Could Mobile Phones Really Cause Fires at Petrol Pumps?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chaoseverlasting
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pumps
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the potential risk of mobile phones igniting fuel at petrol pumps, sparked by a viral video. While some participants acknowledge the existence of warnings against phone use at gas stations, they argue that the likelihood of ignition from a cell phone is extremely low. Static electricity is highlighted as a more credible hazard, particularly in cold weather conditions. The conversation also references various industry standards for "intrinsically safe" devices, suggesting that while cell phones are generally safe, specific environments may require specialized equipment. Overall, the consensus leans towards the improbability of cell phones causing fires at petrol stations, despite the existence of precautionary measures.
chaoseverlasting
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
3
I recently saw a video of a man igniting fuel when he used his mobile at a petrol pump. What's the likelihood of something like that happening? Could it be that there was another reason why the fuel ignited? How could a mobile phone cause such a reaction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've heard that can happen, in fact where I buy gas there are signs warning patrons not to use cell phones while pumping gas.

I'm sure the chance of ignition is probably remote. But given the horrific consequences of a serious burn, I advise to just wait to make a call.
 
The chances of a cell phone causing a gas station fire are so remote as to make the warnings a little silly.

Snopes articles on cell phones/gas stations

Static electricity is a valid hazard that is increased by the construction of some tires. If your vehicle tends to shock you, then you ought to pay attention to the possibility of static electricity being a source of fire.
 
BobG said:
The chances of a cell phone causing a gas station fire are so remote as to make the warnings a little silly.

Snopes articles on cell phones/gas stations

Static electricity is a valid hazard that is increased by the construction of some tires. If your vehicle tends to shock you, then you ought to pay attention to the possibility of static electricity being a source of fire.

I remember the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw6-PhvcS3M", with links to the paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just read a memo in a trucking company about the use of cell phones while refueling. They gave 3 or 4 real world examples. The one I can recall was about a phone sitting on the trunk of a car when it rang setting off an explosion and fire. I don't recall the others.
 
Averagesupernova said:
I just read a memo in a trucking company about the use of cell phones while refueling. They gave 3 or 4 real world examples. The one I can recall was about a phone sitting on the trunk of a car when it rang setting off an explosion and fire. I don't recall the others.

Was it from Shell Oil Company? If so, you could read the exact same memo again in the Snopes link I provided. Problem one is that Shell never created such a memo. Problem two is that the examples in the memo were as made up as the source of the memo.

Trucking company employees can download bogus memos from the internet the same as anyone else. And a memo from an oil company sure looks more believable than someone relating an anecdote they heard from their ex-wife's boyfriend.

I've never quite figured out why people put out things like this. Most internet myths are at least interesting, and sometimes even humorous.
 
I heard that the screen when powered up may be able to cause a fire? Could that some how be a valid cause?
 
chaoseverlasting said:
I heard that the screen when powered up may be able to cause a fire? Could that some how be a valid cause?

Could you please provide a link? Did you read the Snopes article? It's very good.
 
BobG said:
Was it from Shell Oil Company? If so, you could read the exact same memo again in the Snopes link I provided. Problem one is that Shell never created such a memo. Problem two is that the examples in the memo were as made up as the source of the memo.

Not to mention that you can't light diesel fuel with a match, much less a spark.
 
  • #10
Who said it was diesel?
 
  • #11
Averagesupernova said:
I just read a memo in a trucking company about the use of cell phones while refueling.

Averagesupernova said:
Who said it was diesel?

Many trucks use diesel fuel instead of gasoline.
 
  • #12
There is a danger of cell phones igniting fumes, which is why certain industries are required to get special "Intrinsically Safe" phones.

Probably not too much danger at a gas station, but not impossible.

This handset is targeted towards industrial, petrochemical and utility companies for who mission critical communications is an important part of their job when working in high-noise, hazardous, chemical or gaseous environments. Industries that use this handset are manufacturing, construction, transportation and distribution.

http://demo.sprintselect.com/orders/catalog/product_info.php?nosplash=2&products_id=448

Intrinsically safe cell phones are a requirement for workers if hazardous, chemical or gaseous environments are involved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
I saw an in-depth treatment of this over a year ago (TV show), and their take was that static sparks were responsible for igniting gasoline fumes. Start fueling in cold weather, duck inside the vehicle to stay warm, and when you slide out of the vehicle, you can accumulate enough static charge to make a good spark. Whether or not the driver was using a cell phone was incidental, it seemed.

The hazards of static sparks have been appreciated for a long time. Here in Maine, we have signs warning that if you are filling gas-containers, you must take them out of the back of your pickup and place them on the ground before filling them. Over-cautious? Perhaps, but a lot more realistic that imagining that beeps from an incoming call on your cell phone will somehow trigger an explosion.
 
  • #14
turbo-1 said:
Perhaps, but a lot more realistic that imagining that beeps from an incoming call on your cell phone will somehow trigger an explosion.
Except that it does happen, did you read my post? Normal cellphones are forbidden in risky areas., the companies are required to buy the IS phones.

Like i said gas station is improbable, but not impossible.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35946892/Intrinsically-Safe
 
Last edited:
  • #15
BobG said:
Many trucks use diesel fuel instead of gasoline.

Yes, "trucking company" generally refers to big rigs, which are ~ 100% diesel powered.

Don't know the number, but a good percentage if not most medium-sized trucks are also diesel.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
The fact that the trucks are diesel is irrelevant. The example I gave was a CAR. I didn't specifically say that the car was gasoline but I do recall the memo said it was. It was up to the trucking company to adopt this rule for all their vehicles. To say "Don't worry about it when fueling a diesel" is technically acceptable since igniting diesel in that manner would be very very very close to impossible, but it is more probable that someone will "Not worry about it" when fueling with gasoline unless they just adopt the rule of no cell phones when fueling with ANY fuel. If I recall the memo correctly, I believe the source of ignition was a poor battery connection on the phone.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Evo said:
Except that it does happen, did you read my post? Normal cellphones are forbidden in risky areas., the companies are required to buy the IS phones.

Like i said gas station is improbable, but not impossible.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35946892/Intrinsically-Safe
Yes, I read it. Explosion-proof radios were in use a long time ago (I was in pulp and paper in the 70's and 80's) and IS phones are just a cost-added extension of that. If you are adding gas to your tank at a filling station, pay attention to static sparks, and not to whether your cellphone uses huge surges of energy (it doesn't) when you get an incoming call.
 
  • #18
I agree with turbo on this one. There are a lot of 'concerns' in various industry sectors which mean 'specialist' equipment is required. However, this doesn't mean there is actually a threat. It could be that there was a threat from a similar technology and they've just extended the rule (turbos radio example), or it could be that someone at some point raised a concern about it and the rules were just brought about without fully exploring it - I see it (and I'm sure you all have) a lot with companies trying to sell their goods, making claims regarding various dangers/problems which don't really exist, or at least not to the extent they make out.
 
  • #19
  • #20
Intrinsically safe items occur in many industries, the standards are the same (as per your document) for all industries - if you want IS certification the product must meet a specific set of standards. So if you understand the requirements they can be applied to any area of its use. Whether it be cell phones, radios, motors, junction boxes etc.

I know what intrinsically safe is, on placement I was exposed to electronics daily that required the certification due to where they would be installed for use. Granted they were high voltage, but it's the threat from them that matters.
 
  • #21
Here you go, for the 3rd time, a gas station ignition is improbable, but not impossible.

FaAA has not evaluated whether any cell phones or batteries produced by Motorola or by any other manufacturer meet the requirements for Class I, Group D, Division 1 or 2 locations. However, in order to encounter an NEC classified location (Division 2), a cell phone would
have to be held close to the fuel dispenser, or be lying on or within 1½ feet of the ground and within 20 feet of the dispenser. Both of these are possible scenarios, but do not represent typical cell phone usage conditions. It is very unlikely that a gasoline station customer would be able to introduce a cell phone into a Division 1 area.
As I've said all along, it is not impossible.

http://www.exponent.com/files/Uploads/Documents/CellPhoneReport.pdf

Spark Discharge
The possibilities for a cell phone to create a spark are limited, and include:
a) Pressing buttons
b) Disconnecting the battery
c) Vibrator mode
d) Accidental shorting of the battery terminals
e) Electrostatic discharge
In each of these circumstances, energy is stored either in the electromagnetic fields associated
with the current, or in electrostatic fields (e.g. capacitors). This energy might result in the
release of a spark that jumps between the terminals when a circuit is opened (for example by the
release of a pressed key).
If the battery is disconnected during operation, the energy dissipated in any spark will be related
to the current drain on the battery, and the circuitry connected to the battery. This energy will
be dependent on the phone type and mode of operation. The sparking, if any, will occur
between the battery contacts and the cell phone contacts, an area enclosed in most phones and
therefore unlikely to have a combustible mixture present at the moment of sparking.
 
  • #22
In fairness evo, that quote just shows it can be in a dangerous atmosphere, not that it can cause ignition.

(I'm reading the article now - will comment once done).
 
  • #23
So far as sparks or electrical discharge goes:
In some of the articles listed above, the energy during transmission was identified as a potential ignition source. FaAA has seen no credible evidence of this being an ignition source.
(Bottom of page 12)

With regards to heat:
The battery is generally well enclosed, and therefore getting a combustible mixture inside the battery housing would be difficult. Furthermore, the combustible mixture would have to be present during the brief period of time that the cells short. The probability of this happening is very remote.
There may be rare circumstances where the heat generated by the component overheating breaches the enclosure. These circumstances are exceedingly rare and do not pose a significant concern, especially when the overheating must coincide with the phone being positioned in a combustible mixture at the moment of component failure.

Now I agree, it's improbable but not impossible.

My problem lies in the whole banning of phones because of this very, very, very, very minor probability that it may cause ignition. Not whether or not it is possible.
Conclusions

Based on our analyses, the ignition of flammable vapors at a gasoline station by a cell phone is a highly unlikely event. While the cell phone cannot be ruled out as a potential ignition source under all physically possible scenarios, numerous other more likely ignition sources are present during the normal process of refueling a vehicle. This conclusion is supported by the following observations:
1. No confirmed incidents of fires at gasoline stations started by cell phones have been found.
2. Combustible vapors produced during fueling will not generally collect in regions of probable cell phone operation.
3. The small openings present in a typical cell phone’s casing will limit the concentration of any combustible vapors present within the cell phone. In addition, narrow gaps may quench any flames if they are ignited internally, preventing their propagation outside the enclosure.
4. A combination of events would have to occur in order to create an accident, including:
a. the placement of the cell phone in a flammable mixture for a sufficient length of time to allow a flammable mixture to form inside the cell phone,
b. a fault, malfunction, or spark generation in the cell phone that would produce a competent ignition source that could propagate outside of the battery or phone enclosure.
(A spill or dispersion of liquid gasoline on or near the phone would increase the hazard by increasing the likelihood of having combustible vapors present at the ignition source.)
5. Automobiles and the process of refueling provide potential ignition scenarios that are more likely to result in flammable vapor ignition.
In summary, the enclosures protecting the battery and cell phones, the low voltages and current drains of these components, the geometry of their interconnections, and the physics of electrical discharge and vapor diffusion strongly direct against the cell phone and battery acting as an ignition source while at a service station.

Motor vehicles are a far greater risk of combustion than mobile phones and yet we don't ban them from petrol stations. So why, when this report shows how much less likely a mobile phone causing combustion is than a motor vehicle, are they banned when cars can freely come and go.

(Ignore the fact cars have to be there).

To me this is like banning balloons from petrol stations as they may cause static and as such a potential source of ignition. Even though they are far less likely to cause ignition than a motor vehicle.
 
  • #24
Of course it's at the bottom of my concerns, just wanted to show that however unlikely, it is possible, and if it is possible, it will happen to me.
 
  • #25
Evo said:
Of course it's at the bottom of my concerns, just wanted to show that however unlikely, it is possible, and if it is possible, it will happen to me.

Oh, naturally. I find myself in a similar boat with seemingly improbable scenarios.
 
  • #26
Don't let your children play with My Little Pony toys while they are in your SUV while you gas up. They can cause your vehicle to explode! Idiocy.

Evo's expert opinion aside, I was a process chemist in the 70's and 80's in the pulp and paper industry, and we had some pretty strict standards in place to prevent explosions in hazardous parts of the mill. We used solute sodium chlorate to produce chlorine dioxide from liquid chlorine using an R-3 generator. Get that stuff on your gloves or boots and scuff them together or on other surfaces after they dry, and you would go up in an intense yellow, hot, all-consuming flame. This was not hypothetical, and there were accidents.

We didn't have cell phones 40 years ago, but we did have mild sources of heat (friction, static electricity, etc.) that were capable of causing intense fires that could kill people or at least maim them, and we had required training regarding such fire-prevention every 6 months. We also had explosion-proof equipment and restricted use-zones for electrical equipment.

Radios restricted? Non-sparking switches and relays, required? Yes and yes. Cell-phones restricted? That would have been ridiculous. We routinely used calculators, multi-meters, and other electronic devices in that area with no restrictions.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Evo said:
With all due respect to turbo, he knows absolutely nothing about cell phones. I work in the industry, I have clients that are required by law to have IS phones, it's not an option.
There is no need to be rude or dismissive to somebody who clearly has expertise in industrial settings, just because I have not sold cell phones. :devil::-p
 
  • #28
Averagesupernova said:
The fact that the trucks are diesel is irrelevant. The example I gave was a CAR. I didn't specifically say that the car was gasoline but I do recall the memo said it was. It was up to the trucking company to adopt this rule for all their vehicles. To say "Don't worry about it when fueling a diesel" is technically acceptable since igniting diesel in that manner would be very very very close to impossible, but it is more probable that someone will "Not worry about it" when fueling with gasoline unless they just adopt the rule of no cell phones when fueling with ANY fuel. If I recall the memo correctly, I believe the source of ignition was a poor battery connection on the phone.

I was just responding to this part of your statement. You statement did not indicate the concern was exclusive to gasoline-powered vehicles.

I just read a memo in a trucking company about the use of cell phones while refueling.
 
  • #29
Evo I'm assuming the IS phones (I can't open the link for some reason) are built to a similar standard to ATEX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATEX_directive. I can't remember what the US directive we designed to was.

When I designed electrical connectors for oil rigs in my last job we had to make sure that we had flame paths on any connections. So even if a spark in the battery/connecter did cause a flame, that flame would have died out to a point where it cannot ignite the surrounding atmosphere. Is the general idea.

As petrol forecourts are a less extreme version of oil rig decks, it's the same basic problem that's being addressed. Where safety like this is concerned, directives don't care how remote the probability is.



Although a pretty large source of heat, a car that is working properly shouldn't be producting any external sparks. Heat alone from a car won't be enough to cause an explosion. On saying that, if a petrol stations safety features are working properly you could walk around with a naked flame (lighter) and nothing would happen as long as you didnt put it near the nozzles.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Rather than worry about cell phones, maybe you should worry about your fuel pump.

http://www.lunghd.com/Tech_Articles/Fuel_System/Fuel_Pump_Replacement.htm
Fuel_Pump_out_of_tank.JPG


The flat disc towards the top left is the part that fits to the outside of the fuel tank. Everything below that, the pump, the fuel level sensor, the sock filter, and the wires sit inside the tank, submerged by gasoline.

Once you've finished and it comes time to start your vehicle for the first time, you can't help but pause and wonder whether you've installed a new fuel pump inside your tank or if you've installed a bomb inside your tank.
 
  • #31
BobG said:
The flat disc towards the top left is the part that fits to the outside of the fuel tank. Everything below that, the pump, the fuel level sensor, the sock filter, and the wires sit inside the tank, submerged by gasoline.

You'll never manage to ignite liquid fuel when the ignition source is submerged like that, even if you did majorly bugger up the wiring. It's certainly more safe than having the majority of the wiring above the liquid fuel where all the vapour is.

Safe as houses.
 
  • #32
xxChrisxx said:
As petrol forecourts are a less extreme version of oil rig decks, it's the same basic problem that's being addressed. Where safety like this is concerned, directives don't care how remote the probability is.

Although a pretty large source of heat, a car that is working properly shouldn't be producting any external sparks. Heat alone from a car won't be enough to cause an explosion. On saying that, if a petrol stations safety features are working properly you could walk around with a naked flame (lighter) and nothing would happen as long as you didnt put it near the nozzles.

Referring back to the report conclusion, my point was that a car is more likely to cause ignition than a mobile phone. A mobile phone 'working properly' shouldn't cause ignition either, so I'd call that a moot argument.

I have a problem that they ban mobile phones from a forecourt when there are far greater risks than them. Slightly exagerated for emphasis: You're banning a minor threat but leaving a major one. It doesn't make sense.

Obviously you can't ban cars or you'd have something of a conflict of interest, but is banning phones really justified in this particular setting?
 
  • #33
jarednjames said:
Referring back to the report conclusion, my point was that a car is more likely to cause ignition than a mobile phone. A mobile phone 'working properly' shouldn't cause ignition either, so I'd call that a moot argument.

It's not an argument, it's just how it is.

If it's all working properly it should be fine whatever you do. But the job of the health and safety man is to put forth ridiclous scenarios for engineers to design against. Like I said, health and safety would just love to ban cars from forecourts, they can't, so banning everything else is the next best thing.

It's the way of the world.
 
  • #34
Yes Chris, but it doesn't make it a logical ban with a valid argument for it.

To me it's just a case of H&S gone mad.
 
  • #35
jarednjames said:
Yes Chris, but it doesn't make it a logical ban with a valid argument for it.

To me it's just a case of H&S gone mad.
If you check Mythbusters, Snopes, and other sites, they have thoroughly debunked the cell-phone/gasoline explosion myth. Signs at gas stations and fuel depots are not evidence of the truth of the myth. They are evidence of the power of legal teams that want to dot every "i" to forestall any possibility of legal liability. No legal team would want to face a jury defending a charge brought by a badly-burned victim. Signs are cheaper.
 
  • #36
Again, from the conclusion in Evo's report above, it shows a remote possibility it could happen, but also outlines that it has never happened and that there are far greater risks of ignition than cell phones.

I do agree with you turbo. I think it's all about dodging liability and giving people such as health and safety far too much power.
 
  • #37
turbo-1 said:
Signs are cheaper.

This. Times about a billion. In the end it's all about money and liability.

Put it this way. You don't put a sign up saying don't smoke, someone smokes and blows themselves up. In the modern day, especially in the US you would be sues for every penny you have ever seen. Although common sense says don't put hot things near fuel vapour, some idiot will do it.

Although it's a far smaller risk from a mobile, it is distinctly non zero. Therefore it's cheaper to put up a sign and then your liability if reduced just incase. It doesn't matter if it's never happened, as everything dangerous 'has never happened' until it does.
 
  • #38
xxChrisxx said:
Although it's a far smaller risk from a mobile, it is non zero. Therefore it's cheaper to put up a sign and then your liability if reduced just incase.
I'll try to find the link, again, but one of the European manufacturers, IIR (Nokia?) said that if there was any risk from cell phones it would have to be from a dislodged battery causing a spark - not from actually using the phone.
 
  • #39
turbo-1 said:
I'll try to find the link, again, but one of the European manufacturers, IIR (Nokia?) said that if there was any risk from cell phones it would have to be from a dislodged battery causing a spark - not from actually using the phone.

It's in Evos report above. The one I keep referring to.

FFS people. Read.

I've given the whole conclusion which outlines the risk. If you read through the rest of the report it tells you how perfect conditions would have to be for ignition to occur.
 
  • #40
turbo-1 said:
I'll try to find the link, again, but one of the European manufacturers, IIR (Nokia?) said that if there was any risk from cell phones it would have to be from a dislodged battery causing a spark - not from actually using the phone.

Yeah I know if it, mostly from the fact you aren't really allowed mobiles on oil rigs. (you can't get signal anyway)
 
  • #41
I had a video of a refuelling truck catching fire because one of the attendants used his mobile phone. I can't seem to find the link though.
 
  • #42
xxChrisxx said:
You'll never manage to ignite liquid fuel when the ignition source is submerged like that, even if you did majorly bugger up the wiring. It's certainly more safe than having the majority of the wiring above the liquid fuel where all the vapour is.

Safe as houses.

This is true, but anyone not susceptible to irrational thoughts at all just isn't human. Plus, a fuel pump is a lot easier to replace when the fuel tank is nearly empty (getting drenched in gasoline when you open the seal wouldn't be much fun). In fact, running out of gas is a situation where the fuel level isn't high enough to reach the intake, let alone completely submerge the pump.

Too bad they didn't have cell phones back in the days of the Ford Pinto.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
The quote I remembered came from a Motorola spokesperson, not Nokia.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cellgas.htm

Cell phone makers including Motorola and Nokia have included warnings about not using cell phones around gas vapors. In August of 1999, David Rudd, a spokesman for Motorola, told the San Francisco Chronicle that his company's warning was because of the remote possibility that a dislodged battery cause cause a spark, not because of the transmission of radio signals.
 
  • #44
BobG said:
This is true, but anyone not susceptible to irrational thoughts at all just isn't human.

It's changing the wheels for me, I know I've torqued up all the nuts properly but I still have that feeling the wheels about to fly off.
 
  • #45
turbo-1 said:
The quote I remembered came from a Motorola spokesperson, not Nokia.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cellgas.htm
Of course the problem is with the physical aspects of the phone, not radio waves. Did someone in this thread say it wasn't?

Also, people should remember that just because the gas station is an unlikely place for events to be correct for a cell phone to ignite fumes, cell phones do ignite combustible gases and are forbidden in areas where volatile dust and gases collect (unless they are IS rated for the danger level they will be operated in).
 
  • #46
Evo said:
Of course the problem is with the physical aspects of the phone, not radio waves. Did someone in this thread say it wasn't?
Not that I recall, but the myths that circulated through emails and the media were very non-technical, leading people to believe that using a cell phone at a gas station could cause a fire. By the same token, dropping any battery-powered device could start a fire if the battery were dislodged

Actually, you're more likely to be able to start a fire by slipping in and out of the driver's seat wearing a sweater or a fleece jacket. Static electricity on dry days can produce some pretty impressive sparks.
 
Back
Top