Lars Jelking Jan 29, 2015:

Dear Sven, Without voltage, no current!
Put your finger across a 12V car battery and you'll not feel a thing although the batter can deliver 65 A. But 20000 V from a HV supply in an old CRT TV through the body result in around 1 A initial current burst which can be lethal although it is DC.

Deane Goltermann Jan 27, 2015:

Yes ... 'current kills' Here's some interesting reading ..."The principle that "current kills" is essentially correct. It is electric current that burns tissue, freezes muscles, and fibrillates hearts. However, electric current doesn't just occur on its own: there must be voltage available to motivate electrons to flow through a victim. A person's body also presents resistance to current, which must be taken into account.

The amount of current through a body is equal to the amount of voltage applied between two points on that body, divided by the electrical resistance offered by the body between those two points. Obviously, the more voltage available to cause electrons to flow, the easier they will flow through any given amount of resistance. Hence, the danger of high voltage: high voltage means potential for large amounts of current through your body, which will injure or kill you. Conversely, the more resistance a body offers to current, the slower electrons will flow for any given amount of voltage." (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_3/4.html). These regs refer to 'Safety' near 'live' current (and high voltage) sources. The asker needs some kind of shorthand to match the Swe.

Sven Petersson Jan 27, 2015:

@ Deane, Voltage does not kill; current does (50 mA through the heart).

Deane Goltermann Jan 27, 2015:

In terms of being PERFECTLY CLEAR, so the reader understands EXACTLY what is meant ... the asker's context will likely provide citation to the specific ELSÄK regs covered in the courses and certifications designated. The term asked is a general shorthand reference and not a specific reference to any single or group of regs. That is, the belt and suspenders (or braces) most likely are mentioned in the context, but are simply not asked for here. Maybe these guys are wearing coveralls!?

George Hopkins Jan 27, 2015:

English I agree definitely. However, in Britain it would be:
It's better to wear a belt and braces, than to lose ones trousers.

Sven Petersson Jan 27, 2015:

@ George, It's better to wear belt and suspenders, than to lose ones pants.

George Hopkins Jan 27, 2015:

It still depends Sven... Vilka är texten avsedd för?

Sven Petersson Jan 26, 2015:

@ George, Här gäller det att vara HELT TYDLIG så att det klargörs för läsaren EXAKT vad som gäller. Inte bara egendom, men även liv står på spel! Se mitt förslag nedan!

George Hopkins Jan 26, 2015:

It depends... Perhaps: electrical code or electric power directive.