Posted By David A Jones I can't believe this has made the news - this has known not to be the case for many years

Posted By Peter MacDonald As a young lad I filled a paint pot (it was the only suitable vessel) with petrol and laid a trail of some good old four star about five meters from the pot to a suitable explosion observation point. Very disappointed to note that dropping half smoked B&H ciggies into the trail did not light it. However, A match easily did the trick. Petrol vapour will light easily with the smallest of sparks and it is possible (if extremely unlikely in normal use) that a phone which is not intrinsicly safe may cause a spark. You're more likely to cause a spark wearing certain man made fibres which may build up a charge and cause a spark when you touch bear metal on a car. Check out an episode of Braniac on Discovery channel for petrol fume filled caravans, fifteen cell phones and a nylon shirt. Very enlightning. Peter Peter

Posted By Ken Lucas Nothing on mobile phones but I have recently received cctv footage of an incident last December showing a lady filling up her car with petrol - static electricity I was informed - shocking outcome. Anyone want a copy don't use the link above, instead email ken.lucas@ntlworld.com File size 323kb Regards

Posted By wesley james mason I have it on fairly good authority that the filling stations are more concerned with people sitting and chatting on their phones at filling stations, hence preventing other people from filling up. This then reduces how much money the garage can take in a day. You get more sparks from a wool jumper !!

Posted By Jay Joshi A recent seminar for the Institute of Petroleum ( now called the Energy Institute)--on 11 March 2003 delibrated the topic ‘Can mobile phone communications ignite petroleum vapour?’ Press Release at:- http://www.energyinst.or...k/content/files/mr11.pdf Unfortunately, it does not give the details--those of you who subscribe to Technical Indexes or Barbour Index should be able to access the proceedings--it is a 56 page report. Extracts from the proceedings:- The following key points were noted: • Mobile phone handsets transmit semi randomly to a nearby base station in order to make location updates. Depending on network configuration the updates may be approximately every 5 minutes. • This allows the network to correctly route any incoming calls. Turning off the phone also causes it to send a signal to the base station to deregister. Transmissions are very short, in region of 100 milliseconds, and there is a limit to the number of transmissions that any one base station can receive at any given time. It is therefore unlikely that any ‘cumulative effect’ could be caused by such transmissions even if there were many handsets in the vicinity of a forecourt at the same time. • The ‘flying mode’ available for certain models of phone disables the radio parts of the phone, but enables access to other features, e.g. organiser. • The only National Standard comparable to BS 6656 for radio frequency ignition risks is a German one which was fully consulted in the preparation of the latest edition of the British Standard. • Transmissions from a base station to many mobile phones in use on a forecourt do not cause a proportional increase in power levels as the summing factor is the square root of the number of mobiles. • There are no regulatory restrictions on the use of mobile phones on forecourts in the US. Petroleum companies are able to choose whether or not to implement their own restrictions. • The present regulation on the use of mobile phones on forecourts in the UK was based on tests that BASEEFA conducted on domestic batteries (thought to be 17-18 years ago) which proved that sparks could be generated. Potential For A Mobile Phone Battery To Act As A Source Of Ignition Glenn Kuriger, Hank Grant, Ph.D., Tamy Fry and Don Heinnan, Center for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility, University of Oklahoma Conclusions and recommendations:- While it may be theoretically possible for a cell phone battery to provide sufficient energy to ignite gas vapour under very precise conditions, determination of the actual chances of this occurring would require extensive further investigation and testing. The research performed in this report has indicated that it would be an extremely unlikely, and in fact negligible, event. The historical evidence does not support the need for additional investigation or testing. Until there is evidence to the contrary, we suggest that no further action be initiated in this regard, and that no recommendations for further action are required of the wireless phone for petroleum industries.

Posted By John Mackessack Paul (W), I'd like a copy of the alert and clip if possible. thanks John

Posted By GeoffB Thank you Jay, as usual a very informative posting which should allay fears. Paul, yes it was a hoax and I remember the HSE falling for it! Geoff

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Hang on... Paul & Geoff have just said it's a hoax, a BBC article and reference to other work by the Energy Institute has been submitted by Jay which seem to suggest such an event is highly unlikely. Why are people therefore still asking for copies of the now discredited movie clip? Am I missing somthing here? Oh well, as long as there are no bacteria on the handset...

Posted By Roj Smith Cars have hotter surfaces and emit far more sparks than mobile phones do. I would advise drivers to always push their car in neutral at least fifty yards away from the forecourt before attempting to start the engine. Better safe than sorry!!! Roj

Posted By peter gotch Try google for urban myth shell mobile phone..... "Safety message on use of mobile phones at retail stations printable version Health, Safety and Environment Messages Battery powered equipment such as mobile phones, pagers, and cameras represent a potential ignition source. Shell takes the safety of its customers and retail staff very seriously. For this reason, although the risk associated with mobile phone use at retail sites is very low, Shell was the first in the oil industry in Malaysia to put up notices at pump islands to request motorists to switch OFF their mobile phones when refuelling at the station. There is a sticker to this effect at every pump island and it also advises customers to switch OFF your car engine and to refrain from smoking for similar reasons. We understand that there is an email, purportedly official Shell communication, circulating which describes various incidents that are supposed to have occured as a result of mobile phones ringing while at a retail station. Please be advised that the email in question does NOT originate from Shell Malaysia and we are unable to confirm any of the incidents quoted. Should you have any further enquiries on this subject, please email Pak Man via the following email address: pak.p.man@smt.shell.com.my" In short an urban myth that is obviously still circulating. Regards, Peter

Posted By Alex Ryding More importantly I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets my scientific fact from Braniac! I have a clip of a nylon jumper igniting petrol at a service station - don't know if it's a hoax too, but fairly scary.

Posted By Dale This is the information being passed out from HSE Infoline, it originates from a gentleman within one of their policy departments called David Pumford: Use of mobile phones on petrol forecourts. There are two quite separate potential risks associated with the use of transmitting equipment including mobile phones in flammable atmospheres. Firstly the risk due to the strength of the signal transmitted by the equipment and its ability to produce an incendive spark in any discontinuity in metal objects/frameworks which could, when located in a hazardous area, act as a receiving aerial. This is addressed in BS 6656. The risk generally from mobile phones is considered to be low, the signal strength being as low as 0.5 watts in some cases. The greater risk comes from the use of mobile c.b. radio transmitters used by heavy goods vehicle operators and vehicles used by public utilities, fleet operators, police and safety authorities etc. where the transmitted signal strength could be significantly higher than that from a mobile phone, in excess of 25 watts in some cases. In this case according to BS 6656 a vulnerable zone of some 5 metres would be created around the transmitter. It is generally agreed to be unreasonable to expect a filling station attendant to be able to distinguish which transmitters have been assessed against BS 6656 and which haven't, particularly at a large motorway services for example where there could be well in excess of 50 dispensers in operation simultaneously, not all of which are readily visible from the service point. It is considered the best way to deal with such a large number of variables is to stop the use of any transmitting equipment on forecourts. All transmitter base stations are assessed against BS 6656 prior to being given permission to be erected in the vicinity of petrol forecourts. If a vulnerable zone is created , which may be a few metres around the transmitter depending on the signal characteristics, it is ensured that this does not impinge on the hazardous areas on the forecourt. The second more significant risk stems from the fact that mobile phones, with a few exceptions, are not certified for use in flammable atmospheres ie they do not meet the same exacting electrical safety standards as other equipment which is designed to be operated on petrochemical plants for example. In the UK, oil refineries do not permit the use of mobile phones in zoned areas unless they are designed for that purpose ie certified intrinsically-safe. On a forecourt, the main risk arises if a phone, while being used during refuelling is dropped accidentally into a zone 1 hazardous area ie up to 250mm above ground level (petrol has a vapour density of between 3 and 4). The fixing arrangements for the battery in the housing and the battery construction itself do not meet any recognised standards for preventing an ignition-capable spark being produced should it become detached from the housing. HSE carried out some tests a number of years ago on a typical handset (GPT CT2) to assess its compliance with the recognised safety standards for use in a hazardous area. The findings showed that the battery output exceeded an acceptable energy level and there was inadequate segregation between critical components when assessed against EN 50020, the intrinsic safety standard. Assessed against the lower BS 6941 standard, the handset in normal operation was considered to be safe but the protection provided by the plastic enclosure and the battery connections were unsuitable. I hope this helps to explain the rationale.

Posted By John Murgatroyd What's the bottom line ? Safety regulations ask for no mobiles to be used on forecourts....many don't allow any rf transmitters. It's a minor regulation, and while (obviously) many of you don't agree with it, it is a fact. With the prevailing attitude being "this is wrong so sod it", you have to ask yourselves why many employees have the same attitude to your [self-imposed] safety regs at workplaces ? ALL they're asking you to do is not use mobiles on the forecourt...it's a minor inconvenience....along with others like not smoking....and helps REDUCE the risks.

Posted By Frank Hallett Nice to see such a wide-ranging response to such an emotive subject! To my knowledge, almost all of the alledged incidences [as opposed to the HSe theoretical approach] have been proved NOT to be related to the use of modern mobiles as found in most of the world. There are issues with certain types of US "Cell phones" that don't use the now almost universal battery design. It's woth noting that an extremely large number of chain & independant petrol station operators actually have mobile phone masts situated somewhere on site! Usually disguised by the advertising masts out front. To put it all in perspective; an alternator & starting motor are far more likely to create an ignition source than alsmost anything else - as are sparks created by vehicles being "kerbed" by poor driving. Those with reservations should contact one of the reputable petrol station maintainance & fitting-out companies such as Gilbarco Veeder-Root who have a considerable amount of independant information on this topic. No, I don't work for them. Frank Hallett