https://jwkblog.com/wordpress/fire-at-gas-stations-some-fact...
5k fires/year, 61% involving vehicles so about 3k fires/year, presumably from pumping gas.
But given how many billions (or maybe even trillions) of customer-pump interactions per year that’s a really low incident rate.
It would be interesting to see if NJ and OR with no self-serve have dramatically lower rates but I couldn’t find that info.
The hospitals, I guess? I'm making inferences from the judgement-making of...whoever, not second-guessing them.
If anything, I'm giving complete faith to the system here. My assumption is if they can send out a full fire-truck to respond to a call where clearly an ambulance would be sufficient, they're not doing it despite there also being a fire that needs response.
Even with suppression someone has to intervene to reduce it from suppressed to extinguished, and that’s usually the fire department.
The numbers are very small, but it’s not nothing.
The key point though would be seeing if these risks are far lower in OR and NJ, or not.
Edit: $20M, not $20B
No. That number is wildly wrong.
I also wonder if it's OK that we let each state decide for themselves rather than creating a federal mandate with what is judged by leading experts to be the best solution.
How much safer is it in NJ?
Your phrasing in the comment I initially replied to suggested that you believe the pump mandate reduces the number of fires. If that's the case, it should be demonstrable with data and it should be front and centre in every discussion, surely?