HartmutJul 13th, 2007 - 14:32:17

> The man, who was sheltering beneath a tree
Isn't the first thing you learn as a kid about thunderstorms to not hide beneath a tree.
Not saying that wearing earphones didn't made his injuries worse, but what was that guy doing siting under that tree?

Report this comment

JoymanJul 13th, 2007 - 15:19:29

He was probably sheltering from the rain that usually comes with a thunderstorm. That is ridiculous how much physical damage a lightning strike can do, breaking his jaw and dislocating his ear bones!

Report this comment

Tampa TomJul 13th, 2007 - 15:28:15

There is no suggestion or evidence that listening to an iPod or other player increases your chances of getting hit by lightning.

This is more an indication of how many people listen to MP3 players while they are outside.

Very BAD journalism.

Report this comment

LEVI506Jul 13th, 2007 - 15:30:07

Talk about ignorant. Making a story out of this? Next it will be glasses. What next, shall we ban lightning? The Loonies have really out done them selves with articles like these. What a waste of paper!

Report this comment

Soundtrack to a storm in IllinoisJul 13th, 2007 - 15:34:41

If listening to an iPod in the storm is wrong, I don't want to be right. What about the reports from a couple of years ago that stated that wearing iPods was more likely to increase your chance of being robbed. Just because something COULD happen does not mean it will happen...why live in fear because of the what if's? Everyone should be safe during storms, but when does caution turn into panic; be smart and be safe.

Report this comment

DaveJul 13th, 2007 - 15:59:12

Hey Tampa Tom, READ the article before commenting on it. It says very clearly that portable players do not increase the risk of being struck by lightning, the point of the article is that if you ARE hit by lightning, having metal wires stuck into your ears will increase the damage to your body. GOOD journalism, bad reader.

Report this comment

MichelJul 13th, 2007 - 16:07:42

I don't see why some of the commenters are so perturbed by this article. Just don't listen to an iPod outside during a thunderstorm. If I were caught outside during a thunderstorm, I know I'd want to take steps that, in the rare event I got hit by lightning, it wouldn't fry my innards as much. Geez - there's nothing very radical about the article. It's not bad journalism at all.

Report this comment

malikJul 13th, 2007 - 16:19:58

its a good article stop dissing guys i know wht to do if get cought up in that kinda of situation

Report this comment

TruthsayerJul 13th, 2007 - 16:52:46

I think the problem folks have with the article is that the headline is just too misleading and it unnecessarily raises alarm while it capitalizes on the popularity of the Ipod. It says 'Lightning Strikes Ipod Wearers More', but after you read the entire article, you learn that by having any kind of metal on you, you have exactly the same risk. Why didn't the headline just say 'Lighting Strikes People with Metal More'? because none of us would have bothered to read it. No readers, no advertising dollars for the newspaper. No adverting dollars, no newspaper. We expect headlines to be somewhat sensational, but this one just went way past the mark. .

Report this comment

nobodyJul 13th, 2007 - 17:26:15

I don't blame the author for hyping this story, as the general media already has. I do think it is worth noting that sitting under a tree increases the risk of being struck by lightening according to common knowledge, as does being outside in a thunderstorm. While any conductor of electricity on the body increases the intensity of the damage, so does water from sweat/rain. The moral of the story isn't so much as not wearing an iPod in during storms as much as it is to keep in mind that being outside amid a thunderstorm is dangerous to begin with. Furthermore, and any metal substance will be more prone to attract electricity and use the structure to ground itself. It makes no difference if the device worn is an iPod, mobile phone, or gluing nails to one's skull by dressing up as Pinhead for Halloween. It's all elementary physics.

Report this comment

JoeJul 13th, 2007 - 17:26:39

Frankly, the article is just idiotic. Have you really read it? The actual point is that “wearing headphones or carrying any form of metal appliance (or the likes of coins and jewellery) when struck, can lead to the charge being conducted.” Got it? Havihg coins with is bad during storm. Wearing earrings is bad. Wearing wedding ring is bad. Wearing necklace is a complete disaster. Police officers would most certainly die because of their guns. And I don’t even start about soldiers. But wait! Your jeans have extremely dangerous metal parts. And in extremely dangerous place for that matter. Your watch is gonna burn your hand out. Your keys are a recipe for a certain tragedy. And your belt buckle would send you the flaming hell. And what is really important all this stuff that people were happily wearing for centuries is much more dangerous than MP3 player because it has much more metal.

May be we just got too much journalists those days.

Report this comment

karmaduckJul 13th, 2007 - 18:54:31

this isn't a story about an ipod or a digital music player. it's a story about someone that was struck by lightning. this person happened to be carrying an ipod, but he could have just as easily been carrying a turtle or a can of beer.

Report this comment

WillieBoyJul 13th, 2007 - 21:19:19

The article also failed to note the odds in getting hit by lightning.
More shock and aughhh.

Report this comment

What a moronJul 14th, 2007 - 10:06:45

First he is using an electronic device in a storm, 2nd he is taking shelter under a tree. He was begging to get hit by lightening! The iPhones aren't water proof NOR lightening proof, buddy! They do a lot, but a forcefield isn't one of them.

He will probably be on the phone to Apple next week, saying his iPhone won't work and thinks water and electric damage should be covered under warranty.

Report this comment