Injury from lightning strike while using mobile phone: Statistics and physics do not suggest a link
BMJ 2006; 333 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7558.96 (Published 06 July 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;333:96
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am quite interested in exactly happened with the mobiles - you say
that the others experienced minor burns on their legs where their phones
were in their pockets - I presume by minor that means that none of the
current channeled through them? (In which case is this again further
evidence that having a mobile on you when you are hit by lightning does
not necessarily channel the bolt through your body?) Were the cellphones
and batteries intact afterwards? I suspect the rather volatile lithium
could have been the cause of these injuries and perhaps the girl's ear
damage if it had exploded due to the temperature rise. Also were the
cellphones all plastic encased? Did everyone receive similar burns around
their keys, necklaces, watches, earrings, etc?
thanks,
Ramsey
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor,
We have read the responses to our letter regarding the girl who was
struck by lightning whilst using her mobile phone with great interest.
This is a rare phenomenon and we want to clarify that our concern was
related only to the use of mobile phones in open spaces, such as parks,
during storms. We simply wanted to report a case that occurred under these
specific circumstances and by no means wanted to convey the opinion that
we felt that the public should not use or carry their mobile phones
outside whatever the circumstances. The case was not reported in full, the
details were that the girl was witnessed to be struck by lightning via her
mobile phone and her companions sustained superficial dermal burns on
their legs where they were carrying their mobile phones in their pockets.
We were very intrigued by this case and felt that other practitioners and
scientists would be interested too. The debate on this inflammatory topic
has been very insightful and we accept the fact that the evidence for a
specific association is theoretical and not statistical.
Competing interests:
Authors of original letter regarding girl struck by lightning whilst on mobile phone
Competing interests: No competing interests
Amalgam fillings and lightning
To be consistent and comprehensive in assessing such a matter, with
regard to metals on the body or head, it might be interesting to
contemplate the role(if any) of the metal tooth fillings in the mouths of
about 75% of the population(almost as many as have mobile phones).
Amalgams are about 50% mercury(quicksilver) and about 50% silver/copper
etc., and are wonderful conductors of electricity. Is the open mouth
continuous with the wet skin, for such purposes?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests