I don’t pretend to be making a calculated analysis of the risk. “The risk is just as high” =/= “I’m not worried about it.”
I’ll be inside with you.
Sounds like a plan. You like hot chocolate? That always strikes me as a good beverage for a lightning storm. I do prefer using peeps instead of marshmallows, though! 
This might be the best idea I’ve heard all year.
You got my point. I’m not worried about it. I’ve walked around outdoors in hundreds of thunderstorms with lightning. One-in-a-million and two-in-a-millioin are not worth differentiating, nor precisely calculating, nor altering my lifestyle for.
Can all the molecules of air in this room rush into a corner and leave me suffocated? Yes, but Im not going to change my lifestyle with that risk involved.
will that be on a tall wooden stool?
safety recommendations are that if you can hear thunder then you can be hit by lightning,
as mentioned it has gone through miles of low conductive air, it can do anything it wants. it does split and go to as many places it needs to in order to dissipate.
if you had a mixed material pile of soil and pour a bucket of water on the top you will see behavior similar to lightning. the stream will split, the splits will be uneven, some paths will be blocked from further travel.
A lightning strike that just traveled through miles of empty air is not impressed by rules, theories, or 45 degree cones of protection. Yes, athletes have been struck and killed in fields surrounded by light towers; spectators, too. Golfers, surrounded by tall trees, have died.
Will it happen to you? The odds say no. The likelihood of being struck and killed by lightning is a traditional example of very long odds. We all must strike a balance between fear and good sense.
Be sure to unplug your computer too. The Straight Dope Message Board can wait.
You haven’t tried it? You don’t know what you’re missing. It’s more than just the taste; there’s the joy of drowning the bugger in a scolding hot liquid! Now’s the time to stock up too! You can freeze them.
Cite?
Many more out there…
Try Google some time, it’s quite good at things like this.
I have tried Google, and not found a single instance of lightning striking someone in a stadium that has light towers around it. Nor is a single one of the links you’ve provided the cite I asked for.
Try reading what you’re responding to before being sarcastic next time. It’s quite good practice in general.
That is a ridiculous standard of evidence.
I have not found a single verifiable instance of a lottery winner who purchased their ticket while shopping for a quart of milk, a six-pack of beer, 2 loaves of rye bread, and 3 apples.
Therefore, obviously, it is impossible to win the lottery if you purchase a ticket while grocery shopping.
No, wait…let’s think about that again.
As repeatedly mentioned (and demonstrated) above, there are a number of problems with your implication, at which you have chosen to wave your hands as if they were of no import. In the case of a sporting event, they are not irrelevant at all, even in this particular case:
-
The presence of tall objects will only, at best, slightly mitigate the risk of a lightning strike. The proximity of tall objects does NOT eliminate those risks (see above for several examples of this). Lightning can and has struck the ground next to tall objects. Whether or not they are “light towers” or not is immaterial.
-
Direct lightning strikes are not the only danger during a lightning storm. Mere proximity to a lightning strike can be hazardous, with (again see above for several examples of this) chances of injury due to the electricity, hearing damage from thunder, or concussive damage from the strike.
-
Even in “safe” environments, like indoors (again, see above for examples), lightning strikes can and have been known to kill people.
The bottom line, as repeatedly stated in this thread, is that the risk of lightning is not eliminated in a stadium like this. It’s not materially safer than a stadium without such towers. The players’ concerns were as legitimate in this stadium as in any other stadium. Clear skies? Well, they’d be wrong. But audible thunder and lightning in the area? Yes, there’s an enhanced risk of injury. So, why choose to ignore those enhanced risks? It makes no sense. Even if indoors is not absolutely safe (nothing really is), it’s much, much better than on an open pitch.
So, why harp repeatedly on the fact that a verifiable case of a specific lightning circumstance can’t be found? I haven’t found a single verifiable case of a lottery winner who was exactly 53 years old, 2 months, and 15 days old, male, 6 foot tall, and hopping on one foot while purchasing their ticket. That doesn’t make those factors relevant to winning the lottery, no matter if I have a crackpot theory that says they affect the result.
Dude, the claim made was “Yes, athletes have been struck and killed in fields surrounded by light towers; spectators, too.”. I asked for a cite. Your post is pointless.
The spectator referenced in my link in Post 15 was struck by lightning at RFK Stadium in Washington, DC, which is surrounded by elevated lighting. She wasn’t killed though.
Against that particular request, yes. Not for the question you originally posed about the danger lightning posed in the stadium. The answer: no significant mitigation of risk by the light towers.
So, no, not pointless, except to an overly specific request.
But I was asking for a cite for a very specific claim, and the thrust of your needlessly combative post was that I had some ridiculous standard of evidence.
Thanks, I’d missed that link earlier.
To expand - I have no problem with accepting the fact that objects can be struck by lightning even when they are not the tallest things around. The links that were offered up as evidence, and which I have questioned, I have questioned because they offer no evidence in support of that idea. Like engineer comp geek’s link about the soccer field, and your original link, and the links that Nipless provides. You state that lightning can hit anything, but the links you offer up do not necessarily support your assertion. Fubaya’s post, and RNATB’s do.