I suppose this makes sense, even if it is something I'd rather have remained ignorant about.
Listen to an iPod during a storm and you may get more than electrifying tunes.A Canadian jogger suffered wishbone-shaped chest and neck burns, ruptured eardrums and a broken jaw when lightning traveled through his music player's wires.
Last summer, a Colorado teen ended up with similar injuries when lightning struck nearby as he was listening to his iPod while mowing the lawn.
Emergency physicians report treating other patients with burns from freak accidents while using personal electronic devices such as beepers, Walkman players and laptop computers outdoors during storms.
Michael Utley, a former stockbroker from West Yarmouth, Mass., who survived being struck by lightning while golfing, has tracked 13 cases since 2004 of people hit while talking on cell phones. They are described on his Web site, www.struckbylightning.org.
Contrary to some urban legends and media reports, electronic devices don't attract lightning the way a tall tree or a lightning rod does.
"It's going to hit where it's going to hit, but once it contacts metal, the metal conducts the electricity," said Dr. Mary Ann Cooper of the American College of Emergency Physicians and an ER doctor at University of Illinois Medical Center at Chicago.
When lightning jumps from a nearby object to a person, it often flashes over the skin. But metal in electronic devices -- or metal jewelry or coins in a pocket -- can cause contact burns and exacerbate the damage.
One curious thing: in the comments to the story (yeah, I know, it would be more a productive use of my time to stick forks in my eyes), someone complained that the headline "Experts warn against wearing iPods during electrical storms" is "trashy" and "sensationalistic". Headlines of the "Experts warn about some particular behavior" variety seem pretty mundane to me. I admit, the stories themselves are often excessively lurid, but I don't see how that's the case here. Maybe I'm just inured to it by now, I don't know. But I'm not seeing any foul here.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on July 13, 2007 to Technology, science, and mathI just found myself wondering why you'd be jogging or golfing during a thunderstorm (vs taking cover inside).
But then, I tend to think that if you're running on street, having headphones in is just a bad idea, because you need to interact with what's around you (people, cars, etc.) and being able to hear those things is useful.
My other peeve: people wearing them while driving (isn't that illegal?) and while walking home at night (why not just wear a t-shirt that says "Available for Mugging"?).
Your sense of hearing is useful for making your way through the world.
Posted by: John on July 13, 2007 7:58 AMYea, since folks have started wearing socks, more people have been struck by lightening too. Does that mean we should stop wearing socks?
Or, to put it another way: The ratio of the population who get struck by lightening without having on an ipod is greater than the ratio of ipod wearers who get struck by lightening. Conclusion: you are safer in a lightening storm if you wear an ipod.
Posted by: Charles Hixon on July 13, 2007 11:08 AMMy problem with the headline is that it's too specific. The problem is with the earphones, not the ipod; it would be equally dangerous to wear a Zune or a Walkman or a portable CD player in a storm. It's like "Experts warn agaist drinking and driving Toyotas."
Posted by: christof Spieler on July 14, 2007 7:28 AM