(09-11-2023 05:04 AM)Gitanole Wrote: Lightning is a genuine health risk to athletes and anyone engaged in outdoor activities.
The suggestion that 'nobody ever get injured by lightning' is false.
As a general rule of thumb: If a topic is important enough to post about, it's important enough to open a tab on and learn a bit about before posting. The Internet is a great invention. It has search engines.
Sometimes 'the appearance of scholarship' really is scholarship. That's the case here. Research Gate makes bona fide peer-reviewed research studies available to the public in PDF form.
On this topic, research findings drive policy. In life, as every parent knows, one sometimes has the responsibility of preserving another's wellbeing at the expense of their fun. There are those who bear such responsibilities wherever thousands of people are assembled under stormy skies.
If 'deaths' are low where 'potential for injury' is physically and statistically elevated, a fairly obvious logical inference is that widely observed cautionary policies might actually be effective at preserving public health.
In any case, Research Gate is a useful site to bookmark. Enjoy.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2023 09:41 AM by Gitanole.)
(09-11-2023 05:04 AM)Gitanole Wrote: Lightning is a genuine health risk to athletes and anyone engaged in outdoor activities.
The suggestion that 'nobody ever get injured by lightning' is false.
As a general rule of thumb: If a topic is important enough to post about, it's important enough to open a tab on and learn a bit about before posting. The Internet is a great invention. It has search engines.
Sometimes 'the appearance of scholarship' really is scholarship. That's the case here. Research Gate makes bona fide peer-reviewed research studies available to the public in PDF form.
On this topic, research findings drive policy. In life, as every parent knows, one sometimes has the responsibility of preserving another's wellbeing at the expense of their fun. There are those who bear such responsibilities wherever thousands of people are assembled under stormy skies.
If 'deaths' are low where 'potential for injury' is physically and statistically elevated, a fairly obvious logical inference is that widely observed cautionary policies might actually be effective at preserving public health.
In any case, Research Gate is a useful site to bookmark. Enjoy.
B.S.! You have no evidence of any deaths having ever occurred! If we outlaw cookies nobody will choke to death on one will they? Are we then to infer that the outlawing of cookies is a good thing because while nobody was choking to death on them before with the restrictions of no cookies somehow, we should accept the guarantees that nobody would ever be able to choke on them if they are banned and that this constitutes as evidence of both the necessity and efficacy of a cookie ban? The stadia as presently constructed are essentially Farraday cages. The likelihood of a fatal strike of lightening is practically nil. In this case what you offer is a P.C. policy with zero evidence to substantiate its claim and then you argue that we should accept inconclusive proof as sufficient science of its necessity and efficacy. This is precisely what is wrong with education today. Scientific method I accept. What you offer is conjecture supported by no hard scientific fact, and only the assumption that you are preventing something which hasn't occurred in the designated set of circumstances. We once had a term for this: "a pseudointellectual conclusion". Or, the "Because I say so!" defense. Perhaps this is why in your statement you relate adults attending football games to children which the Nanny must protect at the cost of their choices. Very revealing! I also like the paper dagger of research in PDFs when there is no support of your claim.
Apply the scientific method and I'll accept the results. You can't have a murder without a corpus delicti to substantiate your claim. In this case we literally have no body due to lightning which means you have no evidence upon which to base a claim, and therefore have no science to back up your claim, or the practice predicated upon it. What we do have is preconditioning of the public to accept unsubstantiated claims of a relatively non-existent threat.
If someone can provide the evidence that attending a college football game in a modern stadium puts you at risk of a lightning strike, I will accept the conclusion and the postponements. Frequency of static discharge outside of Farraday cage is not evidence of any kind, just natural occurrence. My advice is don't play golf or fish, or plow a field in thunderstorm. You are out in the open and hold conductive material or are sitting in it. A modern stadium, not so much at all.
Your response and reference to the ubiquitous PDF files reminds me of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when the government told Dr. Jones they had "Top Men" working on it.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2023 10:33 AM by JRsec.)
(09-11-2023 05:04 AM)Gitanole Wrote: Lightning is a genuine health risk to athletes and anyone engaged in outdoor activities.
The suggestion that 'nobody ever get injured by lightning' is false.
As a general rule of thumb: If a topic is important enough to post about, it's important enough to open a tab on and learn a bit about before posting. The Internet is a great invention. It has search engines.
Sometimes 'the appearance of scholarship' really is scholarship. That's the case here. Research Gate makes bona fide peer-reviewed research studies available to the public in PDF form.
On this topic, research findings drive policy. In life, as every parent knows, one sometimes has the responsibility of preserving another's wellbeing at the expense of their fun. There are those who bear such responsibilities wherever thousands of people are assembled under stormy skies.
If 'deaths' are low where 'potential for injury' is physically and statistically elevated, a fairly obvious logical inference is that widely observed cautionary policies might actually be effective at preserving public health.
In any case, Research Gate is a useful site to bookmark. Enjoy.
B.S.! You have no evidence of any deaths having ever occurred! If we outlaw cookies nobody will choke to death on one will they? Are we then to infer that the outlawing of cookies is a good thing because while nobody was choking to death on them before the restrictions of no cookies somehow we should accept the guarantees that nobody would ever be able to choke on them if they are banned as evidence of both the necessity and efficacy of a cookie ban? The stadia as presently constructed are essentially Farraday cages. The likelihood of a fatal strike of lightening is practically nil. In this case what you offer is a P.C. policy with zero evidence to substantiate its claim and then you argue that we should accept inconclusive proof as sufficient science of its necessity and efficacy. This is precisely what is wrong with education today. Scientific method I accept. What you offer is conjecture supported by no hard scientific fact, and only the assumption that you are preventing something which hasn't occurred in the designated set of circumstances. We once had a term for this: "a pseudointellectual conclusion". Or, the "Because I say so!" defense. Perhaps this is why in your statement you relate adults attending football games to children which the Nanny must protect at the cost of their choices. Very revealing! I also like the paper dagger of research in PDFs when there is no support of your claim.
Apply the scientific method and I'll accept the results. You can't have a murder without a corpus delicti to substantiate your claim. In this case we literally have no body due to lightning which means you have no evidence upon which to base a claim, and therefore have no science to back up your claim, or the practice predicated upon it. What we do have is preconditioning of the public to accept unsubstantiated claims of a relatively non-existent threat.
If someone can provide the evidence that attending a college football game in a modern stadium puts you at risk of a lightning strike, I will accept the conclusion and the postponements. Frequency of static discharge outside of Farraday cage is not evidence of any kind, just natural occurrence. My advice is don't play golf or fish, or plow a field in thunderstorm. You are out in the open and hold conductive material or are sitting in it. A modern stadium, not so much at all.
Your response and reference to the ubiquitous PDF files reminds me of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when the government told Dr. Jones they had "Top Men" working on it.
The other team was unscathed. Apparently the difference was metal studs vs. rubber studs in their shoes. Additionally, over 30 people were injured on the sidelines.
(09-11-2023 05:04 AM)Gitanole Wrote: Lightning is a genuine health risk to athletes and anyone engaged in outdoor activities.
The suggestion that 'nobody ever get injured by lightning' is false.
As a general rule of thumb: If a topic is important enough to post about, it's important enough to open a tab on and learn a bit about before posting. The Internet is a great invention. It has search engines.
Sometimes 'the appearance of scholarship' really is scholarship. That's the case here. Research Gate makes bona fide peer-reviewed research studies available to the public in PDF form.
On this topic, research findings drive policy. In life, as every parent knows, one sometimes has the responsibility of preserving another's wellbeing at the expense of their fun. There are those who bear such responsibilities wherever thousands of people are assembled under stormy skies.
If 'deaths' are low where 'potential for injury' is physically and statistically elevated, a fairly obvious logical inference is that widely observed cautionary policies might actually be effective at preserving public health.
In any case, Research Gate is a useful site to bookmark. Enjoy.
B.S.! You have no evidence of any deaths having ever occurred! If we outlaw cookies nobody will choke to death on one will they? Are we then to infer that the outlawing of cookies is a good thing because while nobody was choking to death on them before the restrictions of no cookies somehow we should accept the guarantees that nobody would ever be able to choke on them if they are banned as evidence of both the necessity and efficacy of a cookie ban? The stadia as presently constructed are essentially Farraday cages. The likelihood of a fatal strike of lightening is practically nil. In this case what you offer is a P.C. policy with zero evidence to substantiate its claim and then you argue that we should accept inconclusive proof as sufficient science of its necessity and efficacy. This is precisely what is wrong with education today. Scientific method I accept. What you offer is conjecture supported by no hard scientific fact, and only the assumption that you are preventing something which hasn't occurred in the designated set of circumstances. We once had a term for this: "a pseudointellectual conclusion". Or, the "Because I say so!" defense. Perhaps this is why in your statement you relate adults attending football games to children which the Nanny must protect at the cost of their choices. Very revealing! I also like the paper dagger of research in PDFs when there is no support of your claim.
Apply the scientific method and I'll accept the results. You can't have a murder without a corpus delicti to substantiate your claim. In this case we literally have no body due to lightning which means you have no evidence upon which to base a claim, and therefore have no science to back up your claim, or the practice predicated upon it. What we do have is preconditioning of the public to accept unsubstantiated claims of a relatively non-existent threat.
If someone can provide the evidence that attending a college football game in a modern stadium puts you at risk of a lightning strike, I will accept the conclusion and the postponements. Frequency of static discharge outside of Farraday cage is not evidence of any kind, just natural occurrence. My advice is don't play golf or fish, or plow a field in thunderstorm. You are out in the open and hold conductive material or are sitting in it. A modern stadium, not so much at all.
Your response and reference to the ubiquitous PDF files reminds me of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when the government told Dr. Jones they had "Top Men" working on it.
The other team was unscathed. Apparently the difference was metal studs vs. rubber studs in their shoes. Additionally, over 30 people were injured on the sidelines.
And were they inside a modern football stadium on a college campus in the United States? Lightning is a fact of life. I saw and read these two reports. I appreciate what you are saying as you produce examples of sports fatalities or injuries due to lightning. Both occurred in villages, likely on open fields without lights or any kind of structure grounded by lightning rods surrounding them. Public soccer fields in most cities in the South today would fail those circumstances as you have aluminum bleachers on two sides of an open field. Therein resides the difference.
I am all about the science and the science simply doesn't indicate a threat to events inside a modern stadium, especially one with lights on massive poles which are grounded. My point is that by suspending the events and in some cases forcing an evacuation from the stadium, or if not forced creating one by the suspension, you actually put more people in jeopardy by having them leave the stadium and walk to their cars in large flat open areas. If we have people who are being impacted by lightning inside these stadia I'm all for suspension of the contest. There just is no evidence other than the frequency of strikes outside of thate stadia to indicate a threat. And since the issue is the conduct of the contest itself if there have been no lightning strikes inside the stadiums in the Deep South and Coastal regions perhaps that is because of what how the stadium actually functions in an electrical storm. I have an open mind on this issue. I have looked for and could not find evidence of, a threat, in the past, or now. It's one of those things that looks right, but actually may not be right.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2023 10:53 AM by JRsec.)
(09-11-2023 05:04 AM)Gitanole Wrote: Lightning is a genuine health risk to athletes and anyone engaged in outdoor activities.
The suggestion that 'nobody ever get injured by lightning' is false.
As a general rule of thumb: If a topic is important enough to post about, it's important enough to open a tab on and learn a bit about before posting. The Internet is a great invention. It has search engines.
Sometimes 'the appearance of scholarship' really is scholarship. That's the case here. Research Gate makes bona fide peer-reviewed research studies available to the public in PDF form.
On this topic, research findings drive policy. In life, as every parent knows, one sometimes has the responsibility of preserving another's wellbeing at the expense of their fun. There are those who bear such responsibilities wherever thousands of people are assembled under stormy skies.
If 'deaths' are low where 'potential for injury' is physically and statistically elevated, a fairly obvious logical inference is that widely observed cautionary policies might actually be effective at preserving public health.
In any case, Research Gate is a useful site to bookmark. Enjoy.
B.S.! You have no evidence of any deaths having ever occurred! If we outlaw cookies nobody will choke to death on one will they? Are we then to infer that the outlawing of cookies is a good thing because while nobody was choking to death on them before the restrictions of no cookies somehow we should accept the guarantees that nobody would ever be able to choke on them if they are banned as evidence of both the necessity and efficacy of a cookie ban? The stadia as presently constructed are essentially Farraday cages. The likelihood of a fatal strike of lightening is practically nil. In this case what you offer is a P.C. policy with zero evidence to substantiate its claim and then you argue that we should accept inconclusive proof as sufficient science of its necessity and efficacy. This is precisely what is wrong with education today. Scientific method I accept. What you offer is conjecture supported by no hard scientific fact, and only the assumption that you are preventing something which hasn't occurred in the designated set of circumstances. We once had a term for this: "a pseudointellectual conclusion". Or, the "Because I say so!" defense. Perhaps this is why in your statement you relate adults attending football games to children which the Nanny must protect at the cost of their choices. Very revealing! I also like the paper dagger of research in PDFs when there is no support of your claim.
Apply the scientific method and I'll accept the results. You can't have a murder without a corpus delicti to substantiate your claim. In this case we literally have no body due to lightning which means you have no evidence upon which to base a claim, and therefore have no science to back up your claim, or the practice predicated upon it. What we do have is preconditioning of the public to accept unsubstantiated claims of a relatively non-existent threat.
If someone can provide the evidence that attending a college football game in a modern stadium puts you at risk of a lightning strike, I will accept the conclusion and the postponements. Frequency of static discharge outside of Farraday cage is not evidence of any kind, just natural occurrence. My advice is don't play golf or fish, or plow a field in thunderstorm. You are out in the open and hold conductive material or are sitting in it. A modern stadium, not so much at all.
Your response and reference to the ubiquitous PDF files reminds me of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" when the government told Dr. Jones they had "Top Men" working on it.
The other team was unscathed. Apparently the difference was metal studs vs. rubber studs in their shoes. Additionally, over 30 people were injured on the sidelines.
And were they inside a modern football stadium on a college campus in the United States? Lightning is a fact of life. I saw and read these two reports. I appreciate what you are saying as you produce examples of sports fatalities or injuries due to lightning. Both occurred in villages, likely on open fields without lights or any kind of structure grounded by lightning rods. Therein resides the difference.
I mean lightning doesn't really care if it's a village or not. An open air stadium can have its field or seating area struck by lightning.
The fact that there are reports within recent memory (2021 especially) of this happening means that if by some terrible stroke of luck it happens at an NCAA game the family of the player or coach in question will sue the NCAA or any authority figure that could have postponed the game until the weather passed for millions of dollars.
Just want to make sure: lightning rods aren't perfect. Yes that make it more likely for lightning to hit them instead of somewhere else, but it doesn't mean it's 100% effective. That there's a non-0 chance of a death means they'll play it safe so that in the lawsuit paradise of the USA they won't be out millions of dollars.
(09-11-2023 10:54 AM)e-parade Wrote: Just want to make sure: lightning rods aren't perfect. Yes that make it more likely for lightning to hit them instead of somewhere else, but it doesn't mean it's 100% effective. That there's a non-0 chance of a death means they'll play it safe so that in the lawsuit paradise of the USA they won't be out millions of dollars.
This is 100% of the issue at hand. More people are killed by flying baseballs in the United States while inside a stadium, than are killed by lightning, and that is true if only 1 each year is killed by a flying baseball. And these statistics were true before the required shut down due to proximity strikes, and they are still true.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2023 11:00 AM by JRsec.)
(09-11-2023 10:54 AM)e-parade Wrote: Just want to make sure: lightning rods aren't perfect. Yes that make it more likely for lightning to hit them instead of somewhere else, but it doesn't mean it's 100% effective. That there's a non-0 chance of a death means they'll play it safe so that in the lawsuit paradise of the USA they won't be out millions of dollars.
This is 100% of the issue at hand. More people are killed by flying baseballs in the United States while inside a stadium, than are killed by lightning, and that is true if only 1 each year is killed by a flying baseball. And these statistics were true before the required shut down due to proximity strikes, and they are still true.
I agree. It's not at all likely, but no one wants to be the person in charge when the 1 in a million thing eventually happens. Preventative measures go in place so they can say they did everything in their power.
I know I wouldn't want to be the guy who rolled it back to the applause of people in this thread only to have to be questioned when even an absolute minor injury came up from it.
(09-11-2023 10:54 AM)e-parade Wrote: Just want to make sure: lightning rods aren't perfect. Yes that make it more likely for lightning to hit them instead of somewhere else, but it doesn't mean it's 100% effective. That there's a non-0 chance of a death means they'll play it safe so that in the lawsuit paradise of the USA they won't be out millions of dollars.
This is 100% of the issue at hand. More people are killed by flying baseballs in the United States while inside a stadium, than are killed by lightning, and that is true if only 1 each year is killed by a flying baseball. And these statistics were true before the required shut down due to proximity strikes, and they are still true.
I agree. It's not at all likely, but no one wants to be the person in charge when the 1 in a million thing eventually happens. Preventative measures go in place so they can say they did everything in their power.
I know I wouldn't want to be the guy who rolled it back to the applause of people in this thread only to have to be questioned when even an absolute minor injury came up from it.
If you believe you have the right to drive your vehicle on the streets of any U.S. city you already accept a risk infinitely greater than attending a college or pro football game in a modern stadium. Are we to ban driving so you don't get hurt? Every life ends in mortality. And since there is absolute certainty of death we should focus on how we live and not our fear of the aboslute!
(09-11-2023 10:54 AM)e-parade Wrote: Just want to make sure: lightning rods aren't perfect. Yes that make it more likely for lightning to hit them instead of somewhere else, but it doesn't mean it's 100% effective. That there's a non-0 chance of a death means they'll play it safe so that in the lawsuit paradise of the USA they won't be out millions of dollars.
So yeah, still not colleges, but in the US and Canada, as well as a relatively modern (albeit small) stadium in Russia.
Yes, a health hazard definitely exists. And a moral and legal responsibility exists when students risk hazards as a matter of obligation to some authority—where it's up to that authority to make the call. There being no guarantees, the best someone in authority can do is act according to a research-based policy.
Lightning doesn't know the difference between village and game, between high school and college and pro, between athlete and audience or band member holding a brass instrument. All one can do is get the best data and expert recommendations that one can, then act in the best interests of all those present.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2023 04:26 PM by Gitanole.)
(09-11-2023 10:54 AM)e-parade Wrote: Just want to make sure: lightning rods aren't perfect. Yes that make it more likely for lightning to hit them instead of somewhere else, but it doesn't mean it's 100% effective. That there's a non-0 chance of a death means they'll play it safe so that in the lawsuit paradise of the USA they won't be out millions of dollars.
So yeah, still not colleges, but in the US and Canada, as well as a relatively modern (albeit small) stadium in Russia.
Yes, a health hazard definitely exists. And a moral and liability risk exists where students run these risks as a matter of obligation to some authority, where it's up to that authority to make the call. There being no guarantees, the best an authority can do is act according to a research-based policy.
Lightning doesn't know the difference between village and game, between high school and college and pro, between athlete and audience or a band member holding a brass instrument. All one can do is get the best data and expert recommendations that one can, then act in the best interests of all those present.
If that is the case, why have alcohol sales at the games so the fans kill themselves or others when they leave? More people have fallen to their deaths in recent years inside modern stadia than have been struck by lightning (0). Where's the justification in alcohol sales because in many of the falling deaths it has contributed? There is virtually no risk for lightning strikes inside a modern stadium. There is ample reason to be concerned about the sale of alcohol both during and after the event. When equal concern is shown, I'll listen, until then this is all hooey!
As to the bolded there is ample science and yes lightning is going to react to the grounded device in a modern stadium, on an open field with no structure and no grounding it's likely to strike the highest point in the discharge. This is why modern stadiums are secure and the open field is not. Oh, but that's science!
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2023 11:26 AM by JRsec.)
America 2023 - Universities actually caring about the safety of players and fans are called soft and made an example of the supposed decline of America.
(09-11-2023 10:54 AM)e-parade Wrote: Just want to make sure: lightning rods aren't perfect. Yes that make it more likely for lightning to hit them instead of somewhere else, but it doesn't mean it's 100% effective. That there's a non-0 chance of a death means they'll play it safe so that in the lawsuit paradise of the USA they won't be out millions of dollars.
So yeah, still not colleges, but in the US and Canada, as well as a relatively modern (albeit small) stadium in Russia.
Yes, a health hazard definitely exists. And a moral and liability risk exists where students run these risks as a matter of obligation to some authority, where it's up to that authority to make the call. There being no guarantees, the best an authority can do is act according to a research-based policy.
Lightning doesn't know the difference between village and game, between high school and college and pro, between athlete and audience or a band member holding a brass instrument. All one can do is get the best data and expert recommendations that one can, then act in the best interests of all those present.
If that is the case, why have alcohol sales at the games so the fans kill themselves or others when they leave? More people have fallen to their deaths in recent years inside modern stadia than have been struck by lightning (0). Where's the justification in alcohol sales because in many of the falling deaths it has contributed? There is virtually no risk for lightning strikes inside a modern stadium. There is ample reason to be concerned about the sale of alcohol both during and after the event. When equal concern is shown, I'll listen, until then this is all hooey!
As to the bolded there is ample science and yes lightning is going to react to the grounded device in a modern stadium, on an open field with no structure and no grounding it's likely to strike the highest point in the discharge. This is why modern stadiums are secure and the open field is not. Oh, but that's science!
There are laws in place to prevent over serving of alcohol. There are also regulations in place at baseball stadiums that prevent the sale of alcohol after the 7th inning. If someone gets so drunk that they stumble off a balcony, there's going to be an investigation and almost certainly at the very least fines that come from it.
Driving is completely a choice, like being a fan at the stadium. A player or member of staff would be required to be there.
(09-09-2023 02:13 PM)andybible1995 Wrote: What has happened in the last 10 years that has caused late summer severe weather to wreak havoc on games being played?
Global warming?
Also, JRsec, you're not helping yourself here with the semantic arguments.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2023 03:12 PM by rtist.)
(09-09-2023 02:13 PM)andybible1995 Wrote: What has happened in the last 10 years that has caused late summer severe weather to wreak havoc on games being played?
Global warming?
Also, JRsec, you're not helping yourself here with the semantic arguments.
Show me the evidence! No semantics on my part. Helluva tap dance on the other side though! There haven't been any lighting strike deaths in NCAA football venues or NFL venues. There is a reason, I've given it.
(09-09-2023 02:13 PM)andybible1995 Wrote: What has happened in the last 10 years that has caused late summer severe weather to wreak havoc on games being played?
Global warming?
Also, JRsec, you're not helping yourself here with the semantic arguments.
Show me the evidence! No semantics on my part. Helluva tap dance on the other side though! There haven't been any lighting strike deaths in NCAA football venues or NFL venues. There is a reason, I've given it.
I'm sure that weather forecasting and processes (leagues and officials determining how, when, and under what conditions games will be played) have something to do with your "no lightning strike deaths in NCAA/NFL venue" argument.
Maybe you think MLB is the same. Should these players have stayed on the field?
There is so much false equivalency in your arguments, JRsec, that calling your arguments poor is an understatement. Seriously, you're not helping yourself here. Stop before you embarrass yourself further.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2023 03:53 PM by rtist.)
UTSA is one of the three football teams in Texas that plays in a Dome. The weather is always good. The other two are the Dallas Cowboys and the Houston Texans. :)
(09-09-2023 02:13 PM)andybible1995 Wrote: What has happened in the last 10 years that has caused late summer severe weather to wreak havoc on games being played?
Global warming?
Also, JRsec, you're not helping yourself here with the semantic arguments.
Show me the evidence! No semantics on my part. Helluva tap dance on the other side though! There haven't been any lighting strike deaths in NCAA football venues or NFL venues. There is a reason, I've given it.
The reason is because they don't play games during times when there could be a lightning strike death.
Lightning striking anywhere and killing someone is a rare event. If you prevent the ability for people to be in a place during a lightning storm it should come as no surprise that there are no deaths there.
The video in this looks as though the lightning hits inside a professional football stadium. In multiple spots. There are also some that are just outside the stadium, clearly not hitting anything such as a lightning rod or pole.
No one was killed or injured because no one was there.
Just because it hasn't happened with anybody in there yet doesn't mean it won't. And saying "it's never happened before and therefore can't" is a logical fallacy (specifically the Normalcy Bias).
/
Severe weather wreaking havoc on games
