethal portion wouldn't also
go through vital organs. The variables are numerous

I remember a couple of electricians telling me that it was wise to
keep the left hand in a pocket to avoid hand-to-hand shock or
left hand-to-ground, both passing through the heart

> I think mythbusters is not a good proof, as they will replicate the
> conditions where you would definitely be electrocuted

Yes, they do that, but ISTR the tests they did weren't too far-fetched.
I think a toaster, a hairdryer and a radio (?) were simply let drop into
the bath from a shelf

Joe

*
*
**********
Quality PIC programmers
http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.