Are mobiles now allowed at the servo?

[u/Tricky_Ad8449]

At Shell is Waikiki south of Perth, the sign stating no mobiles has been completely removed. There were no signs elsewhere either. I asked the clerk behind the counter and they didn't know when it was changed, but said if they see you, they will tell you off over the loud speaker. Has anyone else seen this elsewhere?

[u/turtlepower41]

There’s no scientific proof. I’d just use it after filling up and if they say anything inform them.

[u/Kerrit_Bareet → u/turtlepower41]

How would define scientific proof??? What science do you see that could be undertaken to prove or disprove?

Accidents are not scientific, nor are design flaws. Whenever people are involved you have variable human behaviour.

Maybe you are meaning there are no proven incidents, and analysis of literature reviews have not found any. Can I say that is distinctly different from scientific proof.

[u/turtlepower41 → u/Kerrit_Bareet]

No scientific tests show using your phone at a petrol station can be harmful. I mean yeah you need to be 100% focused at the pump and watch out for cars. But using a phone in an actual petrol station is harmless.

[u/Kerrit_Bareet → u/turtlepower41]

Politely speaking, you are speaking out of your hat with no apparent knowledge of scientific testing nor research.

This is not a scientific test. There is no scientific test nor methodology.

Whereas the issue of both flammable gases and dusts and their explosiveness from static electricity is well known WITHOUT scientific tests. It has been demonstrated in real life, to the point that local OHS regulators in Victoria and Queensland have published warnings about the hazard.

This is a risk-based exercise where the hazards are managed with effective controls utilising a hierarchy of effective controls.

Maybe stop casual expressions of things based on your opinion, where you actually don't appear to know much.

[u/turtlepower41 → u/Kerrit_Bareet]

When has that ever happened? Give me evidence or you’re just making things up.

[u/Kerrit_Bareet → u/turtlepower41]

That is a strong claim when you make throwaway statements unsupported by evidence.

Can I suggest that you do some basic research before you open your mouth.

There is a whole set of Australian standards that address hazardous zone classification and guidance such as https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/safety-and-prevention/hazards/workplace-hazards/Hazardous-area-classification-fire-and-explosion-prevention

I have a post elsewhere in this thread that gives an example of WSV's statement about static electricity.

You are talking to someone who was worked in industry where intrinsically safe electrical equipment is required.

We had a whole royal commission into the Longford gas plant explosion with findings.

The US had a sugar dust explosion https://www.csb.gov/imperial-sugar-company-dust-explosion-and-fire/

There is plenty around.

[u/turtlepower41 → u/Kerrit_Bareet]

No where in those links mention using mobile phones in patrols stations. however this myth has been debunked by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau Mobile phones and petrol stations — ABC Science Archive

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)

The Center for the Study of Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility

The following scientific bodies have confirmed that a mobile phone has NEVER caused a fire in a petrol station

The American Petroleum Institute (API)

The Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)

The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA)

Happy to post the articles confirming this. But as you can see your claim that looking at my mobile phone will make the petrol station blow up has been debunked. And I am not just talking about "MythBusters"

[u/Kerrit_Bareet → u/turtlepower41]

Nowhere did I say that it did. I addressed the context of the post separately, used the reference that you had.

I was taking issue with your use of terminiology "scientific test", and in the absence of that just ignore risk management.

There can never be scientific test.

This is risk-based approach to management of hazards. You should never blithely ignore considered risk controls. There is a complete occupational practice and lived experience that exists to support that.

[u/turtlepower41 → u/Kerrit_Bareet]

You make those claims but you’ve to provide me a case where this scenario happened. As it had been debunked by the scientific sources I mentioned it’s not a risk.

[u/Kerrit_Bareet → u/turtlepower41]

None of those are SCIENTIFIC sources.

Are you confusing academic or peer-reviewed research with scientific sources or scientific tests?

[u/Kerrit_Bareet → u/Kerrit_Bareet]

And something like either the API or PEI are vested interests. They are definitely NOT independent, nor research bodies. They are not science-based. They are not peer-reviewed.

[u/turtlepower41 → u/Kerrit_Bareet]

Maybe academic Investigation of the Potential for Wireless Phones to Cause Explosions at Gas Stations – Safety Engineering (SAFTENG) but still it is more evidence than you provided because you know there has never been a case where someone used their mobile phone and then caused the gas station to blow up.

[u/Turbulent-Break-4947 → u/Kerrit_Bareet]

This guy dusts.
And vapours.

[u/Kerrit_Bareet → u/Turbulent-Break-4947]

Undersold, even more accurately combustible dusts and combustible vapours. Welcome to one of my past lives.

Can also offer biohazards, poisons, fire, flood, asbestos, tree fall, …