Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Chris W Althaus Injury from lightning strike while using mobile phone: Mobile phones are not lightning strike risk BMJ 2006; 333: 96-a [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Cell phone lightning strike previously reported

Phillip J. Colquitt   (7 July 2006)

Exposure may the (very small) risk

Robert West   (8 July 2006)

Cell phone lightning strike previously reported 7 July 2006
Phillip J. Colquitt, Technician Independent Comment Send response to journal: Re: Cell phone lightning strike previously reported	I too was struck(no pun) by the referencing quality in Esprit et al[1], as noted here by Althaus[2]. The reference(number 5 the Esprit list) was as follows…… “5. Australian Lightning Protection Standard AS/170, National Lightning Safety Institute (2004). See: Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. The WA Stormspotter. Vol 8, No 1, 20 December 2004. Storm safety: mobile and cordless phones. www.bom.gov.au/weather/wa/sevwx/spdec04.shtml (accessed 14 Jun 2006). “ My copy of the Australian Standard “Lightning protection”, confirms the Standards Australia site gives “AS/NZS 1768(Int):2003” as the reference number, not AS/170. Esprit et al also give “National Lightning Safety Institute”[NLSI]. Is this meant to be a reference to an Australian such body? The NLSI is not on the committee prefacing the Australian Standard AS/NZS 1768, and it doesn’t show up on the Australian Government website. I found several mentions of an NLSI body in the USA. Esprit et al then give a website. Is it normal referencing practice to condense references from different sources? Is it an attempt at being concise? Esprit et al[1] say…..”To our knowledge, no similar cases have been reported in the medical literature. We found three cases reported in newspapers in China, Korea, and Malaysia.” But Milzman et al[3], some seven years ago, specifically stated…… “This case report describes a young woman who was struck by lightning while talking on a cellular telephone at a mass gathering in an outdoor stadium.” Of minor importance, there was no page element given in the citation of Mason and Crockett(cited fully here[4]), though one could find article from the information given. [1]Esprit S, Kothari P, Dhillon R. Injury from lightning strike while using mobile phone. BMJ 2006;332: 1513. (24 June). [2]Althaus CW. Injury from lightning strike while using mobile phone: Mobile phones are not lightning strike risk. BMJ 2006 333: 96. [3]Milzman DP, Moskowitz L, Hardel M. Lightning strikes at a mass gathering. South Med J. 1999 Jul;92(7):708-10. [4]Mason, AD; Crockett, RK When Lighting Strikes...A Case Report and Review of the Literature. INTERNATIONAL PEDIATRICS; VOL 15; PART 3; pp. 173-178; 2000. Competing interests: None declared
Exposure may the (very small) risk 8 July 2006
Robert West, professor of epidemiology Wales heart research institute. Heath park. Cardiff Send response to journal: Re: Exposure may the (very small) risk	Sir, Perhaps one might add to this correspondence that standing in a prominent and exposed spot (while using a mobile phone) in order to seek a 'signal' in a poor coverage area may be the risk, if there is any measurable risk. Alpine climbers on exposed ridges during afternoon thunder storms know well the sensation of becoming a 'lightning conductor' and seek less exposure. Robert West Competing interests: None declared