Electrifying News: Lightning Deaths Decline

Experts predict 54 people will die by lightning strikes this year, down from 300 deaths in the early 1900s


TechMediaNetwork













Share on Tumblr

Copyright 2012 OurAmazingPlanet, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


TechMediaNetwork

5 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. jtdwyer 07:09 PM 11/29/12

    Most interesting - the population of the U.S. has more than doubled since 1940, making the decline in deaths even more significant! I saw no mention of population being considered in the forecast model, but then I didn't see where this silly article even mentioned whether the statistics represented lightening deaths in the U.S. or worldwide...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. hanmeng 12:48 AM 11/30/12

    If the NOAA can predict that 54 people should die by lightning strikes this year, I wish they would instead tell those 54 people so they shouldn't have to die.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. julianpenrod 12:19 PM 11/30/12

    There is an interesting and immensely significant sidelight on the information presented in the article.
    The article mentions that a fairly steady 300 people per year before 1940 were struck my lightning. And the implied connection with urban rise suggests that those 300 were all in rural areas. But being hit by lightning can be as random a process as seeing a tornado. It is insisted that the increase in tornadoes comes from more people living in the nation, that fewer people would naturally result in fewer tornadoes being seen.
    But, then, fewer people living in non urban areas shouild also result in the number of lightning strikes not being constant! Fewer people, by that insistence, should result in fewer lightning strikes.
    Even more so. Lightning strikes are enormously limited incidents. Tornadoes can be seen from a distance and their path can be discerned even if they aren't seen, by the destruction. Even if there were fewer people in the nation, there should have been individuals within viewing distance, as much as a few miles away, of a tornado, whereas, they have to be within inches of where lightning strikes because conditions locally were right.
    There is no explanation for tornado numbers to have been roughly steady at about 180 per year before about 1950 except that the actual number of tornadoes was that low. Interestingly, notice that the decrease in lightning victims seems to coincide with the rise in tornado numbers.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. jtdwyer in reply to julianpenrod 03:52 PM 11/30/12

    Interesting thoughts but, having grown up in small town Texas & Oklahoma in the 1950s, I'll raise a couple of subtle coutnerpoints. I know than the majority of people in the U.S. and around the world now, for the first time, live in urban areas. However, with the general increase in populations (since 1950 the U.S. has doubled, the world nearly tripled), I'm not at all sure that rural or small town populations have decreased. Of course many suburban towns would have once qualified as rural towns, complicating matters. I suspect that non-urban populations have actually increased, although farm populations have certainly diminished.

    While lightning is certainly easy to see outdoors, especially at night, and regional thunder never goes unnoticed (except perhaps in the middle of the night), it usually does not leave long term evidence of its presence even if it strikes down to Earth, unless it produces a fire.

    Tornadoes, on the other hand, are often difficult to see at night or when shrouded by rain, but if they touch down they usually leave plenty of evidence of their passing.

    Since lightning rarely goes unnoticed but is generally only fatal if it strikes an individual, the rise in tornado reports is quite likely due to increased damage to even non-urban 'property improvements' and structures - damage that is now reported to insurance companies that might not have been reported in the past.

    As a slightly relevant aside, I bought a used car about 2 years ago and was reassured that the 'car facts' service reported no accident damage. Later I discovered there had been some bodywork repairs - it turns out that only repairs paid by an insurance company are reported by Car Fax & other such services! Sometimes the actual facts are not as clear as they seem...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. Postman1 in reply to julianpenrod 10:32 PM 12/3/12

    julianpenrod There is no increase in tornadoes since 1950 as you stated. There are more reports of tornadoes, because there are more people to see them and reporting is easy. 2012 will likely go down as the quietest tornado year on record. Study was led by Roger Pielke, Jr:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2012/10/20/tornado-damage/1644991/

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

Tweets could not be retrieved at this time

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Email this Article

Electrifying News: Lightning Deaths Decline

X
Scientific American MIND iPad

Tap into your MIND

Get Both Print & Tablet Editions for one low price!

Subscribe Now >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X