Sir:
I read with interest your various articles that address the question: do lightning rods really protect?
I live on a farm in Nebraska. We can have some severe thunderstorms out here, and with the isolated buildings out in open country you would suppose we have greater vulnerability to lightning strikes.
I recently re-roofed both my barn and my house. They were equipped with lightning rods before the re-roofing job was done. When the re-roofing was done, I asked my property insurance agent if putting lightning rods back on would give me a discount on insurance. I was told that NO, installing lightning rods would not lower my premium.
My company is Farmer’s Mutual Home Insurance of Nebraska. Property insurance underwriters research very carefully what factors increase or decrease the risk of property damage. I can only assume that they have determined that lightning rods do NOT significantly reduce the chances of lightning strikes.
As you mention in your article, the only way to determine this is to do a totally scientific study. Ideally, this would involve using 100 similar buildings with lightning rods, and 100 similar buildings without rods. They would all need to be in the same general location, and exposed to the same type of weather. Survey after 10 years and find out how many times the buildings with rods got hit, and how many times the buildings without rods got hit by lightning. If there is a “statistically significant” difference then that would be the proof.
Until someone does this, it basically boils-down to the THEORY that lightning rods “should” offer protection.
I would suggest that anyone considering lightning rods to ask their property insurance provider if having lightning rods lowers the insurance premium. If the company says “yes” then by all means go ahead and get them installed. If “no” then you might just want to save the money.