|
此文章由 鸡毛令箭 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 鸡毛令箭 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
有一篇关于在加油站使用手机有没有风险的论文,转载关键的部分,有兴趣的可以看看
A Summary of Current Research
Cell phone use at motor fuel dispensing facilities has been the alleged ignition source of a
number of fire incidents found on the internet and sent through email. The website in
Attachment 11 includes a collection of stories and hoaxes that may have created caution
around the issue of cell phones and gasoline dispenser when use of such electronic devices
were just entering the marketplace. This reference is not intended as a credible technical
substantiation, but rather an example of the stories circulated on the topic.
Similarly, there have been numerous incidents where cell phone use was initially suspected as
the cause of an ignition, but were subsequently ruled out. Although many of these stories date
back to the early 2000’s, a recent review of news releases did not reveal incidents where cell
phones could be conclusively linked to any fires at fuel dispensing facilities by a credible
investigative source.
A 2006 study and subsequence IEEE conference paper (Attachment 12) analyzed the risks of cell
phones in Class I, Division 2 hazardous locations. The hazardous locations in this study were not
limited to fueling stations and encompassed petrochemical facilities as well. In the study, the
authors determined cell phones had a very low probability of causing an ignition even under
8
ideal conditions. The study included a number of experimental methods to generate a spark
from cell phones. Such actions included: removing vibration motors from a selection of phones
and energizing them in a flammable atmosphere (no ignition events occurred), intentionally
shorting out battery terminals in a darkened environment to monitor for visible sparks (no sparks
were seen), and short circuited a battery for ten minutes to monitor temperature rise (no
measurable increase in temperature). The greatest risk in this study was proposed that if a cell
phone was dropped on a hard surface the battery may disconnect and cause an impact spark
from the mechanical impact. The authors determined the risks of a cell phone causing a fire in a
Class I, Division 2 environment to be negligible, but noted that there will always be a minimal
hazard.
A study published by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates in 1999 (Attachment 13) provided a
similar conclusion as the IEEE study mentioned previously. This paper stated that cell phone use
at gasoline stations represents a negligible hazard. The authors reasoned that there would need
to be both a flammable atmosphere present and a malfunctioning cell phone to create an
ignition. The paper concludes that numerous ignitions sources on automobiles that are within
the hazard area and static discharges from personnel pose a greater hazard than cell phones.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also published guidance that echoes the
papers noted above (Attachment 14). The FCC stated that a number of studies were
completed and that although theoretically possible, there is no documented incident where a
cell phone has caused a fire or explosion. Also the FCC stated that although the potential of
ignition by wireless devices is remote, automobiles and static electricity are present and will
always be potential ignition sources.
A 2011 paper by NFPA highlights some of the same findings (Attachment 15). It provides
reference to a study from Australia that reported that 243 fire reports from 1993 to 2004 were
initially suspected to be caused by cell phones. Subsequent investigation revealed that none of
the reports could be linked to cell phone use. The report also stated that many researchers
have attempted in laboratory conditions to ignite fuel vapors with cell phones but were
unsuccessful.
Mobile phones use at fuel stations in the UK has been heavily debated. A narrative of some of
the inconsistences with cell phone policies and risks is provided in Attachment 16, “An Example
of Everyday Risk Assessment”. Although the author does not believe cell phones provide a risk of
ignition at petrol stations, laws in the UK originally written for banning CB radio use at service
stations also ban mobile phone use.
A University of Kent case study in Attachment 17, provides a thorough review of alleged hazards
of mobile phones at service stations. The study provides an overview of the issues and laws
related to motor fuel dispensing facilities at a variety of locations. The author concludes that
there is a phantom risk that results in precautionary health and safety measures. The author also
notes that there is a confusion of blaming fires on mobile phones which disguises the real causes
of the fires which are typically static.
A statement by the GSM Association, an organization that represents worldwide mobile
operators (Attachment 18) provides their position on mobile phone use at fueling station. This
9
paper also noted that in 2003, the UK Institute of Petroleum hosted a seminar on mobile phones
and petroleum vapors. The seminar came to the following conclusion:
“The seminar showed t |
|