As a licensed journeyman electrician, I will say I rarely question why an NFPA 70 (NEC) article came into existence. It doesn't matter. It is the code requirement and that's the way it will be done. Unless there is a differentiation between indoors or outdoors, wetlands or desert, to an electrician the code is the code, no exceptions. Your comment: "If all we can say to management is that an electrical code infrastructure similar to that of a U.S. city should be created out in the Iraqi desert, we're not going to be perceived as a real working contribution to safety in the activity." Electrical theory is no different in the Iraqi Desert than it is in the U.S. That's why hundreds have been shocked, too many have died and countless electrical fires have been documented. Picking and choosing which NEC articles to implement can be problematic and dangerous. In Iraq the NEC does not apply. It's implemented on a voluntary basis at best, unless it gets difficult and then not at all. Quality electrical installations were not a priority, especially with regard to Third county national sub-contractors. But KBR overlooked it. The DoD and the DCMA overlooked it. The installation in the photo looks as though it has been in place quite some time. Why? Complacency. The "it's a warzone" mentality has made it OK. That's the real problem with that photo. I personally watched it happen for two years. I myself did things that would never pass inspection in the States. Why, because I wasn't given the proper tools and material. I was threatened to be fired if I didn't. The problem in Iraq is, the NEC and OSHA do not apply legally. Any implementation is voluntary at best with no independent oversight. The whole "it's a warzone" argument is used whenever it's not convenient to implement it. Civilian contractors should be afforded the same protections as their US co-workers. To start with, a little OSHA protection would be great. I am working to get the laws changed so that US citizens working on US Government funded projects, ie new US Embassy's, consulates, military facilities will have OSHA protections among others. Any suggestions on that would be welcome. That's where safety starts. By empowering the employees to do the right thing. That's not what's going on there. Ms Sparky "I still see hardly a single comment anywhere that identifies something that's wrong in the picture and then explains why it's a hazard and identifies steps that should be taken to correct what's wrong. I don't say this just to be contrarian. When a safety person/electrical inspector is requested by management to review an installation, the need is to advise management on what needs to be done. I think I'm very experienced -- have had some electrical safety involvement for several decades and by myself created training on the NEC for research technicians, and conducted the training, going back to the time that OSHA came into being. And I find myself quite unsure of what the commentors believe they see is wrong in the picture. Listing generally worded provisions from a Code of questionable applicability, which presumably include code requirements that the writer thinks are not being met, seems quite possibly to create more confusion than assistance toward greater electrical safety. When a safety person encounters what seems to be a code violation, I believe he or she should study hard on the reasons that code provision exists, so as to be able to evaluate in some rough way the degree of hazard, if any, that results from that code infraction. A code provision that exists to protect the building against electrical fire hazard, for example, isn't going to make a great deal of sense or be perceived as a hazard in an installation outdoors with just bare bones protection from the elements. If all we can say to management is that an electrical code infrastructure similar to that of a U.S. city should be created out in the Iraqi desert, we're not going to be perceived as a real working contribution to safety in the activity." C Herb Hickman, CIH, CSP Opinions mine and not necessarily those of any employer or associate.