* Deaths from lightning (excluding deaths from fire caused by lightning, or injury from fall of tree or fall of other object caused by lightning), with lightning as the underlying cause of death, are coded as X33 (1999–2010) according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and E907 (1968–1998) according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Eighth Revisions.

† Among U.S. residents only.

From 1968 to 2010, deaths from lightning in the United States decreased by 78.6% among males and 70.6% among females. During this 43-year period, a total of 3,389 deaths from lightning were recorded, an average of 79 per year. The highest yearly total of deaths from lightning (131) was recorded in 1969, and the lowest total (29) was recorded in 2008 and again in 2010. During the period, 85.0% of lightning deaths were among males.

Source: National Vital Statistics System. Mortality public use data files, 1968–2010. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vit ... online.htm.

Reported by: Jiaquan Xu, MD, jax4@cdc.gov, 301-458-4086.

Alternate Text: The figure above shows the number of deaths from lightning among males and females in the United States during 1968-2010. From 1968 to 2010, deaths from lightning in the United States decreased by 78.6% among males and 70.6% among females. During this 43-year period, a total of 3,389 deaths from lightning were recorded, an average of 79 per year. The highest yearly total of deaths from lightning (131) was recorded in 1969, and the lowest total (29) was recorded in 2008 and again in 2010. During the period, 85.0% of lightning deaths were among males.

Wow, that's an impressive decline. Theories on why?

Better weather forecasting?

Better hazard awareness, e.g. - advent of the Weather Channel?

Fewer people spending time outdoors?

Fewer thunderstorms (doubt it)?

Thanks for sharing!

Totally unscientific, but as one cause, I'll bet a graph of time in front of the TV looks exactly the opposite.
Only steeper.

This just in! Spending time outside increases odds of being struck by lightening! Stay inside!

Brought to you by, LOG! From Wammo

With women making up over half the population I find the desparity between men and women being struck pretty odd. I could see more men being hit but not by these levels.

Tonka wrote:With women making up over half the population I find the desparity between men and women being struck pretty odd. I could see more men being hit but not by these levels.

I don't know, dude... I see way more dudes in the bush than chicks. WAY more.

And the chicks you do see are usually just someone's whiny girlfriend.

Ben Beckerich wrote:

Tonka wrote:With women making up over half the population I find the desparity between men and women being struck pretty odd. I could see more men being hit but not by these levels.

I don't know, dude... I see way more dudes in the bush than chicks. WAY more.

And the chicks you do see are usually just someone's whiny girlfriend.

But most deaths don't take place in the bush, they take place in Florida. As for my whiny GF I'm sure she'd whine over that comment.

Tonka wrote:With women making up over half the population I find the disparity between men and women being struck pretty odd. I could see more men being hit but not by these levels.

Women make up more than half of the population? I live near a military town (Colorado Springs with 5 installations) and climb - I always assumed there were, like, 85 men to every 15 women. I assumed polyandry to be my birthright. (You realize I'm kidding about that part, right?)

Among other things, I'm sure men still work in outside occupations at higher rates than women. Climbers tend to think of lightning in the mountains, but agriculture, mining, logging, road building, construction...occupations like these put men at a higher risk of lightning strike then women.

Men also die more frequently by snake bites (hey, y'all, watch this!) and homicide. I'm sure if we could break accidents down to view details like "rolled Jeep over" and "drank copious amounts of alcohol before diving off 4th floor hotel balcony into 4-ft deep swimming pool," we would also see our, ahem, More Courageous Half tearing up the charts. Take a look at stats for climbing accidents and avalanche fatalities while you're at it... It's ok, we love our brave risk-taking gorilla-men.

Signed,
Someone's Whiny Girlfriend

Ben Beckerich wrote:I don't know, dude... I see way more dudes in the bush than chicks. WAY more.

Yeah, um, it's sort of meant to be that way, by design. Remember Adam & Eve?

Tonka wrote:With women making up over half the population I find the desparity between men and women being struck pretty odd. I could see more men being hit but not by these levels.

Most lightning deaths take place on water (boats - think fishermen) and golf courses. No surprise that these are men-dominated activities.

I see an obvious, hurtful gender bias. We need funding to get women outside, where they can they can have the same opportunities to be hit by lightning.

Tonka wrote:But most deaths don't take place in the bush, they take place in Florida. As for my whiny GF I'm sure she'd whine over that comment.

That's because it's deaf, half blind, half in the bag old guys playing golf.

So when the female death rate rises to the level of the male death rate from lightning strikes, this is when women have finaly reached their true equality with men. Pay rates my ass They need to do more fishing, farming, construction and golfing

Tonka wrote:

I would bet this is due to Global Warming. As AGW has increased, more men stay inside with AC and their SOs.

The decline in deaths from lighting is especially interesting when you consider that the world's population has doubled during the time frame shown on the graph.