Ditch That Cell Phone in a Thunderstorm

Ditch That Cell Phone in a Thunderstorm

http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=533442

The devices may prove deadly in a lightning strike, some doctors
suggest

By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, June 23 (HealthDay News) -- Citing the case of a 15-year-old
girl struck by lightning while using her cell phone in a London park
last year, some doctors are warning against the outdoor use of the
devices during stormy weather.

The girl survived, but is confined to a wheelchair, has lost some
hearing in the ear she was holding the phone to, and suffers a variety
of physical, cognitive and emotional problems. She has no memory of the
incident because she also suffered cardiac arrest at the time.

"This rare phenomenon is a public health issue, and education is
necessary to highlight the risk of using mobile phones outdoors during
stormy weather to prevent future fatal consequences from
lightning-strike injuries related to mobile phones," three British
doctors write in the June 24 issue of the British Medical Journal.

But other experts point to a number of variables that could have played
a role in the accident.

"I am not aware of any research on a cell phone being a particular
attractor of lightning," said John Drengenberg, manager of consumer
affairs at Underwriters Laboratories Inc., in Northbrook, Ill. "There's
nothing that would indicate they would attract lightning other than the
fact that this girl with her cell phone and antenna would be something
that would be the only thing that lightning would go to in that area."

Lightning is the second-leading weather-related source of fatalities in
the United States, according to the National Lightning Safety
Institute. National Weather Service data notes that 400 people are
struck and approximately 67 are killed each year by lightning -- more
deaths than caused by hurricanes or tornadoes. Only floods are more
deadly.

Almost three-quarters of people who survive a lightning strike suffer
lifelong, severe complications and disabilities. Lightning also causes
about $5 billion of economic loss each year in the United States.

According to the authors of the letter, the high resistance of human
skin means that if lightning strikes, it is conducted over the skin
without entering the body, resulting in a low death-rate phenomenon
known as "flashover." But conductive materials such as liquids or
metallic objects -- i.e. cell phones -- disrupt the flashover and
result in internal injury with greater death rates, according to the
three authors from Northwick Park Hospital in Middlesex, England.

The letter's authors could not find any similar cases reported in the
medical literature, although they did find three cases reported in
newspapers in China, Korea and Malaysia. In all these cases, the person
died after being struck by lightning while using a mobile phone outside
during a storm, the authors said.

The Australian Lightning Protection Standard recommends that metallic
objects, including cordless or mobile phones, not be used or even
carried outdoors during a thunderstorm.

People can take other common-sense precautions during a lightning
storm, Drengenberg said:

· Get inside during a thunderstorm, and don't use a landline
telephone. "If lightning strikes in the area, it will come through the
telephone lines and could go through you," he warned. Also, avoid
electrical appliances such as washing machines or dishwashers.

· Don't take a shower or wash dishes because lightning can travel
through water pipes.

· Don't stand near an open window on a hot day when there's a
lightning storm. As the heat leaves the house through the window, it
becomes a conduit for lightning.

· If you find yourself stuck outside, avoid wide-open spaces and
don't stand under a tree. Thanks to the saline composition of your
blood, you are a better conductor of electricity than the tree.

More information

The National Lightning Safety Institute has more on lightning safety:
http://www.lightningsafety.com/

SOURCES: John Drengenberg, manager, consumer affairs, Underwriters
Laboratories Inc., Northbrook, Ill.; June 24, 2006, British Medical
Journal

Last Updated: June 23, 2006

"Fred Goodwin, CMA" <fgoodwin@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1151092071.395299.86170@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

> Ditch That Cell Phone in a Thunderstorm
>
> http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=533442
>
> The devices may prove deadly in a lightning strike, some doctors
> suggest


~Another~ reason Seattle needs more lightning storms...

Fred Goodwin, CMA quoted Healthday:
> The letter's authors could not find any similar cases reported in the
> medical literature, although they did find three cases reported in
> newspapers in China, Korea and Malaysia. In all these cases, the person
> died after being struck by lightning while using a mobile phone outside
> during a storm, the authors said.

But no such cases in cell-phone-dense environments with lots of
thunderstorms yearly like south Florida? I'd put this claim that cell
phones get users zapped by lightning in the bullcrap category for that
reason alone.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

On 23 Jun 2006 16:23:03 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
<editor@netpath.net> wrote:

>Fred Goodwin, CMA quoted Healthday:
>> The letter's authors could not find any similar cases reported in the
>> medical literature, although they did find three cases reported in
>> newspapers in China, Korea and Malaysia. In all these cases, the person
>> died after being struck by lightning while using a mobile phone outside
>> during a storm, the authors said.
>
> But no such cases in cell-phone-dense environments with lots of
>thunderstorms yearly like south Florida? I'd put this claim that cell
>phones get users zapped by lightning in the bullcrap category for that
>reason alone.
>
>No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On 23 Jun 2006 16:23:03 -0700, "editor@netpath.net"
<editor@netpath.net> wrote:

>Fred Goodwin, CMA quoted Healthday:
>> The letter's authors could not find any similar cases reported in the
>> medical literature, although they did find three cases reported in
>> newspapers in China, Korea and Malaysia. In all these cases, the person
>> died after being struck by lightning while using a mobile phone outside
>> during a storm, the authors said.
>
> But no such cases in cell-phone-dense environments with lots of
>thunderstorms yearly like south Florida? I'd put this claim that cell
>phones get users zapped by lightning in the bullcrap category for that
>reason alone.
>


Hmm. Best way to get good reception on a cell is to get up somewhere
fairly high or be in a large open space. Two of the places one should
avoid during thunderstorms.

Could these people have been trying to get a better connection? Could
it just be that a certain number of people have cells and that a
certain number of them go outside in storms? The very little that a
cell would add to the dangers is only likely to matter if lightning is
trying to form / hit in that area anyway. I can't see why it would be
more than if one had a boom box with a big antenna, a GPS, or even an
iPod.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

In article <1151104983.777367.92660@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "editor@netpath.net" <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>Fred Goodwin, CMA quoted Healthday:
>> The letter's authors could not find any similar cases reported in the
>> medical literature, although they did find three cases reported in
>> newspapers in China, Korea and Malaysia. In all these cases, the person
>> died after being struck by lightning while using a mobile phone outside
>> during a storm, the authors said.
>
> But no such cases in cell-phone-dense environments with lots of
>thunderstorms yearly like south Florida? I'd put this claim that cell
>phones get users zapped by lightning in the bullcrap category for that
>reason alone.

Stupid article. One good reason for the suspect, there is probably a 50-50 chance
there is always someone on the cell these days.

gs

The article could have said that if you are stupid enough to hold a
piece of metal to the side of your head in a lightning storm, you should
make sure you have your will in order. Some things are just common
sense.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

dcaster@krl.org wrote:
>
> What probably happened was that the girl was using a cell phone
> under a tree. The lightning hit the tree and part of it jumped
> to the relatively sharp antenna of the cell phone.

As the TV lawyers say, you're assuming facts not in evidence. The
article said nothing about trees. Why bring trees into it?

Better to stick to the facts as presented, rather than introduce
arbitrary facts to make your case.

> Don't get your facts from the media.

Fair enough -- but the truth is, that's where most folks get their
facts, or at least, their initial notice that something happened. Most
leave it at that -- while others investigate further.

But unless the media gets the facts provably wrong, then they've done
their job.

The point Mr. Common Sense is that cell phones have extremely little to no
metal in them and do not attract lightning.


"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
newsighash-8CAC33.13341226062006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> The article could have said that if you are stupid enough to hold a
> piece of metal to the side of your head in a lightning storm, you should
> make sure you have your will in order. Some things are just common
> sense.
>
> --
> Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
> Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
> http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:

>
> As the TV lawyers say, you're assuming facts not in evidence. The
> article said nothing about trees. Why bring trees into it?
>
> Better to stick to the facts as presented, rather than introduce
> arbitrary facts to make your case.
>
You are correct. I thought I had read that the girl was under a tree,
but can't find any reference to it now.

Dan

"wxforecaster" <wxforecaster@NOSPAMkc.rr.com> wrote:

> The point Mr. Common Sense is that cell phones have extremely little to no
> metal in them and do not attract lightning.

So you think that electronic devices and rf shields are not metal???
The shinny surface isn't just cosmetic, it is also part of the rf
shielding. The antenna, battery and most components in between are
metal. These are points of greatest potential. They don't recycle cell
phones for the plastic or silicon, it is for the metals. Metal doesn't
have to be exposed to attract lightning, it just has to cause bends in
the earth's electric fields.

I used to make a living lightning testing plastic encapsulated
electronic components. Not only do they attract lightning, they burn
nicely when hit. Of course, after you are electrocuted, the fire
doesn't matter.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

Mr. Henning, with all due respect, your reply is nothing more than
well-stated BS, and short of any understanding of elementary physics. If you
seriously think that a cell phone is capable of providing the electrical
field capable of attracting an atmospheric lightning discharge away from
alternate targets, then you are very sadly mistaken. We have enough trouble
getting people to heed factual safety rules for lightning without you
attempting to turn this rubbish article into fact. I'm sure I need not bore
you with 6-7 pages of physics equations demonstrated over various known
lightning targets, non-targeted controls, and the cell phone.

Your claim to making a living off of "lightning testing plastic encapsulated
electronic components" is nothing more than a hogwash lie attempting to make
readers of this forum believe the rest of your dribble. Most anything will
attract an electromagnetic discharge if placed in a small enough enclosure.
If I place a metal measuring spoon in the microwave, instant thunderstorm
bombarding the hell out of it. If I throw the metal measuring spoon out in
an open field during a thunderstorm, the chance of it being hit is
essentially no greater than if it were plastic, rubber or anything else with
little to no conductivity. This whole discussion is about atmospheric
lightning, which is a COMPLETELY different ballgame than your supposed
laboratory. Your talking about thousands of orders of magnitude difference
in terms of requirements for capacitance, resistance, etc... Again, it's the
person that's the target, not the cell phone.

You'd have much better luck testing your theory along with a set of golf
clubs. Please let me know your address so I can send you mine. My golf game
is horrible.



"Stephen Henning" <pighash@aol.com> wrote in message
newsighash-80C5F5.19240826062006@news.isp.giganews.com...
> "wxforecaster" <wxforecaster@NOSPAMkc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> The point Mr. Common Sense is that cell phones have extremely little to
>> no
>> metal in them and do not attract lightning.
>
> So you think that electronic devices and rf shields are not metal???
> The shinny surface isn't just cosmetic, it is also part of the rf
> shielding. The antenna, battery and most components in between are
> metal. These are points of greatest potential. They don't recycle cell
> phones for the plastic or silicon, it is for the metals. Metal doesn't
> have to be exposed to attract lightning, it just has to cause bends in
> the earth's electric fields.
>
> I used to make a living lightning testing plastic encapsulated
> electronic components. Not only do they attract lightning, they burn
> nicely when hit. Of course, after you are electrocuted, the fire
> doesn't matter.
>
> --
> Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
> Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
> http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

~Lots~ of people are struck by lightning each year. The article notes only
a very few cases of people being struck by lightning while using a cell
phone.

Perhaps using a cell phone during a lightning storm actually ~protects~ you
from being struck... ;^)

While there is metal in a cell phone, there is very little. And I
find it completely incredible that a lump of solid steel weighing what
my phone does would make the slightest difference when next to a sack
of saltwater the size of me.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer

On 26 Jun 2006 23:49:05 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>
wrote:

>While there is metal in a cell phone, there is very little. And I
>find it completely incredible that a lump of solid steel weighing what
>my phone does would make the slightest difference when next to a sack
>of saltwater the size of me.


Indeed.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner