Lightning is shockingly discriminatory

While reading an article, the author alluded to the statistical event as being less likely than being struck by lightning. It got me to thinking about this metaphor we use for something being both unlikely and random. How unlikely and how random? And if not random, why not?

Two documents provided the answers, Struck-by-Lightning Deaths by Nelson Adekoya and Kurt B. Nolte and A Detailed Analysis of Lightning Deaths in the United States from 2006 through 2016 John S. Jensenius, Jr.

It is kind of a fun exercise illustrating that disparities are not necessarily the product of intent, a fact so often ignored in sociology studies. There is a clear disparate impact related to lightning deaths. Taken at face value, lightning is horribly discriminatory overwhelmingly seeking out male victims and especially Hispanic males.

The facts are these:

There about 32 deaths from lightning strike per year.

July is the peak month for lightning strikes.

Hispanics die from lightning at about twice the rate sugested by their representation in the population. African-Americans, on the other hand, die from lightning at half the rate suggested by their population percentage.

Deaths due to lightning strikes - Whites (58%), Hispanics (32%), African Americans (7%), Other (3%).

Males account for 79% of all lightning strike deaths.

Obviously lightning is not discriminatory and it is not discriminating against men and Hispanics.

This serves only as an illustration that disparate results occur for a variety of reasons, usually contextual and independent of intent.

Lightning strike deaths are concentrated in outdoor work and leisure activities such as ranching, roofing, lawn care, construction, fishing, etc. which are heavily dominated by men. Lightning does not seek out male victims. Males simply are more frequently involved in the types of activities where there are lightning strikes.