Cell phones causing explosions. Is it true?

[ayrex]

A colleague said once before "Explosion protection is sometimes done esoteric". He meant that they are overtraveling the goal by lightyears. And on the other side they neglect functional safety... in combination: FAIL 

In most cases you're beyond the upper explosion boundary (ignition results in a fire) and sometimes you don't even reach the lower explosion boundary.

But I can tell you a common way I determine it when I have to assess it: Zone 2 = in case of a failure or within a extremly low period of time regularly with a maxium, summed up amount of 30 Minutes a year. Now it depends on how long we think there would be an atmosohere. 1 second maybe? --> 1800 times a year Or 1 minute? --> 30 times a year.

And in that short amound of time there have to be an ignition source. So ther're two probablities which we must multiply.

And you're right! Nobody can tell us the real probability. The data for statistics depend on various other factors. Like wind. Technical equipment. Temperature.

I don't trust any statistic which isn't manipulated by myself

[CatalinaWOW]

I think it is impossible to get a meaningful quantitative answer for this problem.  I believe I can set up a credible case in which an explosion or fire would occur.  Credible in this case meaning no violations of physical law.  But beyond agreeing that it is very unlikely for this case to happen (whatever that means to everyone involved), I doubt that further progress can be made.

It comes back to my earlier question.  Are the benefits so great as to be worth taking whatever the chance is?  This answer is largely subjective and will vary from individual to individual.

An analogous case comes from driving in my area.  I am in a rural area and traffic is light.  Typically less than a few dozen cars a day pass, but speeds are high 50-65 mph (80-105 kph).  By observation, many of my neighbors have decided that the time saved by just driving out of their driveways without stopping and looking is well worth the small chance that someone is coming by.  There have been no accidents in the time I lived here, so they will tell you they have experiential proof that their evaluation is correct.  Others might disagree with that assessment, including me, as I have been involved in more than one very near miss.

[Brumby]

I believe I can set up a credible case in which an explosion or fire would occur.  Credible in this case meaning no violations of physical law.

I believe it could be done, too.  It would require a much more considered approach than the haphazard method used by the Mythbusters - but I believe it possible.

An analogous case comes from driving in my area.  I am in a rural area and traffic is light.  Typically less than a few dozen cars a day pass, but speeds are high 50-65 mph (80-105 kph).  By observation, many of my neighbors have decided that the time saved by just driving out of their driveways without stopping and looking is well worth the small chance that someone is coming by.  There have been no accidents in the time I lived here, so they will tell you they have experiential proof that their evaluation is correct.  Others might disagree with that assessment, including me, as I have been involved in more than one very near miss.

I like that analogy - very much - but I will take it a bit further by changing just one word.... from "Typically less than a few dozen cars a day pass" to "Typically less than a few dozen cars a year pass".  This puts the scale of the analogous risk into similar territory - but one day......