Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

Yeah right, 'Excited Delirium' my ass...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Safety Standard IEC xx479-1

The point of this posting is just to get familiar with the way these safety standards are presented.Here is a copy of 'Figure 1' from a paper that references IEC 60479-1.

As fas as I can see, this is an older version of IEC 479-1. I note that this one sets C1 at 40mA instead of 30mA.

I've added the Normal Distribution Bell Curve to try to explain the three lines: c1 at 5%, c2 at 50%, and c3 at 95%.

For a 5-second duration shock hazard, the c1 limit is 40mA. Even at 40mA, 5% of those exposed would experience ventricular fibrillation. That's an important issue because even 5% would be significant. For this sort of application, personally I don't think that 5% can be considered to be close enough to zero (0.1% might be arguably reasonable).

Click image for larger version.

No comments: