Talk:Electrocution/Archive 1

ELECTROCUTION MEANS DEATH
Electrocution is derived from the words electro and (exe)cution to say someone has been electrocuted means they are dead. Survivors have had an electric shock. Popular usage / misuse of the word does not detract from the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazspark73 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well many people use the term wrong and that does not mean it is the actual meaning. For example 'begging the question' is used incorrectly when individuals are meaning to imply 'raises the question'. A profound example would be the use of the word drowned; "I went to the beach last summer and i drowned there. How was your summer?" if an incorrect very small percent of the population or so of the population started saying this word this way and a larger group of the population followed this would still be wrong and if not it would be stupid as we need a single word to imply "to die or kill by immersion in liquid" instead of saying he drowned and also died... THIS ARGUMENT IS COMPLETELY APPLICABLE TO THE WORD ELECTROCUTE -watering down this word is self defeating for the English language (it was made to describe death by electric shock in one word) the unraveling of this would would make it a redundant synonym If a word was coined say for death caused by excessive loss of blood from a wound(or whatever)[maybe there is such a word i don't know] and it was called "Exsanguecution" [combination of the end of exe[cution] and exsangue which means basically "loss of blood" in latin for this to be coined for that purpose and then be watered down would simply be pointless as there are plenty of words that describe loss of blood. Perhaps the problem for electrocution is that there are not as many synonyms for electric-shock so many incorrectly use the death implying term. Maybe the people need another word to replace electric-shock [maybe like electroshock[-ed] i don't know I'm just being theoretical] cause i have no idea why individuals are so keen to use electrocute incorrectly. (MARK BL)

I disagree wholeheartedly.
Electrocution, by definition, is death as a result of excessive shock. Popular misuse of the word does not change that.

if you are alive You Were NOT electrocuted, you were severly shocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.29.150 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

---DISAGREEMENT---POSTED IT HERE AS THE BELOW ARGUMENT[to mine] IS A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT One or many dingbat reporters does not mean an institution is in favor of an inaccurate definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.17.243 (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC) My further apologies it seems that what is online is not consistent with what is in their actual printed editions!!!! Perhaps a populist/ignorant oversight by a nonchalance low level employee. Maybe you should subscribe to the official oxford dictionary site and not pilfer information form an unofficial site that gives away material which they[the actual oxford company] publishes for profit, rather than a second quality intentionally inferior source

based on these 2 premisses alone your arguments seem rather weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.17.243 (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears whether the definition includes injury short of death depends on the dictionary:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1: to execute (a criminal) by electricity

2: to kill by electric shock

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/electrocute

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 2009:

e·lec·tro·cute / iˈlektrəˌkyoōt/ • v. [tr.] (often be electrocuted)

injure or kill someone by electric shock.

execute (a convicted criminal) by means of the electric chair.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-electrocute.html

--Mike8153 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * These should be referenced in the article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do earlier editions of that second dictionary include that? "Current English" suggests it's a dictionary of USAGE, so it would include whatever people use the word for, whether right or wrong. I saw this (mis)use of electrocution on a webforum recently, but then seeing it used in this video brought me here and to online dictionaries to see if there's anything legitimate about that useage. It's a BBC report that says a man was electrocuted, but apparently the electric shock he received did NOT kill him nor threaten his life (as far as I can tell it was not a situation where it stopped his heart and he was revived), though it did cause permanent injury to his hand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0_a_sbEglw I admit it's possible the use of the word is perhaps changing and a leading-edge descriptive definition might include this usage, but even then I think it should say it is an improper or incorrect use of the word.Benbradley (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If the BBC and OED both consider that "electrocution" doesn't have to be fatal, then it seems out of touch for Wikipedia to disagree. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/electrocute http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/electrocute http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19304810 http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/treatments/first_aid/procedures/electrocution.shtml http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/accidents-and-first-aid/Pages/Introduction.aspx --- Ml66uk2 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

---DISAGREEMENT--- One or many dingbat reporters does not mean an institution is in favor of an inaccurate definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.17.243 (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC) My further apologies it seems that what is online is not consistent with what is in their actual printed editions!!!! Perhaps a populist/ignorant oversight by a nonchalance low level employee. Maybe you should subscribe to the official oxford dictionary site and not pilfer information form an unofficial site that gives away material which they[the actual oxford company] publishes for profit, rather than a second quality intentionally inferior source

based on these 2 premisses alone your arguments seem rather weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.17.243 (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've "pilfered" information "form" two other online dictionaries: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/electrocute "British English: electrocute If someone is electrocuted, they are killed or badly injured when they touch something connected to a source of electricity." http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/electrocute "to kill or injure someone with electricity" That's at least three online dictionaries, the BBC, and the NHS that all disagree with you. Ml66uk2 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

electrocution versus electrisation
Electrocution is a severe electrisation resulting on death. More on pathophysiological effects and protection principles? http://www.electrical-installation.merlingerin.com/guide/f-electrocution.htm


 * Nay, the Oxford English Dictionary says that: To electrocute is to INJURE OR KILL by electric shock. --80.229.152.246 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Collins English Dictionary by HarperCollins also defines Electrocution in this way.

EFFECT OF ELECTROCUTION
DOES ANYONE KNOW THE EFFECTS OF AC/DC CURRENT ON THE BODY...........THAT IS WHEN YOU ARE ELECTROCUTED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.60.104 (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look up the definition using any dictionary at hand or trusted online non-user edited dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.1.35 (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are cooked from the inside along the path of the current. If AC current goes across your heart, it can also put you in fibrillation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.126.105.245 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was electrocuted when I was 13, I was flying a kite and hit a power line. Well needless to say I ended up in the hospital with burns to my hands and were ever I had metal on my body, and exit wounds were the electricity left body on my feet. I was in hospital for 6 weeks and then some follow up skin graft out patient work. Other than the physical damage, I have experienced some rather curious psychological issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curious2009 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

EFFECTS OF AC/DC CURRENT ON THE BODY
Off the top of my head I believe I have been told that DC (Direct Current) is more dangerous than AC (Alternating Current). High voltage DC will cause the muscles to lock on more than AC. Hundreds/thousands of volts DC at high current we're talking here, not a flashlight battery!. As 'mains' AC changes direction 50/60 times per second it gives your muscles an opportunity to relax? Hmmm, maybe.

NOTE: the current is more important then the voltage as far as harm goes. 50,000 volts(!)sounds wild, but at LOW currents is (mostly) harmless. Kids don't try this at home!

More research needed! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DC makes you stick, AC blows you away. The voltage needn't be so high, as the effect can be noticed (albeit very minor) with a 9V battery on your tongue. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well on your tongue of course.
 * Rather sensitive area
 * Good contact (spit is more conductive than skin? I'd think so)
 * Short distance ~10mm
 * If the resistance across tongue is below 200 ohms you're getting 45 millamps. The same current across your heart could possibly upset its rhythm. If you kept a 9V battery on your tongue for an extended time I imagine it could cause some damage(burn? nerve?). I'm not going to try it.
 * A static shock 10Kv+ you'd barely notice elsewhere, would be interesting on the tongue. Ever 'zapped' a cat/dog on it's nose? (accicdentally of course!)
 * I was thinking more of a few hundred volts DC, from a high current supply as against similar AC. I know the DC rating on switches is lower than it's AC rating, apparently as DC arcs more. As AC reverses flow it apparently breaks the arc. This might mean that if we'd gone with HV DC transmision lines they'd be even more dangerous? Arcs (to a person say) would last longer? Be more deadly? Arc over a longer distance than same AC HV? Any idea?


 * LOL Floydian,:) I was mis-reading your first line as "DC makes you sick, AC blows you away", 'blowing away' as in dead. Perhaps the font they use for these talk pages needs to be changed to a serif font, as they are supposed to be easier to read.
 * --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just had a quick look at the Electric chair article which says;
 * "The decision to use AC was partly driven by Edison's claims that AC was more lethal than DC. However, at the very high currents used for the device, which could be as high as ten amperes, the difference in lethality between the two types of currents was approximately a factor of two, which was marginal"
 * Apparently electric chairs use AC, thought this would be easier/cheaper to step up in voltage than DC. I'm not sure if the inference that AC is 2x lethal is verfied. Edison was favoring DC power transmission, so his opinion is biased.
 * --220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From this UNI of Michigan website http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/demobook/CHAPTER4.HTM
 * "Fatalities have occurred at voltages as low as 24 volts"!! Surprising "Alternating current at 60 Hz is slightly more dangerous than direct current"
 * Table 4.1 Average Effects of Continuous ac or dc Electrical Currents on Healthy Adults

Current  Biological Effect 1 mA  threshold for feeling 10-20 mA  voluntary let-go of circuit impossible 25 mA  onset of muscular contractions 50-200 mA ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest 220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the fact that it is ac or dc doesn't matter in terms of how deadly it is. Both can easily kill you in the right situation. The voltage is somewhat irrelevant, as it is the current that makes it deadly. It only takes 50–100mA (don't quote that number, but it's close to it) to stop your heart. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for any etiquette/editing faux pas's - most of the following info based on a reading of the "South African Bureau of Standards" for 'lightning protection.' It was 20+ years ago. In essence what I remember was that the magnitude of the momentary current to cause "cardiac fibrillation" depended upon the path taken through the body (arm to arm, arm to legs etc) This boiled down to different actual currents across the heart, (and actual current through the septum's sinoatrial node. These actual currents (and consequent powers) are fairly well documented because of medical use in cardiac surgery when cessation is required. I do remember that 0.3 mA or less from inside the heart to outside could cause fibrillation. This could occur during cardiac catheterization if the catheter is conductive and could occur despite careful grounding because of induction or antenna effects if the operating room is not shielded or otherwise protected from radio frequency emissions. I will track down some modern verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecstatist (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What if your heart stops (eg, you technically die), but you are revived?
This question is what brought me to the article. The definition presented in the article leaves to possibility of someone being revived after being momentarily technically dead via electrocution. Did the VERY LOUD commenters that renounce this idea on this discussion page consider this scenario? I'm guessing not. So with that in mind, has anyone ever survived being electrocuted? 68.8.99.245 (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But if you survive, you aren't "dead". At the time of its occurrence, the person is electrocuted, as at that moment they are dead. The person is then revived, at which point the context has changed. It becomes that the person received a severe electric shock resulting in (whatever result caused the temporary "death"). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How long must a person be dead before we can safely say he or she has been "electrocuted"? Fifteen minutes?  Do we have to wait until they're burried?  Mr  JM  21:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Permenantly, otherwise they aren't dead (their heart stopped, perhaps) and thusly they weren't electrocuted. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But at what point prior to forever can we say that someone is "permanently" dead? 100 years?  Heat death of the universe?  Mr  JM  01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of context and it can change if the context changes, like I mentioned above. As long as a person is dead, they have been electrocuted. If at any point they are no longer dead, then from that point forward it would be determined that they received a severe electric shock, likely causing arrhythmia or cardiac arrest, and the temporary declaration of death. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  06:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If a person was hanged by the neck until he was dead and subsequently resuscitated, it would be correct to say that that now-living person "was hanged" (as well as "hung," but that is a different semantic matter). Similarly, if a person was electrically shocked and -- as a result of that shock -- rendered lifeless but later revived, wouldn't it be correct to say the person "was electrocuted" in as much has he was, for a time (in the past as indicated by the use of the word "was") dead due to a lethal electrical shock?  Mr  JM  16:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

accidental injury
I propose that be removed, as electrocution is something that kills you, not something that just injures you. - .:. Jigsy .:. (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Electrocution is ALWAYS fatal. Incorrect usage by uneducated humans doesn't change the meaning of technical terms like this. In fact, I edited the article months ago, removing the INJURY bit from the description of electrocution being a shock that results in death or serious injury, only to find out that it was reverted only hours later. GrouchyDan (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I propose that it be put back, as common usage in England for at least the last twenty-five years includes non-fatal electrocution, and the BBC, OED, and NHS all seem to use the term this way. See the links I posted above in the "I disagree wholeheartedly" section. --- Ml66uk2 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares if the BBC uses it that way? It's incorrect. This is an encyclopedia, not a tv channel. -  Floydian  τ ¢  14:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that the BBC isn't just any old TV channel, but the primary public broadcasting channel of the country where the English language comes from, who are you to say that the BBC, OED, and NHS (and me) are all "incorrect"? Maybe this is a difference between American English and British English (though the OED also includes non-fatal electrocution for its American dictionary).  Maybe 90% of English teachers in America would say that electrocution is always fatal, but I'm fairly sure that most English teachers in Britain would disagree, which would suggest that the Wikpedia page should note the fact that the term "electrocution" can be used to include cases of electric shock or injury which were not fatal.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing#Should_I_use_American_English_or_British_English.3F
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MoS#National_varieties_of_English
 * "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other."
 * --- Ml66uk2 (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Merging with electric shock
Since this is only one consequence of electric shock, it should really be merged. Not enough here really. II | (t - c) 07:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ignorant people, unfortunately, change a language
It only recently came to my attention -- here in the U.S.A. -- that there are certain people who use the word "electrocute" to mean infliction or reception of a non-fatal electric shock. This unfortunate fact came to my attention on a Yahoo! discussion board appended to a news story about a PG&E worker who was electrocuted on the job. (PG&E is the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a public utility in Northern California.) The reporter correctly wrote that the man was electrocuted when he came into contact with high voltage lines that were supposed to have been de-energized but were still live when he began his work. Certain people criticized the reporter and the article because, they claimed, it didn't state whether the man lived or died. A whole lot of people responded because we didn't grow up in households where the term "electrocuted" meant anything other than "killed by means of a sufficiently severe electric shock." I was quite surprised to learn that people use the term "electrocuted" to mean they received an electric shock and lived to tell about it. For me, if anyone says he or she was electrocuted, that makes about as much sense as saying he or she was drowned.

I really don't care a whit if the "Oxford Dictionary of Current English Usage" gives a second definition of "electrocute" that simply means infliction of a non-fatal electric shock. That merely indicates that, unfortunately, a significant number of ignorant people are misusing the word in current English usage. I doni't have a copy of that work for reference, but I would urge its editors to mark such a definition as "incorrect though in popular use." Authors and reporters ought not to use "electrocute" that way, unless they are writing dialogue or quoting someone who actually said it -- in either case, the misused term is coming from a character or real person whose English is substandard.

As far as I know, there is no dictionary of standard English, neither British nor American, that gives the second, inaccurate definition.

As to the BBC, well, I am appalled to learn they've approved the use of "electrocute" to mean infliction of an electric shock that doesn't kill the recipient. Have they really done that? If they have, someone should whack the back of their collective hand with a very large ruler.

There is a list of certain terms that impart both the fact that death occurred and the means by which it occurred, such as "decapitate", "drown", "electrocute", and "exsanguinate". There are certain other terms such as "hang" (past tense "hanged" rather than "hung") that describe a method of inflicting death that is not always successful. On a rare occasion, when someone is hanged, he or she survives and is cut down before death occurs. But when someone has been electrocuted, he or she is clearly and irreversibly dead.

Those who have been electrocuted, however, do not live to tell about it, and people who use the term otherwise, I surmise, had insufficient elementary education

70.231.241.174 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)