• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cell phone causes fire at gas pump

zakur

Illuminator
Z
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
3,264
Phone Ignites Gas Station Fire
Flames shot up around a 21-year-old college student whose cell phone rang while he was pumping gas.

Firefighters said Matthew Erhorn, a SUNY New Paltz student, received minor burns at a Mobil station near the New York State Thurway (Interstate 87) Thursday night.

"I'm very surprised," Erhorn said.

He shouldn't have been. There's a sign at the pumps at the New Paltz gas station warning that cell phones should be turned off for safety while pumping gas.

Firefighters believe the cell phone ignited vapors coming from the car's fuel tank as it was being filled.

It doesn't take much of a charge to ignite gasoline vapors, New Paltz fire chief Patrick Koch told WCBS-AM's Peter Haskell. "Anything, really. Women's nylon stockings when they get out of a vehicle, that can cause a spark, too."

That's why motorists are told "don't use their cell phones when they're pumping gas. Really, it's deadly," Koch said.
Click to expand...
 
Hey Zakur,

MYTHBUSTERS says not true and Snopes says possible but never documented.

The actual cause of the fire was more likely due to static electricity from some other source.

Account of show

Co-hosts of the Discovery Channels Sunday-night show "MythBusters," Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman, took on the urban legend in one of their first episodes, set to be rerun at 10 p.m. Feb. 17.

"Its one of the very few things we absolutely could not do," Savage said. "Theres a lot of electromagnetic waves around a cell phone, to be sure, but it does not generate static or any kind of spark. It was grueling it took us three days just to prove gasoline was flammable."

The pair found they could not ignite petroleum fumes in an open area.

"So we did it in a container, because out in the open its even more unlikely we could create an explosion," Hyneman said.

"We also did it in a container because we dont like being on fire," Savage quipped.

The said they were eventually able to ignite gas fumes, or "mist" but it took a burning, gas-soaked rag to do it.

"Its more likely that in reaching for his phone, (the Aero worker) may have generated a static shock with his body," Savage said.

He said the truck itself could have generated a spark, with "all the electrical things going on."

Larson, the wireless-industry spokesman, said government officials also question the likelihood of a cell phone-caused explosion.

"Weve talked to explosives experts at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and they said that igniting fumes with a cell phone is highly, highly unlikely," Larson said.

Robert Baylor, communications director for the National Propane Gas Association, said although propane is a slightly heavier substance than gasoline fumes, the same laws of physics and chemistry would apply.

He also said hes never heard of a confirmed case of a cell phone sparking an explosion and cited static electricity as one of many "ignition sources" that are far more likely to be blamed.
Click to expand...
Edited to add: The snopes story I referenced is about static electricity and not cell phones.
 
Petroleum Equipment Institute:

One hundred fifty-eight reports (first-hand and NHTSA’s VOQs) have been received from 39 states and Washington, D.C. In all the reports we were able to verify that no open flames, running motors, or electrical continuity problems were involved. The accidents occurred with conventional and vacuum-assist Stage II vapor recovery nozzles. There have been no accidents reported to PEI when balance system nozzles were used. Driveway surfaces included concrete, asphalt, stone, crushed rock and dirt. Fires occurred with many different types of nozzles, hoses, breakaways and dispensers. No cell phones were involved.
Click to expand...
Maybe something other caused a spark?

http://www.pei.org/static/fire_summary.htm
 
More from this story:
ExxonMobil Corp. and town officials are investigating a freak fire at a New Paltz gas station Thursday that is believed to have been ignited by a college student's cellphone.

The unusual incident has generated considerable media attention, in part because some studies have suggested it's unlikely a cell phone's operation could spark such a fire.

[...]

Some research studies suggest cellphones sparking gas pump fires is just an urban legend, with static electricity more likely to create fires.

Yet ExxonMobil spokeswoman Patty Delaney said the company believes this was a case of a cellphone's operation "igniting sparks" and causing a fire.

Town officials agreed it's apparently no myth.
Click to expand...
Of course, we'll have to wait until the official investigation is completed.

Also, I found several seemingly credible mentions of this incident, where a flash fire attributed to cell phone use occurred on a drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Not a service station gas pump, but still a documented case of a ringing cell phone igniting fuel vapors.
 
OK, I don't know a whole lot about the inner workings of cell phones, but if I pull apart my phone and take a look, I fail to find anything that looks like it has the slightest chance of causing an external spark. I guess if there was some kind of major fault, maybe, but then why stop at accusing cell phones if you are looking at that idea? The potentially faulty electrical system in a car has alot more potential and current capability to cause fire-starting sparks than a cell phone.
 
There was a TV program in the Uk that tested this theory.

They got a caravan and completely drenched the insides in petrol - every surface, petrol fumes all over the place. Then they put about 20 mobile phones inside the caravan and rang them all at the same time. No effect at all.

Next they ran a wireto a guy in the field. He built up static electricity (I think he stood in a bucket and rubbed some suitable material). Then he touched the wire and BOOM
 
DaveW said:
OK, I don't know a whole lot about the inner workings of cell phones, but if I pull apart my phone and take a look, I fail to find anything that looks like it has the slightest chance of causing an external spark. I guess if there was some kind of major fault, maybe, but then why stop at accusing cell phones if you are looking at that idea? The potentially faulty electrical system in a car has alot more potential and current capability to cause fire-starting sparks than a cell phone.
Click to expand...

Had it been one of those old brass-bell ringing phones (you remember them, you actually had to 'dial' your number) then I could see ringing causing enough of a spark fumes. With cell phones, the ring is completely electronic using a pizoelectric speaker. I can't see it happening either.

Still, we need a complete investigation costing millons of dollars. I think the cell phone industry should foot all of the bill and then pay damages regardless of the outcome. Them and the evil gas companies. They may not be guilty...but they should be considered so anyway.
 
iain said:
They got a caravan and completely drenched the insides in petrol - every surface, petrol fumes all over the place. Then they put about 20 mobile phones inside the caravan and rang them all at the same time.
Click to expand...
(bold mine)

Cool, but what is a caravan? I know there's a Dodge model of vehicle called a Caravan...but I doubt that's what you mean.


Luceiia
 
Luceiia said:
Cool, but what is a caravan? I know there's a Dodge model of vehicle called a Caravan...but I doubt that's what you mean.
Click to expand...
Wow, I learn something new every day. I had no idea that caravan wasn't a common word in the US.

A caravan is like an RV but it has no engine of its own - instead you hitch it up to theback of your car when you want to move it.

Here are some pictures.
 
iain said:
Wow, I learn something new every day. I had no idea that caravan wasn't a common word in the US.

A caravan is like an RV but it has no engine of its own - instead you hitch it up to theback of your car when you want to move it.

Here are some pictures.
Click to expand...
What we would call a trailer, camper, or camper trailer here in the states.
 
For the record, courtesy of The New York Post:

It was not a cellphone that sparked flames at an upstate gas station last week after all, a fire official said yesterday.

New Paltz Fire Chief Pat Koch said he re-interviewed Matthew Erhorn, 21, the college student who made headlines when he reported that fire flared after he answered his wireless phone while gassing up his car Thursday.

Koch said that after talking to Erhorn again, "some things he brought up" led him to conclude that "the source of ignition was from some source other than the cellphone the motorist was carrying.

"Although we will probably never know for sure, the source of ignition was most likely static discharge from the motorist himself to the nozzle dispensing gasoline," the fire chief said.

A source said the student got into his car while refueling and then got back out — increasing the likelihood he could have generated a static charge and carried the charge to the nozzle.
Click to expand...
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Or "home" if you live in Alabama.
Click to expand...


Hey, you D@mnYankee, I'll have you know that we've progressed down here in Alabama. Why, nearly all the trailers are double-wides now and less than 20% still have their wheels on.
 
You know i've allways thought that thoose "no cell phone" stickers on gas pumps was there because they was afraid that the cell phone should mess with the electronics like they could do at a cash register in the early days. This being said, there IS a battery in a cell phone and as such it CAN cause a spark but static electricity is far the most likliest explanation.

If anybody is plagued by static electricity in their car btw. i have the perfect solution. You get some fabric softener and you make a weak solution (1:10 - 1:20), you then spray your car seats with this solution and hey presto.... A "treatment" lasts 3-4 months.:D
 
I was going to mention the caravan demonstration, but I've been beaten to it. I'll add only that the UK Fire Brigade officially recommends that you don't use cellphones at petrol stations as a precautionary measure. They unofficially add (and I heard this in person from a senior trainer, which makes any anecdote more convincing ;) ) that the risk is purely theoretical, there's never been a fire caused in such a way and in reality there is very unlikely to ever be a fire caused in that way. In the very few cases where cellphones might appear to have been the cause, in reality there has always been another cause. But just in case, don't do it. (Not least because the staff at the petrol station are likely to kill your pump).
 
During normal operation, a cell-phone does not generate sparks or anything else that could ignite anything.

Anyhow this report is just another example of the "bad science" we keep seeing. They say: "The fire started because he answered his cell-phone." They should say: "The fire started at the same time as he answered his cell-phone."

Correlation does not prove causality. And things happening simultaneously does not even prove correlation.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom