iPod Nano in airport trouser conflagration horror
'Flames reached his chest' sobs pants-on-fire mum
An Atlanta airport worker claims his iPod Nano burst into flames while stashed in his personal region. The trouser-based blaze was apparently so severe the hapless victim was immolated up to chest level, though reportedly he sustained only superficial injuries.
Danny Williams is quoted in local news reports as saying that glossy paper in his pockets may have saved him from eye-watering burns. He also appeared to suggest that the music-player pant conflagration had threatened his life indirectly. With smoke belching from his garments in an airport, Williams was clearly at risk of being shot repeatedly in the head as a suspected suicide bomber.
"If TSA had come by and seen me smoking, they could have honestly thought I was a terrorist," the luckless airport employee is quoted as saying.
Reporters also spoke to his mother Elaine, who said the Apple-triggered slacks inferno had raged for 15 seconds before being brought under control. There was no word on whether Williams had been forced to evacuate the burning pants, or if there was any involvement by airport fire crews.
According to the IDG News Service, a distraught Mrs Williams confirmed that Apple had sent a returns envelope so the charred Nano - generation unknown - could be returned for inspection, presumably after being separated from the smoking ruins of her son's underwear.
Thus far, Apple representatives have offered no comment on the case. However, it is well known that the iPod Nano contains a Li-ion battery, a type of power technology which has been proven to attract lawsuits in the past.
COMMENTS
And more tunes...
"Firestarter" by The Prodigy
"Burn baby burn" by Hudson-Ford
Probably listening to Tom Waits...
Heartattack and VIne. It begins "Liar liar wid yer pants on fire..."
I'll get me coat.
@Graham Dawson
"Our lot tend to be nervous trigger-happy bastards at the best of time because they aren't really used to carrying their weapons on a regular basis"
I see Gordon's already beaten me to it on this one, but I'm going to agree with him. Sure, what happened to Jean Charles de Menezes shouldn't have happened; and that's not the only time things have gone wrong in firearms incidents. But do you ever hear about the countless incidents where very highly trained British firearms officers manage to resolve matters *without* anyone being hurt - even in the face of extreme provocation? Of course you don't. But then, unless something goes tragically wrong as in the Menezes case, or there's scope for howling media indignation, there's no story, so the press aren't interested in reporting it. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't scrutinise what the police do: it's a free country (in theory) so you should do precisely that, and raise objections when they do things wrong. But generalised condemnation like this suggests a strong bias.
It's also difficult to compare British firearms officers to American police, not because one or the other is 'better', but because the basis of policing in these countries is fundamentally different.
Say what??
"Our lot tend to be nervous trigger-happy bastards at the best of time because they aren't really used to carrying their weapons on a regular basis"
Don't judge every force by the Met's standards. Only one force in the entire country would be daft enough to have men armed with guns, given minimal training, and left to run around out of communication in plain clothes.
British cops are highly professional and usually assigned to ARV teams to carry guns pretty much whenever on duty.
IT WAS IGNITED METHANE.....
Ever set a fart on fire? ... with a nano?????
