Four injured by lightning in Kalasin

By The Nation

 

 

Four farmers were injured when lightning struck a hut in a rice field where they were taking a shelter amid heavy rain, police said.

 

The victims were identified as Sasiwat Onthet, 23, Prapas Wilachai, 45, Thianchai Impool, 47, and Mayuree Khamsophan 42.

They were rushed to intensive care at the Kalasin provincial hospital.

 

A witness, Sawat Preedidok, told the police that the incident took place in Ban Na Inplaeng in Tambon Khamin of Muang district.

 

 

The four farmers were ploughing their rice field and ran to take cover at the hut about 10 metres away from Sawat's house and he heard three lightning strikes before a neighbour ran to him, telling him to call medical help.

Sawat told police that two of the four farmers had mobile phones.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30346271

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-26

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

"he heard three lightning strikes before a neighbour ran to him, telling him to call medical help"

That does seem to support the 'three strikes' law.

 

"Sawat told police that two of the four farmers had mobile phones."

 

Which of course is why they got struck by lightning ....dooh [emoji5]

 

 

42 minutes ago, johng said:

"Sawat told police that two of the four farmers had mobile phones."

 

Which of course is why they got struck by lightning ....dooh

 

 

I have been telling my wife for years that its very very unlikely that you will be hit by lightning while on the phone. Getting hit by a vehicle by a Thai on the phone is far more likely. We all remember the thread in this forum about Thai women re-inventing the laws of physics.

4 minutes ago, tso310 said:

I have been telling my wife for years that its very very unlikely that you will be hit by lightning while on the phone. Getting hit by a vehicle by a Thai on the phone is far more likely. We all remember the thread in this forum about Thai women re-inventing the laws of physics.

 

Sorry to be pedantic, but I would have thought that saying that being very unlikely to be hit while on a mobile phone is not making it clear. Unless you qualified it by saying if that did happen it would be due to some other reason, but NOT the mobile phone.