Are tamper resistant receptacles really safer?Should I install tamper resistant receptaclesWhat are some tips for working with inaccessible power receptacles?Are there locations in a residence where a non tamper resistant receptacle can still be used?Are tamper resistant outlets required in a cabinet with child proof latches?Are grounded receptacles with open grounds causing my electrical problems?What are the differences between these two receptacles?Do Tamper resistant receptacles violate ADA barrier-free requirements?Are 15A receptacles acceptable on a 20A circuit?As of the 2014 NEC code do tamper resistant receptacles need to be installed on a GFCI circuit?Are receptacles installed upside down?

Can you reject a postdoc offer after the PI has paid a large sum for flights/accommodation for your visit?

Is it "Vierergruppe" or "Viergruppe", or is there a distinction?

Why was Goose renamed from Chewie for the Captain Marvel film?

How are instrumentation amplifiers constructed on the semiconductor level?

What is the magic ball of every day?

Why is computing ridge regression with a Cholesky decomposition much quicker than using SVD?

Are there historical instances of the capital of a colonising country being temporarily or permanently shifted to one of its colonies?

Could you please stop shuffling the deck and play already?

Single word request: Harming the benefactor

Does this video of collapsing warehouse shelves show a real incident?

How can I ensure my trip to the UK will not have to be cancelled because of Brexit?

Plausibility of Mushroom Buildings

Accountant/ lawyer will not return my call

How to write ı (i without dot) character in pgf-pie

Virginia employer terminated employee and wants signing bonus returned

Why doesn't this Google Translate ad use the word "Translation" instead of "Translate"?

How many characters using PHB rules does it take to be able to have access to any PHB spell at the start of an adventuring day?

Why does liquid water form when we exhale on a mirror?

List elements digit difference sort

NASA's RS-25 Engines shut down time

Are tamper resistant receptacles really safer?

Error during using callback start_page_number in lualatex

How to detect if C code (which needs 'extern C') is compiled in C++

How strictly should I take "Candidates must be local"?



Are tamper resistant receptacles really safer?


Should I install tamper resistant receptaclesWhat are some tips for working with inaccessible power receptacles?Are there locations in a residence where a non tamper resistant receptacle can still be used?Are tamper resistant outlets required in a cabinet with child proof latches?Are grounded receptacles with open grounds causing my electrical problems?What are the differences between these two receptacles?Do Tamper resistant receptacles violate ADA barrier-free requirements?Are 15A receptacles acceptable on a 20A circuit?As of the 2014 NEC code do tamper resistant receptacles need to be installed on a GFCI circuit?Are receptacles installed upside down?













3















Tamper-resistant receptacles (marked with TR, sometimes know as TRR) are designed to be safer than regular outlets by making it more difficult to insert foreign objects. That said, there are lots of examples of things that were supposed to be safer which turned out to be more dangerous (uk outlet covers, wing floaters, margarine, etc.).



I could imagine tamper-resistant being less safe if they encourage kids to use both hands to insert foreign objects (disabling GFCI) or parents to leave extension cords in permanently to accommodate damaged plugs (increasing fire risk). is there any evidence to suggest that they are, in fact, safer than standard receptacles in the real world?










share|improve this question
























  • I think you might be over-estimating 2-3 year old crowd. Trying to insert two things at the same time in two different holes is not intuitive and would frustrate the short attention span little ones. I can't find numbers on shocks for TRR outlets, but here are some interesting reads. esfi.org/resource/… ecatalog.hubbell-wiring.com/press/pdfs/HS128.pdf

    – UnhandledExcepSean
    5 hours ago












  • it's numbers i'm really after. i think these things are safe, but i'm not sure how safe. it seems there are only about a dozen child fatalities a year from electrocution and i'm wondering if trr's could bring that down to zero, or if i should also add additional protections such as outlet covers or gfi breakers. i'm told that the UK outlet design is virtually impervious to child injury (none since 1990?). clearly trr outlets aren't that good since your link indicates 11% of child injuries involved a plug, which trr's won't prevent.

    – james turner
    5 hours ago












  • Keep in mind those numbers are old, so they likely are all standard outlets. Again, I couldn't find numbers on TRR shock rates. There are locking outlet covers which would be the pinnacle of safety I think in the US.

    – UnhandledExcepSean
    5 hours ago
















3















Tamper-resistant receptacles (marked with TR, sometimes know as TRR) are designed to be safer than regular outlets by making it more difficult to insert foreign objects. That said, there are lots of examples of things that were supposed to be safer which turned out to be more dangerous (uk outlet covers, wing floaters, margarine, etc.).



I could imagine tamper-resistant being less safe if they encourage kids to use both hands to insert foreign objects (disabling GFCI) or parents to leave extension cords in permanently to accommodate damaged plugs (increasing fire risk). is there any evidence to suggest that they are, in fact, safer than standard receptacles in the real world?










share|improve this question
























  • I think you might be over-estimating 2-3 year old crowd. Trying to insert two things at the same time in two different holes is not intuitive and would frustrate the short attention span little ones. I can't find numbers on shocks for TRR outlets, but here are some interesting reads. esfi.org/resource/… ecatalog.hubbell-wiring.com/press/pdfs/HS128.pdf

    – UnhandledExcepSean
    5 hours ago












  • it's numbers i'm really after. i think these things are safe, but i'm not sure how safe. it seems there are only about a dozen child fatalities a year from electrocution and i'm wondering if trr's could bring that down to zero, or if i should also add additional protections such as outlet covers or gfi breakers. i'm told that the UK outlet design is virtually impervious to child injury (none since 1990?). clearly trr outlets aren't that good since your link indicates 11% of child injuries involved a plug, which trr's won't prevent.

    – james turner
    5 hours ago












  • Keep in mind those numbers are old, so they likely are all standard outlets. Again, I couldn't find numbers on TRR shock rates. There are locking outlet covers which would be the pinnacle of safety I think in the US.

    – UnhandledExcepSean
    5 hours ago














3












3








3








Tamper-resistant receptacles (marked with TR, sometimes know as TRR) are designed to be safer than regular outlets by making it more difficult to insert foreign objects. That said, there are lots of examples of things that were supposed to be safer which turned out to be more dangerous (uk outlet covers, wing floaters, margarine, etc.).



I could imagine tamper-resistant being less safe if they encourage kids to use both hands to insert foreign objects (disabling GFCI) or parents to leave extension cords in permanently to accommodate damaged plugs (increasing fire risk). is there any evidence to suggest that they are, in fact, safer than standard receptacles in the real world?










share|improve this question
















Tamper-resistant receptacles (marked with TR, sometimes know as TRR) are designed to be safer than regular outlets by making it more difficult to insert foreign objects. That said, there are lots of examples of things that were supposed to be safer which turned out to be more dangerous (uk outlet covers, wing floaters, margarine, etc.).



I could imagine tamper-resistant being less safe if they encourage kids to use both hands to insert foreign objects (disabling GFCI) or parents to leave extension cords in permanently to accommodate damaged plugs (increasing fire risk). is there any evidence to suggest that they are, in fact, safer than standard receptacles in the real world?







electrical receptacle child-safety usa






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Machavity

7,64811838




7,64811838










asked 5 hours ago









james turnerjames turner

1686




1686












  • I think you might be over-estimating 2-3 year old crowd. Trying to insert two things at the same time in two different holes is not intuitive and would frustrate the short attention span little ones. I can't find numbers on shocks for TRR outlets, but here are some interesting reads. esfi.org/resource/… ecatalog.hubbell-wiring.com/press/pdfs/HS128.pdf

    – UnhandledExcepSean
    5 hours ago












  • it's numbers i'm really after. i think these things are safe, but i'm not sure how safe. it seems there are only about a dozen child fatalities a year from electrocution and i'm wondering if trr's could bring that down to zero, or if i should also add additional protections such as outlet covers or gfi breakers. i'm told that the UK outlet design is virtually impervious to child injury (none since 1990?). clearly trr outlets aren't that good since your link indicates 11% of child injuries involved a plug, which trr's won't prevent.

    – james turner
    5 hours ago












  • Keep in mind those numbers are old, so they likely are all standard outlets. Again, I couldn't find numbers on TRR shock rates. There are locking outlet covers which would be the pinnacle of safety I think in the US.

    – UnhandledExcepSean
    5 hours ago


















  • I think you might be over-estimating 2-3 year old crowd. Trying to insert two things at the same time in two different holes is not intuitive and would frustrate the short attention span little ones. I can't find numbers on shocks for TRR outlets, but here are some interesting reads. esfi.org/resource/… ecatalog.hubbell-wiring.com/press/pdfs/HS128.pdf

    – UnhandledExcepSean
    5 hours ago












  • it's numbers i'm really after. i think these things are safe, but i'm not sure how safe. it seems there are only about a dozen child fatalities a year from electrocution and i'm wondering if trr's could bring that down to zero, or if i should also add additional protections such as outlet covers or gfi breakers. i'm told that the UK outlet design is virtually impervious to child injury (none since 1990?). clearly trr outlets aren't that good since your link indicates 11% of child injuries involved a plug, which trr's won't prevent.

    – james turner
    5 hours ago












  • Keep in mind those numbers are old, so they likely are all standard outlets. Again, I couldn't find numbers on TRR shock rates. There are locking outlet covers which would be the pinnacle of safety I think in the US.

    – UnhandledExcepSean
    5 hours ago

















I think you might be over-estimating 2-3 year old crowd. Trying to insert two things at the same time in two different holes is not intuitive and would frustrate the short attention span little ones. I can't find numbers on shocks for TRR outlets, but here are some interesting reads. esfi.org/resource/… ecatalog.hubbell-wiring.com/press/pdfs/HS128.pdf

– UnhandledExcepSean
5 hours ago






I think you might be over-estimating 2-3 year old crowd. Trying to insert two things at the same time in two different holes is not intuitive and would frustrate the short attention span little ones. I can't find numbers on shocks for TRR outlets, but here are some interesting reads. esfi.org/resource/… ecatalog.hubbell-wiring.com/press/pdfs/HS128.pdf

– UnhandledExcepSean
5 hours ago














it's numbers i'm really after. i think these things are safe, but i'm not sure how safe. it seems there are only about a dozen child fatalities a year from electrocution and i'm wondering if trr's could bring that down to zero, or if i should also add additional protections such as outlet covers or gfi breakers. i'm told that the UK outlet design is virtually impervious to child injury (none since 1990?). clearly trr outlets aren't that good since your link indicates 11% of child injuries involved a plug, which trr's won't prevent.

– james turner
5 hours ago






it's numbers i'm really after. i think these things are safe, but i'm not sure how safe. it seems there are only about a dozen child fatalities a year from electrocution and i'm wondering if trr's could bring that down to zero, or if i should also add additional protections such as outlet covers or gfi breakers. i'm told that the UK outlet design is virtually impervious to child injury (none since 1990?). clearly trr outlets aren't that good since your link indicates 11% of child injuries involved a plug, which trr's won't prevent.

– james turner
5 hours ago














Keep in mind those numbers are old, so they likely are all standard outlets. Again, I couldn't find numbers on TRR shock rates. There are locking outlet covers which would be the pinnacle of safety I think in the US.

– UnhandledExcepSean
5 hours ago






Keep in mind those numbers are old, so they likely are all standard outlets. Again, I couldn't find numbers on TRR shock rates. There are locking outlet covers which would be the pinnacle of safety I think in the US.

– UnhandledExcepSean
5 hours ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














TRR are required by the NEC as of 2008 and contain built in shutters that prevent the insertion of an object into a single hole at a time. I could say that its obvious that most kids are going to try to only insert a single sharp object into the outlet, but I don't have any study to back that up.



However, there is a widely cited research study done by the Biokinetics Research Laboratory of Temple University that shows how ineffective many of the plastic outlet covers are. This study was done way back in 1997, but these plasic covers haven't changed much over the years.



Outlet cover types



Study results



The main points here are that 100% of kids age 2-4 could pull of one of the types and almost half of 4 year olds could pull off all three designs in less than a minute.



Now, it's true that this doesn't directly answer your question with a study of TRR outlets, but it does show that "standard" child protection was not adequate. Since TRR's have a physical shutter inside and should then prevent a non-zero number of accidents, they are probably better than no cover or a cover that can be removed (or forgotten by an adult). This should help with your research if nothing else.



Additionally, this blog from Leviton states (without a citation... I know...) that:




TR receptacles have been mandated in hospital pediatric wards for over 20 years and have proven to effectively prevent electrical injuries.




How do they know? Well presumably because they design and sell the devices to hospitals, but some hard numbers would be good.






share|improve this answer






























    1














    Keep in mind that TR outlets are a relatively new requirement. A quick search shows 2008 in the NEC, which typically has some lag time for state adoption. Once adopted, the NEC has immediate effect on new homes and major renovations. But there are plenty of older houses - plenty of circuits are still without GFCI or AFCI or even grounded at all, because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That being said, plenty of parents of small children will either retrofit TR outlets or, more commonly (since it is easier & cheaper) add outlet plugs when they have little kids crawling around. I did that ~ 20 years ago because it was clearly a really good idea. But those outlet plugs are long gone - as soon as I could consider myself safe because they were a real pain to use. On the other hand, I have one good TR installed as part of a kitchen renovation at that time (electrician put in GFCI, added more circuits, etc. to meet current requirements at the time, but TR wasn't one of them so the above counter receptacles are not TR) and it works great - though I have no idea if any of my kids ever tried to abuse it.



    Now to some numbers. Well, not so easy. First report I found (from CPSC) seems to be (a) primarily about product (the P in CPSC) issues than about the built-in receptacles and (b) has low enough numbers that it is hard to draw any conclusions.



    Aha! The Electrical Safety Foundation International (ESFI) has some interesting statistics for 1991 - 2001.



    • 24,000+ children under 10 years old were treated in emergency rooms for incidents related to electrical receptacles - about 7 children per day

    • 89% are under 6 years old

    • 50% are 2-3 years old, the highest-risk group

    and the typical injuries are related to sticking hairpins, keys and other metal objects into a receptacle. But wait, you say, doesn't it take TWO items to cause a problem? No, it doesn't. All it takes is ONE item placed in the hot slot of a receptacle with nicely moist hands and a finger (or any other body part) touching ground, which can include the center screw on many receptacles, as well as metal parts of many appliances, and now you have a complete and dangerous circuit.



    Given those kinds of statistics, even a small decrease in the problem will have a significant impact on health & safety. It will take a while, but over time it should make quite a difference. Keep in mind also that the alternative of outlet plugs, if they even worked, and they don't work so well, as noted in another answer, was simply never used by many people. In my personal experience, typical thoughtful modern parents would use them. But most of the grandparents - who love to have the little grandchildren come over for a visit - never had outlet covers. Plus they are a pain to use for adults.



    Could TR receptacles be better than they currently are? Yes. Most of the recent (a.k.a. mass market now that everyone must have them in new construction) are not nearly as good as the kind I have in my kitchen. But they are better than nothing at all and, I would argue, generally much better than outlet plugs.






    share|improve this answer

























    • Notably, touching live to a ground is less dangerous because it is a ground fault that GFCI protection is intended to guard against. Touching live to neutral does not have any protection. This would be an argument for adding GFCI as well (noting false trip issues).

      – user71659
      1 hour ago












    • @user71659 Agree that touching live to neutral would be the worst. But my hypothesis is that single item (hairpin, paper clip, key, etc.) is the most likely problem (and of course totally blocked by most TRR because they require both slots to be pushed at the exact same time and with significant pressure) and even in more recent construction there are plenty of rooms where GFCI is not required even though AFCI is required - e.g., bedrooms (where kids will often be unattended) and living rooms.

      – manassehkatz
      59 mins ago










    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "73"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdiy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f159579%2fare-tamper-resistant-receptacles-really-safer%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    TRR are required by the NEC as of 2008 and contain built in shutters that prevent the insertion of an object into a single hole at a time. I could say that its obvious that most kids are going to try to only insert a single sharp object into the outlet, but I don't have any study to back that up.



    However, there is a widely cited research study done by the Biokinetics Research Laboratory of Temple University that shows how ineffective many of the plastic outlet covers are. This study was done way back in 1997, but these plasic covers haven't changed much over the years.



    Outlet cover types



    Study results



    The main points here are that 100% of kids age 2-4 could pull of one of the types and almost half of 4 year olds could pull off all three designs in less than a minute.



    Now, it's true that this doesn't directly answer your question with a study of TRR outlets, but it does show that "standard" child protection was not adequate. Since TRR's have a physical shutter inside and should then prevent a non-zero number of accidents, they are probably better than no cover or a cover that can be removed (or forgotten by an adult). This should help with your research if nothing else.



    Additionally, this blog from Leviton states (without a citation... I know...) that:




    TR receptacles have been mandated in hospital pediatric wards for over 20 years and have proven to effectively prevent electrical injuries.




    How do they know? Well presumably because they design and sell the devices to hospitals, but some hard numbers would be good.






    share|improve this answer



























      2














      TRR are required by the NEC as of 2008 and contain built in shutters that prevent the insertion of an object into a single hole at a time. I could say that its obvious that most kids are going to try to only insert a single sharp object into the outlet, but I don't have any study to back that up.



      However, there is a widely cited research study done by the Biokinetics Research Laboratory of Temple University that shows how ineffective many of the plastic outlet covers are. This study was done way back in 1997, but these plasic covers haven't changed much over the years.



      Outlet cover types



      Study results



      The main points here are that 100% of kids age 2-4 could pull of one of the types and almost half of 4 year olds could pull off all three designs in less than a minute.



      Now, it's true that this doesn't directly answer your question with a study of TRR outlets, but it does show that "standard" child protection was not adequate. Since TRR's have a physical shutter inside and should then prevent a non-zero number of accidents, they are probably better than no cover or a cover that can be removed (or forgotten by an adult). This should help with your research if nothing else.



      Additionally, this blog from Leviton states (without a citation... I know...) that:




      TR receptacles have been mandated in hospital pediatric wards for over 20 years and have proven to effectively prevent electrical injuries.




      How do they know? Well presumably because they design and sell the devices to hospitals, but some hard numbers would be good.






      share|improve this answer

























        2












        2








        2







        TRR are required by the NEC as of 2008 and contain built in shutters that prevent the insertion of an object into a single hole at a time. I could say that its obvious that most kids are going to try to only insert a single sharp object into the outlet, but I don't have any study to back that up.



        However, there is a widely cited research study done by the Biokinetics Research Laboratory of Temple University that shows how ineffective many of the plastic outlet covers are. This study was done way back in 1997, but these plasic covers haven't changed much over the years.



        Outlet cover types



        Study results



        The main points here are that 100% of kids age 2-4 could pull of one of the types and almost half of 4 year olds could pull off all three designs in less than a minute.



        Now, it's true that this doesn't directly answer your question with a study of TRR outlets, but it does show that "standard" child protection was not adequate. Since TRR's have a physical shutter inside and should then prevent a non-zero number of accidents, they are probably better than no cover or a cover that can be removed (or forgotten by an adult). This should help with your research if nothing else.



        Additionally, this blog from Leviton states (without a citation... I know...) that:




        TR receptacles have been mandated in hospital pediatric wards for over 20 years and have proven to effectively prevent electrical injuries.




        How do they know? Well presumably because they design and sell the devices to hospitals, but some hard numbers would be good.






        share|improve this answer













        TRR are required by the NEC as of 2008 and contain built in shutters that prevent the insertion of an object into a single hole at a time. I could say that its obvious that most kids are going to try to only insert a single sharp object into the outlet, but I don't have any study to back that up.



        However, there is a widely cited research study done by the Biokinetics Research Laboratory of Temple University that shows how ineffective many of the plastic outlet covers are. This study was done way back in 1997, but these plasic covers haven't changed much over the years.



        Outlet cover types



        Study results



        The main points here are that 100% of kids age 2-4 could pull of one of the types and almost half of 4 year olds could pull off all three designs in less than a minute.



        Now, it's true that this doesn't directly answer your question with a study of TRR outlets, but it does show that "standard" child protection was not adequate. Since TRR's have a physical shutter inside and should then prevent a non-zero number of accidents, they are probably better than no cover or a cover that can be removed (or forgotten by an adult). This should help with your research if nothing else.



        Additionally, this blog from Leviton states (without a citation... I know...) that:




        TR receptacles have been mandated in hospital pediatric wards for over 20 years and have proven to effectively prevent electrical injuries.




        How do they know? Well presumably because they design and sell the devices to hospitals, but some hard numbers would be good.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 4 hours ago









        JPhi1618JPhi1618

        8,99812142




        8,99812142























            1














            Keep in mind that TR outlets are a relatively new requirement. A quick search shows 2008 in the NEC, which typically has some lag time for state adoption. Once adopted, the NEC has immediate effect on new homes and major renovations. But there are plenty of older houses - plenty of circuits are still without GFCI or AFCI or even grounded at all, because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That being said, plenty of parents of small children will either retrofit TR outlets or, more commonly (since it is easier & cheaper) add outlet plugs when they have little kids crawling around. I did that ~ 20 years ago because it was clearly a really good idea. But those outlet plugs are long gone - as soon as I could consider myself safe because they were a real pain to use. On the other hand, I have one good TR installed as part of a kitchen renovation at that time (electrician put in GFCI, added more circuits, etc. to meet current requirements at the time, but TR wasn't one of them so the above counter receptacles are not TR) and it works great - though I have no idea if any of my kids ever tried to abuse it.



            Now to some numbers. Well, not so easy. First report I found (from CPSC) seems to be (a) primarily about product (the P in CPSC) issues than about the built-in receptacles and (b) has low enough numbers that it is hard to draw any conclusions.



            Aha! The Electrical Safety Foundation International (ESFI) has some interesting statistics for 1991 - 2001.



            • 24,000+ children under 10 years old were treated in emergency rooms for incidents related to electrical receptacles - about 7 children per day

            • 89% are under 6 years old

            • 50% are 2-3 years old, the highest-risk group

            and the typical injuries are related to sticking hairpins, keys and other metal objects into a receptacle. But wait, you say, doesn't it take TWO items to cause a problem? No, it doesn't. All it takes is ONE item placed in the hot slot of a receptacle with nicely moist hands and a finger (or any other body part) touching ground, which can include the center screw on many receptacles, as well as metal parts of many appliances, and now you have a complete and dangerous circuit.



            Given those kinds of statistics, even a small decrease in the problem will have a significant impact on health & safety. It will take a while, but over time it should make quite a difference. Keep in mind also that the alternative of outlet plugs, if they even worked, and they don't work so well, as noted in another answer, was simply never used by many people. In my personal experience, typical thoughtful modern parents would use them. But most of the grandparents - who love to have the little grandchildren come over for a visit - never had outlet covers. Plus they are a pain to use for adults.



            Could TR receptacles be better than they currently are? Yes. Most of the recent (a.k.a. mass market now that everyone must have them in new construction) are not nearly as good as the kind I have in my kitchen. But they are better than nothing at all and, I would argue, generally much better than outlet plugs.






            share|improve this answer

























            • Notably, touching live to a ground is less dangerous because it is a ground fault that GFCI protection is intended to guard against. Touching live to neutral does not have any protection. This would be an argument for adding GFCI as well (noting false trip issues).

              – user71659
              1 hour ago












            • @user71659 Agree that touching live to neutral would be the worst. But my hypothesis is that single item (hairpin, paper clip, key, etc.) is the most likely problem (and of course totally blocked by most TRR because they require both slots to be pushed at the exact same time and with significant pressure) and even in more recent construction there are plenty of rooms where GFCI is not required even though AFCI is required - e.g., bedrooms (where kids will often be unattended) and living rooms.

              – manassehkatz
              59 mins ago















            1














            Keep in mind that TR outlets are a relatively new requirement. A quick search shows 2008 in the NEC, which typically has some lag time for state adoption. Once adopted, the NEC has immediate effect on new homes and major renovations. But there are plenty of older houses - plenty of circuits are still without GFCI or AFCI or even grounded at all, because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That being said, plenty of parents of small children will either retrofit TR outlets or, more commonly (since it is easier & cheaper) add outlet plugs when they have little kids crawling around. I did that ~ 20 years ago because it was clearly a really good idea. But those outlet plugs are long gone - as soon as I could consider myself safe because they were a real pain to use. On the other hand, I have one good TR installed as part of a kitchen renovation at that time (electrician put in GFCI, added more circuits, etc. to meet current requirements at the time, but TR wasn't one of them so the above counter receptacles are not TR) and it works great - though I have no idea if any of my kids ever tried to abuse it.



            Now to some numbers. Well, not so easy. First report I found (from CPSC) seems to be (a) primarily about product (the P in CPSC) issues than about the built-in receptacles and (b) has low enough numbers that it is hard to draw any conclusions.



            Aha! The Electrical Safety Foundation International (ESFI) has some interesting statistics for 1991 - 2001.



            • 24,000+ children under 10 years old were treated in emergency rooms for incidents related to electrical receptacles - about 7 children per day

            • 89% are under 6 years old

            • 50% are 2-3 years old, the highest-risk group

            and the typical injuries are related to sticking hairpins, keys and other metal objects into a receptacle. But wait, you say, doesn't it take TWO items to cause a problem? No, it doesn't. All it takes is ONE item placed in the hot slot of a receptacle with nicely moist hands and a finger (or any other body part) touching ground, which can include the center screw on many receptacles, as well as metal parts of many appliances, and now you have a complete and dangerous circuit.



            Given those kinds of statistics, even a small decrease in the problem will have a significant impact on health & safety. It will take a while, but over time it should make quite a difference. Keep in mind also that the alternative of outlet plugs, if they even worked, and they don't work so well, as noted in another answer, was simply never used by many people. In my personal experience, typical thoughtful modern parents would use them. But most of the grandparents - who love to have the little grandchildren come over for a visit - never had outlet covers. Plus they are a pain to use for adults.



            Could TR receptacles be better than they currently are? Yes. Most of the recent (a.k.a. mass market now that everyone must have them in new construction) are not nearly as good as the kind I have in my kitchen. But they are better than nothing at all and, I would argue, generally much better than outlet plugs.






            share|improve this answer

























            • Notably, touching live to a ground is less dangerous because it is a ground fault that GFCI protection is intended to guard against. Touching live to neutral does not have any protection. This would be an argument for adding GFCI as well (noting false trip issues).

              – user71659
              1 hour ago












            • @user71659 Agree that touching live to neutral would be the worst. But my hypothesis is that single item (hairpin, paper clip, key, etc.) is the most likely problem (and of course totally blocked by most TRR because they require both slots to be pushed at the exact same time and with significant pressure) and even in more recent construction there are plenty of rooms where GFCI is not required even though AFCI is required - e.g., bedrooms (where kids will often be unattended) and living rooms.

              – manassehkatz
              59 mins ago













            1












            1








            1







            Keep in mind that TR outlets are a relatively new requirement. A quick search shows 2008 in the NEC, which typically has some lag time for state adoption. Once adopted, the NEC has immediate effect on new homes and major renovations. But there are plenty of older houses - plenty of circuits are still without GFCI or AFCI or even grounded at all, because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That being said, plenty of parents of small children will either retrofit TR outlets or, more commonly (since it is easier & cheaper) add outlet plugs when they have little kids crawling around. I did that ~ 20 years ago because it was clearly a really good idea. But those outlet plugs are long gone - as soon as I could consider myself safe because they were a real pain to use. On the other hand, I have one good TR installed as part of a kitchen renovation at that time (electrician put in GFCI, added more circuits, etc. to meet current requirements at the time, but TR wasn't one of them so the above counter receptacles are not TR) and it works great - though I have no idea if any of my kids ever tried to abuse it.



            Now to some numbers. Well, not so easy. First report I found (from CPSC) seems to be (a) primarily about product (the P in CPSC) issues than about the built-in receptacles and (b) has low enough numbers that it is hard to draw any conclusions.



            Aha! The Electrical Safety Foundation International (ESFI) has some interesting statistics for 1991 - 2001.



            • 24,000+ children under 10 years old were treated in emergency rooms for incidents related to electrical receptacles - about 7 children per day

            • 89% are under 6 years old

            • 50% are 2-3 years old, the highest-risk group

            and the typical injuries are related to sticking hairpins, keys and other metal objects into a receptacle. But wait, you say, doesn't it take TWO items to cause a problem? No, it doesn't. All it takes is ONE item placed in the hot slot of a receptacle with nicely moist hands and a finger (or any other body part) touching ground, which can include the center screw on many receptacles, as well as metal parts of many appliances, and now you have a complete and dangerous circuit.



            Given those kinds of statistics, even a small decrease in the problem will have a significant impact on health & safety. It will take a while, but over time it should make quite a difference. Keep in mind also that the alternative of outlet plugs, if they even worked, and they don't work so well, as noted in another answer, was simply never used by many people. In my personal experience, typical thoughtful modern parents would use them. But most of the grandparents - who love to have the little grandchildren come over for a visit - never had outlet covers. Plus they are a pain to use for adults.



            Could TR receptacles be better than they currently are? Yes. Most of the recent (a.k.a. mass market now that everyone must have them in new construction) are not nearly as good as the kind I have in my kitchen. But they are better than nothing at all and, I would argue, generally much better than outlet plugs.






            share|improve this answer















            Keep in mind that TR outlets are a relatively new requirement. A quick search shows 2008 in the NEC, which typically has some lag time for state adoption. Once adopted, the NEC has immediate effect on new homes and major renovations. But there are plenty of older houses - plenty of circuits are still without GFCI or AFCI or even grounded at all, because if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That being said, plenty of parents of small children will either retrofit TR outlets or, more commonly (since it is easier & cheaper) add outlet plugs when they have little kids crawling around. I did that ~ 20 years ago because it was clearly a really good idea. But those outlet plugs are long gone - as soon as I could consider myself safe because they were a real pain to use. On the other hand, I have one good TR installed as part of a kitchen renovation at that time (electrician put in GFCI, added more circuits, etc. to meet current requirements at the time, but TR wasn't one of them so the above counter receptacles are not TR) and it works great - though I have no idea if any of my kids ever tried to abuse it.



            Now to some numbers. Well, not so easy. First report I found (from CPSC) seems to be (a) primarily about product (the P in CPSC) issues than about the built-in receptacles and (b) has low enough numbers that it is hard to draw any conclusions.



            Aha! The Electrical Safety Foundation International (ESFI) has some interesting statistics for 1991 - 2001.



            • 24,000+ children under 10 years old were treated in emergency rooms for incidents related to electrical receptacles - about 7 children per day

            • 89% are under 6 years old

            • 50% are 2-3 years old, the highest-risk group

            and the typical injuries are related to sticking hairpins, keys and other metal objects into a receptacle. But wait, you say, doesn't it take TWO items to cause a problem? No, it doesn't. All it takes is ONE item placed in the hot slot of a receptacle with nicely moist hands and a finger (or any other body part) touching ground, which can include the center screw on many receptacles, as well as metal parts of many appliances, and now you have a complete and dangerous circuit.



            Given those kinds of statistics, even a small decrease in the problem will have a significant impact on health & safety. It will take a while, but over time it should make quite a difference. Keep in mind also that the alternative of outlet plugs, if they even worked, and they don't work so well, as noted in another answer, was simply never used by many people. In my personal experience, typical thoughtful modern parents would use them. But most of the grandparents - who love to have the little grandchildren come over for a visit - never had outlet covers. Plus they are a pain to use for adults.



            Could TR receptacles be better than they currently are? Yes. Most of the recent (a.k.a. mass market now that everyone must have them in new construction) are not nearly as good as the kind I have in my kitchen. But they are better than nothing at all and, I would argue, generally much better than outlet plugs.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 4 hours ago









            manassehkatzmanassehkatz

            9,3951336




            9,3951336












            • Notably, touching live to a ground is less dangerous because it is a ground fault that GFCI protection is intended to guard against. Touching live to neutral does not have any protection. This would be an argument for adding GFCI as well (noting false trip issues).

              – user71659
              1 hour ago












            • @user71659 Agree that touching live to neutral would be the worst. But my hypothesis is that single item (hairpin, paper clip, key, etc.) is the most likely problem (and of course totally blocked by most TRR because they require both slots to be pushed at the exact same time and with significant pressure) and even in more recent construction there are plenty of rooms where GFCI is not required even though AFCI is required - e.g., bedrooms (where kids will often be unattended) and living rooms.

              – manassehkatz
              59 mins ago

















            • Notably, touching live to a ground is less dangerous because it is a ground fault that GFCI protection is intended to guard against. Touching live to neutral does not have any protection. This would be an argument for adding GFCI as well (noting false trip issues).

              – user71659
              1 hour ago












            • @user71659 Agree that touching live to neutral would be the worst. But my hypothesis is that single item (hairpin, paper clip, key, etc.) is the most likely problem (and of course totally blocked by most TRR because they require both slots to be pushed at the exact same time and with significant pressure) and even in more recent construction there are plenty of rooms where GFCI is not required even though AFCI is required - e.g., bedrooms (where kids will often be unattended) and living rooms.

              – manassehkatz
              59 mins ago
















            Notably, touching live to a ground is less dangerous because it is a ground fault that GFCI protection is intended to guard against. Touching live to neutral does not have any protection. This would be an argument for adding GFCI as well (noting false trip issues).

            – user71659
            1 hour ago






            Notably, touching live to a ground is less dangerous because it is a ground fault that GFCI protection is intended to guard against. Touching live to neutral does not have any protection. This would be an argument for adding GFCI as well (noting false trip issues).

            – user71659
            1 hour ago














            @user71659 Agree that touching live to neutral would be the worst. But my hypothesis is that single item (hairpin, paper clip, key, etc.) is the most likely problem (and of course totally blocked by most TRR because they require both slots to be pushed at the exact same time and with significant pressure) and even in more recent construction there are plenty of rooms where GFCI is not required even though AFCI is required - e.g., bedrooms (where kids will often be unattended) and living rooms.

            – manassehkatz
            59 mins ago





            @user71659 Agree that touching live to neutral would be the worst. But my hypothesis is that single item (hairpin, paper clip, key, etc.) is the most likely problem (and of course totally blocked by most TRR because they require both slots to be pushed at the exact same time and with significant pressure) and even in more recent construction there are plenty of rooms where GFCI is not required even though AFCI is required - e.g., bedrooms (where kids will often be unattended) and living rooms.

            – manassehkatz
            59 mins ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Home Improvement Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdiy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f159579%2fare-tamper-resistant-receptacles-really-safer%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Möglingen Índice Localización Historia Demografía Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.129166666666748°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667Sitio web oficial Mapa de Möglingen«Gemeinden in Deutschland nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Postleitzahl am 30.09.2016»Möglingen

            Virtualbox - Configuration error: Querying “UUID” failed (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND)“VERR_SUPLIB_WORLD_WRITABLE” error when trying to installing OS in virtualboxVirtual Box Kernel errorFailed to open a seesion for the virtual machineFailed to open a session for the virtual machineUbuntu 14.04 LTS Virtualbox errorcan't use VM VirtualBoxusing virtualboxI can't run Linux-64 Bit on VirtualBoxUnable to insert the virtual optical disk (VBoxguestaddition) in virtual machine for ubuntu server in win 10VirtuaBox in Ubuntu 18.04 Issues with Win10.ISO Installation

            Torre de la Isleta Índice Véase también Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.3838888938°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.38388889Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta o Torre Saleta. Base de datos de bienes inmuebles. Patrimonio Cultural. Secretaría de Estado de CulturaFicha BIC Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta. Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural. Generalitat ValencianaLugares de interés. Ayuntamiento del CampelloTorre de la Isleta en CastillosNet.org