The mysterious green box at the end of your driveway

[+Rockin Roddy]

The death of Mrak, the second electrocution of a dog in less than two months along Keele St. just south of Dundas St. W., has prompted Toronto Hydro to launch a citywide inspection to find whether there’s other stray voltage problems elsewhere.

 

Second in 2 months....but this isn't a likely danger.

[Mushtang]

The death of Mrak, the second electrocution of a dog in less than two months along Keele St. just south of Dundas St. W., has prompted Toronto Hydro to launch a citywide inspection to find whether there's other stray voltage problems elsewhere.

 

Second in 2 months....but this isn't a likely danger.

How many deaths in car accidents were there in Toronto during those two months?

 

How many deaths by people tripping and falling were there in Toronto during those two months?

 

How many deaths by lightening strikes were there in Toronto during those two months?

[+wavector]

The death of Mrak, the second electrocution of a dog in less than two months along Keele St. just south of Dundas St. W., has prompted Toronto Hydro to launch a citywide inspection to find whether there's other stray voltage problems elsewhere.

 

Second in 2 months....but this isn't a likely danger.

How many deaths in car accidents were there in Toronto during those two months?

 

How many deaths by people tripping and falling were there in Toronto during those two months?

 

How many deaths by lightening strikes were there in Toronto during those two months?

 

Did you know you could get hit by a meteorite?

Playing russian roulette is fine, look how many meteorites hit people.

 

Your logic seems impeccable except for the parts that make no sense.

 

This is pretty simple, the utility dictates protocol that workers follow, this is required because workers make regular approaches to the equiipment. There are no other groups that make regular approaches to the infrastructure so for regular approaches the protocol works fine and protects those who need to do the work. This part should be clear.

The risk of danger to the public is minimal, the public does not approach the infrastructure on a regular basis.

 

Add a geocache attached to the infrastrucutre and you have regular approaches to the equipment, this is exactly the situation for which the safety protocol was developed, regular approaches to utility infrastructure.

 

Now this next part seems to escape you, the workers are protected by training and special equipment, the geocachers who are approaching the equipment on a regular basis are not. Each individual geocacher has about the same risk as a member of the public, slim to very slim.

However, the regular approach to infrastructure without following protocol is going to result in harm, the utility company knows this hence the training and equipping of workers and development of a protocol for those making regular approaches to the equipment.

 

This may be unrelated to the number of people who are struck by meteorites while driving around Toronto in lightning storms and I can't help that, this is simple logic compared to yours.

Edited January 15, 2009 by wavector

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Did you know you could get hit by a meteorite?

You indeed could. A woman near my home was.

 

From GCJF39 Stars Fell On Alabama

Then on November 30, 1954, Mrs. Hewlett Hodges of Sylacauga, Alabama was napping on her couch when an 8-1/2 pound stony sulfide meteorite crashed through her roof. This was the first, and as of 2003, the only officially documented modern case of a human being hit by a space rock. The meteorite came through the living room ceiling, bounced off one wall, hit another and crashed into a big console radio before firing horizontally across the room and striking her on the hip. She was hospitalized for several days because of the severity of the trauma.

 

Mrs. Hodges later donated the meteorite to the Alabama Museum of Natural History at the University of Alabama, where it remains on display. Another 3-3/4 pound fragment of the same meteorite found by a farmer nearby is on display at the Hall of Meteorites at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D. C.

 

Yup, it can happen, but it isn't very likely!

[+wavector]

Did you know you could get hit by a meteorite?

You indeed could. A woman near my home was.

 

From GCJF39 Stars Fell On Alabama

Then on November 30, 1954, Mrs. Hewlett Hodges of Sylacauga, Alabama was napping on her couch when an 8-1/2 pound stony sulfide meteorite crashed through her roof. This was the first, and as of 2003, the only officially documented modern case of a human being hit by a space rock. The meteorite came through the living room ceiling, bounced off one wall, hit another and crashed into a big console radio before firing horizontally across the room and striking her on the hip. She was hospitalized for several days because of the severity of the trauma.

 

Mrs. Hodges later donated the meteorite to the Alabama Museum of Natural History at the University of Alabama, where it remains on display. Another 3-3/4 pound fragment of the same meteorite found by a farmer nearby is on display at the Hall of Meteorites at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D. C.

 

Yup, it can happen, but it isn't very likely!

 

Yah got me Ed, I had no idea.

 

As far as I know the company I work for has never developed a protocol for "being hit by a meteorite" but every employee is supplied with an "automobile accident kit" which includes a disposable camera, pen and company forms for properly obtaining the information at the scene of an accident.

I suppose they imagined no one would or could survive a direct strike by a meteor.

 

No offense to Alabama but I thought that kind of thing only happened in Arkansas?

Edited January 15, 2009 by wavector

[Mushtang]

The death of Mrak, the second electrocution of a dog in less than two months along Keele St. just south of Dundas St. W., has prompted Toronto Hydro to launch a citywide inspection to find whether there's other stray voltage problems elsewhere.

 

Second in 2 months....but this isn't a likely danger.

How many deaths in car accidents were there in Toronto during those two months?

 

How many deaths by people tripping and falling were there in Toronto during those two months?

 

How many deaths by lightening strikes were there in Toronto during those two months?

Did you know you could get hit by a meteorite?

Playing russian roulette is fine, look how many meteorites hit people.

 

Your logic seems impeccable except for the parts that make no sense.

 

This is pretty simple, the utility dictates protocol that workers follow, this is required because workers make regular approaches to the equiipment. There are no other groups that make regular approaches to the infrastructure so for regular approaches the protocol works fine and protects those who need to do the work. This part should be clear.

The risk of danger to the public is minimal, the public does not approach the infrastructure on a regular basis.

 

Add a geocache attached to the infrastrucutre and you have regular approaches to the equipment, this is exactly the situation for which the safety protocol was developed, regular approaches to utility infrastructure.

 

Now this next part seems to escape you, the workers are protected by training and special equipment, the geocachers who are approaching the equipment on a regular basis are not. Each individual geocacher has about the same risk as a member of the public, slim to very slim.

However, the regular approach to infrastructure without following protocol is going to result in harm, the utility company knows this hence the training and equipping of workers and development of a protocol for those making regular approaches to the equipment.

 

This may be unrelated to the number of people who are struck by meteorites while driving around Toronto in lightning storms and I can't help that, this is simple logic compared to yours.

Russian Roulette is fine? There's a 1 in 6 chance you'll get shot.

 

Have I *ever* said that there's no danger from utility boxes?

 

Now this next part seems to escape you, a cacher takes many risks when finding a cache located on a utility box, and the risk of getting electrocuted is WAY low compared to most of the other ones, yet nobody seems to start one thread after the other trying to reduce any of those.

 

Nobody wants to keep us from driving to caches - try and tell me a transformer cache is more risky than driving.

 

Nobody is suggesting that we not hike to caches - try and tell me a transformer cache is more risky than hiking.

 

There are many risks involved with caching. Transformers are such a low risk compared to all the other stuff we do it's baffling how dangerous some folks are trying to make them out to be. They're not zero risk, but they're much closer to zero than many of the other risks we take without complaint.

 

That's my point.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

ALL of this is irrelevant in the face of one simple fact... you can't get adequate permission to place a cache on a padmount transformer.

 

As far as geocaching and padmount transformers, that's all there is to say about that.

 

Follow the guidelines and transformers can't hurt you, because you won't be looking on any.

[+wavector]

That's my point.

 

Your point is not a point, it is a muddle.

 

Driving is a common everyday activity and the detailed protocols involving driving are numerous and encompassing, failure to heed those protocols could result in serious harm or death.

 

Hiking/Walking are common everyday activites and there are no protocols beyond common sense, there is little risk of harm from failure to follow protocol because protocols are not developed for activites considered harmless.

 

Regular approach to the utility infrastructure is an occupational hazard limited to a small group of trained workers, it is not a common everyday activity. There are detailed protocols involved and failure to heed the protocol could result in serious harm or death.

 

Do you see the difference in these activities?

 

In which category should we place geocaching?

Edited January 15, 2009 by wavector

[Mushtang]

That's my point.

Your point is not a point, it is a muddle.

No, it's a point.

 

Driving is a common everyday activity and the detailed protocols involving driving are numerous and encompassing, failure to heed those protocols could result in serious harm or death.

That's correct. And these deaths occur every day, very regularly. The fact that it's an everyday activity does nothing to reduce the risk you take while driving to go caching. Now who is muddling?

 

Hiking/Walking are common everyday activites and there are no protocols beyond common sense, there is little risk of harm from failure to follow protocol because protocols are not developed for activites considered harmless.

If hiking is harmless, why are so many people hurt each year while hiking? The lack of laws put in place to regulate hiking doesn't change the fact that hiking is more likely to result in getting hurt than grabbing a cache on the outside of a transformer.

 

Regular approach to the utility infrastructure is an occupational hazard limited to a small group of trained workers, it is not a common everyday activity. There are detailed protocols involved and failure to heed the protocol could result in serious harm or death.

My guess is, the number of trained workers that are seriously hurt while driving to the job is much higher than the number of workers that find a dangerous exterior of a transformer.

 

Do you see the difference in these activities?

Sure. Let me summarize.

• Driving - regulated, but much more likely to harm someone compared to other things we do while caching. Nobody thinks we should stop.
  
• Hiking - not regulated, but much more likely to harm someone compared to other things we do while caching. Nobody thinks we should stop.
  
• Finding a cache on a transformer - much less likely to harm someone compared to other things we do while caching. Lots of people think this is a huge problem.
  

In which category should we place geocaching?

Not a common everyday activity. But then neither is driving to a cache, and neither is hiking to a cache. Both of these are much more risky while finding a cache than grabbing a hide-a-key off the side of a transformer while caching.

[+Too Tall John]

In which category should we place geocaching?

Not a common everyday activity. But then neither is driving to a cache, and neither is hiking to a cache. Both of these are much more risky while finding a cache than grabbing a hide-a-key off the side of a transformer while caching.

Walking and/or driving are necessary to arrive at a cache, they are integral parts of not only geocaching, but also integral to just about any activity that doesn't involve sitting on your couch or in front of your computer. Touching a transformer is not required in any activity, except maintenance of the transformer.

 

See the difference?

 

Frankly, it is a moot point, because:

ALL of this is irrelevant in the face of one simple fact... you can't get adequate permission to place a cache on a padmount transformer.

 

As far as geocaching and padmount transformers, that's all there is to say about that.

 

Follow the guidelines and transformers can't hurt you, because you won't be looking on any.

P.S. - wavector is right, it was a muddle.

[Mushtang]

In which category should we place geocaching?

Not a common everyday activity. But then neither is driving to a cache, and neither is hiking to a cache. Both of these are much more risky while finding a cache than grabbing a hide-a-key off the side of a transformer while caching.

Walking and/or driving are necessary to arrive at a cache, they are integral parts of not only geocaching, but also integral to just about any activity that doesn't involve sitting on your couch or in front of your computer. Touching a transformer is not required in any activity, except maintenance of the transformer.

 

See the difference?

If you insist on including the driving and walking that I've specifically removed from the equation, then you're going to always miss the point.

 

I italicized the words in my post, but I'll bold them in the quote above, just to make it more clear.

 

You're right, I wouldn't touch a transformer on a normal day, but then again I wouldn't drive to that transformer on a normal day either. So my point, again, is that the trip from my house to that cache, is more risky than actually being at the cache.

 

Frankly, it is a moot point, because:

ALL of this is irrelevant in the face of one simple fact... you can't get adequate permission to place a cache on a padmount transformer.

 

As far as geocaching and padmount transformers, that's all there is to say about that.

 

Follow the guidelines and transformers can't hurt you, because you won't be looking on any.

That also has been negated in the previous thread, when Keystone said that he's gotten so many caches that have express permission for electrical equipment caches that he no longer even asks.

 

P.S. - wavector is right, it was a muddle.

Nope, still a point, even if you keep missing it.

[+wavector]

In which category should we place geocaching?

Not a common everyday activity.

 

Are you certain?

 

There are no permits, licences, training or tools required to go geocaching.

I saw one profile linked recently where a geocacher had gone geocaching 607 days in a row.

I think somebody tried to find a geocache today, where I live.

(I actually know that is true because it was me who tried!)

So I disagree, I think geocaching is an everyday activity and it is quite a lot of fun.

 

If/when I get lead to a transformer I won't just grab a hide-a-key.

You do understand that the reason I won't grab the hide a key isn't paranoia, it is training.

If I was at work and I grabbed an object attached to a transformer case I would be disciplined for failing to adhere to proper safety protocol, my interpretation of the %'s notwithstanding.

 

Getting permisson to hide a lamp post cache in a parking lot is fairly easy, especially if you are talking to your friend who owns the store. I have a friend who owns his own businss and can write his own letters of permission, this is not utility infrastructure.

 

Keystone said that he's gotten so many caches that have express permission...

 

This is utility infrastructure. You can ask Keystone which of these companies he has on record as allowing any caches to be attached to their distribution equipment?

 

Allegheny Power

Citizens Electric Company

Duquesne Light Company

Met-Ed (formerly GPU Energy)

PECO Energy

Penelec (formerly GPU Energy)

Penn Power

Pike County Light and Power

PPL Electric Utilities

UGI

Wellsboro Electric Company

 

The list is every electric distribution company in Pennsylvania.

A single letter from one of these companies would literally cover thousands upon thousands of locations.

[+Moose Mob]

Instead of dwelling on this topic, let's say we plan on a nice hike in the woods this weekend. Yes, some of you will need snowshoes.

 

This thread is closed.