Student's Ringing Cell Phone Sparks Fire While Pumping Gas

WNBC ^

[esryle]

NEW PALTZ, N.Y. -- Flames shot up around a 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 Interstate 87 Thursday night.

Firefighters believe the cell phone ignited vapors coming from the car's fuel tank as it was being filled. They used an oxygen-killing white powder and extinguished the fire immediately.

New Paltz is about 75 miles north of New York City.

[esryle]

[Phantom Lord]

I do not believe this for one second. Ever see the show Myth Busters on TLC? They did everything they could to get a cell phone to ignite gasoline. Under no circumstances were they ever able to do it.

Static Electricity however was able to ignite gas without a problem. That is what started this fire as well.

[danneskjold]

seems highly unlikely it was the cell phone...

[Always Right]

More likely it was static electricity. I am kind of surprised though there were no SUVs around to blame this on.

[dead]

He was probably smoking and threw away his cigarette after he realized he’d look like an idiot for blowing himself up.

[T'wit]

Undoubtedly caused by a lightning bolt -- God's revenge on New Paltz for those gay "marriages."

/sarcasm

[Proud_texan]

You beat me to it.

Here's another article:

http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

I was impressed with the MB experiment, they had enough gas vapor in that chamber so that _any_ spark would have ignited it; they just love to blow stuff up.

I was also impressed that they determined that these fires were caused by people who started filling their tank and returned to their car, then got out again. Getting out built up static electricity and when they touched the car near the pump nozzle, created a spark and there was the ignition source.

Women with nylon pants were the most common victims.

[Phantom Lord]

One of the interesting things from the Myth Busters show was a comparrison between younger drivers (teens and 20's) and elderly drivers and the risk of fire.

They found that younger drivers, because of their greater physical ability compared to seniors most often exit the car without touching any of the metal frame or body, thus they never release the static charge.

Elderly drivers, needing some assistance to get upright and out of the car will grab the door frame and the door to help themselves stand, thus releasing the static charge.

Note that the driver in this case is a college student, not a senior.

[js1138]

I'd like to see anyone accumulate enough gas fumes in open air to ignite, even with a match. This sounds like a hoax, set up to justify a lawsuit.

[Always Right]

There is a lesson here though, always ground yourself by touching the car before you get near where the gas tank is. It is rare, but it does happen.

[jdege]

It's not the cell phone, it's not the ringing.

If it happened, it's the little offset-weighted electric motor that creates the vibration.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Blaming an SUV in 4...3...2...

[Constitution Day]

There are several links on the site below that debunk the claim that a cell phone was at fault.

[Always Right]

They found that younger drivers, because of their greater physical ability compared to seniors most often exit the car without touching any of the metal frame or body, thus they never release the static charge.

For all the DUers out there, always take a balloon with you and rub it on your hair when you pump gas....

[Piranha]

Cool. I always thought that was an old wives' tale, like if you are making a face and get slapped on the back, it will freeze like that.

[Phantom Lord]

Myth Busters is a great show. In almost every case they are able to prove or disprove the myth. But sometimes they can not with certainty. Or they get it wrong. Such as the taxi cab blown 80 feet by a jet taking off. They couldn't duplicate it, but their research proved the myth a reality as they found news footage of the accident.

Also, the breathilizer defeating techniques episode I am not so sure about. I am 99% with them that you can not beat it. But, the question in my head is, if they were able to defeat it with a method, or mulitple methods would they have actually aired the results, thus unleashing the likelyhood of many drunk drivers knowing how to beat the test.

[Law is not justice but process]

I have watched the Myth Busters and find their pseudo-scientific approach very unconvincing. A cell phone might set off gasoline fumes one time in ten million: the one explosion is reported, the 9,999,999 non-explosions are not reported. I suspect a faulty cell phone is as likely an explanation as static electricity, and neither is as likely as the gas pumper having lit up a cigarette while pumping and being too embarrassed or afraid of getting sued to admit it.

[Phantom Lord]

I'd like to see anyone accumulate enough gas fumes in open air to ignite, even with a match. This sounds like a hoax, set up to justify a lawsuit

I find the cellphone aspect of this to be a "hoax", or more accurately, a wrong conclusion on the ignition source.

A static electricty spark near the filling nozle will ignite the gas fumes.

[HEY4QDEMS]

I watch myth busters all the time. The one show that really caught my attention was the one where they were trying to trick the breathalyzer.

What I found most strange about that show was that they did not use peanut butter, I later found out that the police would not let them use it. HMMMMMMMMM!

[Phantom Lord]

For those interested, the Discovery Channel show Myth Busters episode where they test this cell phone myth is reairing on 5/17 at 7:00 PM and 5/18 at 2:00 AM. Set your VCRS.

In this episode they also test the myth about exploding breast implants at altitude in an airplane, and if high speed CD-Roms are too vast for disks, thus causing them to explode.