|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 14
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 14 |
It looks like the thunderstorms are rolling in this weekend, just in time for our two day trip up Langley. We plan on camping Friday night at Cottonwood Lakes, and summiting Langley early Saturday. I've never encountered Lightning issues during the day while camping. Could somebody help me with advice in regards to this. Are we somewhat safer in the valley (Cottonwood Lakes)with the hire peaks surrounding us?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287 |
Could somebody help me with advice in regards to this. Are we somewhat safer in the valley (Cottonwood Lakes)with the hire peaks surrounding us? You can rent peaks now? Seriously, I think that in general lower is better but it's statistical. I was walking on the side of a ridge last year and lightning was striking the trees in the valley 2000 feet below. Where were we supposed to go for shelter?
Last edited by ep; 07/10/12 06:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 720
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 720 |
I believe you meant "higher" and not "hire."
Lightning doesn't discriminate...
Journey well...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,871
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,871 |
Camp within a stand of trees.
Start up toward Langley near dawn and descend quickly if the weather turns for the worst. We have been turned around as early as 10 AM on a Langley or Cirque Peak attempt.
The last time I was up there, we saw a guy run down from High Lake during a hail storm in shorts and t-shirt.
Two of the biggest electrical storms I been through have been in that area.
Last edited by wbtravis5152; 07/11/12 01:30 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287 |
Camp within a stand of trees. But not near the tallest trees. You don't want to be the tallest thing in the area or near the tallest thing. But what does "in the area" mean? When I was walking that trail last year there were peaks close by that were thousands of feet taller than the trees in the valley below me. But the storm was centered over the valley so those trees were more attractive. They were taller as far as the storm was concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 137
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 137 |
Camp within a stand of trees. But not near the tallest trees. You don't want to be the tallest thing in the area or near the tallest thing. even that is probably not a good idea. go here: Backcountry lightning risk management if you want a peer reviewed explanation of the lightning position and safer terrain, see the paper "Backcountry lightning risk management" from the 2010 Intl Lightning Meteorology Conference.
bsmith
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 37
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 37 |
I thought it was hard to make practical plans after reading this paper. Is the idea to get yourself 50 meters away from the tallest point? 50 meters below the summit of Mt. Whitney? But if you are heading back down the main trail, passing the Needles, do they become the tallest point, so you should stay 50 meters away from them (head down toward Guitar Lake)? Trekking poles were not mentioned, but I imagine they are long conductors and should not be touched? I understand that there is no safe place to be or safe position when lightning strikes in the backcountry, so all of the ideas in the paper were only meant to minimize the danger.
Last edited by DayHiker; 07/16/12 08:07 PM. Reason: typo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 447
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 447 |
On the evening news yesterday was a story of two men dying at a soccer game by lightning. They had taken cover near trees away from the open field, the reporter said there were others killed previously in the open field. Safest place there would have been back into their cars where the charge would be directed around them and not through them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,446
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,446 |
That was an outstanding paper, and really extended my understanding.
I think that many people are into risk elimination, and seem to take the position that they can do anything, with the risk essentially gone....like climbing Whitney in a storm.
It is clear that there is a huge factor of randomness involved in lightning, and most of the factors involved in reduction are guesswork in a specific case, and that only avoidance of the issue is an essential guarantee of safety.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,439 Likes: 9
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,439 Likes: 9 |
 Nat Geo Photo of the Month!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 112
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 112 |
Reason has seldom worked because it has seldom been tried.
-Edward Abbey
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287 |
But not near the tallest trees. You don't want to be the tallest thing in the area or near the tallest thing. even that is probably not a good idea. go here: Backcountry lightning risk managementThat's an excellent article, thanks for posting the link. I really loved the part about "assuming the lightning position". I was on top of Whitney years ago when a storm developed very quickly. I found that if I stood up my helmet buzzed (corona!), but it stopped if I crouched. On another trip I ran across the Bighorn Plateau on the JMT in a building storm in a semi-crouched position. But I don't understand your initial comment ("even that is probably not a good idea") as the article agrees that the tallest trees (or tallest anything) is to be avoided. Are you suggesting there are circumstances where one should seek out the tallest tree around and hide under it in an electrical storm? Or are you saying that a grove of trees of any height doesn't offer any significant protection over being in the open?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 137
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 137 |
But not near the tallest trees. You don't want to be the tallest thing in the area or near the tallest thing. even that is probably not a good idea. go here: Backcountry lightning risk managementThat's an excellent article, thanks for posting the link.
you are welcome. i thought it was relevant to the conversation, based in science and most educational.I really loved the part about "assuming the lightning position". I was on top of Whitney years ago when a storm developed very quickly. I found that if I stood up my helmet buzzed (corona!), but it stopped if I crouched. On another trip I ran across the Bighorn Plateau on the JMT in a building storm in a semi-crouched position. But I don't understand your initial comment ("even that is probably not a good idea") as the article agrees that the tallest trees (or tallest anything) is to be avoided.
my attempt at being diplomatic vs dogmatic.
Are you suggesting there are circumstances where one should seek out the tallest tree around and hide under it in an electrical storm?
no. i think the article makes it clear that in, around or under trees is never a safe place to be.Or are you saying that a grove of trees of any height doesn't offer any significant protection over being in the open?
that is the author's position. at the bottom of page 5, he leads off in bold type Avoid trees. later in that paragraph he states "avoid open areas that are 100 m wide or wider."
as i read the article i realized there are no perfect answers. there are many different scenarios - knowing the basics and then applying them to a given situation just might save a life. and the topic was risk management, not risk elimination.
bsmith
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 14
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 14 |
Thanks for all the good stuff. It sounds to me like the safest bet is to avoid areas of Lightning all together, if possible.
By the way, we had a great hike to the top of Langley last Saturday. Hiked
to Cottonwood lake #4 on Friday. Upon arrival the rain opened up and stayed with us all day. Langley was covered in clouds all afternoon and early evening. Thunder was heard South of us. When we awoke early on Saturday the sky was completely clear, awesome! We made the summit around 10:30 and had a great hike. Had we awoke to the same weather as Friday we would have aborted - but we got lucky.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287 |
that is the author's position. at the bottom of page 5, he leads off in bold type Avoid trees. later in that paragraph he states "avoid open areas that are 100 m wide or wider." That's so funny as it typifies most of the backcountry lightning avoidance "rules" that I've read in the past. There's no place to go! If there is a small grove of trees and a wide open area adjacent to it you should just do as Devo sang back in the 70s and assume the position. However, if there is a large enough grove of similarly sized trees you may be better off in those trees as opposed to out in the open as the author hints at the end of that paragraph. Thanks again for posting the link and for your measured and diplomatic responses.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 945
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 945 |
agree with : "risk management, not risk elimination"
You should see some of the pictures and hear the stories at Wilderness Med or Expedition Med conferences' lightning lecture. One memorable one was a picture of guy with the top of his head exploded from a lightning bolt. He was walking down a fire road, not on a ridge, between two other people. He in the middle was selected out. Literally out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 287 |
Hiked to Cottonwood lake #4 on Friday. Upon arrival the rain opened up and stayed with us all day. Langley was covered in clouds all afternoon and early evening. Thunder was heard South of us. That's interesting to read. I got a 4:30am start on Friday to try and get over Kaweah Gap early enough in the day to beat any thunderstorms. But it ended up being a pretty nice day instead. I had no idea that it was raining not all that far away.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 37
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 37 |
Wow! Those links are incredible. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
