The Home Improvement Thread

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I really want these guys to discover that they know each other in real life.

In a few days we're going to discover they're actually married to each other and this will go down with Bronzel and the plastic bag in the tub thread as CP legend.

[timun]

Originally Posted by photon

All I know is I've been told the same thing as PaperBagger'14 said by multiple electricians over the years.

I don't doubt it, photon. This nonsense about having to get a permit for a light bulb replacement is exactly the kind of old wives' tale that gets spread around by electricians, hence why I presumed that PaperBagger is an electrician. I still do presume he's an electrician, because of the dogmatic insistence that the Canadian Electrical Code is gospel and you have to follow it to the tee.

Again, going back to one of my earlier posts, PaperBagger painted himself in a corner pretty much right from the hop when he said this:

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

There is no reference to any appendices which allow for the inspection department to overrule this. [...]

This would never be enforced but it is code, and it's ridiculous.

I would have hoped PaperBagger would have seen the flaw in his logic here: if the local inspection department cannot override the rule in the CEC that says you have to get a permit, how come you, I or anyone else can replace our own light bulbs? If inspectors must enforce it, how come they don't?

Because first of all the code doesn't say that light bulb replacements require a permit, and PaperBagger wildly misinterpreted Rule 2-004. The gist of the rule applies to light fixtures, not to the bulbs, in precisely the same way that you need a permit to add a receptacle but you don't need one to plug in an appliance. Wormius, to his credit, picked up on the logical inconsistency right away.

And then secondly, the idea that the code cannot be superseded is patently untrue. PaperBagger was hoisted by his own petard when he doubled down on his insistence that the electrical code is national law that local jurisdictions don't have the power to vary from. For everyone's info our building codes are not law, they're just reference standards adopted by our provincial governments by regulation. They have no force and effect until they are adopted by regulation. Every province has the power to adopt it as they see fit. I quoted a STANDATA last night, and most of you have probably never heard of the term, so let me explain: STANDATA are relatively small explanatory publications from the Alberta Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Safety Codes Council. There are three categories of them: bulletins, interpretations, and variances. Bulletins are general info about how the safety codes apply, interpretations are just that; explanations of how particular code rules and clauses are to be interpreted in Alberta; and variances are where a code rule is allowed to be broken ("varied") in Alberta. The very existence of variances negates PaperBagger's insistence that code cannot be overruled.

[photon]

Originally Posted by timun

I don't doubt it, photon. This nonsense about having to get a permit

That's not what I said, please don't put words in my mouth.

[timun]

Huh? You said "All I know is I've been told the same thing as PaperBagger'14 said by multiple electricians over the years." I'm saying, yeah, I don't doubt you've heard that old wives' tale from multiple electricians.

[timun]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You good then. R1 are 45% like timun said. He got one right.

Almost like I know what I'm talking about, eh?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by timun

I don't doubt it, photon. This nonsense about having to get a permit for a light bulb replacement is exactly the kind of old wives' tale that gets spread around by electricians, hence why I presumed that PaperBagger is an electrician. I still do presume he's an electrician, because of the dogmatic insistence that the Canadian Electrical Code is gospel and you have to follow it to the tee.

Again, going back to one of my earlier posts, PaperBagger painted himself in a corner pretty much right from the hop when he said this:




I would have hoped PaperBagger would have seen the flaw in his logic here: if the local inspection department cannot override the rule in the CEC that says you have to get a permit, how come you, I or anyone else can replace our own light bulbs? If inspectors must enforce it, how come they don't?

Because first of all the code doesn't say that light bulb replacements require a permit, and PaperBagger wildly misinterpreted Rule 2-004. The gist of the rule applies to light fixtures, not to the bulbs, in precisely the same way that you need a permit to add a receptacle but you don't need one to plug in an appliance. Wormius, to his credit, picked up on the logical inconsistency right away.

And then secondly, the idea that the code cannot be superseded is patently untrue. PaperBagger was hoisted by his own petard when he doubled down on his insistence that the electrical code is national law that local jurisdictions don't have the power to vary from. For everyone's info our building codes are not law, they're just reference standards adopted by our provincial governments by regulation. They have no force and effect until they are adopted by regulation. Every province has the power to adopt it as they see fit. I quoted a STANDATA last night, and most of you have probably never heard of the term, so let me explain: STANDATA are relatively small explanatory publications from the Alberta Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Safety Codes Council. There are three categories of them: bulletins, interpretations, and variances. Bulletins are general info about how the safety codes apply, interpretations are just that; explanations of how particular code rules and clauses are to be interpreted in Alberta; and variances are where a code rule is allowed to be broken ("varied") in Alberta. The very existence of variances negates PaperBagger's insistence that code cannot be overruled.

To the first bolded point, the definition of electrical equipment posted earlier includes luminaires and anything that utilizes electrical power or energy, aka a light bulb. It's right there, read it.


To the 2nd bolded section you just admitted that once the code is adopted, it has power. While not being a law, if an electrical incident ever went to court the code book would be treated as law, making it a non law law. I'd love to see some dolt who burned his house down in court from faulty wiring look at a judge and say "it's not law your honor". You'd get laughed at. And lose horribly.

Variances already exist under a different word in the CEC you dummy, it's called a deviance. It's the 16th rule in the code book. You really need to read this thing lol.

Furthermore to your STANDATA point, it isn't worth the paper it's written on. Once again if you go to court over an issue they will look at best trade practices and if you use a variance that subverts a CEC rule, you will lose. You'll be asked why you didn't follow the "not a law" law, point to the STANDATA and say "because this says I can do a job worse than code requires". Once again you'll be laughed at and lose.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

Almost like I know what I'm talking about, eh?

We’ll wait for the court of public opinion to decide.

[CroFlames]

Someone needs to phone PS Knight himself to settle this battle.

[photon]

Originally Posted by timun

Huh? You said "All I know is I've been told the same thing as PaperBagger'14 said by multiple electricians over the years."

Right, I said they said the code says what it says, not that I actually have to get a permit like you said I said.

[timun]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

To the first bolded point, the definition of electrical equipment posted earlier includes luminaires and anything that utilizes electrical power or energy, aka a light bulb. It's right there, read it.

I did read it. You're misinterpreting it. Nowhere in there does it say you need a permit to replace a lamp. "Electrical equipment" does not include lamps (or lampholders).

To the 2nd bolded section you just admitted that once the code is adopted, it has power. While not being a law, if an electrical incident ever went to court the code book would be treated as law, making it a non law law. I'd love to see some dolt who burned his house down in court from faulty wiring look at a judge and say "it's not law your honor". You'd get laughed at. And lose horribly.

Variances already exist under a different word in the CEC you dummy, it's called a deviance. It's the 16th rule in the code book. You really need to read this thing lol.

Furthermore to your STANDATA point, it isn't worth the paper it's written on. Once again if you go to court over an issue they will look at best trade practices and if you use a variance that subverts a CEC rule, you will lose. You'll be asked why you didn't follow the "not a law" law, point to the STANDATA and say "because this says I can do a job worse than code requires". Once again you'll be laughed at and lose.

Thanks for the baseless screed. Let's get back to the issue at hand:

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Have you read the code book? It's literally the 3rd rule in it lol.

Verbatim it reads:

2-004 Permit
Electrical contractors or others responsible for carrying out the work shall obtain a permit from the inspection department before commencing work with respect to installation, alteration, repair or extension of any electrical equipment.

There is no reference to any appendices which allow for the inspection department to overrule this. Technically if you install a light bulb and burn your house (and maybe your neighbors) to the ground you can be held legally responsible.

This would never be enforced but it is code, and it's ridiculous.

If the code says you need a permit to replace a light bulb, and "it's a 'not law' law" that "the inspection department" cannot overrule, how come homeowners are out there replacing light bulbs without a permit?

[timun]

Originally Posted by photon

Right, I said they said the code says what it says, not that I actually have to get a permit like you said I said.

Again: huh? Are you saying that electricians have told you that you don't need a permit to replace a light bulb (agreeing with me), or what PaperBagger is saying (that you do need a permit to replace a light bulb)?

[timun]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Ooooooh we gonna have fun here. First of all the STANDATA won't stand up in any court if you're trying to override the CEC, it's failed many times before and I'd be glad to prove it.

I'm still waiting. Go ahead and prove it. Please, enlighten us all.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by timun

I'm still waiting. Go ahead and prove it. Please, enlighten us all.

You made the claim when you refuted me, you can back up your own words.

To summarize so far, Timun misread/misunderstood the definition of electrical equipment, claimed that the STANDATA can supercede the code book (it can't legally) and wants me to do his research for him. I think we all know who should be ponying up the donation cash.

[PepsiFree]

I vote that you both give me $500 and I will keep it safe until this is resolved. No refunds. Loser's money goes to charity, winner's money is the administration fee.

[timun]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Someone needs to phone PS Knight himself to settle this battle.

It's funny you mention Knight, because Gord Knight went to court over the question of whether the electrical code is "law" or not. He was being sued by CSA for publishing his "Electrical Code Simplified" guide, which quotes excerpts from the CEC. CSA argued that their copyright was being infringed, and Knight argued that the code was adopted as law and therefore copyright rests with the Crown. The courts found that the code is a "voluntary standard referenced in regulation" and CSA retain copyright over its content.

[timun]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

You made the claim when you refuted me, you can back up your own words.

To summarize so far, Timun misread/misunderstood the definition of electrical equipment, claimed that the STANDATA can supercede the code book (it can't legally) and wants me to do his research for him. I think we all know who should be ponying up the donation cash.

Hahaha, in truth you're putting it back on me to prove you're wrong because you have no proof to refute me. It's not unlike someone saying "God doesn't exist" and some bible-thumper asserting "Oh yeah? Prove God doesn't exist!"

I guess I'm just going to have to keep repeating myself until you stop avoiding this question:

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Have you read the code book? It's literally the 3rd rule in it lol.

Verbatim it reads:

2-004 Permit
Electrical contractors or others responsible for carrying out the work shall obtain a permit from the inspection department before commencing work with respect to installation, alteration, repair or extension of any electrical equipment.

There is no reference to any appendices which allow for the inspection department to overrule this. Technically if you install a light bulb and burn your house (and maybe your neighbors) to the ground you can be held legally responsible.

This would never be enforced but it is code, and it's ridiculous.

If the code says you need a permit to replace a light bulb, and the code cannot be overruled, how come homeowners are out there replacing light bulbs without a permit?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by timun

Hahaha, in truth you're putting it back on me to prove you're wrong because you have no proof to refute me. It's not unlike someone saying "God doesn't exist" and some bible-thumper asserting "Oh yeah? Prove God doesn't exist!"

I guess I'm just going to have to keep repeating myself until you stop avoiding this question:



If the code says you need a permit to replace a light bulb, and the code cannot be overruled, how come homeowners are out there replacing light bulbs without a permit?

They're breaking code and it's legally wrong, I have all my evidence in writing. You don't. You don't get to throw out the STANDATA saying it supercedes code without evidence. Here's a hint, it doesn't and there is no proof it does.

[timun]

"I have all my evidence in writing"?!?! You haven't provided anything in writing! I'm the one who actually quoted the Permit Regulation; you've provided jack #### to support your claims!

Again: If the code says you need a permit to replace a light bulb, and the code cannot be overruled, how come homeowners are out there replacing light bulbs without a permit?

[topfiverecords]

Homeowners do all sorts of things without a permit that require one all the time.

[photon]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Homeowners do all sorts of things without a permit that require one all the time.

I once paid for something with 32 loonies, I knew it broke the Currency Act but they haven't caught me yet!