Talk:Halifax Explosion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
|
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:
|
|
[edit] Storage
The picric acid entry says it should be stored wet, becaues -otherwise- it is highly susceptible to shock...maybe a correction is in order? Madcynic 12:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Norwegian or Belgian?
www.halifaxexplosion.org is unsure about the fact wether the Imo was Norwegian or Belgian. Which is correct? --Martin
The museum in Halifax says it's a Norwegian ship heading for Belgium, which makes sense. It's also cited in John Irving's latest novel 'Until I find You' --- EgbertB
[edit] Explosives
Is 300 rounds of ammunition correct? It seems so much smaller than the quantities of the other items. --rmhermen
Really TNT? I don't think it was in widespread use in WWI, not even sure it had been invented then. In any case it doesn't usually detonate as a result of fire, it just burns. From other sources read and forgotten long ago, i think the main explosion may have been due to Ammonium Nitrate, a cheap chemical widely used as fertiliser, and in civilian explosive applications. This forgotten source said the freighter was carrying perhaps thousands of tons of the stuff, which is about what would be needed to cause such a large explosion.
I did some fact-checking: 300 rounds is correct. And the TNT is also correct. It's likely that what you read about ammonium nitrate was refering to the chemical being mixed with the TNT; see http://www.encyclopedia.com/printablenew/24223.html. -- Stephen Gilbert
[edit] Merger
There are two pages about the Halifax Explosion. How should one merge the two pages to provide tidy results? -- BillBell
- The two pages are Halifax explosion and Halifax Explosion.
-
- That merger's been done already, but currently there is also a vote to incorporate the Imo article into the current one. Any opinions? I vote yes. Crisco 1492 21:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Halifax explosion inconsistencies
There seem to be some inconsistencies in the statistics, perhaps as a result of merging the two pages.
- Over 2,700 tons of explosives vs. 5 tons of benzol + 10 tons of guncotton + 2,300 tons of picric acid + 400,000 pounds of TNT (= 2,515 tons of explosives).
- Over 2.5 square kilometers leveled vs. 325 acres (= 1.3 km²) of the town destroyed.
- 1,635 deaths vs. 1,000 people killed immediately and over 2,000 within a year
- Five to six thousand injuries vs. 9,000 people injured
Cjmnyc 07:23 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- one Wikipedia entry gives the following load for Mont Blanc:
# 5 tons (4.5 metric tonnes) of benzol # 300 rounds of ammunition # 10 tons (9 tonnes) of gun cotton # 2300 tons (2100 tonnes) of picric acid (explosive) # 400,000 pounds (180 tonnes) of TNT
and another entry gives these numbers:
* 5 tons (4.5 t) of benzol * 300 rounds of ammunition * 122,960 pounds (56 t) of gun cotton * 2300 tons (2300 T) of picric acid (explosive) * 4,661,794 pounds (2,115 t) of TNT
The Nova Scotia government website on the Halifax explosion details the following cargo on Mont Blanc:
* 35 tons of benzol * 300 rounds of ammo * 61 tons of guncotton * 2300 tons of picric acid * 200-225 tons of TNT
The discrepency between the three sources is largest in regards to TNT: one source claims almost 5 million pounds of TNT on board Mont Blanc while others are content with @ 400 thousand. Taking the numbers from the local government, the explosion at Port Chicago in 1944, involving the detonation of at least 5000 tons of munitions, seeems to be the bigger non-nuclear event. The death toll and over all destruction of Halifax was larger due to factors of population and geography.
It's incorrect to say that this event caused the highest single-day casualties on North American soil between the Battle of Antietam in 1862 and the September 11 attacks. The Battle of Gettysburg (in 1863) left a minimum of 8,000 dead over 3 days; I don't know the day-by-day breakup, but on at least one of those days the casualty toll must, mathematically, have exceeded 1,635. And then there's Pearl Harbor, with 2,403 dead; the Battle of Chancellorsville, 1863, with 2,358 dead on the bloodiest day of the battle; the Galveston Hurricane in 1900, which killed around 8,000 people in one day; etc. (Source)
Some more data (I'm not the author of the text above):
| [1] | [2] | [3] | |
| benzol | 35 tons (32t) | 35 tons (32t) | 223,188 kg (223t) |
| ammo | - | - | - |
| gun cotton | 10 tons (9t) | 61 tons (55t) | 56,301 kg (56t) |
| picric acid | 2300 tons (2087t) | 2300 tons (2087) | 1,602,519 kg |
| + 544,311 kg (sum:2147t) | |||
| TNT | 200 tons (181t) | 200 tons (181) | 226,797 kg (227t) |
| Sum | 2545 tons (2309t) | 2596 tons (2355t) | (2653t) |
Also
- [4]: 2766 t of picric acid, TNT and guncotton.
- [5]: over 2,500 tons of benzol fuel, TNT, picric acid and gun cotton (over 2270t)
The Mont Blanc was a ~3000 ton ship, so any number larger than 2800t is unrealistic. - Alureiter 16:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've just changed the numbers according to those I found above, taken from all external web sites we point to. - Alureiter 16:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
who was the hero of the explosion??
[edit] PD images
There are some great PD images of the destruction here: http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he2_ruins/index.html
– Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Largest man-made non-nuclear explosion?
After WWII, the British occupation forces placed 4,000 surplus torpedo warheads, nearly 9,000 depth charges and over 91,000 artillery shells in the tunnels and bunkers of Heligoland, altogether about 6,700 t (british accounts: 8,952,961 lbs) of explosives, and detonated them on [18 April]] [[1947] to destroy the island. Well the British Bang failed, the rock was tougher than expected, but IMHO and according to some sources ([6], [7], [8]) that was the largest non-nuclear, man-made explosion so far. - Alureiter 17:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Also, how can one claim that the Halifax Explosion even counts as the largest non-nuclear manmade explosion? The Texas City Disaster involved 7700 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. That's a heck of a lot more explosive potential. Of course, it only killed 581 people. Rei 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ammonium nitrate is just an oxidizer, also since it was for agricultural use it was only concentrated to about 35% (according to the article). The explosion is estimated to be equivalent to 2-4kt (article) of TNT, which would be about as large, as the Halifax explosion (found 2.5kt and 3kt), but see below. (Strange coincidence: Both times a french vessel exploded..).
- Here's what's stated in Ground Zero:A Reassessment of the 1917 explosion in Halifax by Alan Ruffman and Colin D. Howell:
- Texas City: 1.3kt
- Port Chicago disaster: 1.7kt (this time no french ship ;))
- Halifax: 3kt
- Heligoland: 4.2kt
-
- (second hand information, I don't have that book)
- Oh, BTW, we have a List of the largest non-nuclear explosions article.
[edit] The map is US-centric
According to the map, this "Halifax" is somewhere in a place called "Nova Scotia". From the lack of a map of the world indicating where this "Nova Scotia" is, I assume it is propably in the US. This is in fact something that irks me with many Wikipedia maps - As soon as something is placed in the US, everyone all over the world is supposed to know every hinterland village in the US...
- It clearly states in the first line that Halifax is in Canada. There are also links at the bottom of the page to canadian atlas sites for more complete maps. Jack 217.7.132.21 10:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Still, the map doesn't make it immediately apparent to those who are visual learners. Also, it is disorienting since one part is on a standard north to south orientation, while the other appears to have been rotated. I added a new map that hopefully fixed that. Crisco 1492 22:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Which ship was leaving?
Which ship arrived at the entrance from outside? In this article it's the Mont Blanc. But in the German version of the Halifax-Explosion they say the Mont Blanc wanted to leave!! I think that makes more sense. Why should a french ship bring ammunition to Canada? So please check.
- The "official" story at http://www.halifaxexplosion.org/dayof.shtml also has Mont Blanc leaving and Elmo entering. - Alureiter 11:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify that website....it says the Mont Blanc was leaving the harbour to join the convoy in the basin. The basin is the most inland part of the harbour and still technically part of it, so the Mont Blanc was in fact entering, not really leaving. The Imo had departed the basin and was heading out to sea. The article is poorly worded for anyone who is not aware of the geography of Halifax Harbour. :)
Stephanie
[edit] Adjusting for inflation
According to the article, the explosion caused $30M in damage. Does anyone know for sure that this is 1917 dollars, and is it US or Canadian? If it's 1917 US, I ran a quick adjustment and came up with US$508,553,700 in 2005 dollars. Can anyone verify the original currency? Ocon | [[User talk:Ocon|Talk]] 15:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- The CBC indicates that it was $35 million 1917 US Dollars, and converts that roughly to $430 million in today's USD. http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/he3_shock/he3_shock_destruction.html --Potatophysics 22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, shouldn't the cost be in Canadian dollars, because it's a Canadian event?
[edit] Editing this out perhaps?
equipment and they quickly abandoned ship upon the Captain's orders. Fleeing in two rowboats, the crew reached safety on the Dartmouth shore as the burning ship continued to drift toward the Halifax shore. As it was burning other ships came in aid, and onlookers gathered on the shore to fuck teen girls.
From the article. I trust this is incorrect and should be edited out?
Definitely
[edit] Boston gratitude/Christmas tree kerfuffle
There's a current thing going on here in Canada where the Haligonian (what we call people from Halifax, honest) found out that Boston is now calling the donated Christmas tree a "Holiday Tree" and he wants the darn tree back. Referenced here: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510132
Probably not warranting an inclusion in the article, but it is an interesting coda.
[edit] A few changes....
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_062100_montblanc.htm -states that the Mont Blanc was heading for France not Belgium. In fact, it was ordered to go to Halifax because it was too slow for the convoy heading from New York where it had been loaded. A slower convoy would be departing from Halifax Harbour.
The Imo was a Belgian relief ship. It said that in bold letters on it's side.
The time of the explosion was actually 9:04:35 am local time, not 8:45.
The CBC website also has monetary values of all the explosives on board at the time for anyone who is interested. :)
--Stephanie
[edit] Explosion's force
It is worth noting that the explosion had an estimated force of 2.9 kilotons, making it (at the time) the most powerful explosion ever caused by humans. Hugo Dufort 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Ref: http://www.halifaxfiremuseum.org/explosion.html
