Shock Danger of Electrified Objects (Lampposts, etc.) Revisited

[+wavector]

Electrical hazards are the only hazards that are invisible?

 

the danger presented by energized utility infrastructure is undetecable without specilaized equipment.

 

You paraphrase things oddly.

 

It is pretty clear that we are talking about the same thing we just aren't using the same language.

 

But it really does all serve the same purpose, the thread is bumped, new geocachers are aware that there are real dangers in seeking hides that are connected to the utility infrastructure and they even have you exhorting them to be aware of all the other dangers they will encounter when out geocaching, what did you point out as hazards....

 

trees, bushes, rocks, creeks, ponds, mountains, hillsides, wildlife, bad weather, good weather, sunlight

 

You are doing a good job of making the new geocachers aware of the dangers that they are likely to encounter which is what this thread is all about. It is also worth noting that no utliity company is ever going to give permission to any type of geocache or geocache stage attached to the distribution grid equipment.

[Mushtang]

But it really does all serve the same purpose, the thread is bumped, new geocachers are aware that there are real small dangers in seeking hides that are connected to the utility infrastructure ...

Fixed.

[+TrailGators]

Here is a good blog from a geocacher that is also a Health and Safety Consultant for a large power utility company that knows the potential dangers....

[Mushtang]

Here is a good blog from a geocacher that is also a Health and Safety Consultant for a large power utility company that knows the potential dangers....

It's not the potential for danger that anyone is calling a BS on, it's the probability for danger that seems to be falsely elevated.

 

Nobody in this thread, or any other similar thread, is trying to suggest that these electrical devices can never harm anybody ever.

 

We're saying the probability of that harm actually occurring is a LOT smaller than the warning threads and cries for danger would suggest.

 

And we're also saying that the probability of danger is likely smaller than other dangers your side willingly faces without any concern at all (such as driving to the cache).

[+Rockin Roddy]

Here is a good blog from a geocacher that is also a Health and Safety Consultant for a large power utility company that knows the potential dangers....

It's not the potential for danger that anyone is calling a BS on, it's the probability for danger that seems to be falsely elevated.

 

Nobody in this thread, or any other similar thread, is trying to suggest that these electrical devices can never harm anybody ever.

 

We're saying the probability of that harm actually occurring is a LOT smaller than the warning threads and cries for danger would suggest.

 

And we're also saying that the probability of danger is likely smaller than other dangers your side willingly faces without any concern at all (such as driving to the cache).

 

And there you go again, bringing up an activity you'd already do regardless of caching.

 

Placing a cache in, on or around electric equipment UPS the danger and motivates the cacher to take risks that are not necessary!

[+wavector]

your side

 

When it comes to geocaching I like to think that we are all on the same side.

 

If new readers and new geocachers get one message it should be that, if nothing else.

So you say whatever you need to say, and I will answer you, and back and forth it will go and you know what, I could speak Sanskrit to you and it wouldn't change one thing because people are going to see the thread and they are going to read.

 

Ifth na spondiable tyouipso filomenahima sprta teino potfad hinda?

[Mushtang]

Here is a good blog from a geocacher that is also a Health and Safety Consultant for a large power utility company that knows the potential dangers....

It's not the potential for danger that anyone is calling a BS on, it's the probability for danger that seems to be falsely elevated.

 

Nobody in this thread, or any other similar thread, is trying to suggest that these electrical devices can never harm anybody ever.

 

We're saying the probability of that harm actually occurring is a LOT smaller than the warning threads and cries for danger would suggest.

 

And we're also saying that the probability of danger is likely smaller than other dangers your side willingly faces without any concern at all (such as driving to the cache).

 

And there you go again, bringing up an activity you'd already do regardless of caching.

 

Placing a cache in, on or around electric equipment UPS the danger and motivates the cacher to take risks that are not necessary!

What difference does it make that you also drive when you're not caching? You're still driving to a cache, right? You're still taking the risk of driving that trip because of that cache. You're really grasping at straws now that you've got nothing else to counter with.

[Mushtang]

your side

When it comes to geocaching I like to think that we are all on the same side.

I was referring to sides of this debate, not sides of the hobby or anything else.

[+wavector]

You're still driving to a cache, right? You're still taking the risk of driving that trip because of that cache.

 

Don't forget the sunlight.

[+wavector]

I was referring to sides of this debate, not sides of the hobby or anything else.

 

That is good. What was the debate question again?

 

edit to add: That's OK, I remembered. Now which side was I again?

Edited December 29, 2008 by wavector

[Mushtang]

You're still driving to a cache, right? You're still taking the risk of driving that trip because of that cache.

Don't forget the sunlight.

Huh?

[+Mredria]

You're still driving to a cache, right? You're still taking the risk of driving that trip because of that cache.

Don't forget the sunlight.

Huh?

I think they mean about the skin cancers.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Here is a good blog from a geocacher that is also a Health and Safety Consultant for a large power utility company that knows the potential dangers....

It's not the potential for danger that anyone is calling a BS on, it's the probability for danger that seems to be falsely elevated.

 

Nobody in this thread, or any other similar thread, is trying to suggest that these electrical devices can never harm anybody ever.

 

We're saying the probability of that harm actually occurring is a LOT smaller than the warning threads and cries for danger would suggest.

 

And we're also saying that the probability of danger is likely smaller than other dangers your side willingly faces without any concern at all (such as driving to the cache).

 

And there you go again, bringing up an activity you'd already do regardless of caching.

 

Placing a cache in, on or around electric equipment UPS the danger and motivates the cacher to take risks that are not necessary!

What difference does it make that you also drive when you're not caching? You're still driving to a cache, right? You're still taking the risk of driving that trip because of that cache. You're really grasping at straws now that you've got nothing else to counter with.

 

[+Rockin Roddy]

You're still driving to a cache, right? You're still taking the risk of driving that trip because of that cache.

Don't forget the sunlight.

Huh?

 

[+KBI]

Some of the thinking I see expressed in this thread reminds me of another subject. It reminds me of nervous fliers.

 

I’ve met many people over the years who anguish over every airline flight their job or their life compels them to take – or who refuse to fly, period – simply because they view flying as scary, unnatural, and inherently dangerous.

 

Yet these very same people think nothing of jumping into their car and spending the entire day driving around town.

 

Never mind the fact that, according to commonly available sources such as this authoritative article, one is approximately 2000 times more likely to die in a car crash than an airline crash. 2000 times! That means when one steps off an airliner and into one's car, one has just increased one's death risk 200,000 percent!

 

Yet pointing out statistics like these makes no difference. "I don’t care what you say. Flying is dangerous! It just isn’t natural!" is the typical response.

 

It’s a disturbingly common conversation. Now I know why this thread feels so familiar.

[+KBI]

To help us put the threat of electrical-box electrocution into geo-perspective, here are some selected geocaching-relevant stats from the livescience.com website referenced in my previous post:

 

Lifetime odds of dying from ...

 

Assault by Firearm: 1-in-325

 

Falling Down: 1-in-246

 

Motor Vehicle Accident: 1-in-100

 

Accidental Injury: 1-in-36

 

Electrocution: 1-in-5,000

 

And from the National Safety Council website:

 

Lifetime odds of dying from ...

 

Exposure to forces of nature: 1-in-1,749

 

Accidental drowning: 1-in-1,064

 

Being a pedestrian: 1-in-627

 

Assault by firearm: 1-in-309

 

Being a car occupant: 1-in-261

 

A fall: 1-in-194

 

Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances: 1-in-161

 

Electric transmission lines: 1-in-36,297

 

Other and unspecified electric current: 1-in-13,007

 

From these numbers it appears that a cacher poking around an electrical box is FAR more likely to die from walking, falling, sunstroke, being hit by a car, being gassed, being shot at – or getting killed in traffic before ever arriving at the cache site – than from the electrical box itself.

 

The difference isn't slight, either. It is several orders of magnitude.

 

No activity is perfectly safe, of course – one can get killed doing anything – but based on these numbers it would appear that electrical boxes, when compared to most other typical geocaching activities, represent a relative safe zone!

[+Ladybug Kids]

No activity is perfectly safe, of course – one can get killed doing anything – but based on these numbers it would appear that electrical boxes, when compared to most other typical geocaching activities, represent a relative safe zone!

Discussions about risk are very difficult to keep on the same objective basis. Even though the statistics say otherwise, people feel safer driving than flying because they are in control rather than a complete stranger on the other side of the cockpit door. Your average automobile fatality accident rarely gets more than a passing notice in Section C of the daily newspaper, yet an airplane sliding off a runway with no fatalities gets front page newspaper coverage and endless loops on CNN for days.

 

In Anchorage, there are a lot of people up in arms (literally and figuratively) over brown bears within city limits because there were two bear maulings that left the human victims beat up, but with fully recoverable injuries. Town meetings have been held, special tasks forces have been formed, a special game officer may be hired, etc. etc. Nothing at this evergy level ever happens after a car fatality. Still, one is MUCH more likely to die or be injured in a car accident in the Anchorage Borough than from a bear attack.

 

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I don't know by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device. During risk management discussions at work, "intentional" acts go into their own catagory because the statistical randomness of a bad day is taken out of the equation.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment. Yes, it's risky to rappel or climb a mountain to get a cache, but those are risks I know how to mitigate and many of the hazards are fairly evident. Electrical hazards on the other hand, are generally invisible to the untrained person (me included) and I don't know how to mitigate many of them. Also, I'm not so keen on being the one who gets featured in an electrocution article (as the hider or the seeker) because of the "uniqueness" of the event. That's why I've been given reason to think.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Ladybug Kids

[+TrailGators]

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I have no way of knowing by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment. Yes, it's risky to rappel or climb a mountain to get a cache, but those are risks I know how to mitigate and many of the hazards are fairly evident. Electrical hazards on the other hand, can be invisible to the untrained person (me included) and I don't know how to mitigate many of them. That's why I've been given reason to think.

Exactly. There are no stats for thousands of cachers purposely visiting caches hidden near a source of electricity. I thought it was an informative blog too. Plus like Johnnygeo said 'In www.geocaching.com guidelines there's a line that states, "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." I don't know of any power utilities or municipalities that would give permission to hide a game-piece in or on their electrical equipment. Just would not happen.'

[+Rockin Roddy]

No activity is perfectly safe, of course – one can get killed doing anything – but based on these numbers it would appear that electrical boxes, when compared to most other typical geocaching activities, represent a relative safe zone!

Discussions about risk are very difficult to keep on the same objective basis. Even though the statistics say otherwise, people feel safer driving than flying because they are in control rather than a complete stranger on the other side of the cockpit door. Your average automobile fatality accident rarely gets more than a passing notice in Section C of the daily newspaper, yet an airplane sliding off a runway with no fatalities gets front page newspaper coverage and endless loops on CNN for days.

 

In Anchorage, there are a lot of people up in arms (literally and figuratively) over brown bears within city limits because there were two bear maulings that left the human victims beat up, but with fully recoverable injuries. Town meetings have been held, special tasks forces have been formed, a special game officer may be hired, etc. etc. Nothing at this evergy level ever happens after a car fatality. Still, one is MUCH more likely to die or be injured in a car accident in the Anchorage Borough than from a bear attack.

 

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I don't know by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device. During risk management discussions at work, "intentional" acts go into their own catagory because the statistical randomness of a bad day is taken out of the equation.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment. Yes, it's risky to rappel or climb a mountain to get a cache, but those are risks I know how to mitigate and many of the hazards are fairly evident. Electrical hazards on the other hand, can be invisible to the untrained person (me included) and I don't know how to mitigate many of them. That's why I've been given reason to think.

 

[+KBI]

No activity is perfectly safe, of course – one can get killed doing anything – but based on these numbers it would appear that electrical boxes, when compared to most other typical geocaching activities, represent a relative safe zone!

Discussions about risk are very difficult to keep on the same objective basis. Even though the statistics say otherwise, people feel safer driving than flying because they are in control rather than a complete stranger on the other side of the cockpit door.

As opposed to the complete stranger driving the other car, the one coming at you at a combined relative speed of 140 MPH?

 

Thank you for helping me make my point. Perception and comparison of relative risk is, for some people, far more emotional than rational.

 

Your average automobile fatality accident rarely gets more than a passing notice in Section C of the daily newspaper, yet an airplane sliding off a runway with no fatalities gets front page newspaper coverage and endless loops on CNN for days.

If automotive fatalities were as rare as aviation fatalities then maybe the coverage would be more balanced. As it is, automotive fatalities are generally not reported because they are not news. We’ve had years go by with zero aviation fatalities, but those don’t get much press. A year with no car crash deaths, however – now THAT would be news.

 

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I have no way of knowing by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device.

You are correct. That is an excellent point, one I was hoping someone would bring up.

 

If you’re going to apply a 'geocacher compensation' to the death-by-electrocution statistics, however, then you must apply the same appropriate adjustment to the other applicable numbers as well:

 

The typical population does not spend nearly as much time outdoors as the typical geocacher.

 

The typical population does not spend nearly as much time walking in the woods as the typical geocacher.

 

And in your own wise words: The typical population does not intentionally walk up to [insert any man-made object or natural feature here] and start looking/feeling around.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment.

Johnnygeo's blog makes some good points, and it would be poor judgment indeed for any rational geocacher to ignore it.

 

The arguments in Johnnygeo's blog, however, can be applied to pretty much any hazard one might encounter while geocaching.

 

For example, he says: "Children tend to stick their hands in any where and if a child can open a cover to something they’ll do it cause they’re curious. They also learn what's safe by watching adults. If we teach kids that it’s okay to open up fake electrical boxes because caches are hidden in them, then I feel that we are placing them in danger."

 

Would that advice not also apply to fake hornet’s nest caches, fake sprinkler-head caches, or fake birdhouse caches? Hornets, birds and high-pressure water can injure, and in rare cases can even kill -- same as with an electrical transformer. Where, then, is the outrage? Is it because birds and water are pretty, but electrical transformers, like airplanes, are unnatural? As you and I have established, the contemplation of risk is not always rational.

 

We must ultimately rely on our own common sense. We are each ultimately free to make our choices based on reality, or gut feeling, or both.

 

The ultimately responsible for the safety of the cache seeker, however, lies with the cache seeker himself – NOT the cache hider.

[+KBI]

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I have no way of knowing by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment. Yes, it's risky to rappel or climb a mountain to get a cache, but those are risks I know how to mitigate and many of the hazards are fairly evident. Electrical hazards on the other hand, can be invisible to the untrained person (me included) and I don't know how to mitigate many of them. That's why I've been given reason to think.

Exactly. There are no stats for thousands of cachers purposely visiting caches hidden near a source of electricity.

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

[+sbell111]

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I don't know by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device. During risk management discussions at work, "intentional" acts go into their own catagory because the statistical randomness of a bad day is taken out of the equation.

Your argument sounds good, but it is not without issues.

 

One could argue (as I did earlier in the thread) that the average geocacher going after an LPC is less likely to get zapped by that pole than he would be merely touching any random pole because the LPC pole has been checked recently (when it was last found). Given that the pole was safe as recently as a few days before, it is more likely to be safe today. As you state, when you remove randomness from the scenario, it changes the risk. In our case, it will significantly lower the risk.

Edited December 29, 2008 by sbell111

[vagabond]

I've watched this thread for 4 pages now and I'd like to ask a couple of questions to the experts.

First one is about those green transformer boxes, how are they mounted to the cement slabs they sit on?

#2 is how are the light poles mounted to the cement tubes they sit on?

[+TrailGators]

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I have no way of knowing by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment. Yes, it's risky to rappel or climb a mountain to get a cache, but those are risks I know how to mitigate and many of the hazards are fairly evident. Electrical hazards on the other hand, can be invisible to the untrained person (me included) and I don't know how to mitigate many of them. That's why I've been given reason to think.

Exactly. There are no stats for thousands of cachers purposely visiting caches hidden near a source of electricity.

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

Go back and read my posts. I never said that there weren't other hazards. What all these hazards have in common is an idiot. In the case of an automobile there are idiots that pull out in front of you or drive drunk, etc. In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline. So I applaud Johnnygeo for his informative blog. The message on this site is simple and clear: The more people that follow the guidelines the better it is for the game and the players.

[+sbell111]

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I have no way of knowing by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment. Yes, it's risky to rappel or climb a mountain to get a cache, but those are risks I know how to mitigate and many of the hazards are fairly evident. Electrical hazards on the other hand, can be invisible to the untrained person (me included) and I don't know how to mitigate many of them. That's why I've been given reason to think.

Exactly. There are no stats for thousands of cachers purposely visiting caches hidden near a source of electricity.

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

Go back and read my posts. I never said that there weren't other hazards. What all these hazards have in common is an idiot. In the case of an automobile there are idiots that pull out in front of you or drive drunk, etc. In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline. So I applaud Johnnygeo for his informative blog. The message on this site is simple and clear: The more people that follow the guidelines the better it is for the game and the players.

I fail to see what your post about 'following the guidelines' has to do with the OP.

[+KBI]

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline.

So "needless" is the criteria?

 

Geocaching is a needless activity.

 

Have you ever carried a child in your vehicle while driving to a geocache site, TG?

[+TrailGators]

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I have no way of knowing by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment. Yes, it's risky to rappel or climb a mountain to get a cache, but those are risks I know how to mitigate and many of the hazards are fairly evident. Electrical hazards on the other hand, can be invisible to the untrained person (me included) and I don't know how to mitigate many of them. That's why I've been given reason to think.

Exactly. There are no stats for thousands of cachers purposely visiting caches hidden near a source of electricity.

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

Go back and read my posts. I never said that there weren't other hazards. What all these hazards have in common is an idiot. In the case of an automobile there are idiots that pull out in front of you or drive drunk, etc. In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline. So I applaud Johnnygeo for his informative blog. The message on this site is simple and clear: The more people that follow the guidelines the better it is for the game and the players.

I fail to see what your post about 'following the guidelines' has to do with the OP.

Read the part of Johnnygeo's blog that discusses the guidelines in relation to the hazard that the OP brought up.

[Mushtang]

and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment.

This is good. Nobody wants you to just approach electrical equipment and not be careful. These things could be fatal if you screw around with them the wrong way.

 

Just like your car, on the way to the ammo can in the woods cache. Cars can be fatal if you screw around with them the wrong way.

 

Risks are everywhere. Some are worth trying to remove from your life completely (jumping off of a tall building with no safety equipment, taking the access cover off a lamp post and sticking your hand inside), and some are worth putting up with because of the enjoyment they bring (riding the Free Fall ride at Six Flags amusement park, checking the outside of some electrical equipment for a geocache).

[+TrailGators]

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline.

So "needless" is the criteria?

 

Geocaching is a needless activity.

 

Have you ever carried a child in your vehicle while driving to a geocache site, TG?

What's your point?

[+KBI]

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline.

So "needless" is the criteria?

 

Geocaching is a needless activity.

 

Have you ever carried a child in your vehicle while driving to a geocache site, TG?

What's your point?

It's a simple yes-or-no question. Care to answer?

[Mushtang]

'In www.geocaching.com guidelines there's a line that states, "By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." I don't know of any power utilities or municipalities that would give permission to hide a game-piece in or on their electrical equipment. Just would not happen.'

Well for God's Sake, just don't hide your caches ON any electrical equipment you don't have permission to hide it on. Duh!

 

The power company doesn't need to give me permission to hide a fake electrical box on the wall of some building. Only the building owners do. Right?

[+sbell111]

So, back on topic...the statistics as reported on the websites supplied by KBI DO make the case that death by driving is more likely than death by electocution for the typical population. However, the typical population does not intentionally walk up to electrical devices and start looking/feeling around. The typical populations doesn't open (secured or unsecured) electrical boxes. I have no way of knowing by how much that increases the risk of an electrical incident, but based on the number of electrified objects that surveys have turned up, I suspect the risk goes up at least an order of magnitude due the intentional nature of coming in contact with the electrical device.

 

This has been a good discussion and Johnnygeo's blog was very enlightening. Reading the blog has led me to reconsider the placement of three or four of my hides and will make me think twice about how I will approach a search if my GPS points at electrical equipment. Yes, it's risky to rappel or climb a mountain to get a cache, but those are risks I know how to mitigate and many of the hazards are fairly evident. Electrical hazards on the other hand, can be invisible to the untrained person (me included) and I don't know how to mitigate many of them. That's why I've been given reason to think.

Exactly. There are no stats for thousands of cachers purposely visiting caches hidden near a source of electricity.

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

Go back and read my posts. I never said that there weren't other hazards. What all these hazards have in common is an idiot. In the case of an automobile there are idiots that pull out in front of you or drive drunk, etc. In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline. So I applaud Johnnygeo for his informative blog. The message on this site is simple and clear: The more people that follow the guidelines the better it is for the game and the players.

I fail to see what your post about 'following the guidelines' has to do with the OP.

Read the part of Johnnygeo's blog that discusses the guidelines in relation to the hazard that the OP brought up.

Read posts 12 and 95 of this thread which speak to his issue. Edited December 29, 2008 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline.

So "needless" is the criteria?

 

Geocaching is a needless activity.

 

Have you ever carried a child in your vehicle while driving to a geocache site, TG?

What's your point?

It's a simple yes-or-no question. Care to answer?

Let's just cut to the chase. What is the point you are trying to lead me to?

[+KBI]

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline.

So "needless" is the criteria?

 

Geocaching is a needless activity.

 

Have you ever carried a child in your vehicle while driving to a geocache site, TG?

What's your point?

It's a simple yes-or-no question. Care to answer?

Let's just cut to the chase. What is the point you are trying to lead me to?

Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.

[+TrailGators]

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline.

So "needless" is the criteria?

 

Geocaching is a needless activity.

 

Have you ever carried a child in your vehicle while driving to a geocache site, TG?

What's your point?

It's a simple yes-or-no question. Care to answer?

Let's just cut to the chase. What is the point you are trying to lead me to?

Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.

My refusal means that I don't want to play games. Just state your opinion and leave it at that. My opinion is that Johnnygeo makes a lot of sense.

[+wavector]

Nothing is all I need to know.

 

Is this is a comprehensive statement of your position.

 

...join me in polite and civilized debate over our differences regarding this topic

 

Civilized people generally regard the attribution of words to a person who didn't say them as an uncivilized act.

[Mushtang]

Have you purposely driven, or intentionally ridden in, an automobile of any kind in the last year or so, TG?

In the case, of Geocaching there are idiots that hide caches that don't comply with the guidelines and create needless potential hazards. I would hate to read about any child getting hurt especially if it could have easily been avoided by following a simple guideline.

So "needless" is the criteria?

 

Geocaching is a needless activity.

 

Have you ever carried a child in your vehicle while driving to a geocache site, TG?

What's your point?

It's a simple yes-or-no question. Care to answer?

Let's just cut to the chase. What is the point you are trying to lead me to?

Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.

My refusal means that I don't want to play games. Just state your opinion and leave it at that. My opinion is that Johnnygeo makes a lot of sense.

I'm just curious why you insist people answer your questions, but you seem to always refuse to answer questions other people ask you?

 

(You don't have to answer this.)

[+KBI]

So "needless" is the criteria?

 

Geocaching is a needless activity.

 

Have you ever carried a child in your vehicle while driving to a geocache site, TG?

What's your point?

It's a simple yes-or-no question. Care to answer?

Let's just cut to the chase. What is the point you are trying to lead me to?

Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.

My refusal means that I don't want to play games.

I think your refusal means you know good and well where this is headed ... and that you don't want to go there because you aren't interested in letting any facts get in the way of your opinion.

 

Answer, or don't answer. Your choice.

[+Rockin Roddy]

You mean TG has also tired of the same old??? Telling, if you ask me!

[+KBI]

Nothing is all I need to know.

Is this is a comprehensive statement of your position.

No, it’s not a comprehensive statement of my position.

 

It’s a badly butchered nonsensical mis-quote of what I actually posted.

 

...join me in polite and civilized debate over our differences regarding this topic

Civilized people generally regard the attribution of words to a person who didn't say them as an uncivilized act.

Ya don’t say.

 

Is there a point to any of this?

[+TrailGators]

You mean TG has also tired of the same old??? Telling, if you ask me!

Exactly, it gets really old. I don't want to be pulled into some stupid pointless argument again. Maybe they can go find a wall to argue with.

[+KBI]

This debate has been intentionally abandoned, by those who have painted themselves into a corner, and has been deliberately replaced by meaningless schoolyard "nya-nya" noise.

 

I’m gone. I will only come back when (or if) the meaningful discussion resumes.

[+wavector]

 

I think we might need a thread on the dangers of "sunlight" while geocaching.

 

This is pretty simple stuff. You say something, I say something back. You don't edit my posts and I don't edit yours. I am pretty sure where that conversation is headed but you still seem confused. huh?

It is headed to people getting a good look at an interesting blog. written by a geocacher who is also a safety officer with a public utility.

 

The constant huh's only seem very convincing but I am not buying that argument.

Edited December 29, 2008 by wavector

[+KBI]

This is pretty simple stuff. You say something, I say something back. You don't edit my posts and I don't edit yours.

Now we have someone accusing me of something I didn't do.

 

If you can show me where I quoted a post of yours after re-wording it to change its meaning, then we'll deal with it directly.

 

If not, then I will only return to this discussion when you, TG, RR – or anybody – demonstrates an interest in dropping the evasive noise and returning to a meaningful discussion.

[+sbell111]

This debate has been intentionally abandoned, by those who have painted themselves into a corner, and has been deliberately replaced by meaningless schoolyard "nya-nya" noise.

 

I’m gone. I will only come back when (or if) the meaningful discussion resumes.

Next, TG will likely slander you on a personal level like he did to me in the 'seperate but equal' thread. It's his method.

[+Ladybug Kids]

No activity is perfectly safe, of course – one can get killed doing anything – but based on these numbers it would appear that electrical boxes, when compared to most other typical geocaching activities, represent a relative safe zone!

Discussions about risk are very difficult to keep on the same objective basis. Even though the statistics say otherwise, people feel safer driving than flying because they are in control rather than a complete stranger on the other side of the cockpit door.

As opposed to the complete stranger driving the other car, the one coming at you at a combined relative speed of 140 MPH?

That's exactly why I made feel- itallic. Many of the fatality/serious injury incidents on Alaskan highways occur when someone crosses the centerline.

 

You are correct. That is an excellent point, one I was hoping someone would bring up.

 

If you’re going to apply a 'geocacher compensation' to the death-by-electrocution statistics, however, then you must apply the same appropriate adjustment to the other applicable numbers as well:

 

The typical population does not spend nearly as much time outdoors as the typical geocacher.

 

The typical population does not spend nearly as much time walking in the woods as the typical geocacher.

 

And in your own wise words: The typical population does not intentionally walk up to [insert any man-made object or natural feature here] and start looking/feeling around.

As well as, geocachers hopping into their vehicle to go geocaching increase their likelihood of being involved in a traffic accident.

 

Johnnygeo's blog makes some good points, and it would be poor judgment indeed for any rational geocacher to ignore it.

 

The arguments in Johnnygeo's blog, however, can be applied to pretty much any hazard one might encounter while geocaching.

I agree. When I see photos of cachers doing a rappelling cache without a separate belay line, I think "whoa, I wouldn't do it that way." Risk assessment and management are very broad subject about which volumes have been and will be written, so I attempted to limit myself to the topic at hand with comparisons using previously posted statistics.

 

We must ultimately rely on our own common sense. We are each ultimately free to make our choices based on reality, or gut feeling, or both.

 

The ultimately responsible for the safety of the cache seeker, however, lies with the cache seeker himself – NOT the cache hider.

Therein lays the rub for me and I haven't landed on a final decision for myself which is why I haven't yet decided what I'm going to do with my hides that in some way or fashion are associated with electrical items. As a hider, I now view that drawing cachers into culverts or to ridgetops is different than drawing them to electrical equipment. The risk of sliding down a scree slope or slipping in a culvert and getting spit out the other end are fairly evident and I think it's easy for most people to assess what they are getting into. It's the appearance of the being "benign" when all may not be well that's giving me pause to think.

[+TrailGators]

I'm gone. I will only come back when (or if) the meaningful discussion resumes.

See ya!

[+TrailGators]

We must ultimately rely on our own common sense. We are each ultimately free to make our choices based on reality, or gut feeling, or both.

 

The ultimately responsible for the safety of the cache seeker, however, lies with the cache seeker himself – NOT the cache hider.

Therein lays the rub for me and I haven't landed on a final decision for myself which is why I haven't yet decided what I'm going to do with my hides that in some way or fashion are associated with electrical items. As a hider, I now view that drawing cachers into culverts or to ridgetops is different than drawing them to electrical equipment. The risk of sliding down a scree slope or slipping in a culvert and getting spit out the other end are fairly evident and I think it's easy for most people to assess what they are getting into. It's the appearance of the being "benign" when all may not be well that's giving me pause to think.

I agree. Also I don't think kids not knowing to stick their hand inside a loose panel on the side of a lamp post is common sense.

[Mushtang]

We must ultimately rely on our own common sense. We are each ultimately free to make our choices based on reality, or gut feeling, or both.

 

The ultimately responsible for the safety of the cache seeker, however, lies with the cache seeker himself – NOT the cache hider.

Therein lays the rub for me and I haven't landed on a final decision for myself which is why I haven't yet decided what I'm going to do with my hides that in some way or fashion are associated with electrical items. As a hider, I now view that drawing cachers into culverts or to ridgetops is different than drawing them to electrical equipment. The risk of sliding down a scree slope or slipping in a culvert and getting spit out the other end are fairly evident and I think it's easy for most people to assess what they are getting into. It's the appearance of the being "benign" when all may not be well that's giving me pause to think.

I agree. Also I don't think kids not knowing to stick their hand inside a loose panel on the side of a lamp post is common sense.

That's definitely true, and therefore hiding a cache INSIDE an access panel on a lamp post, WITH the wiring, is a bad idea. I've never actually come across a cache like this myself, all the LPCs I've found have been under the decorative lift up skirts that cover the bolts.

[+Ladybug Kids]

One could argue (as I did earlier in the thread) that the average geocacher going after an LPC is less likely to get zapped by that pole than he would be merely touching any random pole because the LPC pole has been checked recently (when it was last found). Given that the pole was safe as recently as a few days before, it is more likely to be safe today. As you state, when you remove randomness from the scenario, it changes the risk. In our case, it will significantly lower the risk.

I agree to a certain extent, but randomness comes back when considering whether the circuit is open or closed due to a remote light sensor calling for the lights to be on or off or someone throwing a switch. Also, did the last ten finders find the cache during dry weather and number 11 show up during a rain storm wearing sandals? Did the last several finders lift a plastic skirt and retrieve the cache without touching the metal pole itself? Is the ground wire correctly landed so it's always the path of least resistance to ground?