Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Mobile Phones and Lightning a Lethal Mix 374

An anonymous reader writes "In a letter to the British Medical Journal, doctors wrote that people should not use mobile phones outdoors during thunderstorms because of the risk of being struck by lightning. Usually 'when someone is struck by lightning, the high resistance of the skin conducts the flash over the body in what is known as a flashover, but if a metal object, such as a phone, is in contact with the skin it disrupts the flashover and increases the odds of internal injuries and death.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mobile Phones and Lightning a Lethal Mix

Comments Filter:
  • by nightsnack ( 912594 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @03:56AM (#15587990)
    And this information is useful because we are always using our mobile phones out in thunderstorms.
    • Also, while you're outside, try and stay away from areas populated by wild pigs.
      • additionally, wearing a blouse with buttons certainly is a lethal
        combination when you are hit by a car, the buttons distort the equal
        hit and you'll die from a button breaking your chest. wear t-shirts.

          we have had quite many weird articles on slashdot, this certainly is
        one of them.

          if i get hit by lightning, i'd honestly rather die than live like a
        burned skin zombie for the rest of my days of sorrow.
    • by gbobeck ( 926553 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:27AM (#15588077) Homepage Journal
      And this information is useful because we are always using our mobile phones out in thunderstorms.


      Hey, look at how many golfers and fishermen get struck by lightning every year even though they should know better.

      A few lightning facts that need to be stated:

      1. Lightning strikes can occur on any day, even in the absence of clouds.
      2. Lightning can strike 10 miles away from a thunderstorm.
      3. If you can hear thunder, you are in range to be struck by lightning.
      4. Contrary to popular notion, there is no 'safe' location outdoors to take shelter from lightning, although your car will offer some protection (read: its a crude faraday cage) provided that you do not come in contact with any metal object.
      5. If you are on your cell phone talking to your friends and lightning strikes in the general area, causing you to scream like a little girl and soil yourself, and your friends hear it, they will not let you live that down for quite awhile. Doubly so if it is captured on video.
      • by LordSnooty ( 853791 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @06:35AM (#15588372)
        Doubly so if it is captured on video.

        Heheh. In South London ver kidz call it "happy-(thunder)-clapping".
      • by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @06:59AM (#15588420)
        ... that if you're in an area prone to lightning, you should make sure you have a 1-iron in your bag.
        When it gets dicey hold it up in the air - because as every golfer knows, even God can't hit a 1-iron.
      • 1. Lightning strikes can occur on any day, even in the absence of clouds.
        2. Lightning can strike 10 miles away from a thunderstorm.


        If lightning can strike even in the absence of clouds, why should there be a 10 mile limit?

        Or is it wrong of me to confabulate thunderstorms and clouds? Perhaps you're suggesting that thunderstorms can take place in the absence of clouds, too.

        Also, can somebody handy with Google please quantify for us the number of clear sky strikes versus "traditional" storm-associated
      • by nasor ( 690345 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @10:36AM (#15589386)
        Lightening is one of those non-threats that people (especially the media) like to blow out of proportion.

        There are an average of 73 people killed by lightening every year in the U.S. While each of those deaths is individually tragic, this is a trivial number of people compared to, say, forty thousand people killed in car crashes, thirty thousand killed by household accidents, six thousand people killed in workplace accidents, or even the average eight hundred people killed every year from non-lightening accidental electrocution.
      • by mcmonkey ( 96054 )
        3. If you can hear thunder, you are in range to be struck by lightning.

        Shouldn't that be:

        3. If you can hear thunder, Thor missed you. This time.

        The lightning that hits you, you won't hear. They're like the mob that way.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      And this information is useful because we are always using our mobile phones out in thunderstorms.

      But seriously, have you been out in the world lately? People use their mobile phones EVERYWHERE, at ALL TIMES. It's becoming extremely annoying.

      People aren't going to ask whether they should use their mobile in a t-storm. It will never occur to them that a thunderstorm is a reason to stop talking on the phone as usual.
    • Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @05:11AM (#15588194) Journal
      Are you kidding? Some people seem to not even have a life that doesn't involve screaming into a mobile phone. Yay for sitting next to the guy who's just got to tell everyone in his phone book that he's on a train, across from the codependent chick wanting to do everything together with her boyfriend and god forbid that they're not in contact at every hour (actually, she sounded so obsessed, she sounded more like "stalker" than just "codependent"), and a few other such specimens which can't just shut up for at least 5 minutes of a 5 hour train trip.

      Frankly, when I saw this Penny Arcade comic strip [penny-arcade.com], I thought I had actually been around people like that.

      What makes you think that that kinda people would stop talking in a thunderstorm? I can just see the same specimens under some crude picnic/fishing/bus/whatever shelter, screaming into the phone, "YES, I'M IN THE WOODS! CAN YOU HEAR ME? IN THE WOODS! WHAT WAS THAT? THERE'S A THUNDERSTORM HERE! CAN YOU HEAR ME? THUNDERSTORM!" Or I can just see the girl mentioned above shivering under some tree in the rain, but unwilling to stop being in contact with her boyfriend even then.
  • Metal objects ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:01AM (#15588002)
    but if a metal object, such as a phone,



    Odd, my cellphone practically has no metal surfaces ...

  • by cwalk ( 899502 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:01AM (#15588003)
    ...I no longer need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electrical power I need?
  • by ABeowulfCluster ( 854634 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:04AM (#15588010)
    Damn rivets! Catching my doo hoo willy on fire!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    You can then say "at least I was not using my mobile phone" ... duh!

    I am no expert, but I would say:
    1 - the risk of being hit is quite small if you behave with common sense (for one, stay inside!)
    2 - if you are hit, the consequences are quite severe anyway (die or very bad injury) so wether you carry a mobile or not should be a minor difference in the whole picture...

    It would be one thing if they said it is more LIKELY to be hit if you used the mobile, but that I cannot deduct from the statement, or?
    • Ironically, if you are ever in a lightining storm, it would be *safer* for you to be calling from inside a car, thanks to the large metal cage around you.

      Of course, you might lose control from the sudden flash and boom...
  • What about piercings (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What does the BMJ have to say about body piercings, such as multiple earrings/studs?
  • This is another of those disgusting Slashdot pseudo-science articles. Slashdot editors apparently spent their entire childhoods playing video games, and didn't learn anything about the real world.

    Edited paragraph, without the nonsense: "The Australian Lightning Protection Standard recommends that metallic objects... should not be used (or carried) outdoors during a thunderstorm..."

    The warning about metal and lightning has nothing particularly to do with cell phones. A tiny cell phone is not the biggest hazard. Don't use metal umbrellas during lightning storms.

    Don't fly kites with metal string. (Or any kite. Lightning travels on non-metallic paths sometimes.)
  • I really thought this was an established old wives tail..
    • Old wives and British Regulations to be most exact. In the UK:

      You are not allowed to your phone at a petrol station because it may spark and risk a fire. That is the most phantasmagorical bull one could ever think of. Real reason is that some of the older reed contact based counters could miscount and you could deprieve Gordon Brown of some of his "hard earned" pennies.

      Anywhere on the territory of a hospital so that you do not interfere with sensitive medical equipment. Another phantasmagorical bull.

      • That is the most phantasmagorical bull one could ever think of.

        Depends on how low quality the lithium battery is, or how badly you mistreat it.

        Anywhere on the territory of a hospital so that you do not interfere with sensitive medical equipment.

        There are some places (close to the equipment) where a cellphone can severely fsck up measurements (for example, cause ECGs to record pacemakes pulse when there aren't any). However, you need to be really close (within one meter, preferably closer).

        • There are some places (close to the equipment) where a cellphone can severely fsck up measurements.

          There are. No doubt. Around 0.1% of a hospital territory. And definitely not the hospital toilets or the non-intensive wards where there is no kit whatsoever. There it is entirely a matter of money. If it wasn't a matter of money, NHS would not have investigated the possibility of putting distributed antenna systems and/or picocells in the hospitals. Which they did. Multiple times over the years.

          The only re

          • Around 0.1% of a hospital territory.

            Yep, there's no denying that. The "no cellphone" rule is a classic example for punishing the 99.9% that are considerate because of the 0.1% that are idiots and will park their cellphone on top of sensitive medical equipment.

            It's also a liability issue. Some lawyer will find a way to pass the buck to the hospital in case of an incidents, even if it is completely unrelated.

      • bollocks (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RMH101 ( 636144 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:40AM (#15588525)
        You're arguing that tales of mobiles interfering with devices etc is an old wives tale. You counter with...wait for it...another old wives tale.
        Way to go.
        I'm sitting here next to a commercial ECG telemetry system. By taking a call with my cell phone and walking around near the telemetry transmitters, I can *see* the interference on the monitor screen. I can also *see* the interference as I walk near clinical trials subjects with holter ECG recorders on. I'm doing it now: the disturbances are also present in the electronic data captured from those ECG machines.
        If I were to go to our sister site and make a call within earshot of the coronary care unit, I'd get punched for using one because it *visibly and demonstrably* fucks up the readings and traces which are used for live, safety-critical monitoring.

        Sure, there are areas of hospitals where it won't affect anything, but there are areas where it will, and it's safer and easier to ban the use over a wider area rather than trying to enforce a policy of allowing it in one room but not the one next to it.
        Banning mobile phones in certain areas is just common sense - it's all about whether you can prove, beyond all doubt, that it *doesn't* interfere. If there's any doubt, or you just can't prove it, don't do it.
        • Re:bollocks (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:52AM (#15588585)
          I'm sitting here next to a commercial ECG telemetry system. By taking a call with my cell phone and walking around near the telemetry transmitters, I can *see* the interference on the monitor screen. I can also *see* the interference as I walk near clinical trials subjects with holter ECG recorders on.



          Yep. I'm actually developing patient monitoring devices, and have my cellphone next to the ECG I'm working on gives me a nice 1-second warning on the screen of the patient monitor before the thing is actually going to ring.



          It's nothing compared to other things we have to deal with (electrosurgery, for example), but then again, doctors _know_ that they can expect the ECG to be distorted when they push the button on the ESU probe.

    • by onion2k ( 203094 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:32AM (#15588087) Homepage
      You mean "tale". Unless the women around your bit of the world are really weird..
    • Old wives don't have tails you silly person.

      Even in Australia. Don't they teach you basic anatomy anymore ?
  • I'd of thought (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AlecLyons ( 767385 )
    The decrease in liklihood of a fatal injury not using you phone causes is insignificant compared to the decrease you get from removing metal jewelery?
  • Metal phones? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:21AM (#15588059)
    The only metal-bodied phones I've seen are the boutique ones like a Motorola V3. Everything else is firmly plastic, although most seem to have some kind of metal shielding inside when you open them up.

    Does it have to be metal in contact with the skin?
  • by xav_jones ( 612754 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:24AM (#15588066)
    Don't hold up umbrellas, large metal spikes or TV antennae. Jury is still out on iPods and tin foil hats maybe OK.
    • Maybe OK??? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @06:01AM (#15588296)
      ...and tin foil hats maybe OK.

      Wearing a tin foil hat in a lightning storm is a win/win situation. If it works you are protected from lightning, if it dosen't work the lightning will melt the tinfoil and fuse it with your skull creating a permanent mindsheild to protect you from those cosmic mind rays plus the lightning will probably also fry all those alien implants.
  • In other news .... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:26AM (#15588073)
    Doctors find that prolonged submersion under oceans can cause suffocation, and that walking into an active volcano can result in extensive burn damage.

    It is suspected that some natural forces can be injurious to human health. MORE FUNDING is needed to study these phenomena.

    Seriously, every slash-dotter must be aware that conductive objects on or near the body - jewelery is the obvious and most likely candidate - will act as a focus for energy transmission during a lightning strike. Belt buckles and shoe nails used to be the problem in earlier times.

    This can turn a survivable accident into a fatal accident. But should we all buy plastic-mounted diamond studs? Do we want to live forever? Or do we want to welcome our new insulated overlords.....?
    • If you find a source of funding, I should like some for my studies to confirm the work of others which showed that

      a) Children learn, and

      b) Alcohol make students drunk.

      I know these were legitimate studies, but they were done some years ago (1980's), and are in need of independent confirmation.

  • Hello!? (Score:4, Funny)

    by damburger ( 981828 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:33AM (#15588088)
    I'm in a thunderstorm!

    No, its crap!

    *ZAP*

  • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:33AM (#15588091)
    The best way to insulate oneself from lightning is to be _inside_ a metal object, such as an automobile.

    Anyone who has seen the Electricity Show at the increasingly unchanging Boston Museum of Science knows that.

    Lightning Safety tips, for the uniniated:

    1. Do try to not be the highest thing around.
    2. Don't stand under the highest thing around.
    3. Don't lay flat on the ground if you are at a golf course or open field. Crouch.
    3a. Some country clubs splurge and buy lightning detectors. Pay attention to the warning.
    4. Seek freakin' shelter
    5. 4 may conflict with 2.
    6. Cell phones are the least of your worries.
    7. Geeks should be more concerned whether the insurance covers the electronics.
    8. The rubber soles of your shoes won't protect you.
    9. If you are talking on your cell phone in the middle of a field during a lightning storm, Saint Darwin will announce "You! Out of the gene pool!" and take your soul.

    and lastly...

    10. **"The Australian Lightning Protection Standard recommends that >>metallic objects, including cordless or mobile phones, should not be used (or carried) outdoors during a thunderstorm," Esprit added.** So drop your pants and toss your belt buckle when the storm hits.

    --
    BMO
    • 2. Don't stand under the highest thing around.

      What if a building is the highest "thing" around?

    • by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Friday June 23, 2006 @05:33AM (#15588241)
      For those that simply like to play the odds. Here are the odds of dying in one's lifetime so one in :

      (For the impatient, lightning is 92 on the list, other gems are accidents, self-harm, assault, accidental poisoning, falling down, drugs, walking down the street, cars, bikes and things, fire, #28 is getting medical care, etc. Fun list!)

      64 Nontransport Unintentional (Accidental) Injuries [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      118 Intentional self-harm [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      211 Assault [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      212 Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      218 Intentional self-harm by firearm [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      228 Car occupant [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      229 Falls [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      247 Other and unspecified land transport accidents [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      264 Other and unspecified person [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      315 Assault by firearm [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      451 Narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens] n.e.c. [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      472 Other and unspecified fall [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      490 Accidental exposure to other and unspecified factors and sequelae [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      541 Other and unspecified drugs, medicaments, and biologicals [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      576 Intentional self-harm by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      612 Pedestrian [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      675 Other accidental threats to breathing [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      679 Intentional self-poisoning [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      771 Event of undetermined intent [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      869 Occupant of pick-up truck or van [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      997 Other and unspecified means and sequelae [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1032 Other fall on same level [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1081 Accidental drowning and submersion [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1117 Poisoning [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1159 Motorcycle rider [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1179 Exposure to smoke, fire and flames [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1267 Inhalation and ingestion of other objects causing obstruction of respiratory tract [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1310 Complications of medical and surgical care and sequelae [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1366 Exposure to inanimate mechanical forces [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1433 Other and unspecified means and sequelae [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1471 Uncontrolled fire in building or structure [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      1796 Assault by sharp object [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      2331 Fall on and from stairs and steps [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      2811 Drowning and submersion while in or falling into natural water [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      3056 Exposure to forces of nature [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      3285 Other and unspecified drowning and submersion [[ more characters to get past the lame lameness filter ]]
      3638 Antiepileptic, sedative-hy
  • by GrpA ( 691294 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @04:50AM (#15588132)
    Lighting information week...
    http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/week.htm [noaa.gov]

    Safety.
    http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/outdoors.htm [noaa.gov]

    Check out the line of dead cows near the metal fence.... I didn't see a single cow with a mobile phone in it's non-opposable-thumb hoof.

    GrpA

  • wow (Score:2, Funny)

    shocking
  • I wonder if there is anything that, along with lightening, couldn't be a leathal mix... Lightning and a cat could be leathal...
  • by Major_Error ( 984458 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @05:41AM (#15588255)
    ...I know, I know, I really shouldn't be doing this. But hey...

    Is it just me that finds the 'flashover' principle slightly improbable? Now, I'm not a physics PhD (but then again neither were the *doctors* who wrote the letter to the BMJ, presumably!) but this was a notion first suggested by Nikolai Tesla. He hypothesised that he was able to pass the enormous voltages of his Tesla Coil across himself without feeling pain because it was so fast it 'crawled across his skin'. It has since been shown by far greater physicists than I that this was little more than a theory; it has no basis in Physical fact.

    In actual fact, the reason he felt no pain was that the potential difference across his body and the floor (voltage to thee and me) was so high, and of such high frequency, that the AC current was oscillating faster than the nerves can respond - in much the same way as we like our CRTs to refresh at a faster rate than our eyes can, we just don't see it happening. As a result, his nerves never responded to the high frequency arc of electricity. If it was sustained, he would certainly feel his skin burn, and death would ensue (as continued high current has a nasty nasty tendency to do!)

    In case it wasn't obvious...the arcs of electricity produced by a Tesla Coil are almost identical to lightning, in that they require a high enough potential difference to ionise the air to arc. He essentially shot (small) bolts of lightning across himself in the process of demonstrating his new-fangled AC.

    So what am I saying? Well, I don't really feel the 'flashover' idea holds its own weight. Finally, who wouldn't expect a lightning strike to demobilise a person? If you ask me, she's frightfully lucky to be alive at all...
  • They reported the case of a 15-year-old girl who was using her phone in a park when she was hit during a storm [...] "This rare phenomenon is a public health issue, and education is necessary to highlight the risk of using mobile phones outdoors during stormy weather to prevent future fatal consequences from lighting strike injuries,"

    In other news, some dude has been hit by a lightning while having a boner. Education is necessary to highlight the fact that an erect penis will increase your odds of being s

    • I read about this in the papers today, and they gave more detail on the girl's accident. If I remember correctly, she was found lying on her back with the phone clutched in her severely burned hand. She lost hearing in the ear she was using the phone with (more details here [bbc.co.uk]). They were trying to highlight the danger of touching metal objects in a storm, because it causes severe burns and worse when you are struck by lightning. Most people wouldn't consider holding a phone or iPod in a storm to be danger
  • by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @06:02AM (#15588301)
    A few quibbles:
    • There is no such thing as "flashover". The human body is largely salty water, an excellent conductor. There is nothing about the "surface" of the body that makes it a better path for conduction.
    • Even if the surface were a better path for "flashover", that would be a very bad thing. That would concentrate the energy into the top layers, probably vaporizing off your skin. You need your skin.
    • Maybe somebody read something about "skin effect", a real electrical phenomenon, but inapplicable to this case.
    • If you get struck by lightning, you have much worse things to fret over than the exact path lightning took.

  • God doesnt want people to marry... Why else would a metal object such as a wedding ring increase the chance of internal injuries and death in case of a lightning strike?
  • So what can we find that increases the odds of internal injuries and death when they are using a phone in enclosed public places like restaurants and commuter busses?
  • Lee Trevino (Score:2, Funny)

    by JiveDog ( 871841 )
    Remember when Lee Trevino [wikipedia.org] would stroll casually with a 1-iron over his shoulder during thunderstorms? Oh wait, this is Slashdot...nevermind.
  • In a letter to the British Medical Journal, doctors wrote that people should not use mobile phones outdoors during thunderstorms because of the risk of being struck by lightning.

    Nice one, God - smite the loud-mouthed bastards.
  • by mrogers ( 85392 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @07:50AM (#15588575)
    Great, another headline about a statistically insignificant but spectacular risk. How long before we launch the War On Thunder?

    This whole story is based on a letter (not a peer-reviewed article) describing essentially anecdotal evidence that using a mobile phone increases your risk of injury given that you have been struck by lightning. The letter does not say that using a mobile phone increases your (negligible) chances of being struck by lightning.

    This story says a lot about the inability of people (including doctors, it would seem) to evaluate risks. I'm surprised the British Medical Journal decided to publish the letter.

  • I was a the Tibeten Freedom Festival at RFK stadium (washington DC) several years ago. It was a cloudy, overcast day... but dry.

    Midway through the day, lightening struck a woman one section over from where I was sitting. She was talking on her cell phone at the time.
    She wasn't at the highest point in the stadium, and in no other way seemed to differentiate herself from those around her.

    About 15min later the rest of the thunderstorm moved into the area. But the bolt that hit her was the first hint a storm
  • by AnswerIs42 ( 622520 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @08:08AM (#15588638) Homepage
    They have done several "lighining related" tests.. going by some of the tests they have done.. a cell phone is NOT going to increase your chances of being struck my lightning.

    In fact.. to get the lighning to always strike a head with a piercing on it they had to have about 5lbs worth of metal on or in the head target, and rarely did it actually HIT the metal in the head (untill they added the 5lbs or so.. the big metal door knob in the head finally did it).

    Statisticly.. the metal you wear or a phone is not going to make you more of a lightning magnet than no metal / cell phone.

    It is still wise though to bend over and grab your toes if you are out in the middle of a lightning storm, they say the ass is the safest place to get hit....
  • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @10:21AM (#15589282)
    at a billion volts everything is a conductor. You could hold a glass or rubber rod high in a thunderstorm and get much the same thing you would with a metal pole. and let's not hear anymore nonsense about electricity "taking the path of least resistance". it does not, MOST of a given current flow will do that, but parallel paths with more resistance will also be taken, but by less current. Even if you short your car battery holding a bus bar with two hands, there's a small amount of current going through your body too.
  • by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Friday June 23, 2006 @11:18AM (#15589653) Homepage Journal
    Seriously the real danger is driving in thunderstorm while talking on your phone while simultaneously logging on to MySpace as illegal immigrants are slaughtering avian flu infected Pit Bulls to buy crack to fund their gang activities in the kiddie porn and terrorism industry.

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"

Working...