And while a population that mostly stays inside a city has a reduced lightning chance, it also has a reduced shark chance. I don't think that's anywhere near the point of equalizing the rate.
If you have an idea for a factor that dramatically reduces lightning risk but doesn't reduce shark risk much, I'm interested.
And if I live in a place where there is very rarely lightning, that chance gets really low as well.
Like I said in my other comment, it's not about finding one specific guy. Picking a place where people live is a reasonable starting point for making a rebuttal to a general statement like that. I don't think pointing at Fisherman Sam is.
> And if I live in a place where there is very rarely lightning, that chance gets really low as well.
How low can that number go? The numbers I picked made consideration for some amount of variation in lightning. Does lightning have a huge variance?
It's important to have real numbers when you're making the claim that there are places where the lightning:shark ratio is multiple orders of magnitude lower than the average. That's not a claim you can justify by merely pointing out that the risks will vary by location.
There's only 10 fatal shark attacks per year. What's your calculation for the sharkiest area to live? It has to be something like 100+ times sharkier than average for your claim to be true. And keep in mind that half the US population can easily day trip to the ocean.
Edit: Actually, that's using a number of 2000 lightning fatalities which might be 10x too low. And lightning injuries are another 10x higher than that. So you'd need somewhere that shark attacks are a thousand or ten thousand times more likely than average. That's also without interpreting "eaten" literally...