When will you get it?
I am quite open to mature debate on the subject. Your first load of drivel slandering me and my ideas indicated that you were not capable of intelligent conversation on the matter.
Therefore my reply was sculpted for your understanding and excitable immaturity
You can’t seem to understand that the AMTA is endorsing the idea that mobile phones pose a negligible risk to igniting fuel vapour and therefore the vested interest in saying so would be detrimental to them if it were true, due to the potential legal ramifications (which seems to be the determining factor in many decisions these days), not to mention the ethical one of reporting that such a practice is safe when it is not.
My examples a bit out dated for you?
OK, from July 2003 a paper entitled “Use of Mobile Phones and Portable Radios in Gasoline Stations” A Motorola Background Paper
July 2003
In response to rumors that attracted considerable attention in 1999, Motorola commissioned a review by an independent scientific, engineering and technical consulting firm: Exponent Failure Analysis Associates. Exponent concluded in December 1999 that “the use of a cell phone at a gasoline filling station under normal operating conditions presents a negligible hazard” and that the likelihood of such an accident under any conditions “is very remote.” “Automobiles (which have numerous potential ignition sources) pose a greater ignition hazard,” the report said. “Finally, other potential ignition sources are present, such as static discharge between a person and a vehicle.”
Heat, fuel and air for a fire? There is more heat and sources of ignition from engines in cars than from mobile phones.
From the same paper-
The petroleum industry has devoted additional attention to this subject. In the United States, the Petroleum Equipment Industry and American Petroleum Institute have emphasized that mobile phones are not a focus of their campaign to alert consumers about the demonstrable danger that static discharge poses when fueling a vehicle.
And this: (for an up to date example for you)
The U.K. Institute of Petroleum hosted a technical seminar on the issue in March 2003 and oncluded there was no evidentiary or technical evidence to support the view that
mobile phones pose a real risk.
And finally:
The use of mobile phones in gasoline stations long ago attained the status of “Internet hoax” or “urban legend” – rumor and supposition accorded undue credence because of repeated mentions in the media, over the Internet and by email – of incidents that defied verification and technical plausibility. In the end, public policies and consumer advice must be based not on speculation but fact. The facts in this case are clear. They are
reinforced by extensive engineering analysis and suggest that there is no sound technical basis to prohibit the use of mobile phones in gasoline stations or single them out as hazards.
I hope that the people at Motorola know that the urban legends site is a trash site for skeptics. They seem to come to the conclusion that it is an urban legend. Fancy that.
Read the whole thing
here
As for damage to the brain from mobile phones, you really are clutching at straws.
I have said nothing at all about refueling near thunderstorms. I
know nothing about it.
Chocks away, judgments and opinions on matters are based upon sound evidence that can back up any claims that are made. I have made a claim, I have shown you the evidence.
You have made a fool of yourself with incoherent, inconsistent, unproven and poorly referenced material that is far from being FACTUAL.
Back into your hole.