6 ms·
I think they mean its different. The seismic wave it way more devastating to the infrastructure. Leading to collapsing buildings, ripped gas pipes etc. Explos
by me_me_me 6y ago
I think they mean its different.
The seismic wave it way more devastating to the infrastructure. Leading to collapsing buildings, ripped gas pipes etc.
Explosion like this one move most of the energy into the heat and air displacement.
The immediate area is shattered but the building outside have only windows smashed.
The explosion look terrifyingly massive but the number of victims seams small in comparison.
- rtkwe 6y agoThe numbers are definitely going to rise as they dig deeper into the rubble and as some people die because of the overwhelmed hospitals.
- dredmorbius 6y ago...the number of victims seams small ... In large-scale disasters, a low initial casualty count can be quite deceptive. It often means victims simply cannot be reached, identified, or tallied. In amount of explosive material (not necessarily yield), the Beirut blast compares with the Halifax Explosion of 1917, with 1,950 dead in that incident. Circumstances, construction, and crowd response (the burning Mont-Blanc had attracted a large shoreside crowd) differ. But beware premature assessment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
- t-writescode 6y agoIt does not. The Halifax explosion was calculated at around 2200ktons. Ish. I’m not looking at numbers right now. Calculations (not maximum estimations) of this explosion put it at < 500 tons.
- randallsquared 6y agoThe Wikipedia link mentioned above claims only 2.9 kilotons, rather than thousands of kilotons. I'm not sure how AN compares to TNT, but there were reportedly 2700 tons of AN, some fraction of which exploded. In any case, it looks like the same order of magnitude, or at max one order, rather than 3 or 4. ETA: the linked USGS actually says 1.1 Kt, but that assumes all the AN participated.
- SomewhatLikely 6y agoI think they meant to type 2200 tons / 2.2 ktons.
- perlpimp 6y agothing is ammonia nitrate explosive has longer shock wave that affects building structures much more than high explosives, watched documentary on timothy mcveigh bombing and why it is preferred explosive for purposes of terror.
- dredmorbius 6y agoHalifax involved 2,653 tons of picric acid, a figure not mentioned in the main Wikipedia article, but noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_artificial_non-nuclear... Beirut 2020 involved 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, same page. To my mind these are roughly equivilent amounts of raw explosive agent. Some might even argue persuasively that there is slightly more explosive noted in the second. As I've already conceeded, blast yield TNT estimates may vary, but by whatever specific measure both the Halifax and Beirut explosions were large. And, to my initial point: damage and casualty estimates may not be instantly available.
- stan_rogers 6y agoPicric acid was only one component of the Mont Blanc's 2653-tonne loading. It also carried rather a large amount of TNT (200 tons of the stuff, which, surprisingly, has a 1:1 TNT equivalence) and guncotton (10 tons) as explosives, along with benzol (which seems to have been the "detonator"). There was also considerable shock wave reinforcement due to the shape of the harbour bottom and location of the explosion.
- dredmorbius 6y agoThanks, source?
- Aengeuad 6y ago>To my mind these are roughly equivilent amounts of raw explosive agent. Perhaps, but in terms of TNT equivalence picric acid is much more effective at 96% compared to 56% of ammonium nitrate[0] with other estimates being even wider[1] i.e., 1.17x for picric acid to 0.74x for ANFO and 0.42x for ammonium nitrate, and some other figures are placing ammonium nitrate as low as 20% as effective. With the estimates ranging from a low 500 tonnes, ~1.2 kilotonnes for a reasonable estimate up to about a maximum ~2.2 kilotonnes based on 2,750 tonnes of ANFO it's looking like the two explosions aren't that comparable. But I do agree, early estimates of loss of life can be troublesome and both explosions were devastatingly large. [0] https://www.icheme.org/media/12120/xi-paper-13.pdf https://www.icheme.org/media/12120/xi-paper-13.pdf [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#Relative_effectiveness_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#Relative_effect...
- donarb 6y agoHalifax Harbor is completely encircled by the cities of Halifax and Dartmouth. The Beirut explosion occurred on the shore so half of the blast's shock wave essentially had no effect.
- dredmorbius 6y agoOne of several factors. Watching video, the possibility that Beirut's grain silo absorbed or reflected much of the blast also occurs. The vapour cloud showed a gap immediately above the structure in initial moments.
- refurb 6y agoGood point. I was amazed that the silos were still standing after. Obviously well built - the explosion was right up against it.
- dredmorbius 6y agoAlso filled with up to 120,000 tonnes of energy-absorbing, high-dispersal mass: the grain itself. Something like a 20-storey Hesco. Most regular buildings, and quayside warehouses in particular, are surprisingly lightweight and contain comparatively little material, as the remnants of a demolition will frequently attest.