17 Comments

Interesting story – I also blogged about it here:
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/07/lightning-storm-along-germanswiss.html

Remember this line from the 1980s film “Back to the Future”?:
Professor Emmett Brown: “The only thing that can generate one point twenty-one gigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lighting…Unfortunately you never know when or where one is ever going to strike!”

While you cannot predict precisely where a lightning strike may occur, you can determine when the conditions are favorable for lightning strikes.

There is more to lightning than looking at the television / internet / Weather Channel.

Florida leads the nation in lightning strikes per year. Lightning strikes are a known and recognized danger. Schools, officials and sports officials are constantly being warned not to wait to see lightning, but to get kids off the field when the conditions are favorable for lightning strikes.

The fact that the school had no warning or informational system in place says a great deal.

gltarcarver, The following was taken from a NOAA website.

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/science.htm

Comparing lightning detection and lightning prediction.
The NLDN is a lightning detection system that reports within seconds the time and place a strike just occurred. Meteorologists use the progression, strength, and number of lightning strikes to assist in forecasting. For instance, direction, change in number of strikes, polarity, area covered and dissipation of lightning can help determine thunderstorm intensity. But lightning information is most valuable to forecasters when it is combined with other weather information, such as prevailing winds and rainfall, to help project the real-time path of a thunderstorm. The term “lightning prediction” has different uses. Lightning prediction can mean predicting that a storm has enough energy to generate lightning over a general area. Or it can mean predicting the time and place a strike is going to occur. For the first type of prediction, capabilities for predicting general lightning activity have been used for more than 10 years. Sensing equipment measures the weather conditions needed to generate lightning, signaling when lightning activity is likely over a large area, usually several square miles. That’s as close as technology gets to reliably predicting lightning. Mother Nature continues to closely guard her secret on when and where each strike will occur.

In other words there is no “lightning detection device” that would predict when and where lightning will strike. According to the article they did clear the field when they heard the thunder. So what else would you have wanted them to do?

In other words there is no “lightning detection device” that would predict when and where lightning will strike.

I think we must have read different articles.

For the first type of prediction, capabilities for predicting general lightning activity have been used for more than 10 years. Sensing equipment measures the weather conditions needed to generate lightning, signaling when lightning activity is likely over a large area, usually several square miles.

In other words, the technology is out there that would have shown the threat of lightning. The school chose not to use the technology.

Secondly, the FHSAA (the governing body for high school sports in Florida) has made it mandatory that all sites used for playoffs must have such detection devices. That decision seems to indicate that the FHSAA believes that the technology would be of great assistance.

Lastly, I have been on a field as a sport’s official in Florida and as a member of the FHSAA. I can tell you that there is great pressure from all sides to “get the game in.” While the article does say that the school officials stopped the game after they heard thunder, the article does not state how much thunder was heard (was it constant?) or how close the thunder was. (Was is close by? In the distance?)

I am not saying that the school is at fault for the boy’s death. I am saying that they did not do all they could to prevent a lightning strike harming a player, coach, fan, or official.

No one can say whether having lightning detection equipment would have saved the boy’s life. We can say that not having it increased the chances of the conditions for a lightning strike going undetected.

Another question not adequately addressed here is exactly what is the cost of installling “lightning detectors”, and the actual benefit?

The quote above says prediction can only be detected as “likely over several square miles”.

Of course, preventing even one death might make it worthwhile. But under that theory, every school should also build detectors for venomous snakes, falling airplanes, meteor strikes, falling trees, sinkholes, falling bullets, wildfires, flash floods, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and missile strikes. Whew! That’s a lot of stuff for one high school. Probably the only place that would measure up would be a fallout shelter. Only then they would be safe from lawsuits?

Gitarcarver, the reason I included the URL is so that you could read the article and understand what is meant by lightning detection. I guess that was expecting too much, so I will read it to you.

In the mid-1970’s, three University of Arizona scientists, Dr. E. Philip Krider, Dr. Burt Pifer, and Dr. Martin Uman, began researching lightning properties and behavior. Over the next decade, their research and the contributions of others resulted in the development of a national lightning detection system, the U.S. National Lightning Detection Network®. Since 1989, the NLDN® has monitored the 20 to 25 million cloud-to-ground lightning strikes that occur every year across the contiguous 48 states. The network operates 24 hours day, 365 days a year. The NLDN consists of over 100 remote, ground-based sensing stations located across the continental United States that instantaneously detect the electromagnetic signals given off when lightning strikes the earth’s surface. These remote sensors send the raw data via a satellite-based communications network to the Network Control Center operated by Global Atmospherics, Inc. in Tucson, Arizona. Within seconds of a lightning strike, the NCC’s central analyzers process information on the location, time, polarity, and amplitude of each strike. The lightning information is then communicated to users across the country. Lightning strike locations are usually reported in 30 seconds or less—faster than other hazardous weather indicators—making it an important early warning tool. The unprecedented accuracy of the network depends on precise waveform processing, global positioning system (GPS) time synchronization, high-speed signal processing, and wide-band peak gated magnetic direction finding techniques.

Thus the lightning detection system is not something that a school can implement. It is a national network that detects actual lighting strikes. Do you think that an after the fact detection of lightning would have been very useful to the person struck by lighting?

So the NLDN is not a solution. How about a lighting detection device? Yes there are companies that sell such a device.

http://www.boltek.com/

Boltek makes the EFM-100 Atmospheric Electric Field Monitor that by “Measuring the static electric field generated by thunderclouds the Boltek EFM-100 not only detects nearby lightning but can detect the atmospheric conditions which precede lightning. Electric field data is displayed and graphed on your desktop computer using the included software.”

I guess this is what you had in mind. There is only one problem. Read the disclaimer at the end of the article.

NOTE: The EFM-100 is intended for meteorological and scientific applications. While it can provide valuable weather data, it is not intended or recommended as a lightning safety warning device.

So once again I ask you what did you want the school to do?

I guess that was expecting too much, so I will read it to you.

I see. So when your own source contradicts your point it is my fault? Interesting.

You are confusing detecting lightning strikes with devices that detect whether the conditions are ripe for lightning to occur.

I agree with you that the lightning strike instruments and data collection are not available to the school. Devices that detect whether the conditions are ripe for lightning strikes is available commercially, at a relatively cheap price, and acknowledged by your own source article.

Read the disclaimer at the end of the article.

Wow. A lawyer’s disclaimer for a product. Who would have guessed that?

There is no doubt that the lightning condition devices may not be 100% perfect at all times. Yet obviously they are more reliable than nothing at all.

So once again I ask you what did you want the school to do?

How about “the school should use the available resources to help protect its students.”

But since we are asking questions….

The school had lightning detection devices and decided to stop using them because in their opinion, they were “inadequate.” After the death of the boy, the school started using the devices again.

Please explain why the school would stop using a device and then return to using it AFTER the death of one of their students?

Why is the FHSAA mandating the use of these detection devices for playoff sites and talking about making the detection devices mandatory for all outdoor events?

Finally, just out of curiosity, how much experience have you had with lightning in open fields in Florida?

“Please explain why the school would stop using a device and then return to using it AFTER the death of one of their students?”

There are many possible reasons. I assume you mean why would they do that is the device did not help.
Perhaps because, while they may be useless for protecting students and other people, they provide legal cover to protect the School Districts assets.

“Why is the FHSAA mandating the use of these detection devices for playoff sites and talking about making the detection devices mandatory for all outdoor events?”

Fear that they may be made the next defendant?

I will confess that I do not know how effective these devices are. Can you point out a peer-reviewed study that reports this data?

Perhaps because, while they may be useless for protecting students and other people, they provide legal cover to protect the School Districts assets.

So a device with a warning label that says it is not to be used for lightning conditions helps cover assets?

Fear that they may be made the next defendant?

I see. So your position is that FHSAA wants a device that doesn’t help, but will expose them for further liability for using it?

That makes sense.

Can you point out a peer-reviewed study that reports this data?

Please see the above referenced articles where the head of NOAA acknowledges that the technology is availabe and usable. If you want to debate NOAA, please go ahead.

Gitarcarver, just what part of “We know the cloud conditions needed to produce lightning, but cannot forecast the location or time of the next stroke of lightning” don’t you understand? I could understand how you could believe that the school was negligent if there were a reliable system that could be used to predict when lightning will strike and they refused to use it. Unfortunately there is not.

Wow. A lawyer’s disclaimer for a product. Who would have guessed that?

The reason they made the disclaimer is because the product is not capable of predicting when a lighting strike will occur. Is it better than nothing? It depends on how many false positives as well as false negatives you are willing to tolerate. In any case, if the system is not 100% effective that would not stop a lawsuit from being filed. Given the prevalence of lightning storms in Florida, to be on the safe side, they would have to cancel games as soon as the sky clouds up.

The school had lightning detection devices and decided to stop using them because in their opinion, they were “inadequate.” After the death of the boy, the school started using the devices again.

Please explain why the school would stop using a device and then return to using it AFTER the death of one of their students?

See your answer above about lawyers.

Why is the FHSAA mandating the use of these detection devices for playoff sites and talking about making the detection devices mandatory for all outdoor events?

See your answer above about lawyers.

Finally, just out of curiosity, how much experience have you had with lightning in open fields in Florida?

Do you think the laws of physics are different in Florida than in the rest of world? There may be more lightning storms in Florida but the physics of lightning is the same in Florida as anyplace else in the world.

Here is another URL from Florida Media Communications Lightning Tracker

http://tinyurl.com/2oqgkz

Once again the following disclaimer is issued: This system is designed to track thunderstorms.
It is NOT intended for protection of life or property.

just what part of “We know the cloud conditions needed to produce lightning, but cannot forecast the location or time of the next stroke of lightning” don’t you understand?

Just what part of
The term “lightning prediction” has different uses. Lightning prediction can mean predicting that a storm has enough energy to generate lightning over a general area. Or it can mean predicting the time and place a strike is going to occur. For the first type of prediction, capabilities for predicting general lightning activity have been used for more than 10 years. Sensing equipment measures the weather conditions needed to generate lightning, signaling when lightning activity is likely over a large area, usually several square miles. don’t you understand?

The reason they made the disclaimer is because the product is not capable of predicting when a lighting strike will occur.

Yet there is technology that can help predict when the CONDITIONS for a lightning strike is likely….. and it is more than just “when the sky clouds” as you stated.

False positves / negatives vs the life of a kid. False positives / negatives vs potential permanent injuries to people. When you put it like that, I can see your position clearly now.

Do you think the laws of physics are different in Florida than in the rest of world?

I’ll take that as you are totally unfamilier with lightning here in the state of Florida.

No one can say whether a hand held device would have prevented the death of the kid. We can say that not using the devices increased the chances of injuries / deaths to people. We also know that the school had weather radios that would have warned lightning stirkes in the area (using the NLDN) but those radios were in boxes.

The parents would probably have sued no matter what in this case. Even if the school had detection systems, they probably would have sued. However, step back for a moment and realize that having the systems and having the radios may have given the school more warning and saved the life of the kid. If you can’t do that, then we are all lost.

gitarcarver,

Step back for a moment and realize that cancelling all outdoor activies and never setting foot outdoors may have saved the life of the kid. If you can’t do that, then we are all lost.

MAY HAVAE. Yay. Many things may save lives. One MUST look at the cost/benefit analysis (including such things as false positives in warning systems), or one might as well live in a bomb shelter. After all, “if it saves one life…” and “It’s for the CHILDREN ™.”

If the systems in question were not deemed to be useful, well, then they shouldn’t use them. After a lawsuit, they are looking to find any kind of legal cover they can; why start using the devices again if they aren’t effective? They might be effective! Just not at prediciting lightning. Think “reduction in number of zeroes after the $ sign in a settlement” effective.

Step back for a moment and realize that cancelling all outdoor activies and never setting foot outdoors may have saved the life of the kid. If you can’t do that, then we are all lost.

I see. So you are equating trying to minimize risks with eliminating the activity altogether.

One MUST look at the cost/benefit analysis (including such things as false positives in warning systems), or one might as well live in a bomb shelter.

So your position is that it is better to have the equipment and the weather alert radios and not use them then to use them? If that is the case, then why spend the money in the first place?

Think “reduction in number of zeroes after the $ sign in a settlement” effective.

So the school could have done more? If they had used the devices and the radios they would be more likely to have a smaller judgement?

Thank you for making my point.

If the school had used the available technology they had at their disposal, the chances of a smaller settlement and a live kid would have increased.

I just happened to see a segment on The Science of Summer on the TV last night, which segment was on lightning. People are struck 500 times a year in the US, fewer than 100 are fatal. I rather have children pay attention to traffic, then to focus on a lightning indicator, even if the detector was perfect; And they just can’t be very useful for an individual.

William, that is an excellent point. Florida is the worse state for lightning fatalities with 126 deaths over a 14 year period. In other words there was an average of 9 deaths per year. Since Florida has a population of 18 million there is a one in two million change of being killed by lightning each year. Since only a fraction of the fatalities occur as high school sporting event we are more than likely talking about an event with a probability of happening of one in 10 million.

This is a classic example of what John Allen Paulos refers to as innumeracy. We worry about events happening with vanishing small odds and ignore events that have a much greater probability of happening such as being killed driving to and from the football game. There were 3244 car deaths in the Florida in 2004. Thus there is approximately a 360 times greater chance of being killed by cars than by lightning in Florida. Given those statistics I would suggest that the FHSAA should issue a ban on driving to and from the games. That would be a lot safer. Why we may even save the life of one or more kids. And as gitarcarver has told us “If you can’t do that, then we are all lost.”

Liability waivers… signed at birth by our parent or legal guardian… then revalidated by the individual once they reach the age of majority. That would solve the problem…

Yea… that would do it…

I can see detector product liability suits, patent suits, inadequate training suits… and then we can get into psychological trauma incured when the students and parents are required to vacate events because of false alerts… and the resultant distrust of technolgies, leading to…

… oh, heck… PLEASE tell me this is a joke…

Oh, heck . . . gitarcarver, why not just sue the National Weather Service, the radar operators at the nearest Weather Service radar station, the makers of said radar system, all the TV meteorologists on the local stations, NOAA, etc. while they’re at it? 🙂