Posted By Jane Ling
I have been sent this story today with a suggestion that it should be circulated to everyone. I am always wary of these stories as they usually turn out to be urban myths. I can't find this on the internet, can anyone on this site help, is this fact or myth.

"Are u talking while your phone is charging???
>
> Don't charge your mobile the whole night and don't keep it near by
> important
>
> Never, ever answer a cell phone while it is being RECHARGED!!
>
> A few days ago, a person was recharging his cell phone at home. Just at that time a call Came in and he answered it with the instrument still connected to the outlet. After a few seconds electricity flowed into the cell phone unrestrained and the young man was thrown to the ground with a heavy thud.
> His parents rushed to the room only to find him unconscious, with a weak heartbeat and burnt fingers. He was rushed to the nearby hospital, but was pronounced dead on arrival. Cell phones are a very useful modern invention. However, we must be aware that it can also be an instrument of death.
>
> Never use the cell phone while it is hooked to the electrical outlet!"

Posted By Ron Hunter
But there have been problems with faulty mains chargers causing fires. Please do not leave chargers switched on unattended, whether connected to a cell-phone or not.

Posted By Garry Homer
This accident, if true, would require a failure of the double insulated charger (class 2 insulation) and other factors. Failure of the charger insulation alone would not result in sufficient current to flow to kill. The person would need to be in contact with some other earthed metal to create the circuit. Standing on a carpet in an upper floor room would probably be sufficient insulation to prevent sufficient current to flow through the body although it could still be painful!

Class 2 insulation has been widely used for decades and is often the method used to ensure safety in hazardous situations. Most devices in the home, office and workplace now rely on this level of insulation. Everything with the figure of 8 connector for example plus others. If class 2 insulation cannot be relied upon, then we are all in trouble and it will not be restricted to mobile phone chargers.

Just another silly story IMHO.

Garry

Posted By AHS
On a similar theme can anyone reference me a fire related accident on a petrol forecourt due to use of a mobile phone.

Personally with the amount of ventilation I think there is far more chance of an ignition source related to a static electricity discharge.

Posted By Adam Worth


This has been covered in depth before - I don't have time to search for the thread tho.

Basically the ignition level for petrol is well above the level produced by a mobile phone. An interesting point is that the radius of risk from a phone mast is about 2m (See BS6656) and so can be mounted on the roof!

Most explosions of this sort occur overseas where it much more common for people to sit in their car whilst refuelling. This leads to build up of potential that is discharged when they get out and touch the nozzle, thus causing a spark and a big bang! (search utube for some good egs!)

HOWEVER - DSERA regs state that in an area with a potential explosive atmosphere all sources of ignition should be removed.
On Top Tier COMAH sites with DSEAR areas that I have worked on this means all electronic equipment that is not Ex must be left at the door - the reason, dropped phones or other equip can cause a spark between the battery terminals.
Ex phones give off the same power but have inbuilt circuits to prevent this discharge.

Maybe petrol stations should be stricter?? :)

Sorry that's a really rushed reply

Posted By Paul Duell
On my Dip 1 course we were shown the video of the CCTV footage of the fire that led to the "mobile phones cause fires at petrol stations" story.

It shows a woman sitting in her car, talking on her mobile phone, while her car is being filled. She ends the conversation, puts the phone down, and slides out of the car seat - generating a static spark which ignites fuel vapour. And yet the phone got the blame!

Posted By p winter
There are a few clues in the original posting that this originated in the USA: cell phone, hooked up, electrical outlet. Their domestic voltage is lower than ours (and so less likely to electricute) so this very story seems pretty unlikely. I would guess a hoax.

Posted By Ian Dale
On checking Snopes.com the following information can be found:
We understand that there is an email, purportedly official Shell communication, circulating which describes various incidents that are supposed to have occurred 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.

Snopes.com also state that there is no verifiable evidence of any incidents at filling stations which can be attributed to mobile phones.

Ian Dale

Posted By MP Grayson
The world according to me.

This is my personal opinion and tuppence worth.

1. Mobile phone charger.

Accepts alternating current (ac) at 230-240 (ish) volts (USA IIOv ac). Puts out direct current (dc) to your mobile at between 9 to 3 volts. Unless someone can convince me that there is a whacking great capacitor in the mobile, then I think that you are more at risk licking a 9v battery. See previous myth, Oh and er don't forget to re-cycle you batteries.

2. Fires from chargers.

Even when the phone is disconnected from the charger, if it is plugged in and the socket on, then it is still converting 230v ac to 5v dc.
Remember, a-by product of burning electricity is heat. The oxygen is always there, the phone provides the heat, the pile of newspapers thrown onto it provides the fuel.
HEY PRESTO. You have the fire triangle. And we all know what comes next.

3. The fire in the petrol station.

Not too sure on this but I heard that a car manufacturer once recalled all/some of its cars and fitted a bonding lead of sorts to their vehicles fuel system after a certain incident involving static build ups.
Picture this. Lady gets out of her car, nice velor seats and a few man made fibres in her blouse = hair standing on end with static charge.
She touches the car or pump. Static that has build up in her and her clothes (combined maybe with static naturally generated by a flowing liquid) now finds the easiest way to earth (sensible shoes see). Which is jumping (arcing), straight through the fuel vapour to the fuel nozzle.

Heat and oxygen and fuel (vapour) = D,OH.

Crack on.

Posted By Ron Hunter
To Geoff4b. If you e-mail me with your address I can fwd some info on charger faults.

Posted By Robert.
Seen the video clip, looks real, and if it is then the petroleum company which is clearly displayed has certainly kept quiet about it, even though it appears to be South American
Not too sure about the 'phone light though. I thought that they were LEDs with no heat emission.
The clip is real enough to let you see the residual (petroleum??) vapour being ignited at the detached delivery hose coupling.

Posted By JonH
There was a case a couple of years ago in Manchester. A guy was filling up with Unleaded whilst using his mobile. Suddenly the petrol vapour ignited, setting fire to the sleeve of his jacket. In a panic he batted out the flames, jumped in his car and sped off. By driving off without paying, this triggered a police call from the forecourt, and a police car was dispatched. As the driver was heading down one of the main A roads on the outskirts of Manchester, his coat reignited, and in a panic, he wound the window down and flapped his arm about to try to extinguish the flames. By this time, the police had caught up with him and were following just behind. They quickly overtook him, pulled him over and arrested him for carrying a fire arm...

Posted By Dana
To Ron Hunter, can you please also email me the information on charger faults that you have forwarded to Geoff2b. My email is dana.budzinski@woodside.com.au Many thanks. Dana

Posted By M Forbes
Compare between cars which have a "SPARK PLUG" or mobile phones. . . . . . which don't?