The code does not address such items directly.One may have to infer what is applicable from it.I just did that in post no,105.You may show how I am contradicting the code in doing so.
Here is the problem that many seem to have with the solution you are proposing:
1. You cannot use a code of any kind to infer what
may be done in a situation not otherwise specified. Codes by their very nature are specific only in what they require or prohibit. Any other inferences are not in the realm of code.
2. When engineers and physicists (and apparently others on this forum) study the realities of a given situation (ie. lightning storms and tall building construction), they may develop additional data, theory, and knowledge regarding the specific problems such a situation presents. These may be developed into codes, which may or may not completely mitigate the dangers involved.
3. NFPA 780 is at best a document in the development stages. It cannot stand as law because of ambiguities mentioned by Hurk in post #131.
4. It is impossible to develop reliable Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) by (1) inference (2) from a developing document filled with legal ambiguity, (3) especially when this ambiguity is caused by an incomplete understanding of the physics of the dangers in question.
5. The data nobody seems to argue about is that people die when they are struck by lightning, side-flash or otherwise.
6. The fact that some possibly have avoided dying when they are struck does not eliminate the fact that some do.
7. Given that reality and most people's aversion to dying, construction workers typically leave the site when lightning storms threaten.
8. As to your idea that some hazard could be eliminated: the best that can be said is that it
might be possible to eliminate some portion of the hazard.
9. In the world that Safety Officers occupy, that level of hazard avoidance is unacceptable. The byword is that "if it cannot be done safely, find another way to do it, or don't do it at all."
10. Could some SOP eliminate the hazard described in your OP? No. It might be possible to mitigate
some portion of said hazard, but that is not an acceptable level of remediation.
11. Therefore we conclude that burrowing under the earth is the only acceptable grounding and method for lightning hazard elimination... not really a joke... it would work every time. Second best: Stop work when storms are approaching.
12. What I find interesting, having followed this thread from the beginning many suns ago, is that many have suggested my point #11 or something similar. You have continued to pursue the thought that something could have been done. However, the physics of lightning do not yet admit that some method of grounding and bonding could be suitable for personnel protection in this situation, given the legal and moral expectations for such protection.
13. Unless you can study lightning (or find studies already published) and develop a predictive understanding of lightning that has not yet been achieved on this earth, there is not a construction worker in the world that will trust a bonding and grounding protocol that is as safe as getting out of the way.
