Cell phones causing explosions. Is it true?

[sainbablo]

Clearly cell phones rarely cause explosions, even though it is theoretically possible.  But it is a case of unbalanced consequences.  Not using the cell phone seldom has any real consequences, and extremely rarely can be the cause of injury or property damage.  Using it can rarely cause damages, but those damages are likely to be very large including a very real possibility of death.  Prudence suggests just leaving the cell phone off, or at least moving away.  What ever the risk is it goes down as the square of the distance, so a bit of space is a wonderful thing.

If damages are likely to be very large  then what   could be cause of such death? I am digressing  towards pathophysiology if I may.

[CatalinaWOW]

Clearly cell phones rarely cause explosions, even though it is theoretically possible.  But it is a case of unbalanced consequences.  Not using the cell phone seldom has any real consequences, and extremely rarely can be the cause of injury or property damage.  Using it can rarely cause damages, but those damages are likely to be very large including a very real possibility of death.  Prudence suggests just leaving the cell phone off, or at least moving away.  What ever the risk is it goes down as the square of the distance, so a bit of space is a wonderful thing.

If damages are likely to be very large  then what   could be cause of such death? I am digressing  towards pathophysiology if I may.

In terms of risk assessment - an explosion/fire initiated by a cell phone induced arc would cause injury or death by one or more of the obvious mechanisms - burns, trauma (ripping, smashing or tearing of the body) or overpressure.  I say very large because in the case involved there are large quantities of fuel in the vicinity.  While the initial explosion may be small (and indeed may not propagate), there are numbers of opportunities for the event to cascade.  Rupture of vehicle fuel tanks.  Displacement of fuel hoses from fill ports.  Displacement of dispensing pumps from their fuel pedestals.

A large scale explosion or fire is NOT inevitable.  But if a spark initiates combustion it seems to me that the odds of getting something large is not measured using large numbers of zeros.  Much closer to 1 in 10 than to 1 in 10000.  Fortunately the chances of getting a spark seem to be quite small, both from the evidence of experience and from thinking through the physical requirements for such a thing to happen.

Injury or death by not using a cell phone has to come from some more contrived situation - say a delay in arrival of emergency services in the case of a heart attack, or not warning someone that a crazy person has sworn to kill them and is on the way.  Strictly a secondary result coming from a delay in communications.

So to restate the point.  The consequences of caution are basically limited to a little inconvenience.  The likelihood of something bad happening from using a cell phone is very low (obviously, because cell phone use during refueling and near refueling stations is widespread and resulting explosions are at most quite rare).  But the potential consequences if it does happen are bad enough that a little inconvenience seems a small price to pay.

[larrybl]

Probably noobish but I would think that some cell phones (at least mine does) have a small electric motor for the vibration mode. I would expect there would be some slight arcing around the armature when receiving a text or call.

[sainbablo]

Clearly cell phones rarely cause explosions, even though it is theoretically possible.  But it is a case of unbalanced consequences.  Not using the cell phone seldom has any real consequences, and extremely rarely can be the cause of injury or property damage.  Using it can rarely cause damages, but those damages are likely to be very large including a very real possibility of death.  Prudence suggests just leaving the cell phone off, or at least moving away.  What ever the risk is it goes down as the square of the distance, so a bit of space is a wonderful thing.

If damages are likely to be very large  then what   could be cause of such death? I am digressing  towards pathophysiology if I may.

In terms of risk assessment - an explosion/fire initiated by a cell phone induced arc would cause injury or death by one or more of the obvious mechanisms - burns, trauma (ripping, smashing or tearing of the body) or overpressure.  I say very large because in the case involved there are large quantities of fuel in the vicinity.  While the initial explosion may be small (and indeed may not propagate), there are numbers of opportunities for the event to cascade.  Rupture of vehicle fuel tanks.  Displacement of fuel hoses from fill ports.  Displacement of dispensing pumps from their fuel pedestals.

A large scale explosion or fire is NOT inevitable.  But if a spark initiates combustion it seems to me that the odds of getting something large is not measured using large numbers of zeros.  Much closer to 1 in 10 than to 1 in 10000.  Fortunately the chances of getting a spark seem to be quite small, both from the evidence of experience and from thinking through the physical requirements for such a thing to happen.

Injury or death by not using a cell phone has to come from some more contrived situation - say a delay in arrival of emergency services in the case of a heart attack, or not warning someone that a crazy person has sworn to kill them and is on the way.  Strictly a secondary result coming from a delay in communications.

So to restate the point.  The consequences of caution are basically limited to a little inconvenience.  The likelihood of something bad happening from using a cell phone is very low (obviously, because cell phone use during refueling and near refueling stations is widespread and resulting explosions are at most quite rare).  But the potential consequences if it does happen are bad enough that a little inconvenience seems a small price to pay.

Cascading explains a lot.

[sainbablo]

Probably noobish but I would think that some cell phones (at least mine does) have a small electric motor for the vibration mode. I would expect there would be some slight arcing around the armature when receiving a text or call.

Some 2 decades or so ago cell phones were really bulky and heavy. Became pretty warm if used more than 8-10 minutes.
Those were the days when talk about ionising radiations causing brain cancer got currency. So were the news about pace makers getting packed up causing fatal cardiac arrests. Batteries are now very slender and compact but are the cells getting less warmer?
I  do not know how would a person with cochlear implant react to a cheap cell. Any input?

[ayrex]

I must say. I didn't read the whole thread. But as an electrical engineer who works for a technical inspection agency in Germany (mostly consulting in explosion protecting, machinery and functional safety) I've done such assessments.

Using you're phone won't ignite an explosive atmosphere. You need much more energy inducted by the RF field of your phone. And a phone which could do so I won't recommend holding it near your head.

BUT (and there's always a but): If you drop you're phone and the battery flys around (or even the impact shock causes a small gap between battery and phone's battery contact) there is a possibility that an explosive atmosphere could be ignited by a spark.
Of course a defective LiIon battery (thermal runaway!) could also ignite (and produce) an explosive atmosphere. But a electrostatic dischage because of your fur coated seat  can also ignite it.Or your car's exhaust.

Why is it unlikely? Because there is no explosive atmosphere (especially no dangerous explosive atmosphere -> >10 liters of vapor-air mixture). The gas pump nozzle sucks up the most gas vapor coming out of your tank while filling it up. Only in case of a failure there could be one. (typically 20cm around the gas pump is Zone 2)

Hope it helps a bit.

[CatalinaWOW]

I must say. I didn't read the whole thread. But as an electrical engineer who works for a technical inspection agency in Germany (mostly consulting in explosion protecting, machinery and functional safety) I've done such assessments.

Using you're phone won't ignite an explosive atmosphere. You need much more energy inducted by the RF field of your phone. And a phone which could do so I won't recommend holding it near your head.

BUT (and there's always a but): If you drop you're phone and the battery flys around (or even the impact shock causes a small gap between battery and phone's battery contact) there is a possibility that an explosive atmosphere could be ignited by a spark.
Of course a defective LiIon battery (thermal runaway!) could also ignite (and produce) an explosive atmosphere. But a electrostatic dischage because of your fur coated seat  can also ignite it.Or your car's exhaust.

Why is it unlikely? Because there is no explosive atmosphere (especially no dangerous explosive atmosphere -> >10 liters of vapor-air mixture). The gas pump nozzle sucks up the most gas vapor coming out of your tank while filling it up. Only in case of a failure there could be one. (typically 20cm around the gas pump is Zone 2)

Hope it helps a bit.

There are huge swaths of the United States that do not use these protective nozzles.  They are required in California and several other states, but it isn't a universal requirement.  I can't say how common they are elsewhere in the world.  These inconsistencies go far in explaining how various safety warnings come about.  A warning that is totally in-necessary leaks in from somewhere else where it may make sense.

An example I have mentioned elsewhere was a regulation making illegal to serve ice in the drinking water of workers.  The origin of this rule was from a century ago in a northern part of the US where most ice was sawn from lakes, and often was contaminated with animal urine.  Made sense where it started.  Didn't make sense in a sun belt state that had long since given up shipping sawn ice in from some northern state, and had daily temperatures in the work area that commonly exceeded 120F (49C).  We knew it was hot because the glass thermometers common back then popped after going over-range. 

[ayrex]

There are huge swaths of the United States that do not use these protective nozzles.  They are required in California and several other states, but it isn't a universal requirement.  I can't say how common they are elsewhere in the world.  These inconsistencies go far in explaining how various safety warnings come about.  A warning that is totally in-necessary leaks in from somewhere else where it may make sense.

An example I have mentioned elsewhere was a regulation making illegal to serve ice in the drinking water of workers.  The origin of this rule was from a century ago in a northern part of the US where most ice was sawn from lakes, and often was contaminated with animal urine.  Made sense where it started.  Didn't make sense in a sun belt state that had long since given up shipping sawn ice in from some northern state, and had daily temperatures in the work area that commonly exceeded 120F (49C).  We knew it was hot because the glass thermometers common back then popped after going over-range.

Does not all make sense. I'm sure these laws made sense when they were created. But some of them should be brought to the present time.
In Europe we have the ATEX directive2014/34/EU.
Not sure about the US but something is done as well (at least at companies; but I'm not very in these things for outside Europe).

But these nozzles are real life savers! Not only for "special" people like the woman in the video. These electrostatic discharges while filling your tank is a real issue. Fortunately in most cases there is more lighting up a fire than an explosion.

I guess there are many old laws or forgotten laws. And courts are taking them too serious if an lawyer pulls them out, arent they?

Do you know why they don't modernize these laws or at least throw the useless ones in the dumpster?

[CatalinaWOW]

There are huge swaths of the United States that do not use these protective nozzles.  They are required in California and several other states, but it isn't a universal requirement.  I can't say how common they are elsewhere in the world.  These inconsistencies go far in explaining how various safety warnings come about.  A warning that is totally in-necessary leaks in from somewhere else where it may make sense.

An example I have mentioned elsewhere was a regulation making illegal to serve ice in the drinking water of workers.  The origin of this rule was from a century ago in a northern part of the US where most ice was sawn from lakes, and often was contaminated with animal urine.  Made sense where it started.  Didn't make sense in a sun belt state that had long since given up shipping sawn ice in from some northern state, and had daily temperatures in the work area that commonly exceeded 120F (49C).  We knew it was hot because the glass thermometers common back then popped after going over-range.

Does not all make sense. I'm sure these laws made sense when they were created. But some of them should be brought to the present time.
In Europe we have the ATEX directive2014/34/EU.
Not sure about the US but something is done as well (at least at companies; but I'm not very in these things for outside Europe).

But these nozzles are real life savers! Not only for "special" people like the woman in the video. These electrostatic discharges while filling your tank is a real issue. Fortunately in most cases there is more lighting up a fire than an explosion.

I guess there are many old laws or forgotten laws. And courts are taking them too serious if an lawyer pulls them out, arent they?

Do you know why they don't modernize these laws or at least throw the useless ones in the dumpster?

Lots of reasons they aren't modernized.  The big one is inertia.  Another is that few know why the laws were put in, and few understand whether they still apply.  And at least in the liberal democracies, laws are passed by elected officials.  They are motivated by what will get them re-elected.  There is almost no big voting block demanding this type of reform. 

[Brumby]

Lots of reasons they aren't modernized.  The big one is inertia.  Another is that few know why the laws were put in, and few understand whether they still apply.

This is very true - and not just in state and federal legislation ... but in business procedures as well.

[Brumby]

But these nozzles are real life savers! Not only for "special" people like the woman in the video. These electrostatic discharges while filling your tank is a real issue.

The reason why there is no major public outcry and demand that vapour recovery systems are fitted everywhere is because the number of events is so small when compared to the number of times people re-fuel their vehicles.

Sure, there are consumer advocates that push these agendas, but the public is complacent, so no major motivation exists for those who have to foot the bill.  Likewise, (as said above) the legislators are not driven to press the matter because votes aren't riding on it.

[IanB]

The primary reason for vapor recovery systems is not safety, it is for pollution control. The emission of VoC's from fuel pumps contributes to atmospheric pollution and smog. As such the number of events is not small, it is in the millions, every time anyone refuels their car.

[CatalinaWOW]

True, but the number of places which have a persistent smog problem is relatively small.  The LA basin is an obvious example, and is why vapor recovery is required in California.  Denver is another.  But many places have geography and weather patterns that let the problem be ignored.

[StillTrying]

"The gas pump nozzle sucks up the most gas vapor coming out of your tank while filling it up."

What does it do with the vapour that's sucked out of your tank, and what does it do to the vapour when the gas station's tanks are refilled?

[SeanB]

Vapour goes into the fuel supply tanks to replace the fuel pumped out, and when the bowser refills the same again. Then in the refinery the vapour is simply either passed through to a condenser to get some volatiles back out, or more commonly sent through to the flare line to get burnt with the rest of the unused fugitive emissions in the refinery.

[retrolefty]

"The gas pump nozzle sucks up the most gas vapor coming out of your tank while filling it up."

What does it do with the vapour that's sucked out of your tank, and what does it do to the vapour when the gas station's tanks are refilled?

 Stations here in California have on-site thermal-oxidizers to burn off the hydrocarbon vapors.

[sainbablo]

A naked flame near to a gas burner is a really bad idea. The gas might catch fire and start burning.

Excuse me but you mean the gas is already leaking ?

[sainbablo]

[quote author=CatalinaWOW link=topic=79621.msg1091577#msg1091577 date=148

Lots of reasons they aren't modernized.  The big one is inertia.  Another is that few know why the laws were put in, and few understand whether they still apply.  And at least in the liberal democracies, laws are passed by elected officials.  They are motivated by what will get them re-elected.  There is almost no big voting block demanding this type of reform.
[/quote]

Sounds very familiar to me

[sainbablo]

I must say. I didn't read the whole thread. But as an electrical engineer who works for a technical inspection agency in Germany (mostly consulting in explosion protecting, machinery and functional safety) I've done such assessments.

Using you're phone won't ignite an explosive atmosphere. You need much more energy inducted by the RF field of your phone. And a phone which could do so I won't recommend holding it near your head.

BUT (and there's always a but): If you drop you're phone and the battery flys around (or even the impact shock causes a small gap between battery and phone's battery contact) there is a possibility that an explosive atmosphere could be ignited by a spark.
Of course a defective LiIon battery (thermal runaway!) could also ignite (and produce) an explosive atmosphere. But a electrostatic dischage because of your fur coated seat  can also ignite it.Or your car's exhaust.

Why is it unlikely? Because there is no explosive atmosphere (especially no dangerous explosive atmosphere -> >10 liters of vapor-air mixture). The gas pump nozzle sucks up the most gas vapor coming out of your tank while filling it up. Only in case of a failure there could be one. (typically 20cm around the gas pump is Zone 2)

Hope it helps a bit.

Any relationship with degree of moisture in surrounding air?

[JanJansen]

If Lipo battery falls hard it might ignite if it breaks, it goes if some air is in it.
Samsung phones explode with no reason, maybe they tried to fit to much mAh in a to small space ?

If you drop it, it might not explode directly, slowly the crack getting worse until it catches air, and explode at some moment,
always use something like bump free protection is the best.

[ayrex]

"The gas pump nozzle sucks up the most gas vapor coming out of your tank while filling it up."

What does it do with the vapour that's sucked out of your tank, and what does it do to the vapour when the gas station's tanks are refilled?

 Stations here in California have on-site thermal-oxidizers to burn off the hydrocarbon vapors.

Exactly. It has a name in german. "Gaspendelleitung". And if there's too much pressure in the main tank. It'll release it to the environment (with a safety valve, unidirectional).

If Lipo battery falls hard it might ignite if it breaks, it goes if some air is in it.
Samsung phones explode with no reason, maybe they tried to fit to much mAh in a to small space ?

If you drop it, it might not explode directly, slowly the crack getting worse until it catches air, and explode at some moment,
always use something like bump free protection is the best.

Depends on the case of the device and the construction (in mobile devices often "tea bag" cells. That happens because the cell seperator is damaged and there is an internal short in the battery. It'll become hot. --> exothermal chemical reaction (which produces oxygen, hydrogen and other) --> hotter --> battery will expand --> breaks at the determinded breaking point --> gas comes out, which is highly flameable --> if battery is hot enough  --> it'll ignite it (if the battery can produces an explosive atmosphere if it's not outside).

Here a video where the battery is at first not able to ignite the vapor coming out of it. and than: A spark or too hot surface
https://www.youtube.com/embed/AAZ62tUtc0w

Here is a video where the battey won't become an ignition source


I think Samsung did not try to fit too much capacity in their faulty batteries, they made a faulty safety circuit. It won't cut the current at too much battery drain or too high temperature. So the battery's seperator can be damaged by too high temperature.
They should have used a proper safety circuit and maybe a bigger battery. But that costs cash and reduces the place for electronics.

[JanJansen]

That guy with the knife is crazy.

The axe man is more wise, he straps it to something heavy so it wont fly away.
( He better buy Turnigys instead of Zippy )

[sainbablo]

I have an old model of Huawei. Ten minutes on viber made it really warm. took  the battery  out. It was warm.
As mentioned, faulty batteries short circuiting sparking can explode at place of their choice causing damage by cascading progression
of the event  ( cf Catalina). So then it is matter of luck ? Or environments ? Who gets what?
Two explosion have been reported here but further details  are scanty. There are lot of cheap batteries circulating from near and far east markets
But then in final run, what is the significance level  that is p= what?

[CatalinaWOW]

I have an old model of Huawei. Ten minutes on viber made it really warm. took  the battery  out. It was warm.
As mentioned, faulty batteries short circuiting sparking can explode at place of their choice causing damage by cascading progression
of the event  ( cf Catalina). So then it is matter of luck ? Or environments ? Who gets what?
Two explosion have been reported here but further details  are scanty. There are lot of cheap batteries circulating from near and far east markets
But then in final run, what is the significance level  that is p= what?

No one can tell you what the p is.  It is extremely low, but is it 1E-6 or 1E-12?  No one can say.  Gas station fires are fairly common, but only a fraction lead to explosions, and many have no specific cause identified.  See the following for example.  It identifies ignition of flammable liquids as the source of fires in a variety of circumstances, but the source of ignition for the flammable liquids is not identified.  The majority are the standard culprits, an open flame, cigarettes or other smoking materials, sparks from battery hookup or welding, spontaneous combustion in oily rags and the like, but there is no definitive characterization for every event.



Fires at U.S. Service Stations



 



More information



"Fires at U.S. Service Stations" report (PDF, 222 KB)

Fact sheet
"Fires at U.S. Service Stations" fact sheet (PDF, 34 KB)

Related report

NFPA members
2010 "Selected Published Incidents Involving Automobile Repair Shops" report (PDF, 57 KB)



Contact us
 If you have any questions, e-mail Nancy Schwartz or call +1 617 984-7450.
 
Report: NFPA's "Fires at U.S. Service Stations"
Author: Ben Evarts
Issued: April 2011 
Incident types and trend data are reported for fires that occurred in or at service stations. Three different types of incidents, structure fires, vehicle fires, and outside and other fires are analyzed for cause, equipment involved, and other type of material first ignited, among other relevant factors specific to each incident type.  Other information relevant to this occupancy, such as the hazards of static electricity is presented as well.


Executive Summary

During the five-year period of 2004-2008, NFPA estimates that U.S. fire departments responded to an average of 5,020 in service or gas station properties per year. These fires caused an annual average of two civilian deaths, 48 civilian fire injuries, and $20 million in direct property damage. The majority of the fires in this category were vehicle fires. Reported fires in this occupancy group fell 46% from 7,860 in 1980 to 4,280 in 2008.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 117,000 gasoline stations in the United States in 2007. Fires in these occupancies represent a variety of incidents, including structure fires, vehicle fires, outdoor fires and other fires. The majority of incidents are vehicle fires (61%), but the majority of the property damage (59%), results from structure fires. Outside trash or rubbish fires account for 12% of the fires reported to local fire departments at this type of property.

Twelve percent of fires reported to local fire departments in these properties were structure fires. The most common items first ignited in structure fires at service stations were flammable and combustible liquids and gases, piping or filter (22% of structure fires), followed by rubbish, trash, or waste (18%) and electrical wire or cable insulation (13%).

Most vehicle fires (82%) occurred in passenger vehicles, these fires accounted for nearly half of the total number of civilian injuries that occurred in service station fires of any kind (structure, vehicle, outside, other). The most common type of material first ignited in a vehicle fire was gasoline (28%).   

Outside and other fires accounted for 15% of incidents at service stations. Natural vegetation fires accounted for 42% of these incidents. The most common heat source for outside fires was smoking materials (21%).

Twelve percent of fire incidents at service stations were outside trash or rubbish fires.

Individuals interested in keeping service stations safe from fire should consult NFPA 30A – Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages for information about fire prevention in these properties.



1U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010, Table 740 “Economic Census Summary” (NAICS 2002 Basis): 2002 and 2007


The report summarized above has the following paragraph on cell phones, which is somewhat self contradictory.


Static electricity has been confirmed as a cause of refueling fires, but cellular phones have not.
Three percent of vehicle fires at service stations between 2004 and 2008 were coded as having unclassified static discharge as the heat source (this coding excludes electrical arcs or sparks). According to a report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), “between 1993 and 2004, there were 243 reports of fires breaking out at petrol stations due to mobile phones. However, according to Dr. Adam Burgess of the University of Kent, not one of these incidents occurred as a result of a sparking mobile phone. In fact, there is no evidence that any petrol station fire has been ignited from electrical equipment”. The Petroleum Equipment Institute echoes these findings via its “Stop Static.” campaign. According to its website “So far, we have been unable to document any incidents that were sparked by a cellular telephone, In fact, many researchers have tried to ignite fuel vapors with a cell phone and failed.”

The statement above that not one occurred as a result of a sparking mobile phone is a case of making something true by wording it carefully.  I would hope it means that all mobile phone users were interviewed, and the fire did not start at their phone.  Assuming truthful reporting that would establish that sparks in the cell phone were not the source of the ignition.  I am also not surprised that people operating a cell phone in a test chamber filled with fuel vapors have not ignited them.  If it is a rare occurrence you must run an absurdly large number of tests to randomly hit on the combination of things that must go wrong.  Even if you focus on doing stupid things it may take hundreds of trials to get a failure.  Think of the experiment of tossing a burning match into a bucket of gasoline.  It usually doesn't cause ignition.  But I doubt that many people would then say that doing it hundreds or thousands of times would be safe.  I also don't see how you can eliminate the possibility that a Hertzian resonator could have been involved.  Such a resonator is an unlikely but possible happening with a random bit of wire or an aluminized chips package.

[sainbablo]

I have an old model of Huawei. Ten minutes on viber made it really warm. took  the battery  out. It was warm.
As mentioned, faulty batteries short circuiting sparking can explode at place of their choice causing damage by cascading progression
of the event  ( cf Catalina). So then it is matter of luck ? Or environments ? Who gets what?
Two explosion have been reported here but further details  are scanty. There are lot of cheap batteries circulating from near and far east markets
But then in final run, what is the significance level  that is p= what?

No one can tell you what the p is.  It is extremely low, but is it 1E-6 or 1E-12?  No one can say.  Gas station fires are fairly common, but only a fraction lead to explosions, and many have no specific cause identified.  See the following for example.  It identifies ignition of flammable liquids as the source of fires in a variety of circumstances, but the source of ignition for the flammable liquids is not identified.  The majority are the standard culprits, an open flame, cigarettes or other smoking materials, sparks from battery hookup or welding, spontaneous combustion in oily rags and the like, but there is no definitive characterization for every event.



Fires at U.S. Service Stations



 



More information



"Fires at U.S. Service Stations" report (PDF, 222 KB)

Fact sheet
"Fires at U.S. Service Stations" fact sheet (PDF, 34 KB)

Related report

NFPA members
2010 "Selected Published Incidents Involving Automobile Repair Shops" report (PDF, 57 KB)



Contact us
 If you have any questions, e-mail Nancy Schwartz or call +1 617 984-7450.
 
Report: NFPA's "Fires at U.S. Service Stations"
Author: Ben Evarts
Issued: April 2011 
Incident types and trend data are reported for fires that occurred in or at service stations. Three different types of incidents, structure fires, vehicle fires, and outside and other fires are analyzed for cause, equipment involved, and other type of material first ignited, among other relevant factors specific to each incident type.  Other information relevant to this occupancy, such as the hazards of static electricity is presented as well.


Executive Summary

During the five-year period of 2004-2008, NFPA estimates that U.S. fire departments responded to an average of 5,020 in service or gas station properties per year. These fires caused an annual average of two civilian deaths, 48 civilian fire injuries, and $20 million in direct property damage. The majority of the fires in this category were vehicle fires. Reported fires in this occupancy group fell 46% from 7,860 in 1980 to 4,280 in 2008.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 117,000 gasoline stations in the United States in 2007. Fires in these occupancies represent a variety of incidents, including structure fires, vehicle fires, outdoor fires and other fires. The majority of incidents are vehicle fires (61%), but the majority of the property damage (59%), results from structure fires. Outside trash or rubbish fires account for 12% of the fires reported to local fire departments at this type of property.

Twelve percent of fires reported to local fire departments in these properties were structure fires. The most common items first ignited in structure fires at service stations were flammable and combustible liquids and gases, piping or filter (22% of structure fires), followed by rubbish, trash, or waste (18%) and electrical wire or cable insulation (13%).

Most vehicle fires (82%) occurred in passenger vehicles, these fires accounted for nearly half of the total number of civilian injuries that occurred in service station fires of any kind (structure, vehicle, outside, other). The most common type of material first ignited in a vehicle fire was gasoline (28%).   

Outside and other fires accounted for 15% of incidents at service stations. Natural vegetation fires accounted for 42% of these incidents. The most common heat source for outside fires was smoking materials (21%).

Twelve percent of fire incidents at service stations were outside trash or rubbish fires.

Individuals interested in keeping service stations safe from fire should consult NFPA 30A – Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages for information about fire prevention in these properties.



1U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010, Table 740 “Economic Census Summary” (NAICS 2002 Basis): 2002 and 2007


The report summarized above has the following paragraph on cell phones, which is somewhat self contradictory.


Static electricity has been confirmed as a cause of refueling fires, but cellular phones have not.
Three percent of vehicle fires at service stations between 2004 and 2008 were coded as having unclassified static discharge as the heat source (this coding excludes electrical arcs or sparks). According to a report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), “between 1993 and 2004, there were 243 reports of fires breaking out at petrol stations due to mobile phones. However, according to Dr. Adam Burgess of the University of Kent, not one of these incidents occurred as a result of a sparking mobile phone. In fact, there is no evidence that any petrol station fire has been ignited from electrical equipment”. The Petroleum Equipment Institute echoes these findings via its “Stop Static.” campaign. According to its website “So far, we have been unable to document any incidents that were sparked by a cellular telephone, In fact, many researchers have tried to ignite fuel vapors with a cell phone and failed.”

The statement above that not one occurred as a result of a sparking mobile phone is a case of making something true by wording it carefully.  I would hope it means that all mobile phone users were interviewed, and the fire did not start at their phone.  Assuming truthful reporting that would establish that sparks in the cell phone were not the source of the ignition.  I am also not surprised that people operating a cell phone in a test chamber filled with fuel vapors have not ignited them.  If it is a rare occurrence you must run an absurdly large number of tests to randomly hit on the combination of things that must go wrong.  Even if you focus on doing stupid things it may take hundreds of trials to get a failure.  Think of the experiment of tossing a burning match into a bucket of gasoline.  It usually doesn't cause ignition.  But I doubt that many people would then say that doing it hundreds or thousands of times would be safe.  I also don't see how you can eliminate the possibility that a Hertzian resonator could have been involved.  Such a resonator is an unlikely but possible happening with a random bit of wire or an aluminized chips package.

Thanks for an exhaustive reply. Time  to figure out if such information exists locally  in all the domains of  technology