Yea… that would do it…

I can see detector product liability suits, patent suits, inadequate training suits… and then we can get into psychological trauma incured when the students and parents are required to vacate events because of false alerts… and the resultant distrust of technolgies, leading to…

… oh, heck… PLEASE tell me this is a joke…

This is a classic example of what John Allen Paulos refers to as innumeracy. We worry about events happening with vanishing small odds and ignore events that have a much greater probability of happening such as being killed driving to and from the football game. There were 3244 car deaths in the Florida in 2004. Thus there is approximately a 360 times greater chance of being killed by cars than by lightning in Florida. Given those statistics I would suggest that the FHSAA should issue a ban on driving to and from the games. That would be a lot safer. Why we may even save the life of one or more kids. And as gitarcarver has told us “If you can’t do that, then we are all lost.”

I see. So you are equating trying to minimize risks with eliminating the activity altogether.

One MUST look at the cost/benefit analysis (including such things as false positives in warning systems), or one might as well live in a bomb shelter.

So your position is that it is better to have the equipment and the weather alert radios and not use them then to use them? If that is the case, then why spend the money in the first place?

Think “reduction in number of zeroes after the $ sign in a settlement” effective.

So the school could have done more? If they had used the devices and the radios they would be more likely to have a smaller judgement?

Thank you for making my point.

If the school had used the available technology they had at their disposal, the chances of a smaller settlement and a live kid would have increased.

Step back for a moment and realize that cancelling all outdoor activies and never setting foot outdoors may have saved the life of the kid. If you can’t do that, then we are all lost.

MAY HAVAE. Yay. Many things may save lives. One MUST look at the cost/benefit analysis (including such things as false positives in warning systems), or one might as well live in a bomb shelter. After all, “if it saves one life…” and “It’s for the CHILDREN ™.”

If the systems in question were not deemed to be useful, well, then they shouldn’t use them. After a lawsuit, they are looking to find any kind of legal cover they can; why start using the devices again if they aren’t effective? They might be effective! Just not at prediciting lightning. Think “reduction in number of zeroes after the $ sign in a settlement” effective.

Just what part of
The term “lightning prediction” has different uses. Lightning prediction can mean predicting that a storm has enough energy to generate lightning over a general area. Or it can mean predicting the time and place a strike is going to occur. For the first type of prediction, capabilities for predicting general lightning activity have been used for more than 10 years. Sensing equipment measures the weather conditions needed to generate lightning, signaling when lightning activity is likely over a large area, usually several square miles. don’t you understand?

The reason they made the disclaimer is because the product is not capable of predicting when a lighting strike will occur.

Yet there is technology that can help predict when the CONDITIONS for a lightning strike is likely….. and it is more than just “when the sky clouds” as you stated.

False positves / negatives vs the life of a kid. False positives / negatives vs potential permanent injuries to people. When you put it like that, I can see your position clearly now.

Do you think the laws of physics are different in Florida than in the rest of world?

I’ll take that as you are totally unfamilier with lightning here in the state of Florida.

No one can say whether a hand held device would have prevented the death of the kid. We can say that not using the devices increased the chances of injuries / deaths to people. We also know that the school had weather radios that would have warned lightning stirkes in the area (using the NLDN) but those radios were in boxes.

The parents would probably have sued no matter what in this case. Even if the school had detection systems, they probably would have sued. However, step back for a moment and realize that having the systems and having the radios may have given the school more warning and saved the life of the kid. If you can’t do that, then we are all lost.

Wow. A lawyer’s disclaimer for a product. Who would have guessed that?

The reason they made the disclaimer is because the product is not capable of predicting when a lighting strike will occur. Is it better than nothing? It depends on how many false positives as well as false negatives you are willing to tolerate. In any case, if the system is not 100% effective that would not stop a lawsuit from being filed. Given the prevalence of lightning storms in Florida, to be on the safe side, they would have to cancel games as soon as the sky clouds up.

The school had lightning detection devices and decided to stop using them because in their opinion, they were “inadequate.” After the death of the boy, the school started using the devices again.

Please explain why the school would stop using a device and then return to using it AFTER the death of one of their students?

See your answer above about lawyers.

Why is the FHSAA mandating the use of these detection devices for playoff sites and talking about making the detection devices mandatory for all outdoor events?

See your answer above about lawyers.

Finally, just out of curiosity, how much experience have you had with lightning in open fields in Florida?

Do you think the laws of physics are different in Florida than in the rest of world? There may be more lightning storms in Florida but the physics of lightning is the same in Florida as anyplace else in the world.

Here is another URL from Florida Media Communications Lightning Tracker

http://tinyurl.com/2oqgkz

Once again the following disclaimer is issued: This system is designed to track thunderstorms.
It is NOT intended for protection of life or property.

So a device with a warning label that says it is not to be used for lightning conditions helps cover assets?

Fear that they may be made the next defendant?

I see. So your position is that FHSAA wants a device that doesn’t help, but will expose them for further liability for using it?

That makes sense.

Can you point out a peer-reviewed study that reports this data?

Please see the above referenced articles where the head of NOAA acknowledges that the technology is availabe and usable. If you want to debate NOAA, please go ahead.

There are many possible reasons. I assume you mean why would they do that is the device did not help.
Perhaps because, while they may be useless for protecting students and other people, they provide legal cover to protect the School Districts assets.

“Why is the FHSAA mandating the use of these detection devices for playoff sites and talking about making the detection devices mandatory for all outdoor events?”

Fear that they may be made the next defendant?

I will confess that I do not know how effective these devices are. Can you point out a peer-reviewed study that reports this data?