What did this person mean by this confusing remark?

Question

This confuses me massively, and I'm unable to ask him through a comment:

if the TV is unplugged, there's no power. A capacitor isn't going to hurt you through a stream of water, and that's only for old CRT TV's. The fire department will just put water on it, and what's the alternative? Burn your house down?

Source: https://engineering.stackexchange.com/questions/52612/is-it-really-sane-to-drop-buckets-of-water-into-a-crt-tv-on-fire-after-unplugg

What exactly does he mean by "and that's only for old CRT TV's"? It's mentioned so weirdly, as if he's saying that modern TVs are more dangerous and this doesn't apply to them or something? But that can't be it... can it?

I swear, people need to be taught how to explain themselves in a clear and unambiguous manner, because I keep getting "stuck" in my reading when people are just confusing like this. It's not because I don't understand English or its grammar.

Can somebody please decipher that bold part?

Answer 1

I think the entire statement means this:
It might be imagined, with an old TV using a CRT, which could have a capacitor charged to 30,000 volts, that pouring water on the set might present a hazard even though the set is unplugged. This statement says that there would be no such hazard because the capacitor would be instantly discharged by the water.

The bolded part means that one doesn't even need that reasoning if it's a modern set with an LCD screen because no such high voltages are present in the first place.

I agree it's not a very clear expression, and it depends on knowledge of the context to be understood.

Answer 2

I think the commentator did not explain himself fully or fully well.

The takeaway is there are two choices. According to commentator one is better. He made clear the better choice in an obtuse way.

"Shooting stream of water at old CRT TV is better than burning a house down."