Talk:Circuit integrity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fire Protection, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to fire protection equipment. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Better MI picture needed

The picture of the MI cables shows them connecting to a panelboard, not a junction box (although that's not visible in the picture). The article would be better served by a photo ofa properly fire-resistant junction box and MI cables. --Wtshymanski 18:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, except that it is not a bad idea to show a common pitfall like this, so they can be avoided at the design stage. This type of thing is often swept under the rug. On the other hand, hypothetically, I suppose it would be possible for this shot to have been taken before fireproofing was applied. The same thing goes for Canada's building code, which says that a 2" cover of concrete affords indefinite circuit integrity for a carte blanche on any type of wiring at all. That is obvious bunk and a physical and mathematical impossibility, especially considering the total lack of 3h qualified Supplement 1 testing out there right now. But, no one wants to open the can of worms because it would mean that one can safely order an enormous amount of remedial work in most buildings in the country, for which there is absolutely no political will, nor does the public have the remotest attention span to even begin to understand the topic, which means it will never be an election issue and our systems in Canada have no proven operability -and best of all, they keep doing this stuff right now, as I'm typing and you're reading this...--Achim 03:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced Tag by Tanthalas39

This tag had no basis in fact. It was vetted by the most venomous supertaggers on here and it is solid. It is amply referenced within the Wikipedia project but also linked to external sources. If the subject matter were bunk or not verifiable, then please explain why Underwriters Laboratories, DIBt and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and IEEE each have test standards for this work and also please explain why there is an international agreement between IBEW and Insulators for the performance of the work and why there were congressional hearings, all referenced on Wiki involving whistleblower Gerald W. Brown on the Thermolag scandal. Also explain the millions of dollars worth of product and labour going into this market worldwide and the photographic evidence from Europe and North America on this topic from Wikimedia Commons. --Achim (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)