Even apparent junk science is not always as junky as it seems at first glance. This example may or may not be. The original authors *may not* be saying what the article as a hole assumes and it *may not* be junk. A newspaper report here also added weight to a different reading. Note: They say - "If you're struck by lightning without holding something conductive it's going to flash over your body causing superficial burns," Esprit said in an interview. "But if you're holding a mobile or something conductive, the current is going to internalize and you're going to get cardiac arrest and all these other problems. Your injuries are going to be much worse if you're holding the mobile." They are not saying (necessarily) that holding the phone increases the probability of being hit, BUT that, if you are hit then holding a conductive item to your body tends to make that a point of entry rather than having the lightning traverse your body on the surface. Experience with lightning in other areas suggests that there *may* be some merit to this argument. Lightning does not act "normally" or APPEAR to obey some of the laws of physics. Placing a loop at ground level in a wire conductor descending from a pole into the ground will produce lightning blow out in the loop and often protect the underground wiring. A mathematical analysis of the effect of the loop (inductance etc) does not indicate that this protection should occur. But it does in practice. At very high voltages and with very very very fast rise times all sorts of usually second order effects may come to the fore. None of this means that the claims are actually true - but prudence and Murphy suggest that there may be some merit in taking note of the warnings while researching the issue more fully. Odds are that a statistical study is liable to provide best 'proof' of a correlation. Analysis of injuries in all cases against those where users were known to have been using a cellphone or had a similar capacitive or conductive node attached to their body at the time MAY provide an indication. If I were to be "bathed in lightning" I'd probably choose, given the choice, not to have an impedance bump attached to my head at the time. Russell McMahon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hord" To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:03 AM Subject: Re: Junk science rides again! > Perhaps cell phone users are more likely to be hit by lightning > because they search out open areas for better reception? > > Mike H. > > On 6/23/06, David VanHorn wrote: >> http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=d4c611c3-b113-4307-8ca0-f5926d52c173&k=72514 >> >> If it starts to thunder on the soccer field, don't call home on >> your >> cellphone to say the game has been cancelled. >> >> Three doctors warn in this week's British Medical Journal that >> using >> cellphones during stormy weather could be fatal. >> >> Of course an MD would be an expert on lightning physics... >> >> >> -- >> Feel the power of the dark side! Atmel AVR >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist