Light Switch Near Shower

[Nick Gromicko]

I luv ya but you're being as silly as Frank C.

Stand naked, wet, and barefoot in a puddle while spraying your Water-Pik at a live switch, then tell me how silly I am.

But again, even though the switch placement is not prohibited by NEC, and even if I hadn't been able to proffer a common scenario that poses a risk with the switch placement, and even if Ontario didn't prohibit the switch placement.... an inspector in doubt (which is the underlying spirit of post # 1) should err on the side of safety.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Stand naked, wet, and barefoot in a puddle while spraying your Water-Pik at a live switch, then tell me how silly I am.

Anyone who is that stupid deserves to be removed from the gene pool.

Again, you can't fix stupid, or legislate intelligence.

[Jeffrey R. Pope]

Originally Posted by gromicko

an inspector in doubt should err on the side of safety.

General "safety" is way to subjective. When in doubt, the inspector should NOT "err" on anything. He/she should research it, figure out which country he/she lives in, and make his/her statements based on model codes.

Will you tell your clients they shouldn't live in the flight path of an airport? After all, it's more likely a plane will fall from the sky than it is your client will "stand naked, wet, and barefoot in a puddle while spraying your Water-Pik at a live switch..."

[Nick Gromicko]

I raised two boys. Ever seen a bathroom after two little boys and a Water-Pik are done with it?

Again though, my point goes back to the underlying spirit of post #1. When I first looked at the PIC, I honestly didn't know if it was an NEC violation or not. I didn't know if Ontario prohibited it or not. I hadn't yet thought of the Water-Pik scenario.

I'm no longer in doubt as to whether or not it is a safety issue, but when I first saw the PIC in post #1, I was in doubt. Had I been on an inspection and in doubt about a safety issue, I would be compelled to err on the side of safety.

[Blaine Wiley]

I have read inspectors reports that called it a defect that the lights and switches went out when the GFCI receptacle was tripped.

[Nick Gromicko]

After all, it's more likely a plane will fall from the sky than it is your client will "stand naked, wet, and barefoot in a puddle while spraying your Water-Pik at a live switch..."

I don't see how you could use a Water-Pik in the shower depicted in post #1 and not hit the switch at times. Imagine rinsing the back of your head or back while facing away from the controls.

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I don't see how you could use a Water-Pik in the shower depicted in post #1 and not hit the switch at times.

Who uses a Water Pik in the shower? Mine sits next to the sink and is plugged into the GFCI protected receptacle.

If your talking about a shower massage shower head, Isn't that what shower doors and/or shower curtains are designed for?

[Nick Gromicko]

http://www.waterpikecoflow.com/ECO-563/

[Nick Gromicko]

The switch plate cover in the PIC in post #1 is but an inch from the shower tile and on the same wall as the shower head. An bit to the left and it violates NEC. Worth pointing out in the inspection report IMHO. Again, code is the absolute minimum standard.

[Blaine Wiley]

Ok, it's a shower head.

Very common here to have switches in that location (post #1). Even more common to have hand held shower heads. More common yet that the shower stall has either a glass enclosure or a shower curtain and water never gets near the switch.

Actually, since the air is so humid in the shower, and moisture condenses on just about everything, especially in cold climates, perhaps everything in the bathroom should be GFCI protected.

Maybe the NEC shoule even require GFCI protection on computers because we might spill our beer on the keyboard, or in the CD drive and get electrocuted. Yah, that's the ticket...

[Blaine Wiley]

Originally Posted by gromicko

code is the absolute minimum standard.

The code, and whether it is met or not is the determining factor of whether a building receives a certificate of occupancy from the AHJ. No more, no less.

[Nick Gromicko]

We've already established that it isn't an NEC violation but IS an Ontario rule violation. Here is the question from post #1:

Would you comment on this and what verbiage would you use?

[Michael Larson]

The code may be considered by some to be a "minimum standard" but its intent is to provide "safe" building practices.

The code changes as significant and/or dangerous incidents occur and/or the technology changes.

Some of you are reminding me of a book called Ringworld that had as one of its charters a race of individuals that were so risk adverse that only the insane were "qualified" to pilot a spaceship.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gromicko

We've already established that it isn't an NEC violation but IS an Ontario rule violation. Here is the question from post #1:

Would you comment on this and what verbiage would you use?

And the very simple answer is: I wouldn't comment on it at all.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The switch plate cover in the PIC in post #1 is but an inch from the shower tile and on the same wall as the shower head. An bit to the left and it violates NEC. Worth pointing out in the inspection report IMHO. Again, code is the absolute minimum standard.

Just make sure that when bridging the GAP between electricians and home inspectors are damaged because of something as petty as this....the HI understands why he is berated over this issue.

Again...we can't fix all problems but if we did then lets get rid of metal lamps because I could have sweaty hands and touch a lamp and shock myself, I should not fly in a plane to colorado because it could go down.....and the list goes one. Now, if we are inspecting a location for the man in the bubble then ok.....fact is we have to all be accountable and this is not something I would write up.......FYI dont look for me to call it a concern when I am in Colorado....from my view it is not a concern.