Talk:Halifax Explosion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Vernet's Shipwreck 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:


this guy should be linked here:Donald Crowdis

Contents

[edit] Blast Wave

"and the pressure wave reportedly knocked a soldier off his feet in Cape Breton Island (minimum distance 205 km east)" not to belittle the event, because it was a massive explosion, but I think this is more of an anecdote than a fact. The pressure wave would have to sustain itself for roughly 10 minutes at 1,235 km/h (roughly supersonic or speed of sound, which would be the longest reaching force wave). Cape Breton is rather far away, and that just doesn't add up! WarBaCoN 10:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this struck me as odd, especially noting the explosion was heard from a maximum distance of 175km. Since the pressure wave is in fact just a powerful sound wave, the maximum distance the is wierd would have been heard must have been at least equal if not far greater. The figure may be 25km, but 205 is somewhat unrealistic. A reference would help settle the matter :) -L3p3r 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The pressure wave traveled through the earth at a speed of 13,320 mph (23X the speed of sound). People on Cape Breton reported hearing a low boom which would be the sound of the pressure wave passing under them. Perhaps a startled soldier felt the vibration and tripped.--tgpaulNY —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)

It was stored wet but the extreme heat from the fire dried the picric acid and the gun cotton make them highly explosive.--tgpaulNY

[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

This issue came up again so I added a line with source explaining the Norwegian ownership but Belgium contract. Letterofmarque (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[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

Either way the explosion caused by the Ammonium Nitrate would likely provide enough ignition energy to set off the TNT. -L3p3r 09:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The ship carried no ammonium nitrate. It carried picric acid which exploded because of the fire. The picric acid detonated the dry gun cotton and the TNT. --tgpaulNY —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)

== Largest man-made non-nuclear explosion? If you read again you will see it says it is AMONG 1 of the worlds larges man made explosions==

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.

I think the reason that the Heligoland explosion is often overlooked is because the explosion was largely underground. the explosion there, as far as I know, didn't actually kill anybody. the halifax explosion did.

Another reason that Heligoland might often be overlooked is that it was, technically speaking, a detonation. Explosion implies that it was a single explosion, and not a series of explosions, as was the Heligoland. So although the overall blast created by the Heligoland explosion may be more powerful, Halifax Explosion was a single blast, rather than a series of ones.

Don't forget the RAF Fauld explosion as well, by pretty much every account I can find it was the largest man-made explosion at the time (obviously before heligoland and the nukes). 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[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)
Just curious. Is there a rationale for the removal of a map showing the location of Halifax? Doesn't matter which one, as long as it shows a) Halifax's location in Nova Scotia and b) A general location of Halifax globally. I believe it would aid visual learners being able to glance exactly where it happened, rather than having to read blah blah Nova Scotia, Canada, blah blah East Coast... it's a little easier, I believe. Crisco 1492 08:36, 8 December 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

The Imo was leaving, and the Mont Blanc was entering (due to the submarine nets). 142.176.241.131 00:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mont Blanc had spent the previous night outside the harbor because it arrived at Halifax from NY after 4PM when the submarine nets were put in place. It was entering the harbor the next morning in order to join a convoy to England. The Imo was heading out to the open ocean. --tgpaulNY

[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?

Yes, it should be in 1917 CDN, then a modern day (2005, whatever) CDN. And then MAYBE in modern US dollars. But it shouldn't be 1917 US dollars. 142.176.241.131 00:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[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

[edit] The map

I'm going to be bold and remove the oddly proportioned, amateurishly edited map that adds virtually nothing to the article. If you want a map of Halifax, click on Halifax. As it is, this map does not contribute to the subject at hand.--Dmz5 06:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I was moving it down farther in the article, but it's really just not a good map. If it showed Halifax within Canada only, perhaps. Certainly it should not be the main image of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Even better, I should say, would be a map of Halifax and the harbor showing the location of the collision and the extent of explosion damage. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Anyone any good with photo editing? I did the first one, so I'd rather not take a shot at the next one. As for a complete removal of the map, I think that isn't fair for people who are visual learners, as explained in my rational above (Under "The Map is US-Centric") Crisco 1492 08:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for calling your work amateurish! Didn't mean it as a dig. I agree that a map is helpful but I have a bit of a pet peeve about fuzzy maps that look like they might have been done with MS Paint (not that I'm saying this one was, but you know what I mean, a lot of maps look a little too cartoony and can detract from the subject.)--Dmz5 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No offence taken Dmz. For the sake of curiousity, I did that using GIMP. I understand there are better maps. Perhaps there is a map in Halifax which can be used for a location. Where is the best location? Crisco 1492 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: The map in the Halifax article is totally America Centric. I'm Canadian and I can't make heads or tales of that map. Can someone supply me with a good, non-cartoony Canadian map so I try and make something decent? Crisco 1492 00:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Revision

This looks pretty well done. I congratulate whomever did this current version. However, I believe it might be neater were the table of contents to the left, and the picture to the right, like most wiki articles. How is that done? Crisco 1492 22:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, thanks for the comments.. I had attempted to do what you suggest, but was in a rush earlier and thought it would do for the time being.. it looked really bad on the left, without floating.. but I set it to float left now so the Halifax in wartime section and everything below it doesn't get pushed below the table of contents box (you can see what I mean on this previous version [9]... anyway.. feel free to suggest any other points.. long way to go on this article! WarBaCoN 04:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Now it effects the bulleted list in an odd way.. doing some reading, wikipedia advises "A left-floated TOC may affect bulleted or numbered lists. Where it does, float the TOC to the right, or do not float it." So I guess there is a decision to be made.. I don't know.. none of the options really appeal to me.. If anybody could comment on which layout is best A, B, or C. WarBaCoN 05:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Version A is the standard wiki format, from most of the articles that I have seen. B looks absolutely terrible to me, and is rather confusing for those of use used to things being in a standardized format. C isn't that bad, but A seems better. The ones which do not follow A generally have a table on the right which extends below the table of contents. Possibly someone with really good wiki-skills could do that, maybe in the style of facts in a box, with the major points: Location, Date, Time, Casualties etc. I'll take a look at how to build a table, maybe that would be okay. Looking good though. What if this were to be a wikiproject of the month for those interested in disasters? Crisco 1492 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
K, just spent half an hour trying to get a table in there. I'm now looking for a template for natural explosions, but all I've seen is for terrorist attacks. Theoretically, that could work. I'll give it a shot. Crisco 1492 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I give up... I got a table up there, but I can't get the text in a good looking position. Tag, your it WarBacon. :p Crisco 1492 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we'll have to create one, doh.. which is out of my current scope and brainpower tonight.. I'm surprised there is nothing for disasters really.. looks good though so far. Oh I put a little of the intro back in that you took out.. just because the explosion part is really the important part and it's enticing details I think!.. and I used the standard no-float layout method again.. WarBaCoN 03:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There we go, looks pretty good. I'll check the help page how to ask for a template, unless anyone knows how to make one? Crisco 1492 23:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll give it a go on the weekend.. pretty sure we can get something set up quicker than asking for it (I hope)! WarBaCoN 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking good. Next would probably come a couple edits for organization and what not. I personally believe there are too many subsections in the article, some of which are too short (Specifically subsections in the Explosion and Aftermath section, as well as in the Rescue Effort Section.). Crisco 1492 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Looking good, eh? Crisco 1492 04:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Magic explosion"? Expert needed.

In the current revision of this article, the text segues from "prelude to disaster" directly to describing the explosion, leaving this reader to assume that it was the result of an angry genie or somesuch. While I acknowledge that the (somewhat lengthy) introduction text clearly states that the two ships collided, it is still relatively non-standard for the introduction text to contain crucial information not found elsewhere in a large article - and positively inexcusable to neglect any mention of what actually triggered the entire event! Anyway, I'm no history genius, but I'm tagging this page as needing attention from an expert on the subject, and hoping that Fate will see fit to bring an improved article to humankind. --Action Jackson IV 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

no magic here.. except the genie who made the whole section I had painstakingly set up, disappear.. I put it back.. enjoy.. WarBaCoN 07:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] typo?

Christmas - Every Christmas since 1971, Nova Scotia has donated a large Christmas tree to the City of Boston in thanks and remembrance for the help ...


-shouldn't the date rather be 1917, since the disaster occured then???

--213.54.142.88 09:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the city didn't send a tree 19 days after the explosion, it was a tradition that didn't start until 1971. http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/extension/christmastrees/bostontree.htm Wonnkabe 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)