Massive Blast in Lebanon

Does anyone here know about proper sorage for such chemicals? Is there some of international standard?

Oh yes, there have been standards for decades due to AN being both very common (it's the most used fertiliser) and somewhat prone to explode.
There are well defined requirements of fire prevention (it burns easily), ventilation (it forms nitrous oxide on decomposition), contact materials (no galvanised iron, copper, lead, or zinc), temperature (under 55 Celsius)/
Dumping fifty thousand sacks in a random warehouse for a few years and ignoring it is generally a bad idea.
There are dozens of examples of AN detonations, some larger than this one.

Nationa Fire Protection Association has a standard - NFPA 490 - regulating the storage of AN. Of course it then becomes up to the relevant authorities to adopt and enforce the standard. It is highly unlikely that this was done in the case at hand.
 
Oh yes, there have been standards for decades due to AN being both very common (it's the most used fertiliser) and somewhat prone to explode.
There are well defined requirements of fire prevention (it burns easily), ventilation (it forms nitrous oxide on decomposition), contact materials (no galvanised iron, copper, lead, or zinc), temperature (under 55 Celsius)/
Dumping fifty thousand sacks in a random warehouse for a few years and ignoring it is generally a bad idea.
There are dozens of examples of AN detonations, some larger than this one.

Thanks for the info! :thumbsup:
 
According to the 'General Security Chief':




Translated: **** me, Hezbollah has shot itself in the foot! But let's pretend it was sodium nitrate...stored next to a fireworks factory. Totally innocuous. Just a small flour bomb.



Uhhhhh no. Translated:

'It appears that there is a warehouse containing material that was confiscated years ago, and it appears that it was highly explosive material."

:rolleyes:
 
Nationa Fire Protection Association has a standard - NFPA 490 - regulating the storage of AN. Of course it then becomes up to the relevant authorities to adopt and enforce the standard. It is highly unlikely that this was done in the case at hand.



Indeed. But over and above that, it almost beggars belief that nobody thought doubly-carefully about the situation seeing as this was all being stored in a highly-populated area right on the edge of a dense conurbation.

I think I'm right in saying that when these sorts of nitrate-to-free-oxygen explosions have previously occurred, they've almost always tended to happen in rural environments with low population density - and indeed the human risk will at some stage have been considered with respect to placement of large dumps of nitrates, which is precisely why (coupled with their use as agricultural fertilisers) these dumps are placed well away from almost all human traffic.

So, assuming this was indeed a nitrate-dump explosion, the very fact that someone must at some stage have signed off on the aggregation of such large quantities more-or-less in the middle of Beirut is doubly astonishing.
 
Two and a half thousand tonnes of AN will do that. There are less powerful nuclear options.

The only real difference is that most weapons like nukes and the MOAB explode overhead to create a stronger shockwave - still if it's that much then I was wrong - that's an order of magnitude stronger than a MOAB, but detonated at ground level. That's...well, catastrophic.
 
Of course, Trump talks out of his behind as usual.

Donald Trump has said the deadly explosion in Beirut today “looks like a terrible attack”.

“The United States stands ready to assist Lebanon. We have a very good relationship with the people of Lebanon, and we will be there to help,” Trump said as he opened the daily White House coronavirus press conference on Tuesday. “It looks like a terrible attack,” he added.

The president did not immediately elaborate. It was unclear whether Trump’s comments were just his view, or based on an intelligence briefing.

Lebanon’s security chief, Abbas Ibrahim, has blamed combustible chemicals stored in a warehouse. The interior minister, Mohammed Fahmi, said ammonium nitrate had been among the materials stored and called for an investigation into how it ignited.

Source
 
Definitely not a nuke - those cause EMPs that would knock out cell towers, cell phones themselves, etc.

No. EMP's are not produced directly by nuclear explosions. They are produced by gamma rays ionizing atoms in the atmosphere. At high altitudes, the freed electrons then get deflected into circular orbits by the earth's magnetic field, and start radiating as they orbit. Near ground level, the atmosphere around the explosion will also be ionized, but the mean free path for the freed electrons is too small. They will collide too frequently with other atoms and electrons, and won't orbit in the earth's field and cannot radiate coherently as a result. So high altitude nuclear explosions (we're talking like 100 km) can produce large EMP's, but low altitude nuclear explosions do not. A small nuke at ground level would not knock out any electronics except by the physical force of the blast itself.

But you are correct that it's definitely not a nuke.
 
No. EMP's are not produced directly by nuclear explosions. They are produced by gamma rays ionizing atoms in the atmosphere. At high altitudes, the freed electrons then get deflected into circular orbits by the earth's magnetic field, and start radiating as they orbit. Near ground level, the atmosphere around the explosion will also be ionized, but the mean free path for the freed electrons is too small. They will collide too frequently with other atoms and electrons, and won't orbit in the earth's field and cannot radiate coherently as a result. So high altitude nuclear explosions (we're talking like 100 km) can produce large EMP's, but low altitude nuclear explosions do not. A small nuke at ground level would not knock out any electronics except by the physical force of the blast itself.

But you are correct that it's definitely not a nuke.

Again, why I love this forum. We don't see eye to eye politically, but I appreciate these comments because this (and Catsmate's) info is so far beyond my areas of expertise and knowledge.
 
Indeed. But over and above that, it almost beggars belief that nobody thought doubly-carefully about the situation seeing as this was all being stored in a highly-populated area right on the edge of a dense conurbation.

I think I'm right in saying that when these sorts of nitrate-to-free-oxygen explosions have previously occurred, they've almost always tended to happen in rural environments with low population density - and indeed the human risk will at some stage have been considered with respect to placement of large dumps of nitrates, which is precisely why (coupled with their use as agricultural fertilisers) these dumps are placed well away from almost all human traffic.

So, assuming this was indeed a nitrate-dump explosion, the very fact that someone must at some stage have signed off on the aggregation of such large quantities more-or-less in the middle of Beirut is doubly astonishing.

I don't think it's that simple.

AN was not regularly offloaded at this port; in fact I haven't found any evidence yet that Lebanon ever willfully trades in the stuff. It appears to be the case that the only reason the ammonium nitrate was present at the port is because a court order compelled the national government to immediately offload it from a derelict vessel there. It is unclear whether the government ever had the option of arranging "proper storage", or indeed whether anything counting as such even exists in the country or is available to the government. My impression is that the government was afraid to handle the AN any further after offloading it out of fear of causing just such an incident, and that it has been spending all this time trying to find a third party to take the cargo.
 
I don't think it's that simple.

AN was not regularly offloaded at this port; in fact I haven't found any evidence yet that Lebanon ever willfully trades in the stuff. It appears to be the case that the only reason the ammonium nitrate was present at the port is because a court order compelled the national government to immediately offload it from a derelict vessel there. It is unclear whether the government ever had the option of arranging "proper storage", or indeed whether anything counting as such even exists in the country or is available to the government. My impression is that the government was afraid to handle the AN any further after offloading it out of fear of causing just such an incident, and that it has been spending all this time trying to find a third party to take the cargo.



But surely a commercial freight shipping line could have been found to take the stash to a willing buyer - after all, nitrate fertilisers are in demand in agribusiness pretty much all over the world, and I believe that sizeable quantities are safely shipped with regularity. And even failing that, they could surely have found a buyer in Lebanon, Syria or Turkey and transported it overland?

I guess that maybe in time we might find out the true dynamics here: how much was stored, under what conditions, for how long; and whether a buyer and/or onward transportation had been properly pursued.
 
Again, why I love this forum. We don't see eye to eye politically, but I appreciate these comments because this (and Catsmate's) info is so far beyond my areas of expertise and knowledge.

Agreed when Zig, and certain others post sciency stuff it is always worth the read.
 
This incident seems to have triggered curiosity about the properties of AN. I bet the US BATF is going nuts trying to log all the web searches :).
 
Source

This tweet shows some of the devastation at the port.

Sodium nitrate - yeah, that'll do it. Sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate were involved in the 2015 Tianjin disaster.

Texas has had a number of such explosions in chemical plants.

The red smoke is indicative of a sodium nitrate explosion.

Nitrates are responsible for some of the largest non-nuclear explosions on the modern record, including for instance the AZF explosion in Toulouse, France in 2001 that killed 29 people and injured 2,500.

This is exactly what I was wondering. Why was it being stored so close to a large population?
Because people don't learn from history.

Right away I thought of this one in TX in 1947. Ammonium Nitrate was the source: History: Fertilizer explosion kills 581 in Texas
A giant explosion occurs during the loading of fertilizer onto the freighter Grandcamp at a pier in Texas City, Texas, on April 16, 1947. Nearly 600 people lost their lives and thousands were injured when the ship was literally blown to bits.

Ammonium nitrate was used as an explosive by the U.S. Army in World War II and, after the war ended, production of the chemical continued as its use as a fertilizer became accepted. However, the precautions used in its transport became far more lax in the post-war years.

On April 16, the Grandcamp was being loaded with ammonium nitrate as well as tobacco and government-owned ammunition. Cigarette smoking, although officially banned, was a common practice by longshoremen on the docks. Just two days prior to the explosion, a cigarette had caused a fire on the docks. On the morning of April 16, smoke was spotted deep within one of the Grandcamp‘s holds.

Some water and an extinguisher were used to fight the fire, but hoses were not employed for fear of ruining the cargo; there were already 2,300 tons loaded on the ship. While the ammunition was removed from the ship, the crew attempted to restrict oxygen to the hold in hopes of putting out the fire. Apparently they did not realize that because of ammonium nitrate’s chemical composition, it does not require oxygen in order to burn.

I thought it was 1500 dead but my memory doesn't match the article. And I know it was a ship being loaded on the docks so this is the one I was thinking of.

So fire starts, isn't controlled then kablooie. The death toll is going to be well into the 100s.




Again, why I love this forum. We don't see eye to eye politically, but I appreciate these comments because this (and Catsmate's) info is so far beyond my areas of expertise and knowledge.
Every once in a while Zig shows his knowledge. Not sure why his political views are what they are.
 
Last edited:
But surely a commercial freight shipping line could have been found to take the stash to a willing buyer - after all, nitrate fertilisers are in demand in agribusiness pretty much all over the world, and I believe that sizeable quantities are safely shipped with regularity. And even failing that, they could surely have found a buyer in Lebanon, Syria or Turkey and transported it overland?

I can only say that it's my non-authoritative impression so far that throughout the six intervening years Lebanon has sought to auction off both the empty ship and the AN to buyers with no success.
 
I can only say that it's my non-authoritative impression so far that throughout the six intervening years Lebanon has sought to auction off both the empty ship and the AN to buyers with no success.
It's too bad they didn't act to split it up into smaller quantities. Seems like a no brainer.
 
The red smoke is indicative of a sodium nitrate explosion.

Nitrates are responsible for some of the largest non-nuclear explosions on the modern record, including for instance the AZF explosion in Toulouse, France in 2001 that killed 29 people and injured 2,500.

Well there were certainly explosives involved.


Lebanese sources report that the welding of a door caused sparks which ignited 2,700 tonnes of ammonium nitrate
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1290866630243676161?s=20
 

Back
Top Bottom