It may seem odd, but from what I have read, yes.
“Probably the youngest surviving casualty of the war is Maité Roël, who was on a camping trip near Wetteren when she was eight and had her left leg all but severed when one of the logs the children were throwing on the campfire turned out to be a shell. Now 30 she is officially a victim of the war – ‘mutilée dans la guerre’ – which entitles her to a monthly stipend of £700 and half-price rail tickets.”
[Edit: the above quote has proved to be erroneous in that Maité Roël was never recognized as a ‘mutilée dans la guerre’ or war-wound victim (if I can accurately remember my French from too long ago). As much as I would like to change this post, I found the information provided byoffers an interesting look at the challenges faced by foreign reporting, so – if there are no objections, it shall remain…]
One of the best books I have come across on the topic was Donovan Webster’s Aftermath – The Remnants of War. The sheer amount of shells fired on the battlefields of the First World War is mind-numbing at times:
The bombardment at the Somme, however, was to be much heavier and continue for much longer, despite being over a larger front. Planners allocated batteries up to 3,000 rounds a day. In all, the British artillery fired 1.5 million shells in just four days.
While I have been proven to be horrible at both math and answering the actual question here on Quora, I would imagine that the statistics for unexploded ordnance during these battles and the ones from the Second World War are in favor of these potential disasters to remain lurking.