Struck by Lightning?

[Sheldon Brown]

While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower (sure
am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)

It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling terrain
with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a greater risk in
treeless flatland?

Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck by
lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning while
riding a bike?

I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
cyclist was actually struck.

Sheldon "ZAP!" Brown
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god |
| superior to themselves. Most gods have the |
| manners and morals of a spoiled child. |
| --Robert A. Heinlein |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

[Roger Zoul]

Sheldon Brown > wrote:
:> While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower
:> (sure am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
:>
:> It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck
:> by lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling
:> terrain with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a
:> greater risk in treeless flatland?
:>
:> Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck
:> by lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning
:> while riding a bike?
:>
:> I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where
:> a cyclist was actually struck.

If you hear of a cyclist being struck, will that tell you the risk?

:)

I would have to think that the risk of being struck is greater IF you're the
tallest object around, for sure, as the moving charge will want to take the
path of least resistance - and open air ain't it. However, on a bike,
perhaps the path to ground is less attractive compared to if you're touching
the ground or standing on it. But perhaps riding on a metal bike would make
it more likely, as lightning will find it a more attractive path. Perhaps
moving through the air so quickly lets you accumulate a net charge - which
wouldn't be good if an oppositely charged cloud is about.

Bottom line: It ain't good to be riding your bike in a thunderstorm.
Lightning is way too unpredictable for anyone to tell you anything other
than don't be out there.

[Matt O'Toole]

Sheldon Brown wrote:

> While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower
> (sure am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
>
> It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
> lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling
> terrain with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a
> greater risk in treeless flatland?
>
> Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck
> by lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning
> while riding a bike?
>
> I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
> cyclist was actually struck.

I was riding home from high school one day, trying to beat a horrendous
thunderstorm. About two blocks from my house, while going very slowly up a
steep hill, I felt my hair stand on end. Suddenly, lightning struck a very
large tree in a front yard right across the street, splitting it as if by a
giant axe, setting the whole thing on fire. The noise and flash were amazing.
I can't believe I didn't get hit. I've been in close proximity to other strikes
too, but nothing like this one!

You're protected in a car because the metal forms a protective cage around you.
But anywhere else near a lightning strike the chances of being hit are pretty
good. There are plenty of side currents besides the main path. In fact most
people hurt or killed by lightning are not hit directly.

Matt O.

[Alfred Ryder]

"Sheldon Brown" wrote
> While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower (sure
> am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
>
> It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
> lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling terrain
> with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a greater risk in
> treeless flatland?
>
> Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck by
> lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning while
> riding a bike?
>
> I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
> cyclist was actually struck.
>
> Sheldon "ZAP!" Brown

Helmets may be more important as lightening protection than as crash
protection. Unless, of course, you wear a metal eagle lightening rod up top.
See bottom of http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/index.html

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:30:49 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote:

>Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
>> While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower
>> (sure am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
>>
>> It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
>> lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling
>> terrain with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a
>> greater risk in treeless flatland?
>>
>> Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck
>> by lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning
>> while riding a bike?
>>
>> I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
>> cyclist was actually struck.
>
>I was riding home from high school one day, trying to beat a horrendous
>thunderstorm. About two blocks from my house, while going very slowly up a
>steep hill, I felt my hair stand on end. Suddenly, lightning struck a very
>large tree in a front yard right across the street, splitting it as if by a
>giant axe, setting the whole thing on fire. The noise and flash were amazing.
>I can't believe I didn't get hit. I've been in close proximity to other strikes
>too, but nothing like this one!
>
>You're protected in a car because the metal forms a protective cage around you.
>But anywhere else near a lightning strike the chances of being hit are pretty
>good. There are plenty of side currents besides the main path. In fact most
>people hurt or killed by lightning are not hit directly.
>
>Matt

I wonder about tornadoes! They can practically come out of nowhere.
What about places like Texas- anyone ever been caught out on the road
when that happens?

This weekend after ****ing nearly all week and just ****ty weather,it
finally got nice and sunny. But the air is kind of unstable and
sometimes dark clouds will start looming and then they just pass over.
Howeer, you just don't know. Today I was out on a nice ride and
heading west and saw dark gloomy clouds and big thunderheads banking
in the distance, and I decided not to go as far as I'd planned. The
same thing happened yesterday when I was out and it never rained.Just
as I was nearing home it started to sprinkle a bit and the winds
picked up but nothing! I know if I'd gone the whole way on my ride it
would probably have hailed... sigh.

[Zoot Katz]

Sun, 29 May 2005 17:41:15 -0400, >,
Sheldon Brown > wrote:

>
>I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
>cyclist was actually struck.

Guy in Florida riding with his kids. (survived with minor injuries)
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/081601/met_6962184.html

Teen on a motorbike struck in Australia. (survived with major
injuries)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/03/1099362189095.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true

Man in KwaZulu-Natal South Africa struck while he was riding from work
(did not survive)
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/pr/2001/pr1221b.html

Man in South Carolina hit by a tree that was struck (did not survive)
is one of several bicycle related lightning fatalities reported here:
http://www.struckbylightning.org/news/dispIncidentdb.cfm
--
zk

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:

> I wonder about tornadoes! They can practically come out of nowhere.
> What about places like Texas- anyone ever been caught out on the road
> when that happens?

A girl named Dorothy (Kansas, I believe) and a boy named Iron Bill (parts
unknown).

One is better documented than the other...

BS

[DD]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
>
>>While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower
>>(sure am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
>>
>>It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
>>lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling
>>terrain with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a
>>greater risk in treeless flatland?
>>
>>Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck
>>by lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning
>>while riding a bike?
>>
>>I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
>>cyclist was actually struck.
>
>
> I was riding home from high school one day, trying to beat a horrendous
> thunderstorm. About two blocks from my house, while going very slowly up a
> steep hill, I felt my hair stand on end. Suddenly, lightning struck a very
> large tree in a front yard right across the street, splitting it as if by a
> giant axe, setting the whole thing on fire. The noise and flash were amazing.
> I can't believe I didn't get hit. I've been in close proximity to other strikes
> too, but nothing like this one!
>
> You're protected in a car because the metal forms a protective cage around you.
> But anywhere else near a lightning strike the chances of being hit are pretty
> good. There are plenty of side currents besides the main path. In fact most
> people hurt or killed by lightning are not hit directly.
>
> Matt O.
>
>
Mine was a similar experience, caught out in a fast-moving storm and
several kms from town I tried to make it to the first piece of dry
ground I could find, even if it was only a concrete bus shelter. Got to
nearly 100m away when there was a bolt of lightning across the sky above
me and a strike into the industrial lot next to me. A very sudden
tightening of the chest and a greater appreciation of bus shelters
suddenly came to me. I don't want to feel that ever again.

I think that beats the time that kangaroo decided to escape by jump over
me as I cycled past.

[Ray Heindl]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> I wonder about tornadoes! They can practically come out of
>> nowhere. What about places like Texas- anyone ever been caught
>> out on the road when that happens?
>
> A girl named Dorothy (Kansas, I believe) and a boy named Iron Bill
> (parts unknown).
>
> One is better documented than the other...

Elvira Gulch rode her bike *inside* a twister -- not many can make that
claim.

--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)

[Paulmouk]

"Sheldon Brown" > wrote in message
...
> While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower (sure
> am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
>
> It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
> lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling terrain
> with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a greater risk in
> treeless flatland?
>
> Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck by
> lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning while
> riding a bike?
>
> I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
> cyclist was actually struck.
>
> Sheldon "ZAP!" Brown

Last summer a man was killed in the UK (Lincolnshire or Norfolk? I forget).
Was reported in the national press.

He was a friend of a chap I work with.
They were flying model aircraft and he had cycled off across the airfield to
collect his model when he was struck and killed.

Paul.

[alan]

When I first got involved in amateur radio, I attended a lecture on
lightning safety given by a commercial tower technician. As others noted,
most deaths are due to ground current, not direct strikes. When lightning
strikes the ground, current flows out in all directions like ripples on a
pond. If your feet are perpendicular to the current flow, there's no
voltage potential between them and no current flows through your body. If
your feet are parallel to the current flow, a voltage is present and current
WILL flow through your body. This explains why people in an open field will
seemingly die at random from a lightning strike.

In a car, current flows over the outside of the body due to 'skin effect'.
Electrons are all negatively charged, so they repel each other. To a
lightning bolt that's traveled thousands of feet through the air, car tires
don't present much insulation, bicycle tires even less.

One of my co-workers got his forearm across the high voltage power supply
for an aircraft weather radar. If I recall right, that's something like
12,000 volts. It drilled a quarter inch hole from his elbow up to his
wrist. And that's a puny discharge when compared to lightning.

After that safety lecture, I was tempted to take up something a little less
dangerous, like knitting.

--

Alan "smack in the middle of Tornado Alley" Smithee

Anyone who believes in a liberal media has never read the "Daily Oklahoman."


"Sheldon Brown" > wrote in message
...
> While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower (sure
> am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
>
> It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
> lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling terrain
> with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a greater risk in
> treeless flatland?
>
> Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck by
> lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning while
> riding a bike?
>
> I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
> cyclist was actually struck.
>
> Sheldon "ZAP!" Brown

[Marty]

alan wrote:
> When I first got involved in amateur radio, I attended a lecture on
> lightning safety given by a commercial tower technician. As others noted,
> most deaths are due to ground current, not direct strikes. When lightning
> strikes the ground, current flows out in all directions like ripples on a
> pond. If your feet are perpendicular to the current flow, there's no
> voltage potential between them and no current flows through your body. If
> your feet are parallel to the current flow, a voltage is present and current
> WILL flow through your body. This explains why people in an open field will
> seemingly die at random from a lightning strike.
>
> In a car, current flows over the outside of the body due to 'skin effect'.
> Electrons are all negatively charged, so they repel each other. To a
> lightning bolt that's traveled thousands of feet through the air, car tires
> don't present much insulation, bicycle tires even less.
>
> One of my co-workers got his forearm across the high voltage power supply
> for an aircraft weather radar. If I recall right, that's something like
> 12,000 volts. It drilled a quarter inch hole from his elbow up to his
> wrist. And that's a puny discharge when compared to lightning.
>
> After that safety lecture, I was tempted to take up something a little less
> dangerous, like knitting.
>

Try this Alan.
During heavy rain disconnect the coax plug from your 80 metre band
dipole antenna from the back of your radio and leave it hanging free. A
continuous spark will arc from the inner pin to the shell of the plug.
Each raindrop carrys a static charge which acculmulates on your antenna.
My cat was curious about the spark and got zapped on the nose for it's
troubles.

Marty

[ookook]

Have you ever heard the expression "he doesn't have sense enough to
come in out of the rain"?
There's a reason why it doesn't go "thunderstorm's coming! Let's get
out on our bikes!"

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:41:15 -0400, Sheldon Brown >
wrote:

>While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower (sure
>am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
>
>It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
>lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling terrain
>with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a greater risk in
>treeless flatland?
>
>Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck by
>lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning while
>riding a bike?
>
>I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
>cyclist was actually struck.
>
>Sheldon "ZAP!" Brown
>+---------------------------------------------------+
>| Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god |
>| superior to themselves. Most gods have the |
>| manners and morals of a spoiled child. |
>| --Robert A. Heinlein |
>+---------------------------------------------------+
> Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
> Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
> http://harriscyclery.com
> Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide

Since no one here wrote about their experience of being killed by lightning:
http://list.massbike.org/archive/200107/0211.html

and here is some general information.

http://www.lightningsafety.com

[Ken]

"Ben Kaufman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:41:15 -0400, Sheldon Brown
> >
> wrote:
>
>>While out for a ride today, I got caught in a brief thundershower (sure
>>am glad my Rambouillet has fenders!)
>>
>>It got me wondering, though--how much risk is there of being struck by
>>lightning while cycling? I wasn't too worried, being in rolling terrain
>>with trees and power lines all around, but maybe it's a greater risk in
>>treeless flatland?
>>
>>Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having been struck by
>>lighning or actually knowing someone who was struck by lightning while
>>riding a bike?
>>
>>I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
>>cyclist was actually struck.
>>
>>Sheldon "ZAP!" Brown
>>+---------------------------------------------------+
>>| Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god |
>>| superior to themselves. Most gods have the |
>>| manners and morals of a spoiled child. |
>>| --Robert A. Heinlein |
>>+---------------------------------------------------+
>> Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
>> Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
>> http://harriscyclery.com
>> Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
>
> Since no one here wrote about their experience of being killed by
> lightning:
> http://list.massbike.org/archive/200107/0211.html
>

And how WOULD someone write about being killed by lightning??

Ken

> and here is some general information.
>
> http://www.lightningsafety.com

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 31 May 2005 09:41:13 -0400, >,
"Ken" > wrote:

>And how WOULD someone write about being killed by lightning??

You've never heard of ghost writers? (in the sky)
--
zk

[Leo Lichtman]

"Ken" wrote: And how WOULD someone write about being killed by lightning??
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I also want to hear from the people who never read the question. (It's a
joke, Ken.)

[Ken]

"Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ken" wrote: And how WOULD someone write about being killed by
> lightning??
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I also want to hear from the people who never read the question. (It's a
> joke, Ken.)
>
>
Yeah I kind of figured it was a joke.
Ken

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m]

Sheldon Brown asked:

> how much risk is there of being struck by lightning
> while cycling?

From Book_of_Risks by Susan Skolnick [National Press, 1985]:

"Thunderstorms can be dangerous to anyone, but are particularly
threatening to golfers and bicyclists."
...
"Lightning storms cause about 100 deaths and 245 injuries each year."

> Does anybody have any PERSONAL experience, either having
> been struck by lighning or actually knowing someone who
> was struck by lightning while riding a bike?

I didn't know him personally, but around the time I moved to Sacramento
in 1985, a cyclist on the American River Bicycle Trail (later morphed
into the Jedediah Smith MURP) was struck by lightning. The lightning
strike put a fist-sized hole in his helmet, and rendered him unconscious.

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

[John Henderson]

alan wrote:

> When I first got involved in amateur radio, I attended a
> lecture on lightning safety given by a commercial tower
> technician. As others noted, most deaths are due to ground
> current, not direct strikes.

Likewise, I once attended a lecture on lightning safety. Ground
current was identified as a major problem. I should think that
risk from ground current would be small while riding a bike
(you've got a conductive frame between the wheels), but a
direct strike would be another matter.

The advice I got about what to do when caught outside was clear
and sensible. Don't seek shelter under a tree. Stand (or
better still, crouch) in the open. Especially when you feel
your hair standing on end, put your feet together (minimize the
ground current flowing from one leg to the other) and crouch as
low as possible. Also avoid a different risk from ground
current by avoiding the shelter of small caves or overhangs.

John

[Jasper Janssen]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 07:13:20 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:
>Tue, 31 May 2005 09:41:13 -0400, >,
>"Ken" > wrote:
>
>>And how WOULD someone write about being killed by lightning??
>
>You've never heard of ghost writers? (in the sky)

Their pens are still on fire and their paper is soaking wet...


Jasper

[Pat]

:
: I didn't know him personally, but around the time I moved to Sacramento
: in 1985, a cyclist on the American River Bicycle Trail (later morphed
: into the Jedediah Smith MURP) was struck by lightning. The lightning
: strike put a fist-sized hole in his helmet, and rendered him unconscious.

blankety-blank helmet!

[Robatoy]

In article >,
"Matt O'Toole" > wrote:

> You're protected in a car because the metal forms a protective cage around you

Best I tell that to my wife's Saturn.

[[email protected]]

John Henderson wrote:
> Also avoid a different risk from ground
> current by avoiding the shelter of small caves or overhangs.

I've never understood the risk in small caves or overhangs. Can you
explain?

- Frank Krygowski

[[email protected]]

Robatoy wrote:
> In article >,
> "Matt O'Toole" > wrote:
>
> > You're protected in a car because the metal forms a protective cage around you
>
> Best I tell that to my wife's Saturn.

The Saturn's got a lot of steel in it. The plastic is just a shell on
the vertical panels, IIRC.

- Frank Krygowski

[Ben Kaufman]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:41:13 -0400, "Ken" >
wrote:

<SNIP>
>>
>> Since no one here wrote about their experience of being killed by
>> lightning:
>> http://list.massbike.org/archive/200107/0211.html
>>
>
>And how WOULD someone write about being killed by lightning??
>
>Ken
>
>> and here is some general information.
>>
>> http://www.lightningsafety.com
>

Very quickly indeed.

Ben

[John Henderson]

wrote:

> I've never understood the risk in small caves or overhangs.
> Can you explain?

Huge currents can be flowing in the vicinity. The voltage
differential between different exposed surfaces can be high
enough to discharge across the gap, with any occupant as part
of the circuit.

John

[Michael Press]

In article >,
"Ken" > wrote:

> "Ben Kaufman" > wrote in message
> ...

[...]
> >
> > Since no one here wrote about their experience of being killed by
> > lightning:
> > http://list.massbike.org/archive/200107/0211.html
> >
>
> And how WOULD someone write about being killed by lightning??
>

Hey, Bubba, we got another one.

--
Michael Press

[[email protected]]

i was in the vicinty of stikes hmmmm lets say three years worth and
aside from "incidents" sought out strikes when in college
the big deal is "what is the earth doing underv your feet" during a
storm.
I'm not sure one can tell but maybe on inquiry one can.
that is lightning may go right past you raising the hair a bit with a
brief shock and not flow thru you ground up
or you get it full force ground up.

sw fla has a fantastic phenomena with multi strikes and cell towers at
250'
i lived near one doing burd research in a wiolderness area atop a
bay-the tidal zone was a few feet away, the ground plastic.
lightning, storm king in second, comes from ten miles away tunneling
through low clouds in a flash of colorful incandescence to hit the
tower. the tower lights up as a flourescent tube! rumbleruymblerumble
ten pins plus.

moral-the high point protects!

what amazed was standing nearby watching this-i saw lightning come out
of the sky to the nearby sewage plant dome ojn my right, flow a hundred
feet off the ground, veer upward and cross the open field to the tower
1/2 mile south to my left: only a tingle and mild shock.

[maxo]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:41:15 -0400, Sheldon Brown wrote:

> how much risk is there of being struck by
> lightning while cycling?

LoL! Haven't posted here in a while since I broke my wrist... but I'm
wondering why this thread hasn't turned into a frame material rant. :P

Wouldn't steel frames be more dangerous conductors and plastic bikes be
considered safer t-storm rides?

And the tinfoil helmet crowd, they're just asking for it. Tzzzzt.

:D

[Bill Sornson]

maxo wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 17:41:15 -0400, Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
>> how much risk is there of being struck by
>> lightning while cycling?
>
> LoL! Haven't posted here in a while since I broke my wrist... but I'm
> wondering why this thread hasn't turned into a frame material rant. :P

I believe it sparked a few comments.

:-P yourself!

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"maxo" > wrote in message >
> LoL! Haven't posted here in a while since I broke my wrist... but I'm
> wondering why this thread hasn't turned into a frame material rant. :P
>

The material of the frame doesn't matter.

The thing is if you're laying out on one of those damn
recumbent contraptions and get hit by lighting then it's
is always 100% fatal, no survival rate for bent vs lighting
strike.

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 07 Jun 2005 04:32:51 GMT, <Tr9pe.1588437$Xk.202463@pd7tw3no>,
Prince "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > decreed:

>The thing is if you're laying out on one of those damn
>recumbent contraptions and get hit by lighting then it's
>is always 100% fatal, no survival rate for bent vs lighting
>strike.

Don't say that like it's a bad thing.

Mercifully they've often got those attractive little lightening rods
sticking up thereby sparing the rider further unnecessary humiliation.
--
zk

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > writes:
> Tue, 07 Jun 2005 04:32:51 GMT, <Tr9pe.1588437$Xk.202463@pd7tw3no>,
> Prince "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > decreed:
>
>>The thing is if you're laying out on one of those damn
>>recumbent contraptions and get hit by lighting then it's
>>is always 100% fatal, no survival rate for bent vs lighting
>>strike.
>
> Don't say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> Mercifully they've often got those attractive little lightening rods
> sticking up thereby sparing the rider further unnecessary humiliation.

OTOH, maybe they can outrun the lightning bolt.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Dave Larrington]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:

> The material of the frame doesn't matter.
>
> The thing is if you're laying out on one of those damn
> recumbent contraptions and get hit by lighting then it's
> is always 100% fatal, no survival rate for bent vs lighting
> strike.

Absolutely. Being struck on the head by a street light is almost invariably
fatal.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
You can't have ham!

[[email protected]]

Another lightning story
I was jogging at Wright's Landing on the Apalachicola River's eats
bank when a low black cloud roiled across the river toward me and the
pine plantation of 6" diameter pines to my right and north.

I stood watching this and evaluated the situation as critical-the cloud
seemed near tornadic. That is the story. I stood watching. I shoul;d
not have stood watching at least given the knowledge of potential
tornado activity I should at least kneel and I did not.

The plantations rows ran n-s.

ZZZZZZZZZnnnickckkk BLAMMO! One strike about hmmm 6" across about
hmmmmmmm ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZNNNNNNNIIIIIIccccckkk
BLAMMO! Two strikes

Both strikes about hmmm 175' the first, the second 250' both into
6" pines.

Kneel. Lay down.

But - at Daytonah down at Ponce's Inlet. The vast line opf storm
clouds that lies west over the swamp about 8-9-10m miles inland blew
east across the sandspit and opver the light tower. Blammo blammo
blammo-a good 30 minutes worth. I hid in the dunes. But when I came out
I found the beach crawling with beached Hobe sailors nonchalantly
standing around blammo blammo blammo completely unconcerned by the
strikes into the tower.

That's a different perspective-sailing v. jogging at wright's
landing. I'm told the lightning goes zzziccck down the mast and into
the water!

But, like swimming with wild dolphins after getting a good look at
their mouths no matter how friendly they are; I once stood near a
strike definitely coming out of the water for no apparent reason about
150' off a dock I stood on with a fairly tall hailer-lookout tower a
few feet from me. Verrrrryy impressive deadly. zzzzniiiccckkkkkblammmo!

Luck of the draw

does movement-wet rubber over wet amacite-generation of static
electricity going to ground-have a bearing here? or does a wet tire
generate anything on wet pavement?

[[email protected]]

oh god-i readcwhere brownie doesn't want to hearabout this.
good grief. anyway-here in cat country, it lightnings constantantly but
never herd of a cyclists getting killed. golfers left and right but you
know golfers, right?
ask laura hallam


"Laura Hallam" >
FBA News

[Bill Baka]

wrote:
> Another lightning story
> I was jogging at Wright's Landing on the Apalachicola River's eats
> bank when a low black cloud roiled across the river toward me and the
> pine plantation of 6" diameter pines to my right and north.
>
> I stood watching this and evaluated the situation as critical-the cloud
> seemed near tornadic. That is the story. I stood watching. I shoul;d
> not have stood watching at least given the knowledge of potential
> tornado activity I should at least kneel and I did not.
>
> The plantations rows ran n-s.
>
> ZZZZZZZZZnnnickckkk BLAMMO! One strike about hmmm 6" across about
> hmmmmmmm ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZNNNNNNNIIIIIIccccckkk
> BLAMMO! Two strikes
>
> Both strikes about hmmm 175' the first, the second 250' both into
> 6" pines.
>
> Kneel. Lay down.

I lived for a while in Minnesota and they gave out a warning that if you
felt the ZZZZZZZnnniiick efecct and your hair started going up on end
that yes you were the target and to drop to the ground, mud or not. It
was "To hell with the cloths, I don't want to get hit.". It happened to
me once, when I was dumb enough to go out into a field to watch the far
off thunderstorm (which wasn't really that far). I dropped into the mud
and the lightning hit a tree about 20 feet away. The wife made sure to
give me the 'stupid' lecture when I got back to the house. Another time
I got stuck on a lake in Wisconsin when I was about 12 and one of those
five minute "Drive by" storms hit and all I could do was lay one the
bottom of the boat (aluminum) and not be the highest thing on the lake.
Fortunately all the strikes were on trees on the shore, but I did row
back rattled. Later that night another one blew in and there were some
hits on the water, big ones that sounded like a big bomb going off. I
though of going to look for electrocuted fish floating after the storm
but my dad put the stoppers on that one.
Bill Baka
>
> But - at Daytonah down at Ponce's Inlet. The vast line opf storm
> clouds that lies west over the swamp about 8-9-10m miles inland blew
> east across the sandspit and opver the light tower. Blammo blammo
> blammo-a good 30 minutes worth. I hid in the dunes. But when I came out
> I found the beach crawling with beached Hobe sailors nonchalantly
> standing around blammo blammo blammo completely unconcerned by the
> strikes into the tower.
>
> That's a different perspective-sailing v. jogging at wright's
> landing. I'm told the lightning goes zzziccck down the mast and into
> the water!
>
> But, like swimming with wild dolphins after getting a good look at
> their mouths no matter how friendly they are; I once stood near a
> strike definitely coming out of the water for no apparent reason about
> 150' off a dock I stood on with a fairly tall hailer-lookout tower a
> few feet from me. Verrrrryy impressive deadly. zzzzniiiccckkkkkblammmo!
>
> Luck of the draw
>
> does movement-wet rubber over wet amacite-generation of static
> electricity going to ground-have a bearing here? or does a wet tire
> generate anything on wet pavement?
>

[[email protected]]

NPR ran a story on this morning-lighning deaths fell dramatically with
the demographic change from usa farm life to usa suburb-city life-from
over a hundred a year to few (golfers-farmers-fishermen)
so the bike riding along passages sided with poles and trees is safe
enough.
the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
CROUCH!

[gds]

wrote:
> the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
> CROUCH!

Correct! You want to minimize the area of contact with the ground.
Basic in every wilderness first aid course.

[[email protected]]

i'll jump on it!

[Pat]

They had this discussion in another newsgroup, and it finally came down to
people being told to only have one item of their body in contact with the
ground at any one time. Your choice.

[Bill Baka]

wrote:
> NPR ran a story on this morning-lighning deaths fell dramatically with
> the demographic change from usa farm life to usa suburb-city life-from
> over a hundred a year to few (golfers-farmers-fishermen)
> so the bike riding along passages sided with poles and trees is safe
> enough.
> the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
> CROUCH!
>
Those are both wrong. You need to get flat on your face, mud or no mud.
A $300 suit will do you no good if you are hit. There is a slight early
warning sign in that you hair will start to sizzle and stand up. If that
happens, dive to the ground and get as flat as possible. Even that may
not work because the lightning has already established an ionic trail to
you. The upside is that if you get hit in the hand and not a vital spot
the lightning will just go straight through to the ground.
Bill (former Midwesterner) Baka

[Bill Baka]

gds wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
>>the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
>>CROUCH!
>
>
> Correct! You want to minimize the area of contact with the ground.
> Basic in every wilderness first aid course.
>
As I mentioned a few posts back, that is bad advice. If your feet are
the only contact point then the lightning will go through as much of
your body as it needs to get to the ground. Prone is the way to go, and
it doesn't take a panel of experts to figure out the logic, at least i
hope not.
Bill Baka

[Peter]

Bill Baka wrote:

> gds wrote:
>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
>>> CROUCH!
>>
>>
>>
>> Correct! You want to minimize the area of contact with the ground.
>> Basic in every wilderness first aid course.
>>
> As I mentioned a few posts back, that is bad advice. If your feet are
> the only contact point then the lightning will go through as much of
> your body as it needs to get to the ground. Prone is the way to go, and
> it doesn't take a panel of experts to figure out the logic, at least i
> hope not.

You're assuming that the lightning hits you directly and then finds its
way to ground. While that's possible, it's more likely that the
lightning hits somewhere near you and then currents flow in all
directions from that point along the surface of the ground.

If your only contact with the ground is with your feet close together
then little of that surface current will enter your body and what does
will travel through your legs. OTOH, if you're prone on the ground then
the surface current may enter an arm and travel down to the opposite leg
or arm and pass by your heart on the way.

[Paladin 3000]

Everyone is talking about the hair sizzle effect. What if you have no
hair? Kinda renders the whole matter moot I think.

(definetly not looking forward to my next storm ride without an early
warning system. :p)

[Bill Baka]

Peter wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> gds wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
>>>> CROUCH!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct! You want to minimize the area of contact with the ground.
>>> Basic in every wilderness first aid course.
>>>
>> As I mentioned a few posts back, that is bad advice. If your feet are
>> the only contact point then the lightning will go through as much of
>> your body as it needs to get to the ground. Prone is the way to go,
>> and it doesn't take a panel of experts to figure out the logic, at
>> least i hope not.
>
>
> You're assuming that the lightning hits you directly and then finds its
> way to ground. While that's possible, it's more likely that the
> lightning hits somewhere near you and then currents flow in all
> directions from that point along the surface of the ground.
>
> If your only contact with the ground is with your feet close together
> then little of that surface current will enter your body and what does
> will travel through your legs. OTOH, if you're prone on the ground then
> the surface current may enter an arm and travel down to the opposite leg
> or arm and pass by your heart on the way.
>
I have heard of that and while I am not one of the panel who suggested
it, Ohm's law says different. If the lightning hits you on the top of
your head, the highest point, then it will travel all the way through
your body before getting to your feet. You might do better to crouch and
ball up then roll over onto your side because the last thing you want is
to get a 30,000 amp, billion volt shot to the head. You might survive
but your brain would be fried. Lastly, you might try lying on your back
and put one foot up and take the shot through one leg. This is for
fields only where you have no trees. There is survival, A. As a mental
vegetable (not good) or B. As a guy who walks funny (better). I will go
down flat on the ground if I am caught out in that kind of situation,
rare in California though. I love to watch a good thunderstorm but only
from a safe building with a lightning rod or two on the roof. My house
in Minnesota got hit just two weeks after I ran some 4 gage wire from a
ground stake (fence post) to all the metal points on the roof. The next
day I could see where the lightning had welded some of the wire to the
metal post. I would not have wanted to get hit by that one.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Paladin 3000 wrote:
> Everyone is talking about the hair sizzle effect. What if you have no
> hair? Kinda renders the whole matter moot I think.
>
> (definetly not looking forward to my next storm ride without an early
> warning system. :p)
>
Simple AM radios, no FM, no MP3 player, tuned to a weak but listenable
station will pick up on the hits. In the midwest I could always tell
that there was bad weather in the area when some of my favorite stations
that were either farther away or just low power locals started getting
those occasional loud crackles. At first I thought it was the radio
(1961 Japanese transistor from my sister) but it predicted a nasty
thunderstorm by about 5 minutes. You could probably just wear a wire
with a diode and capacitor into an earphone and when it started to
crackle you should head home.
Maybe I should invent one and sell it to all the hard core riders.(;<))
Bill Baka

[Marty]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>> gds wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
>>>>> CROUCH!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct! You want to minimize the area of contact with the ground.
>>>> Basic in every wilderness first aid course.
>>>>
>>> As I mentioned a few posts back, that is bad advice. If your feet are
>>> the only contact point then the lightning will go through as much of
>>> your body as it needs to get to the ground. Prone is the way to go,
>>> and it doesn't take a panel of experts to figure out the logic, at
>>> least i hope not.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're assuming that the lightning hits you directly and then finds
>> its way to ground. While that's possible, it's more likely that the
>> lightning hits somewhere near you and then currents flow in all
>> directions from that point along the surface of the ground.
>>
>> If your only contact with the ground is with your feet close together
>> then little of that surface current will enter your body and what does
>> will travel through your legs. OTOH, if you're prone on the ground
>> then the surface current may enter an arm and travel down to the
>> opposite leg or arm and pass by your heart on the way.
>>
> I have heard of that and while I am not one of the panel who suggested
> it, Ohm's law says different. If the lightning hits you on the top of
> your head, the highest point, then it will travel all the way through
> your body before getting to your feet. You might do better to crouch and
> ball up then roll over onto your side because the last thing you want is
> to get a 30,000 amp, billion volt shot to the head. You might survive
> but your brain would be fried. Lastly, you might try lying on your back
> and put one foot up and take the shot through one leg. This is for
> fields only where you have no trees. There is survival, A. As a mental
> vegetable (not good) or B. As a guy who walks funny (better). I will go
> down flat on the ground if I am caught out in that kind of situation,
> rare in California though. I love to watch a good thunderstorm but only
> from a safe building with a lightning rod or two on the roof. My house
> in Minnesota got hit just two weeks after I ran some 4 gage wire from a
> ground stake (fence post) to all the metal points on the roof. The next
> day I could see where the lightning had welded some of the wire to the
> metal post. I would not have wanted to get hit by that one.
> Bill Baka

The problem with those positions is that the pulse goes through your
heart, which is the real killer (ask any electrician). The ideal stance
would be to stand on one leg and lift the other leg high into the air
above your head. That way your head is safe and your heart is safe too
and you won't get voltage differentials from the ground.

Marty

[Peter]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>> gds wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
>>>>> CROUCH!
>>>>
>>>> Correct! You want to minimize the area of contact with the ground.
>>>> Basic in every wilderness first aid course.
>>>>
>>> As I mentioned a few posts back, that is bad advice. If your feet are
>>> the only contact point then the lightning will go through as much of
>>> your body as it needs to get to the ground. Prone is the way to go,
>>> and it doesn't take a panel of experts to figure out the logic, at
>>> least i hope not.
>>
>> You're assuming that the lightning hits you directly and then finds
>> its way to ground. While that's possible, it's more likely that the
>> lightning hits somewhere near you and then currents flow in all
>> directions from that point along the surface of the ground.
>>
>> If your only contact with the ground is with your feet close together
>> then little of that surface current will enter your body and what does
>> will travel through your legs. OTOH, if you're prone on the ground
>> then the surface current may enter an arm and travel down to the
>> opposite leg or arm and pass by your heart on the way.
>>
> I have heard of that and while I am not one of the panel who suggested
> it, Ohm's law says different. If the lightning hits you on the top of
> your head, the highest point, then it will travel all the way through
> your body before getting to your feet.

Clearly you're still assuming that you'll get hit directly rather than
the more likely situation where the lightning doesn't strike you but
hits close enough that you could still be injured or killed by the
resulting surface currents. The advice from NOAA, the Red Cross, and
similar organizations to crouch rather than lie flat on the ground is
based on studies that showed that it's much more likely that lightning
will hit somewhere near enough to you to cause injury than that you'll
be hit directly. The advice is entirely consistent with Ohm's Law.

[[email protected]]

the lines of reasoning prior are basd=ed onthe idea lightning comes
from the sky. lightning does not generally hit you on the head.
lightning comes up from the ground and strikes the cloud.

[Brian Huntley]

Sheldon Brown wrote:
> I don't want to hear about perceived "close calls", only cases where a
> cyclist was actually struck.

A child was struck in Oakville, near Toronto, Ontario the other day.

(From the Toronto Star, 2005/06/09)

Lightning strikes boy in Oakville
10-year-old was playing behind school
Sudden storm shocks local residents


HENRY STANCU AND LAUREN LA ROSE
STAFF REPORTERS

A 10-year-old Oakville boy who was struck by lightning outside his
school yesterday afternoon is in serious condition at the Hospital for
Sick Children.

The Grade 5 student was playing with a friend on the baseball diamond
behind Falgarwood Public School when the boys were caught in a sudden
and very brief thunderstorm.

The two had been riding their bikes around the diamond when a bolt of
lightning hit around 4 p.m.

"It was the biggest explosion I've ever heard in my 32 years," said
Mark Payne, a neighbour who ran outside when he heard people screaming
to call 911.

Payne said Mikey Franchetto was lying on the ground unconscious.

The other boy, 10-year-old Robbie Gray, was in a state of shock but was
able to walk into the school with help from a teacher.

Robbie said the lightning bolt "made a huge noise. It was like a huge
drum set, practically right in your ears."

Payne was among the first to reach the field on Gainsborough Dr., just
east of Trafalgar Rd., and he began to treat the injured boy. "I put a
blanket under Mikey's head and one to cover him before getting him into
the CPR position," he said.

"I checked for a pulse. He didn't seem to be breathing. As I tilted his
head, he gasped and then started to breathe on his own," Payne said.

"I bent over him to keep the rain off and I kept talking to him, saying
all kinds of things to keep his attention until the ambulance and fire
department arrived."

Payne said about a dozen other people soon came to the boy's aid,
including a nurse who arrived just before firefighters, paramedics and
police.

Mikey and Robbie were taken to Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital.
Mikey was later airlifted to Sick Kids; Robbie was treated and
released.

Payne, who operates a painting business, said Mikey had a large burn on
the side of his cheek and his hair was singed. There were also burns on
his hands.

Friends and neighbours say Mikey is a popular boy in the neighbourhood.

"He's a nice little kid - a real cutie who we've known since he was
born," said a next-door neighbour who did not want to be identified.

"We're just praying that he's going to be all right," the woman said,
her eyes filled with tears.

Area residents said they were amazed at the nature of the lightning
strike, which was truly a bolt from the blue. The sky showed no
indications of a thunderstorm.

"I just hope he's going to be all right after this," Payne said.

WITH FILES FROM THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR

[Ben Kaufman]

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 21:02:28 +0800, Marty > wrote:

>Bill Baka wrote:
>> Peter wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>
>>>> gds wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> the NOAA poeple tell us that 'kneel' is incorrect
>>>>>> CROUCH!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct! You want to minimize the area of contact with the ground.
>>>>> Basic in every wilderness first aid course.
>>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned a few posts back, that is bad advice. If your feet are
>>>> the only contact point then the lightning will go through as much of
>>>> your body as it needs to get to the ground. Prone is the way to go,
>>>> and it doesn't take a panel of experts to figure out the logic, at
>>>> least i hope not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You're assuming that the lightning hits you directly and then finds
>>> its way to ground. While that's possible, it's more likely that the
>>> lightning hits somewhere near you and then currents flow in all
>>> directions from that point along the surface of the ground.
>>>
>>> If your only contact with the ground is with your feet close together
>>> then little of that surface current will enter your body and what does
>>> will travel through your legs. OTOH, if you're prone on the ground
>>> then the surface current may enter an arm and travel down to the
>>> opposite leg or arm and pass by your heart on the way.
>>>
>> I have heard of that and while I am not one of the panel who suggested
>> it, Ohm's law says different. If the lightning hits you on the top of
>> your head, the highest point, then it will travel all the way through
>> your body before getting to your feet. You might do better to crouch and
>> ball up then roll over onto your side because the last thing you want is
>> to get a 30,000 amp, billion volt shot to the head. You might survive
>> but your brain would be fried. Lastly, you might try lying on your back
>> and put one foot up and take the shot through one leg. This is for
>> fields only where you have no trees. There is survival, A. As a mental
>> vegetable (not good) or B. As a guy who walks funny (better). I will go
>> down flat on the ground if I am caught out in that kind of situation,
>> rare in California though. I love to watch a good thunderstorm but only
>> from a safe building with a lightning rod or two on the roof. My house
>> in Minnesota got hit just two weeks after I ran some 4 gage wire from a
>> ground stake (fence post) to all the metal points on the roof. The next
>> day I could see where the lightning had welded some of the wire to the
>> metal post. I would not have wanted to get hit by that one.
>> Bill Baka
>
>The problem with those positions is that the pulse goes through your
>heart, which is the real killer (ask any electrician). The ideal stance
>would be to stand on one leg and lift the other leg high into the air
>above your head. That way your head is safe and your heart is safe too
>and you won't get voltage differentials from the ground.
>
>Marty

It must be fun to live in an ideal world!

Ben

[Ben Kaufman]

On 8 Jun 2005 20:47:26 -0700, "Paladin 3000" >
wrote:

>Everyone is talking about the hair sizzle effect. What if you have no
>hair? Kinda renders the whole matter moot I think.
>
>(definetly not looking forward to my next storm ride without an early
>warning system. :p)

That's why most guys have abundant hair in the nose and ears. It's an
evolutionary adaptation.

Ben

[Jim Adney]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 19:46:36 -0700 Bill Baka > wrote:

>Those are both wrong. You need to get flat on your face, mud or no mud.
>A $300 suit will do you no good if you are hit. There is a slight early
>warning sign in that you hair will start to sizzle and stand up. If that
>happens, dive to the ground and get as flat as possible. Even that may
>not work because the lightning has already established an ionic trail to
>you. The upside is that if you get hit in the hand and not a vital spot
>the lightning will just go straight through to the ground.

I'm sorry, Bill, but you're mistaken. The thought that there might be
some way that you could actually get hit by lighting and still survive
is completely without basis. Most people who die from lightning aren't
even struck directly, they're just close enough to be killed. If you
ever happen to see a tree that was struck you would understand that it
doesn't take a direct hit to kill.

Yes, you want to make yourself as "short" as possible, but you also
want to minimize your "footprint" on the ground because the lions
share of deaths occur from nearby strikes which cause surface currents
in the ground. If you are spread out on the ground you're the most
vulnerable to those currents.

I understand your reasoning, but it's incomplete. There are other
authorities out there with a lot more experience who have come to a
different conclusion.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:44:29 -0500,
>, Jim Adney
> wrote:

>I understand your reasoning, but it's incomplete. There are other
>authorities out there with a lot more experience who have come to a
>different conclusion.

Guinea pigs that've spent more than three semesters in a sixth grade
science classroom have a better understanding of the principles than
some self made geniuses.
--
zk

[Bill Baka]

Marty wrote:
>
> The problem with those positions is that the pulse goes through your
> heart, which is the real killer (ask any electrician). The ideal stance
> would be to stand on one leg and lift the other leg high into the air
> above your head. That way your head is safe and your heart is safe too
> and you won't get voltage differentials from the ground.
>
> Marty

Forget having any kids after that one but it does make sense to not
getit through the heart or head. Some lightning is so overwhelmingly
powerful that no matter where you got struck that part of your body
would be instant charcoal. The survival stories have been light to
medium blasts. I have seen one take down a tree over a foot in diameter
and I know that would kill someone or fry their limbs into uselessness.
Bottom line... avoid getting hit in the first place.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Peter wrote:
>
> Clearly you're still assuming that you'll get hit directly rather than
> the more likely situation where the lightning doesn't strike you but
> hits close enough that you could still be injured or killed by the
> resulting surface currents. The advice from NOAA, the Red Cross, and
> similar organizations to crouch rather than lie flat on the ground is
> based on studies that showed that it's much more likely that lightning
> will hit somewhere near enough to you to cause injury than that you'll
> be hit directly. The advice is entirely consistent with Ohm's Law.
>
I won't argue that point but just how many survivors are around to tell
their story of survival? Flat on your back with you feet pulled in and
your hands crossed on your chest with only your back on he ground gives
a minimal area for ligthing to hit or ground currents to to through.
You could always wear a chain mail suit.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

wrote:
> the lines of reasoning prior are basd=ed onthe idea lightning comes
> from the sky. lightning does not generally hit you on the head.
> lightning comes up from the ground and strikes the cloud.
>
Correct. But is you feel of hear the pre-strike sizzle it is time to drop.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Jim Adney wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 19:46:36 -0700 Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>
>>Those are both wrong. You need to get flat on your face, mud or no mud.
>>A $300 suit will do you no good if you are hit. There is a slight early
>>warning sign in that you hair will start to sizzle and stand up. If that
>>happens, dive to the ground and get as flat as possible. Even that may
>>not work because the lightning has already established an ionic trail to
>>you. The upside is that if you get hit in the hand and not a vital spot
>>the lightning will just go straight through to the ground.
>
>
> I'm sorry, Bill, but you're mistaken. The thought that there might be
> some way that you could actually get hit by lighting and still survive
> is completely without basis. Most people who die from lightning aren't
> even struck directly, they're just close enough to be killed. If you
> ever happen to see a tree that was struck you would understand that it
> doesn't take a direct hit to kill.
>
> Yes, you want to make yourself as "short" as possible, but you also
> want to minimize your "footprint" on the ground because the lions
> share of deaths occur from nearby strikes which cause surface currents
> in the ground. If you are spread out on the ground you're the most
> vulnerable to those currents.

I was thinking of laying on your back with your feet pulled in and your
arms crossed on your chest. The ground current could only get your back
and the air strike would have a limited strike zone.
>
> I understand your reasoning, but it's incomplete. There are other
> authorities out there with a lot more experience who have come to a
> different conclusion.

There are always 'authorities' but have any of them ever been hit? There
are way too many authorities who either don't know what they are talking
about or just try to reason by committee.
Bill Baka
>
> -
> -----------------------------------------------
> Jim Adney
> Madison, WI 53711 USA
> -----------------------------------------------

[Bill Baka]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:44:29 -0500,
> >, Jim Adney
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I understand your reasoning, but it's incomplete. There are other
>>authorities out there with a lot more experience who have come to a
>>different conclusion.
>
>
> Guinea pigs that've spent more than three semesters in a sixth grade
> science classroom have a better understanding of the principles than
> some self made geniuses.
Zoot,
You don't even qualify for a comeback, you are hopeless.
Bill Baka

[[email protected]]

yup. one has to be outside and watching the sky for weather.
one very serious (if you are outside)lesson i learned watching florida
thunderstorms (searching for tornado formation)is the lightning path
occuring from (or too) a blue sky area 2-5 miles before the cloud's
apparent path.
you know-"gee here comes the thunderstorm... now hwat?
well, odds are at this juncture the storm is overhead for strike
probabilities!

add in the cell phone tower (storm king ten pin sounds) effects where
the lightning path no longer goes more or less directly to ground but
heads off to the tower-
then the observation - "gee here comes..." - no longer "holds"

arlene is invigorating(like the NE coast) and now abreast butt we are
a-hole deep in water.

[John Henderson]

Bill Baka wrote:

> I was thinking of laying on your back with your feet pulled in
> and your arms crossed on your chest. The ground current could
> only get your back and the air strike would have a limited
> strike zone.

Any current flowing trough part of your back is too close to the
heart for my liking.

John

[Jim Smith]

John Henderson > writes:

> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of laying on your back with your feet pulled in
>> and your arms crossed on your chest. The ground current could
>> only get your back and the air strike would have a limited
>> strike zone.
>
> Any current flowing trough part of your back is too close to the
> heart for my liking.

There are a couple of things about lightning strikes that are
different than ordinary electrocutions.

The current behaves like RF and primarily travels on the surface,
Probably because it only lasts for on the order of 5 millionths of a
second. This is good for survivors because they usually only get
superficial burns, rather than deep burns with muscle necrosis and all
that sort of nastiness. Also, because of this surface effect, the main
current doesn't usually affect the heart. However, because the
current on the main pulse can be on the order of 100,000 amps, it sets
up a large magnetic field. Because the body is a conductor, this
magnetic field induces a large current in the victim. This induced
current can and will **** up your heart and brain and it doesn't
particularly matter where the bolt hit you, or even if it only hit
right next to you, because it is the magnetic field that is causing
the problem.

An exception to the surface effect also occurs if you are holding on
to a large conductive object and the object gets struck. This can
cause the charge on the object to flow through you, with a duration on
the order of thousandths of seconds, which is a thousand times longer
than in a direct hit. This sort of current can and will cause deep
burns, cardiac arrest, etc.

Also, when lightning strikes, the potential gradient on the ground can
be such that there is a potential of 1000-2000 volts between your
feet, and a current on the order of a few amps and lasting for a few
thousandths of a second can flow from this.

As an added bonus, the shock wave from the heating of the air can be
on the order of 50psi or so, which is plenty to cause some barotrauma.

[Bill Baka]

John Henderson wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>
>>I was thinking of laying on your back with your feet pulled in
>>and your arms crossed on your chest. The ground current could
>>only get your back and the air strike would have a limited
>>strike zone.
>
>
> Any current flowing trough part of your back is too close to the
> heart for my liking.
>
> John

All right. I will only agree to disagree as to what I would do since I
have been within about 30 feet of a major strike, twice. Once I was
standing on a friends porch and lightning blasted a big tree in his
front yard in two (Chicago area). The other time my wife and I decided
to go out and chase the lightning strikes and see how close we could get
with the windows open (Arkansas). A bolt hit on her side and again blew
apart a big tree maybe 25 to 30 feet directly to the right of the car.
Since I was talking to her about if we would ever see any strikes up
close I saw it dead center. The bolt itself looked to be about 6 inches
in diameter and blasted the tree like dynamite and it was so loud she
jumped clean across the car into my lap. Both of those times I thought
it was about the loudest thing I ever heard, like being under the muzzle
of a 6" cannon or something. I have never even heard illegal fireworks
that loud.
Bill Baka

[Bill Baka]

Jim Smith wrote:
> John Henderson > writes:
>
>
>>Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was thinking of laying on your back with your feet pulled in
>>>and your arms crossed on your chest. The ground current could
>>>only get your back and the air strike would have a limited
>>>strike zone.
>>
>>Any current flowing trough part of your back is too close to the
>>heart for my liking.
>
>
> There are a couple of things about lightning strikes that are
> different than ordinary electrocutions.
>
> The current behaves like RF and primarily travels on the surface,
> Probably because it only lasts for on the order of 5 millionths of a
> second.
I had heard that it could be as little as maybe 50 nanoseconds.??

This is good for survivors because they usually only get
> superficial burns, rather than deep burns with muscle necrosis and all
> that sort of nastiness. Also, because of this surface effect, the main
> current doesn't usually affect the heart.
True, the muscles can't contract that fast to hurt anything.

However, because the
> current on the main pulse can be on the order of 100,000 amps, it sets
> up a large magnetic field. Because the body is a conductor, this
> magnetic field induces a large current in the victim. This induced
> current can and will **** up your heart and brain and it doesn't
> particularly matter where the bolt hit you, or even if it only hit
> right next to you, because it is the magnetic field that is causing
> the problem.

I think you missed the boat on this one. Magnetic fields induce current
in metals, not water, as in humans. I will admit 'wrongness' only if you
can provide a reliable source link.
>
> An exception to the surface effect also occurs if you are holding on
> to a large conductive object and the object gets struck. This can
> cause the charge on the object to flow through you, with a duration on
> the order of thousandths of seconds, which is a thousand times longer
> than in a direct hit. This sort of current can and will cause deep
> burns, cardiac arrest, etc.
This part is correct because the metal object if large enough can act
like a tuned tank circuit and oscillate, heavily damped, but still an
oscillating circuit.
>
> Also, when lightning strikes, the potential gradient on the ground can
> be such that there is a potential of 1000-2000 volts between your
> feet, and a current on the order of a few amps and lasting for a few
> thousandths of a second can flow from this.

It would have to be thousands of volts since most shoes (dry) can
insulate you from 500 up to 10,000 volts depending on the sole thickness
and material. Without shoes there would be a hell of a lot more
electrocutions from stupidity (big jump in Darwinism events).
>
> As an added bonus, the shock wave from the heating of the air can be
> on the order of 50psi or so, which is plenty to cause some barotrauma.

Speaking as one who has been within 30 feet of 2 major blasts I can
attest to the loudness factor. The time I was standing it almost knocked
me back off my feet and I couldn't hear good for a few minutes of
recovery time.
Lightning might be a good energy source but how do you make use of it?
Stay indoors and don't use a land line telephone or your computer. I
have heard of people being electrocuted while talking on the phone in
the middle of a thunderstorm. What gossip is that juicy, to die for?
Bill Baka

[Jim Smith]

Bill Baka > writes:
> I think you missed the boat on this one. Magnetic fields induce
> current in metals, not water, as in humans. I will admit 'wrongness'
> only if you can provide a reliable source link.

Well, think about faradays law for a minute. The changing magnetic
field is going to induce an electric field. If you place a charge in
that field it is going to move, whether it is a electron in a piece of
metal or some ionic species in a cell. I can't think of a good
reference for this, but here are some people using magnets to induce
smaller currents in human brains at a well regarded institution:

http://bidmc.harvard.edu/display.asp?node_id=4637


The idea that magnetic fields mediate some of the injury effects of
lightning is pretty new, it was first proposed in 1998 in a letter to
The Lancet:

http://tinyurl.com/c4lzd

This mechanism was initialy proposed to explain why some lightning
victims had cardiac failure even when there had been no direct path
for current through their heart. Most of the literature on lightning
was written before it occured to people to consider this effect, but
this is the current thought. I believe it has been tested on puppy
dogs and cute little kittens. Just kidding. I think it has been
tested on mice. Anyways, this is what is going in the text books
these days. If your library has a copy of Harrison's (google
"Harrison's") you can check the index for lightning and this is what
you will find. I can't find an online reference. Anyways, I just
have to take these people's word for it, so if they are wrong, I am
wrong.

[Jim Adney]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:38:29 -0700 Bill Baka > wrote:

>I think you missed the boat on this one. Magnetic fields induce current
>in metals, not water, as in humans. I will admit 'wrongness' only if you
>can provide a reliable source link.

Magnetic fields don't make current, but _changing_ magnetic fields
generate a voltage, V = -n*dPhi/dt. A voltage across a conductor will
produce a current. The human body is a fairly good conductor, although
certainly not as good as a metal, because it's mostly salt water.

Refs? Check any first year Physics or E & M text.

>> An exception to the surface effect also occurs if you are holding on
>> to a large conductive object and the object gets struck. This can
>> cause the charge on the object to flow through you, with a duration on
>> the order of thousandths of seconds, which is a thousand times longer
>> than in a direct hit. This sort of current can and will cause deep
>> burns, cardiac arrest, etc.

>This part is correct because the metal object if large enough can act
>like a tuned tank circuit and oscillate, heavily damped, but still an
>oscillating circuit.

Sure, tuned circuits are a fact of life, but holding one in your hand
won't change the duration of the lightning strike. There might be some
ringing INSIDE the tuned circuit after the strike is over, but once
the strike is over, there's no longer an external circuit, so the only
current that can still be flowing must be within the tuned circuit
itself.

And why would you suggest that the tuned circuit created by arbitrary
metal object would be heavily damped? It might be, or it might not; it
would depend on the object. Besides, if it were heavily damped, it's
oscillations would not outlast the strike, so the original claim
fails.

The skin depth is a function of the frequency, not the duration. For
any metal object that you could hold in your hand, its resonances
would have to be extremely high frequency, at least as high as the
strike frequencies, so this still doesn't support the OPs claim that
it would make things worse than a plain strike.

The only problem with holding a metal object is that it offers the
chance that you have something protruding higher than you otherwise
would, thus increasing your odds of attracting a strike.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

[Bill Baka]

Jim Smith wrote:
> Bill Baka > writes:
>
>>I think you missed the boat on this one. Magnetic fields induce
>>current in metals, not water, as in humans. I will admit 'wrongness'
>>only if you can provide a reliable source link.
>
>
> Well, think about faradays law for a minute. The changing magnetic
> field is going to induce an electric field. If you place a charge in
> that field it is going to move, whether it is a electron in a piece of
> metal or some ionic species in a cell. I can't think of a good
> reference for this, but here are some people using magnets to induce
> smaller currents in human brains at a well regarded institution:
I know about that research but it takes huge magnetic fields to induce
very small currents. Harder still is measuring the magnetic currents
generated by the human brain, way below microteslas, and it has to be
done in a super shielded room. That dates back to the days, 1960 ish
where they and the Russians were experimenting with mental telepathy.
>
> http://bidmc.harvard.edu/display.asp?node_id=4637
>
>
> The idea that magnetic fields mediate some of the injury effects of
> lightning is pretty new, it was first proposed in 1998 in a letter to
> The Lancet:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/c4lzd
I will look it up, that is why I am emailing this to myself so I can
think in the morning.
>
> This mechanism was initialy proposed to explain why some lightning
> victims had cardiac failure even when there had been no direct path
> for current through their heart. Most of the literature on lightning
> was written before it occured to people to consider this effect, but
> this is the current thought.
Scared to death, literally?
I believe it has been tested on puppy
> dogs and cute little kittens. Just kidding. I think it has been
> tested on mice. Anyways, this is what is going in the text books
> these days. If your library has a copy of Harrison's (google
> "Harrison's") you can check the index for lightning and this is what
> you will find.
My library is hopeless since I live in a small town that is the biggest
in a farming county. I will try to look this stuff up in the morning.
Bill Baka
I can't find an online reference. Anyways, I just
> have to take these people's word for it, so if they are wrong, I am
> wrong.
>

[Bill Baka]

Jim Adney wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:38:29 -0700 Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>
>>I think you missed the boat on this one. Magnetic fields induce current
>>in metals, not water, as in humans. I will admit 'wrongness' only if you
>>can provide a reliable source link.
>
>
> Magnetic fields don't make current, but _changing_ magnetic fields
> generate a voltage, V = -n*dPhi/dt. A voltage across a conductor will
> produce a current. The human body is a fairly good conductor, although
> certainly not as good as a metal, because it's mostly salt water.
>
> Refs? Check any first year Physics or E & M text.
>
>
>>>An exception to the surface effect also occurs if you are holding on
>>>to a large conductive object and the object gets struck. This can
>>>cause the charge on the object to flow through you, with a duration on
>>>the order of thousandths of seconds, which is a thousand times longer
>>>than in a direct hit. This sort of current can and will cause deep
>>>burns, cardiac arrest, etc.
>
>
>>This part is correct because the metal object if large enough can act
>>like a tuned tank circuit and oscillate, heavily damped, but still an
>>oscillating circuit.
>
>
> Sure, tuned circuits are a fact of life, but holding one in your hand
> won't change the duration of the lightning strike. There might be some
> ringing INSIDE the tuned circuit after the strike is over, but once
> the strike is over, there's no longer an external circuit, so the only
> current that can still be flowing must be within the tuned circuit
> itself.

If you were hanging onto it any residual high voltage would be going
through you.
>
> And why would you suggest that the tuned circuit created by arbitrary
> metal object would be heavily damped? It might be, or it might not; it
> would depend on the object. Besides, if it were heavily damped, it's
> oscillations would not outlast the strike, so the original claim
> fails.

I was thinking out in the open where it might be hiding under the monkey
bars or some non city area where you could just duck into a business.
>
> The skin depth is a function of the frequency, not the duration. For
> any metal object that you could hold in your hand, its resonances
> would have to be extremely high frequency, at least as high as the
> strike frequencies, so this still doesn't support the OPs claim that
> it would make things worse than a plain strike.

If you get hit by one blast it is quite another to be holding onto a
substantial metal object that gets hit
>
> The only problem with holding a metal object is that it offers the
> chance that you have something protruding higher than you otherwise
> would, thus increasing your odds of attracting a strike.
No argument there.
Bill Baka
>
> -
> -----------------------------------------------
> Jim Adney
> Madison, WI 53711 USA
> -----------------------------------------------

[Jim Smith]

Jim Adney > writes:

> The skin depth is a function of the frequency, not the duration. For
> any metal object that you could hold in your hand, its resonances
> would have to be extremely high frequency, at least as high as the
> strike frequencies, so this still doesn't support the OPs claim that
> it would make things worse than a plain strike.

I purposely avoided using the term "skin effect" because that is well
understood as a phenomenon of RF current. What occurs with lightning
is not the same, but it looks similar because the majority of current
is still flowing on the surface. This isn't my idea, this is what has
been observed by everyone who has examined victims of lighting strike.
You may not like it, but it is the truth.

[Jim Smith]

Jim Adney > writes:

> The only problem with holding a metal object is that it offers the
> chance that you have something protruding higher than you otherwise
> would, thus increasing your odds of attracting a strike.

No, that is not what is observed. See for example:

http://personal.ecu.edu/bierm/papers/nre265.pdf

[Jim Smith]

Jim Adney > writes:

> The skin depth is a function of the frequency, not the duration. For
> any metal object that you could hold in your hand, its resonances
> would have to be extremely high frequency, at least as high as the
> strike frequencies, so this still doesn't support the OPs claim that
> it would make things worse than a plain strike.

In case it was not clear, I was talking about large conducting
objects, things like trees, fences, metal sheds, etc. Not things one
could hold in their hand.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:03:39 +1000, John Henderson >
wrote:

>Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of laying on your back with your feet pulled in
>> and your arms crossed on your chest. The ground current could
>> only get your back and the air strike would have a limited
>> strike zone.
>
>Any current flowing trough part of your back is too close to the
>heart for my liking.
>
>John

Of course it's too close. Wouldn't (faulty analysis follows) it be further
away if one were standing, up? It would go up one leg and down the other, much
further away from the heart ;-) I vaguely recall a story about an African
village where lightning was frequent and where a good chunk of people were
killed in their sleep due to a ground strikes. Scientists had come up with a fix
of having them dig circular trenches around their huts and burying a metal
fence.


Ben

[[email protected]]

and off course for the connesuier

http://www.mapcruzin.com/radiofrequency/

[Bill Baka]

Ben Kaufman wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:03:39 +1000, John Henderson >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Baka wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was thinking of laying on your back with your feet pulled in
>>>and your arms crossed on your chest. The ground current could
>>>only get your back and the air strike would have a limited
>>>strike zone.
>>
>>Any current flowing trough part of your back is too close to the
>>heart for my liking.
>>
>>John
>
>
> Of course it's too close. Wouldn't (faulty analysis follows) it be further
> away if one were standing, up? It would go up one leg and down the other, much
> further away from the heart ;-)
People have been electrocuted that way, so it is not a perfect answer.
You could always stand on one leg and then get hit in the head.
Lightning is kind of a lose/lose situation if you are hit. Either you
are damn lucky or dead.
I vaguely recall a story about an African
> village where lightning was frequent and where a good chunk of people were
> killed in their sleep due to a ground strikes. Scientists had come up with a fix
> of having them dig circular trenches around their huts and burying a metal
> fence.

Good scientists, bad village location.
Bill Baka
>
>
> Ben

[Robin Hubert]

Bill Baka wrote:
> Marty wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem with those positions is that the pulse goes through your
>> heart, which is the real killer (ask any electrician). The ideal
>> stance would be to stand on one leg and lift the other leg high into
>> the air above your head. That way your head is safe and your heart is
>> safe too and you won't get voltage differentials from the ground.
>>
>> Marty
>
>
> Forget having any kids after that one but it does make sense to not
> getit through the heart or head. Some lightning is so overwhelmingly
> powerful that no matter where you got struck that part of your body
> would be instant charcoal. The survival stories have been light to
> medium blasts. I have seen one take down a tree over a foot in diameter
> and I know that would kill someone or fry their limbs into uselessness.
> Bottom line... avoid getting hit in the first place.
> Bill Baka

So you get to the heart of the matter.

The truth is that, despite what you do to avoid lightning, it can and
will get you. So, there is no point in trying to escape it in normal
storms. There are some storms, however, that are so fraught with
lightning that it serves you to take shelter. It takes no genius to
recognize that lighting is more likely to strike you if you are the
tallest, most conductive element in the vicinity of the threshold spark,
but I believe that you are significantly no safer in your house. To be
scientific about it, you should compare deaths per thousand in various
activities, including sitting in your house. According to the U.S.
National Weather Service, 73 people die from lightning strikes each year
and hundreds more suffer life-debilitating injuries. But that isn't the
whole truth ... "For example, Rakov says that one square meter of
terrain in a flat Florida field gets hit by lightning once every 100
millennia, thus if that area gets hit, it would not be hit for another
1,000 human generations, which he considers in all practical purposes to
be never."

More information at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0522_030522_lightning.html

More useful links:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/35_years_injuries.html
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/fatalities_us.html

In addition these storms often pose other threats.

So, based on my limited research and humble personal experience, my
belief is that the relative risk of lightning injury or death is
relatively small. You should worry more about walking across the street.

How many people refuse to get off their computers or telephones, or get
out of the shower when a thunderstorm approaches?

Like I said before, we (I mean all the kids in my small town in my
generation and earlier) would disregard thunderstorms and play in
ecstacy in the cooling wind and rain of a summer "blaster" in the
steaming St. Louis metro east area. None of them (or me) got hit.
There were lots of close calls (flash/bang). But those bolts could
easily come through the roof and get you anyway.


Robin Hubert

[John Henderson]

Robin Hubert wrote:

> The truth is that, despite what you do to avoid lightning, it
> can and will get you. So, there is no point in trying to
> escape it in normal storms. There are some storms, however,
> that are so fraught with lightning that it serves you to take
> shelter. It takes no genius to recognize that lighting is
> more likely to strike you if you are the tallest, most
> conductive element in the vicinity of the threshold spark, but
> I believe that you are significantly no safer in your house.
> To be scientific about it, you should compare deaths per
> thousand in various activities, including sitting in your
> house.

Yes, it's important to be objective about this. Armchair
speculation without good data and analysis is bound to lead to
misleading conclusions. I found Jim Smith's additions to the
debate to be particularly informative.

But I'm puzzled about some of your post. Why would it "serve
you to take cover" if "you are significantly no safer in your
house"? Where would you take cover then?

In my 57 years, I've heard of only one case of people being
killed by lightning in a house - but untold accounts of death
and injury in the open. As a child, I vividly remember a
multiple strike either side of our house while I was watching
safely from a window. We found multiple damage and burns on
small trees and metal structures either side of the house.

John

[Pat]

: But I'm puzzled about some of your post. Why would it "serve
: you to take cover" if "you are significantly no safer in your
: house"? Where would you take cover then?
:
: In my 57 years, I've heard of only one case of people being
: killed by lightning in a house - but untold accounts of death
: and injury in the open. As a child, I vividly remember a
: multiple strike either side of our house while I was watching
: safely from a window. We found multiple damage and burns on
: small trees and metal structures either side of the house.
:
: John

Isn't that because the house is grounded? Current flows around the people
and into the ground is my theory.

Pat in TX

[Bill Baka]

Robin Hubert wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>
>> Marty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The problem with those positions is that the pulse goes through your
>>> heart, which is the real killer (ask any electrician). The ideal
>>> stance would be to stand on one leg and lift the other leg high into
>>> the air above your head. That way your head is safe and your heart is
>>> safe too and you won't get voltage differentials from the ground.
>>>
>>> Marty
>>
>>
>>
>> Forget having any kids after that one but it does make sense to not
>> getit through the heart or head. Some lightning is so overwhelmingly
>> powerful that no matter where you got struck that part of your body
>> would be instant charcoal. The survival stories have been light to
>> medium blasts. I have seen one take down a tree over a foot in
>> diameter and I know that would kill someone or fry their limbs into
>> uselessness.
>> Bottom line... avoid getting hit in the first place.
>> Bill Baka
>
>
> So you get to the heart of the matter.
>
> The truth is that, despite what you do to avoid lightning, it can and
> will get you. So, there is no point in trying to escape it in normal
> storms. There are some storms, however, that are so fraught with
> lightning that it serves you to take shelter. It takes no genius to
> recognize that lighting is more likely to strike you if you are the
> tallest, most conductive element in the vicinity of the threshold spark,
> but I believe that you are significantly no safer in your house. To be
> scientific about it, you should compare deaths per thousand in various
> activities, including sitting in your house. According to the U.S.
> National Weather Service, 73 people die from lightning strikes each year
> and hundreds more suffer life-debilitating injuries. But that isn't the
> whole truth ... "For example, Rakov says that one square meter of
> terrain in a flat Florida field gets hit by lightning once every 100
> millennia, thus if that area gets hit, it would not be hit for another
> 1,000 human generations, which he considers in all practical purposes to
> be never."
>
> More information at
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0522_030522_lightning.html
>
> More useful links:
> http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/35_years_injuries.html
> http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/fatalities_us.html
>
> In addition these storms often pose other threats.
>
> So, based on my limited research and humble personal experience, my
> belief is that the relative risk of lightning injury or death is
> relatively small. You should worry more about walking across the street.
>
> How many people refuse to get off their computers or telephones, or get
> out of the shower when a thunderstorm approaches?

Those are the people who get killed inside. only very rarely does a bolt
go through a window and seek someone out but talking on land line
without a wireless handset is asking for it. I did hear of one where a
woman was in her house and a bolt came in one corner window and out
another, killing her in the process, since she was standing in the
corner looking out both windows.
Strange things do happen.
Bill Baka
>
> Like I said before, we (I mean all the kids in my small town in my
> generation and earlier) would disregard thunderstorms and play in
> ecstacy in the cooling wind and rain of a summer "blaster" in the
> steaming St. Louis metro east area. None of them (or me) got hit. There
> were lots of close calls (flash/bang). But those bolts could easily
> come through the roof and get you anyway.
>
>
> Robin Hubert

[Robin Hubert]

John Henderson wrote:
> Robin Hubert wrote:
>
>
>>The truth is that, despite what you do to avoid lightning, it
>>can and will get you. So, there is no point in trying to
>>escape it in normal storms. There are some storms, however,
>>that are so fraught with lightning that it serves you to take
>>shelter. It takes no genius to recognize that lighting is
>>more likely to strike you if you are the tallest, most
>>conductive element in the vicinity of the threshold spark, but
>>I believe that you are significantly no safer in your house.
>>To be scientific about it, you should compare deaths per
>>thousand in various activities, including sitting in your
>>house.
>
>
> Yes, it's important to be objective about this. Armchair
> speculation without good data and analysis is bound to lead to
> misleading conclusions. I found Jim Smith's additions to the
> debate to be particularly informative.
>
> But I'm puzzled about some of your post. Why would it "serve
> you to take cover" if "you are significantly no safer in your
> house"? Where would you take cover then?

Well, it's relative risk. In such situations it's been hail (or desire
to stay dry) that's motivated me to take cover in such situations, not
lightning.

>
> In my 57 years, I've heard of only one case of people being
> killed by lightning in a house - but untold accounts of death
> and injury in the open. As a child, I vividly remember a
> multiple strike either side of our house while I was watching
> safely from a window. We found multiple damage and burns on
> small trees and metal structures either side of the house.
>
> John

Yes, more people are struck outdoors. It figures. However, I think the
difference in relative risk is quite small, considering the likelihood
of death due to lightning in or outdoors.


Robin Hubert

[John Henderson]

Robin Hubert wrote:

> Yes, more people are struck outdoors. It figures. However, I
> think the difference in relative risk is quite small,
> considering the likelihood of death due to lightning in or
> outdoors.

In the midst of a storm, what's the ratio of people in houses to
people outdoors? Hundreds to one, I'd guess. If the risk is
near equal, shouldn't we see more people killed indoors than
out? And more by a couple of orders of magnitude?

John

[Robin Hubert]

John Henderson wrote:
> Robin Hubert wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, more people are struck outdoors. It figures. However, I
>>think the difference in relative risk is quite small,
>>considering the likelihood of death due to lightning in or
>>outdoors.
>
>
> In the midst of a storm, what's the ratio of people in houses to
> people outdoors? Hundreds to one, I'd guess. If the risk is
> near equal, shouldn't we see more people killed indoors than
> out? And more by a couple of orders of magnitude?
>
> John

No no no ... you're missing my point. I'm talking about the risk of
getting struck, period. I just think the risk of being struck by
lightning is so small that the difference between the risk of getting
hit indoors or outdoors is insignificant. Now, I wouldn't want to be on
an open boat during an active thunderstorm ....

I wonder if there's any good statistical information regarding this?
You know, like, how many people get hit out in the open vs how many
people that are in the open and don't get hit. In other words, if you
stand where you are when the storm hits, what is your risk of getting
hit? What is your risk of getting hit if you take the best shelter
available?

How many get hit when there's no actual storm in the vicinity? I think I
read that most injury and death strikes occur before the storm actually
appears.

Curiously, lightning strikes are risks to people underground.
http://www.nols.edu/resources/research/pdfs/lightningsafetycavers.pdf
There are also records of people being struck inside their cars, with
windows up.

Really, I'm kinda talking about stuff which I know not alot, and am not
inclined to research. All I know is that I have lived through
thunderstorms without taking shelter, on and off the bike. I personally
don't know of anyone who's been struck by lightning. I don't know
anyone who knows anyone who's been struck. So, my "feeling" is that it
isn't a great risk, period. Like I said, I won't go act like a
lightning rod, but I don't think I'm likely to get struck, period.

More interesting than lightning:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd10jun99_1.htm

Robin Hubert

[John Henderson]

Robin Hubert wrote:

> No no no ... you're missing my point. I'm talking about the
> risk of getting struck, period. I just think the risk of
> being struck by lightning is so small that the difference
> between the risk of getting hit indoors or outdoors is
> insignificant.

Some places are renowned for their frequent and violent
thunderstorms, with a few occurring most afternoons in certain
seasons. I've lived in such a place, seen the exploded
tree-trunks, and prefer to be indoors given the opportunity
when lightning's about.

If you want to experiment with fatalism I can only wish you good
luck.

John

[Bill Baka]

John Henderson wrote:
> Robin Hubert wrote:
>
>
>>No no no ... you're missing my point. I'm talking about the
>>risk of getting struck, period. I just think the risk of
>>being struck by lightning is so small that the difference
>>between the risk of getting hit indoors or outdoors is
>>insignificant.
>
>
> Some places are renowned for their frequent and violent
> thunderstorms, with a few occurring most afternoons in certain
> seasons. I've lived in such a place, seen the exploded
> tree-trunks, and prefer to be indoors given the opportunity
> when lightning's about.
>
> If you want to experiment with fatalism I can only wish you good
> luck.
>
> John

John,
I have to agree 100% with you since I have been caught on a lake twice
by severe thunderstorms. Once when I was about 12 I took an Aluminum
boat out and was in the middle of a marsh fishing when a storm rolled in
over the trees with no warning. I couldn't possibly get out of the marsh
and off the lake so I laid down in the boat while lightning hit trees at
the edge of the marsh. Good thing for me that I wasn't the high point
and lightning didn't seek out a metal boat. 5 minutes later the sun came
out and it was as if it had never happened, except I was soaked and the
boat now had an inch of water in it.
The second time was in Northern Wisconsin in Woodruff on the Fourth of
July, 1985 and I had my wife and daughter in the boat with me. The lake
was surrounded by high trees so we couldn't see more that a quarter mile
of sky. A thunderstorm of large proportions came over the trees out of
the blue and it first started raining like crazy. Naturally I couldn't
get the POS outboard started so I rowed us into the docks and everyone
bailed out for our room at the lodge. Then the lightning came and was
really violent hitting not only trees but striking the lake on numerous
occasions. We were soaked and frozen but stood near the window to look
at our fourth of July natural fireworks show. We did have fireworks at
the lodge that night but they paled in comparison to that storm, and
Wisconsin is one of the few remaining states where you can buy big, real
firecrackers and not those stupid California Roman candles or whistling
things. Anyway, after the storm we went back to the boat and it had a
good 4" of water in it from less than 5 minutes while I was rowing like
crazy to get us back in.
I know for fact that Wisconsin and Minnesota have bad sneak up storms,
and so does Illinois except the you can see them coming over the corn
fields. Used to be corn fields, now they are all condos and houses.
Bill Baka (Like to watch, but only from inside).

[Jasper Janssen]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:52:24 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:
>Peter wrote:
>>
>> Clearly you're still assuming that you'll get hit directly rather than
>> the more likely situation where the lightning doesn't strike you but
>> hits close enough that you could still be injured or killed by the
>> resulting surface currents. The advice from NOAA, the Red Cross, and
>> similar organizations to crouch rather than lie flat on the ground is
>> based on studies that showed that it's much more likely that lightning
>> will hit somewhere near enough to you to cause injury than that you'll
>> be hit directly. The advice is entirely consistent with Ohm's Law.
>>
>I won't argue that point but just how many survivors are around to tell
>their story of survival? Flat on your back with you feet pulled in and
>your hands crossed on your chest with only your back on he ground gives
>a minimal area for ligthing to hit or ground currents to to through.
>You could always wear a chain mail suit.

Point the first: lightning is NOT logical, and it does NOT obey Ohm's law.
It does not usually hit the tallest thing around, or even the most
conductive thing around. What it goes for tends (but even this is not
necessarily always the case) to be things with a high field strength.[1]

Point the second: You're several dozen times more likely to be the victim
of a near strike than a direct strike, even if you're standing up in the
middle of a field, and the tallest thing around for miles.

Point the third: If you're lying flat while a near-strike occurs, you are
Dee-ee-aye-dee dead. If you're struck directly in whatever attitude,
ditto. If you're standing up or crouching when you have a near-strike, you
live.

Point the fourth: Lying down, standing up, or crouching doesn't alter the
odds of a direct strike very much, and even if it did, you're still dozens
of times more likely to have a nearby strike, unless you put up a pointy
umbrella. In fact, even by your own theory, you're lying down to avoid a
direct strike, but anything that was going to hit you direct is now
hitting something nearby -- which will still kill you deader'n a doormat
if you're lying flat on the ground.


Jasper

[1] Field strength isn't affected very much by conductivity, but it is
greatly affected by the shape of something. In HV labs, you'll always see
conductors terminating in balls and/or toruses -- that is because that
allows them to build up the highest voltages before arcing. That's why
lightning rods have sharp tips -- the sharp tips attract lightning, and
that is then safely routed to ground through the rods. Incidentally, 4
gauge wire is enough to make your house a lightning attractor but not
really enough to safely route it to ground. Also, you probably *really*
need a better grounding point than a single regular ground post. This
depends greatly on your soil though.

[John Henderson]

Jasper Janssen wrote:

> Point the first: lightning is NOT logical, and it does NOT
> obey Ohm's law. It does not usually hit the tallest thing
> around, or even the most conductive thing around. What it goes
> for tends (but even this is not necessarily always the case)
> to be things with a high field strength.[1]
>
> Point the second: You're several dozen times more likely to be
> the victim of a near strike than a direct strike, even if
> you're standing up in the middle of a field, and the tallest
> thing around for miles.
>
> Point the third: If you're lying flat while a near-strike
> occurs, you are Dee-ee-aye-dee dead. If you're struck directly
> in whatever attitude, ditto. If you're standing up or
> crouching when you have a near-strike, you live.
>
> Point the fourth: Lying down, standing up, or crouching
> doesn't alter the odds of a direct strike very much, and even
> if it did, you're still dozens of times more likely to have a
> nearby strike, unless you put up a pointy umbrella. In fact,
> even by your own theory, you're lying down to avoid a direct
> strike, but anything that was going to hit you direct is now
> hitting something nearby -- which will still kill you deader'n
> a doormat if you're lying flat on the ground.

I agree with most of what you're saying. It's your first
sentence I'd dispute: "Point the first: lightning is NOT
logical, and it does NOT obey Ohm's law."

Just because a phenomenon's not fully understood doesn't make it
illogical.

Ohm's Law states that

I = V / R

(current = voltage / resistance) and I haven't seen any evidence
that it's wrong. If you simply mean that there's more to
understand than _just_ Ohm's Law, then the same applies to a
simple inductor fed with AC, and that's not very profound.

John

[Robin Hubert]

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 10:52:24 -0700, Bill Baka > wrote:
>
>>Peter wrote:
>>
>>>Clearly you're still assuming that you'll get hit directly rather than
>>>the more likely situation where the lightning doesn't strike you but
>>>hits close enough that you could still be injured or killed by the
>>>resulting surface currents. The advice from NOAA, the Red Cross, and
>>>similar organizations to crouch rather than lie flat on the ground is
>>>based on studies that showed that it's much more likely that lightning
>>>will hit somewhere near enough to you to cause injury than that you'll
>>>be hit directly. The advice is entirely consistent with Ohm's Law.
>>>
>>
>>I won't argue that point but just how many survivors are around to tell
>>their story of survival? Flat on your back with you feet pulled in and
>>your hands crossed on your chest with only your back on he ground gives
>>a minimal area for ligthing to hit or ground currents to to through.
>>You could always wear a chain mail suit.
>
>
> Point the first: lightning is NOT logical, and it does NOT obey Ohm's law.
> It does not usually hit the tallest thing around, or even the most
> conductive thing around. What it goes for tends (but even this is not
> necessarily always the case) to be things with a high field strength.[1]
>
> Point the second: You're several dozen times more likely to be the victim
> of a near strike than a direct strike, even if you're standing up in the
> middle of a field, and the tallest thing around for miles.
>
> Point the third: If you're lying flat while a near-strike occurs, you are
> Dee-ee-aye-dee dead. If you're struck directly in whatever attitude,
> ditto. If you're standing up or crouching when you have a near-strike, you
> live.
>
> Point the fourth: Lying down, standing up, or crouching doesn't alter the
> odds of a direct strike very much, and even if it did, you're still dozens
> of times more likely to have a nearby strike, unless you put up a pointy
> umbrella. In fact, even by your own theory, you're lying down to avoid a
> direct strike, but anything that was going to hit you direct is now
> hitting something nearby -- which will still kill you deader'n a doormat
> if you're lying flat on the ground.
>
>
> Jasper
>
> [1] Field strength isn't affected very much by conductivity, but it is
> greatly affected by the shape of something. In HV labs, you'll always see
> conductors terminating in balls and/or toruses -- that is because that
> allows them to build up the highest voltages before arcing. That's why
> lightning rods have sharp tips -- the sharp tips attract lightning, and
> that is then safely routed to ground through the rods. Incidentally, 4
> gauge wire is enough to make your house a lightning attractor but not
> really enough to safely route it to ground. Also, you probably *really*
> need a better grounding point than a single regular ground post. This
> depends greatly on your soil though.
>
>

Very nice post (to the annoyance of those who hate "me too" posts).

Robin Hubert