Cell Phones & fuel pumps

[N_Jay]

This could be similar to Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO).

The gas pump (supposed) issue?

How so?

That is about munitions that are design to be triggered by electrical signals, not "some unidentified random effect of RF" (My best name for whatever they think the cell phone is doing to cause a gas pump fire)

 

[fmon]

The ordnance electroexplosive devices (EEDs) may be accidentally initiated by exposure to radiofrequency (RF) environments.

The gas pump (supposed) issue?

How so?

That is about munitions that are design to be triggered by electrical signals, not "some unidentified random effect of RF" (My best name for whatever they think the cell phone is doing to cause a gas pump fire)

HERO conditions are exactly for "unidentified (RF) random effect". Granted, it would need a spark (not RF) to cause fuel cumbuston.

 

[n1das]

I think the turn off cell phone myth arises from the remote possibility of a spark created when connecting/disconnecting the phone's battery while in the presense of gasoline vapors. Mythbusters did a good job of busting the myth of using the phone w/gasoline vapors. I don't think they tested connecting/disconnecting the phone's battery in the presense of gasoline vapors.

OTOH, both of my vehicles are DIESEL powered and the risk of a flash fire due to an ignition source during fueling up is much lower. MUCH safer to handle compared to gasoline. It's known that liquid diesel fuel will extinguish a lighted match. Don't try this at home with gasoline!

 

[N_Jay]

HERO conditions are exactly for "unidentified (RF) random effect".

Hardly "unidentified" when the ordnance device itself is "electroexplosive"

Of course what is obvious to some is magic to others.

 

[N_Jay]

I think the turn off cell phone myth arises from the remote possibility of a spark created when connecting/disconnecting the phone's battery while in the presense of gasoline vapors. . . . .

The explanation of the origin of the warning, as I recall, (and it seems well documented at the time) was that a "news story" of an fire made an unsubstantiated claim that a cell phone was to blame. The article was noticed by someone at a Oil company (Mobil, I think)(After re-reading the Snopes page, I guess it was Shell) who put in place the first warning stickers without further investigation or any verification. The trend then swept the industry in typical "better safe then sorry" style.

Many "excuses" have been formed since, as people rationalize what "seems" so logical that it "just must" have some basis in fact.

And another Urban Legend is born.

EDIT:
Rereading the Snopes page reminded me when this was all hashed over ad nauseum. It was right after the 2004 gas station fire, where the "Fire Chief" started what amounted to a "fire storm" of controversy by making a statement that it was caused by a cell phone.

 

[knightrider]

Ok, so why is it we should NOT heed on the side of caution here?? Is it so damned important to be talking B.S. on a cell phone that you HAVE to continue while fueling up next to me, one who is a little on the cautious side? You have whatever Rights you may think you have with the phone, but what happens IF you are on the phone, a fire breaks out, and my attorney is ready to take a new case. He may not win it on the cellphone, but because you were too hard headed to pick up the call later, you have expended your Great Grandchilds fortune just fighting it. I have no use for a lawsuit, but many do, and will jump at any reason to file it. If I'm dead, it's of no use to me. If my family is to survive without me, that is another view. It only takes a moment to say I'll call you back, leave the phone in the car, and pump the gas. If your life is that busy and important, find a full service station, and pay someone to pump gas for you, while you sit in your mobile office, and talk to your girlfriend, Mistress etc... Much of this may be Urban Legend, and many times a question is asked, and something is quoted in the original question, but it is not read, or interpreted properly, and then everyone goes off on him as being the one who started or tries to keep it going. Oh, and SNOPES is not 100% and same with Myth Busters.... There are ALWAYS variables that can make something work entirely opposite. I have no idea why N-Jay couldn't not understand the one message, it was plain as day to me, but he had to run on and on with it. Get over it, exercise a little caution, but mostly, watch out for the other guy, you might save his life somehow.
Knightrider Retired LEO/FF

 

[N_Jay]

Ok, so why is it we should NOT heed on the side of caution here??

We should always 'heed" reasonable on the side of reasonable caution.

The issue is with ALL the MANY risks we have every day, this relatively NON-risk was raised to "Urban-Legend" buy 100% misinformation.

Maybe we should only have "professionals" pump gas like in NJ and OR because it is "safer"?

Once you start going down the overly "better-safe-than-sorry" road in an unthinking manner, just where do you get off?

Maybe because there is no risk?

Hmm, I wonder if one could show that it is safer to talk on the phone while filling your tank, then having the same conversation when driving??

Relative risk is a very interesting subject.

. . . .talking B.S. on a cell phone that you HAVE to continue while fueling up next to me, one who is a little on the cautious side?

You van always leave. LOL (yes, it is stupid idea, but so is fearing non-existent risks)

You have whatever Rights you may think you have with the phone, but what happens IF you are on the phone, a fire breaks out,

PLEASE go back and READ what has been written about the real risk.

and my attorney is ready to take a new case. He may not win it on the cellphone, but because you were too hard headed to pick up the call later, you have expended your Great Grandchilds fortune just fighting it. I have no use for a lawsuit, but many do, and will jump at any reason to file it.

Well, I guess I should put a "Warning Don't Hit Me" sticker on my car just so I can sue people.
Talk about loosing sense of the conversation.

If I'm dead, it's of no use to me. If my family is to survive without me, that is another view.

Again, you keep falling for the INCORRECT information that there is some relevant risk.
Good decisions made on bad information are BAD DECISIONS!

It only takes a moment to say I'll call you back, leave the phone in the car, and pump the gas. If your life is that busy and important, find a full service station, and pay someone to pump gas for you, while you sit in your mobile office, and talk to your girlfriend, Mistress etc...

I love how these discussion expend to include off-topic and meaningless reasons (Often with class-hatred overtones).

Much of this may be Urban Legend, and many times a question is asked, and something is quoted in the original question, but it is not read, or interpreted properly, and then everyone goes off on him as being the one who started or tries to keep it going. Oh, and SNOPES is not 100% and same with Myth Busters....

Maybe you missed the point. It is 100% Urban Legend.

There are ALWAYS variables that can make something work entirely opposite.

I hope you never get on my sister-in-laws email list, because you would die from inactivity, because from what I can tell from the never-ending stream of warnings, EVERYTHING can kill you one way or another. Well, "Better safe then sorry"!!!! :evil::evil::evil:

I have no idea why N-Jay couldn't not understand the one message, it was plain as day to me,

If it was plain, then explain it. DAK couldn't.
Repeating and explaining are NOT the same thing.

Get over it, exercise a little caution, but mostly, watch out for the other guy, you might save his life somehow.

I exercise plenty of caution. I am cautions not to fall for bad information.

Why do FF and Police drive fast?
It is more dangerous, and it is a very rare occurrence when the few seconds difference makes any difference to the outcome, yet several times a year we hear of fatal emergency vehicle accidents.

Answer that one, oh mister "Better safe than sorry"!

 

[dracer777]

Why do FF and Police drive fast?
It is more dangerous, and it is a very rare occurrence when the few seconds difference makes any difference to the outcome, yet several times a year we hear of fatal emergency vehicle accidents.

Very interesting point.... (Sorry, off topic, I just enjoyed that statement.)

Now, as a precursor, I have to say, I have always made smart-ass comments on this subject, I always leave my engine running and many times, I talk on the phone while refueling. LOL

Relative risk is indeed an interesting subject... If you are truly worried about risk, then you would be more worried about he act of driving far more than you would driving itself. The ratio is pretty dang close to 1:1 of people that drive to people that refuel, yet we hear of FAR MORE T/As than "explosive refueling sessions(lol)".

I think we should also ban people who are "on" oxygen from smoking or using anything that emits a radio signal. Maybe even REMOTES... because... BECAUSE.... they, THEY have BATTERIES(OMG) that might create a SPARK!!!!

Like N_Jay said earlier: how far do you go with this "relative risk" subject????

And I agree with whoever said that we should BAN static electricity build-up.