Ahh, but we are physicians, not physicists...
Going by physics, we still would have to be just as worried about 110V as it's 4 times as powerful as 55V...
Not to mention that some kids are "insulated" differently from others and thus the R (Resistance) will change...
The reason I asked is that I am looking for the evidence of a clinical indication to treat differently according to this change in Mechanism. I am not merely challenging you for the sake of it. In some cases the mechanism itself, by its detail, affects what we do, for example, in dealing with trauma, we have evidence that pedestrians hit by a vehicle should be investigated differently if that vehicle is a truck vs. if it's a bicycle (with exceptions), while it makes no difference how many wheels it has. Coming to a clinically more similar case, we manage scald burns victims according to the clinical findings - burn size, depth, site, etc - while we don't ever check what the temperature of the water was, even though there's "physics" out there to tell us the the hotter the water, the more energy will have been transferred...
So, back to my question - anyone out there have evidence for the benefit of managing 220V differently from 110V, rather than by going according to clinical findings on history & examination?
From: Chamberlain, James <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 05 December 2017 18:36
To: Doc Holiday; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Low voltage superficial electrical burns
Power = V-squared/R.
Household electrical circuits are generally 20 or 30 amps, some are 50. The reason we have 220 volt lines is so that we can deliver more power to appliances that need it (like ovens and clothes dryers).
Assuming similar amperage of a circuit, 220 volts will deliver 4 times as powerful a shock to you.
Sorry, no medical references, just physics.
For more information, send mail to [log in to unmask] with the message: info PED-EM-L
The URL for the PED-EM-L Web Page is: