The video below was on a circular Email forwarded to a colleague of mine. It was presented as a man igniting a cigarette lighter in a tanker and being blown up. My colleague said that a friend of his in the industry said that all the people working in these depots have ignition sources taken off them before they start work. The problem was, that this guy managed to keep his mobile on him, and when it rang, he answered... as you do.
The result was a rather impressive explosion! The story is that he survived, probably as a result of the guy using a fire extinguisher on him.
Enjoy, and be safe! (Beware Graphic Content)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Mmmm...neither cigarette lighter no mobile phone makes sense. While I do know a guy who, as a teenager, lit a match to look in a lawnmower fuel tank, most people working with fuel are pretty safety conscious. Certainly the guy puts his hand in his pocket but, if it is his phone, why does he not put it up to his ear? I don't buy the mobile phone story generally - there are no corroborated cases of a mobile phone acting as an ignition source for anything. No-one can even tell me what the supposed ignition point is in a phone. Try using your phone in a dark room and see if you can see sparks. No spark inside the phone, if there was one, will be an issue anyway as the 'Davy Safety Lamp' principle will apply. (It had a naked flame behind gauze and wouldn't ignite mine gases.)
More probably the guy had nylon socks and it was a static spark that did the damage.
Hi Lee, thought that would be you! I think the static idea is also a problem because the static potential would have been greatest when he touched the truck to climb up. After that, his body would have been at the same potential at the tanker. Answering the mobile does seem to be skew, too. He does appear to have put whatever was in his pocket into the tank, rather than near his ear. Maybe he just pressed cancel, or it was a text, or he wanted to use the light from the phone... The thing was that there was a mobile phone discovered on the investigation. Maybe they should just ask the victim, or the witness? Would have loved to do an ICAM investigation on that one.
Definitely not a cell phone, but, as much as I hate to think it would be possible, I am more inclined to go with a lighter.
There is some missing footage from this, which takes the incident out of context (I guess for dramatic impact).
I think what happens before where your piece starts is what gives us the major clue.
You can see the complete footage here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSO4VfR1MOs&feature=related
The entire footage shows the truck being driven up to the bowser. If you watch carefully, you'll see the valves on top of the tank hit the leading edge of the awning as the truck enters the bay. And they don't hit it gently. I reckon they may have been damaged.
What prompted the bloke to climb up top I can't say, but his actions seem to point to his detecting a leak, possibly by smelling it as his body language suggests. Then he reaches into his pocket with his left hand, removes the hand and transfers something from it to his right hand, which he then holds down by the front of the valve.
Next thing you know he stands up, and just before the major flash, you see him raise his arms in front of his face to protect it. He knows the bang is coming.
Whatever he puts in his right hand
is what triggered it.
As you say, the only way we'll know for sure is by asking the guy.
Cheers
Post a Comment