Mobile phones are not lightning strike risk: Injury from lightning strike while using mobile phone
BMJ 2006; 333 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7558.96-a (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 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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests