# Snopes vs Firechief In 1st Reported Cellphone/Gastank Explosion - Who's Right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 16, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426 "2004-05-16T15:06:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/1 "2004-05-16T15:06:04Z")
[Fire Chief Convinced Cell Phone Sparked Gas Station Blaze](http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_051404_gasfire.html) > [@](#): > > New Paltz-WABC, May 14, 2004 — The fire chief in New Paltz says that a full tank of gas and a cell phone may have nearly cost a college student his life… > > The student from SUNY New Paltz is recovering from burns after something sparked a fire at a gas station. Investigators say he was at the pump when the gas ignited. Stacey Sager reports from New Paltz with the story. > > The fire chief here says the problem was definitely a cell phone that caused the explosion. A cell phone that was ringing, and which the young man answered right as he was pumping gas. If it hadn’t been for some fast thinking people the explosion would have been a lot worse. > > The clean-up was about the worst of it here at the Mobil station in New Paltz, with white fire extinguishing powder coating the entire station after last night’s bizarre accident. Even the fire chief found it hard to believe at first. > > Chief Patrick Koch, New Paltz Fire Dept.: “I’m positive today, that as of last night, 9:30 last night, I’m positive that a cell phone can ignite.” > > If true, this would be the first confirmed case of what has been considered an urban legend for the past few years. Stories of cell phones igniting fumes at gas stations began circulating in the media and on the Internet in 1999. Those stories apparently came from Asia, though investigators have not been able to backtrack the anecdotes to the specific individuals or events. > > Since then, a good number of articles have been written that speculated on the subject, though no definite cases have been uncovered. And some have done experiments trying to create the proper conditions to ignite gas fumes with a cell phone – none of which appear to have been successful… > > Nevertheless, New Paltz’s fire chief says it started when a 21-year-old student at SUNY New Paltz used pump number one to fill up his car. And when his cell phone rang, he did what many would do – he answered it. > > At which point, the area around the nozzle of the gas pump ignited. > > Chief Patrick Koch: “He saw a big flash of fire. He grabbed the pump out of the tank of his vehicle, threw it to the ground and ran.” > > That’s when a quick-thinking clerk at the station pulled an emergency fire switch and the extinguisher came shooting out of the spouts. > > The young man who was pumping the gas, Matthew Erhorn, was not at his apartment today. We are told that he suffered only minor burns. Nothing like cases we have seen in the past which mostly involved smoking near gas pumps – something many drivers wouldn’t dream of doing. Answering a cell phone, though, is not something many people think of as a risk. > > Kevin Desha, Motorist: “Doesn’t sound right. I mean, I watched ‘Myth Busters’ believe it or not the other night, and it said that that’s impossible, so?” > Stacey Sager: “Go figure.” > Kevin Desha: “Yeah.” > > There is a sign at the pump that tells you to turn your cell phone off, posted inches away from where the young man was actually pumping the gas. Fortunately, he suffered only minor burns, to one of his arms. **vs.** [Snope’s Urban Legends Reference Pages](http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp) Cited in Above Story > [@](#): > > Origins: Warnings > about the dangers of using cellular phones in the presence of gasoline fumes began circulating on the Internet in 1999. Though both versions of the Internet warning allude to an accident in Indonesia wherein a driver was burned and his car badly damaged as a result of such an explosion, no reports ever surfaced in the news media to confirm the incident. Moreover, nothing turned up about similar explosions in other countries. If sparks from cell phones were touching off conflagrations at gas pumps around the world, the phenomenon has escaped the media’s notice. > > Curiously, in May 1999 a lengthy article appeared in the Bangkok Post in support of this tale. It mentioned “a recent report in the China Post newspaper” and from there proceeded to parrot the warning given in the longer example quoted above, complete with reference to the report by Shell Chemicals on the injuries suffered by the man in Indonesia and the Chinese Petroleum Corporation’s instructions to filling stations to get drivers to switch off their phones while fueling. One wonders where the writer of the Bangkok Post article harvested his information – from the Internet in the form of the much-forwarded warning, or from reading the newspaper article in the China Post. > > Okay, so the bit about a guy in Indonesia being turned into a human fireball doesn’t stand up – what about persistent rumors about an Australian man done in by his mobile phone as he refueled? > > Although in 1999 oil companies told the South China Morning Post they had heard reports of an Australian man being blown up recently when his phone rang as he was filling his car with gasoline, fire service heads in Australia insist the incident never happened. > > As for incidents elsewhere in the world, after several reports in the United States where mobile phones were blamed for fires at gas stations, both the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) and the American Petroleum Institute issued statements denying the risk. The CTIA said, “There is no evidence whatsoever that a wireless phone has ever caused ignition or explosion at a station anywhere in the world. Wireless phones don’t cause gas stations to blow up. Warnings being posted in petrol stations simply perpetuate the myth.” The American Petroleum Institute said, “We can find no evidence of someone using a cellphone causing any kind of accident, no matter how small, at a gas station anywhere in the world.” ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/2 "2004-05-16T15:23:37Z")
The fire chief does not have enough information to make such a determination. Just because the fire started at about the same time the victim answered his cellphone does _not_ mean the phone must have started thefire. _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_, is a common logical fallacy. It’s far more likely that a static disharge ocurring at about the same time is the real culprit, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![pilot141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e0b2c6/32.png) [@pilot141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pilot141)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/3 "2004-05-16T15:46:39Z")
The Snopes page has been updated. From the [link](http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp) (scroll down past the main article): > [@](#): > > Update: Yes, we know about the 13 May 2004 gas station fire in New Paltz, New York, that news reports are claiming was touched off by a cell phone. As our paragraph above notes, erroneous reports of this nature are not uncommon, because reporters (and other officials) base them upon assumptions made at the scene rather than upon later, more thorough investigations (which so far have always found something other than cell phones to be the igniting agents). We await the release of more detailed reports before chalking this one up as a genuine case of a cell phone-caused fire. > > Last updated: 14 May 2004 ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/4 "2004-05-16T20:23:19Z")
I’ve got to agree with **Q.E.D.** on this one. Unfortunately, in the fire service there are times when the easiest factor to blame is tagged, rather than performing an exhaustive investigation. One of my professors used to quote: Correlation does not prove causation. ---
**Author:** ![jnglmassiv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f07891/32.png) [@jnglmassiv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jnglmassiv)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/5 "2004-05-16T20:53:08Z")
Is believed it that sparks from within the phone are causing the fires or is the phone inducing sparks remotely? The article says that the fire started aroound the nozzle. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/6 "2004-05-16T21:56:18Z")
Well, it’s a bit odd, because May isn’t a time of year when you’d expect to see a lot of static electricity – usually the humidity is high enough to keep the sparks down. Still, if the guy had to answer his phone, it might be worth investigating what kind of case he kept it in, and whether there’s a velcro strip or some synthetic materials that might have caused a spark. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/7 "2004-05-16T22:33:06Z")
Why would answering a phone cause enough of a spark to light gasoline when the phone ringing did not? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2004, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/8 "2004-05-16T22:54:46Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > Why would answering a phone cause enough of a spark to light gasoline when the phone ringing did not? Probably because most people have no idea how things work. In order to ignite gas fumes, you need two things: sufficient fume concentration and an ignition source, right? An ignition source could be a spark or a very hot surface. I don’t know just how much fume concentration would be needed, but let’s conduct a (virtual, not real) experiment. Let’s say you have a spark creator in a fireplace starter gadget, and a can of gasoline. Let’s say you have both in an unenclosed outdoor environment. You flick the sparker 100 ft from the can of gas. What happens? Nothing. Oh – you forgot to open the can. Open it, flick – still nothing. Now move closer, try it again, until it explodes. How close do you think you would have to be? My guess is right at the nozzle, because the fumes expand as soon as they leave it. Now a celphone doesn’t normally create external sparks or high heat, and the user in this story didn’t shove it down the pipe anyway. I think if he could stand next to the car without being overcome by fumes, they were probably quite minimal. It seems unlikely that the celphone is the culprit. Probably the reason his phone rang was someone calling – “Dude, your car’s on fire!” ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/9 "2004-05-17T02:02:11Z")
Your query regarding concentration of vapor and ignition source, **Musicat** is valid. Per NIOSH: gasoline has a lower explosive limit of 1.4% and an upper explosive limit of 7.6% which strongly suggests to me that the vapor concentration present at the filler neck of the vehicle was well above the UEL. While not a cellular phone technician, my electronics knowledge indicates that keystrokes draw microamperes-the major power draw from a phone is sending/receiving the RF signal and backlighting display. While unable to prove it, my bet is that oil companies simply want you to pay attention when fueling your vehicle, as is reasonable, and cellular use is a distraction, hence their ban on use while fueling. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/10 "2004-05-17T02:16:52Z")
> [@danceswithcats](#): > > While unable to prove it, my bet is that oil companies simply want you to pay attention when fueling your vehicle, as is reasonable, and cellular use is a distraction, hence their ban on use while fueling. It’s also a variation on Pascal’s Wager, similar to the prohibition of electronic devices on planes during takeoff/landing – even if the chance of an explosion is .00000…01% of something, why take the chance at all? As far as celphones and electric currents go, you can have all the current you want coursing thru the circuit boards and chips, but unless it heats something up to Too-Darn-Hot or you can coax electrons to jump an air gap, causing a spark, there’s no danger to a low concentration of volatile vapor. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/11 "2004-05-17T03:17:37Z")
> [@jnglmassiv](#): > > Is believed it that sparks from within the phone are causing the fires or is the phone inducing sparks remotely? > > The article says that the fire started aroound the nozzle. If the fire started at the nozzle then it’s extremely likely that a static discharge was to blame, not the cell phone. I can think of a few ways that a cell phone might cause a fire. If the battery had a loose connection maybe you could get a spark as it connects and disconnects. I doubt the phone would work properly, so I doubt someone would be able to answer a phone if this was happening. More likely they would be whacking the side of the phone trying to figure out why the display keeps going on and off. If a capacitor exploded (not likely, but possible) it would make a small, brief flame. If something shorted out, it could cause a component or even a track on the circuit board to make a small, brief flame or spark. Unless you have some sort of focusing device, there is no way the RF is going to put enough energy anywhere to make a spark. The chances of a cell phone failure occuring while pumping gas is going to be so low that I don’t know if we’ll ever see a pump fire that is conclusively caused by a cell phone. I personally think the oil companies were quick to put up cell phone warning signs because (1) it got a bunch of people off their back, (2) it prevented stray RF from the cell phones from affecting the microcontrollers inside the pumps (hey cool, I pumped 30 gallons of gas and it only charged me 4 cents!), and (3) as previously mentioned, it’s one less distraction to prevent you from focusing on what you are doing. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/12 "2004-05-17T04:41:47Z")
[Here](http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s911863.htm) is a transcript from ABC TV’s Media Watch. It is interesting to see how these things are propogated. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/13 "2004-05-17T16:14:38Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Well, it’s a bit odd, because May isn’t a time of year when you’d expect to see a lot of static electricity – usually the humidity is high enough to keep the sparks down. Still, if the guy had to answer his phone, it might be worth investigating what kind of case he kept it in, and whether there’s a velcro strip or some synthetic materials that might have caused a spark. My initial thought exactly. An hour south on New Paltz, it was as humid as Louisiana both Thursady and Friday. Even though the story isn’t clear - wouldn’t the static electricity threat be highest upon the insertion of the nozze into the tank or at the point the nozzle was removed from the car? I wonder if anyone will espouse the God doesn’t like Mayor West’s SSM policy and shot a lightning bolt from above ---
**Author:** ![danceswithcats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9e8a1a/32.png) [@danceswithcats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/danceswithcats)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/14 "2004-05-17T16:45:45Z")
Static can be generated without regard for humidity by the movement of fluids and gases. If you’ve ever used a shop vac and noticed dust and small pieces of debris clinging to the intake hose, the static charge is what holds the particles there. Fuel station hoses have a drain wire within the protective sheath connecting back to earth as a means of removing the charge. Other devices employ this feature, as well-my airless paint spray unit came with precautions about using proper static conductive hoses. If you’ve ever observed a tank truck delivery at a fuel station, grounding/bonding conductor attachment is done prior to product discharge, and is the last thing undone prior to departure of delivery vehicle. Several questions covering this are part of the CDL HazMat endorsement renewal test which I take every 4 years. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/15 "2004-05-17T16:54:06Z")
**Mythbusters** did a show on this. They sprayed gasoline vapors into a closed chamber, put a cell phone in side, and then called it. While not definitive, their experiements cast considerable doubt on the cell phone/gas ignition hypothesis. After they failed with the cell phone, they moved on to using a spark plug to try and ignite the gas. (I think they also tried to generate a static charge rubbing a pair of panties on a glass rod, but let’s not go there.) It turns out that, even using an open flame as an ignition source, they had to tweek the fuel/air mixture just so to get it to work. ---
**Author:** ![Philster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/13edae/32.png) [@Philster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Philster)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/16 "2004-05-17T16:54:21Z")
ABC News just did a piece on this via Good Morning America, with firefighters testing the theory. Conclusion: firefighters have been unable to start a fire with a cell phone near a fule tank or nozzle. They had no problem starting fires with discharge of static electricity. It’s most likely a static electricity event…and the driver was using the cell at the time. Also, leave the nozzle in the car and the flames will likely be supressed. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/snopes-vs-firechief-in-1st-reported-cellphone-gastank-explosion-whos-right/245426/17 "2004-05-17T23:00:10Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > **Mythbusters** did a show on this. They sprayed gasoline vapors into a closed chamber, put a cell phone in side, and then called it. While not definitive, their experiements cast considerable doubt on the cell phone/gas ignition hypothesis. > > After they failed with the cell phone, they moved on to using a spark plug to try and ignite the gas. (I think they also tried to generate a static charge rubbing a pair of panties on a glass rod, but let’s not go there.) It turns out that, even using an open flame as an ignition source, they had to tweek the fuel/air mixture just so to get it to work. Did they try to repeat the cell-phone ingition attempt after getting the right mixture? If they had the wrong mixture the whole time they tested with the phone, then I’d say it’s inconclusive. Of course, then you have to check if the combustable mixture can happen at the pump, and not just in the lab.