Talk:West Fertilizer Company explosion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pikachudad (talk | contribs) at 16:25, 18 April 2013 (→‎Anhydrous Nh3 or Nitrate?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sources for local news

Some news sources:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Vielmetti (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

To do later

Once more is known about the casualties, damage, etc., could someone please add that information to the entry for this disaster on the Ammonium nitrate disasters page? Thanks! 70.192.203.200 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I don't have a Wikipedia account, sorry.[reply]

You may need to move this to AMMONIA disasters if it was an ammonia tank BLEVE. Pikachudad (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that this was interesting: apparently the West Independent School District had to evacuate their intermediate school in February due to a "concerning fire" at the plant. http://www.westisd.net/ourpages/auto/2013/2/19/38153817/Community_Memo_-_WIS_Temporary_Evacuation.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.98.229.194 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also of interest: "The plant had reported to the EPA and local public safety officials that it presented no risk of fire or explosion" http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20130417-west-fertilizer-plant-said-in-report-that-it-presented-no-risk.ece --beefyt (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a bit of a conflict in the article "...West Fertilizer Company[4] plant in...", "...a fertilizer mixing and storage facilty...". Is this place actually a plant, or is it a PDC (product distribution centre)? Looking at google maps and speaking to some chem engineers in the nitorgen (ammonia) fertiliser industry, there have been some doubts raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.52 (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration

(Temporarily?) add early reports of proximate nursing home collapse and link to sources for those who may be searching? Found: http://writingshares.com/waco-texas-fertilizer-plant-explodes-nursing-home-collapses-hundreds-of-victims-possible/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.206.17 (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The details on Adair Grain need to be refined for relevance. The paragraph extrapolates some inferences from the limited TCEQ reports. jbapowell (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection request

Please change the protection level of this article from unprotected to semi-protected to reduce over editing. Great50 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You (or someone) should probably file a request at WP:RPP. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over-editing is not an adequate reason for semi-protecting a page. It's like telling the new kids they can't work on the really cool projects because they're new. That's just not nice, and it may discourage new editors from even trying. Rklawton (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of fatalities

We have one individual in a position of authority claiming 60-70 deaths, and others stating that the total is not known at this time. Out of an abundance of caution we should wait to report that detail until we can get more clarity. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation as to cause is inappropriate

The witness cited is not an expert on fire behavior, and until we have a factual basis on which to rest any claims as to the source of the explosion, we should not speculate. polarscribe (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and he wasn't even an eyewitness if he was 1000 feet away from the fire when the explosion occurred. There are multiple reports, however, that there were firefighters on scene fighting a fire in the plant at the time. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I am working on an SVG openstreetmap.org map that will include the disaster site, the hospitals and triage locations. Will post within an hour or so. Ben (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ben. Ryan Vesey 04:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The location marked on the map looks like a school baseball field in google earth - looks like the actual plant location is slightly to the east across the RR tracks. 216.52.207.102 (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone developed this photo of the scene.Pikachudad (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC) src="http://i953.photobucket.com/albums/ae15/Flingwingflyer/WestTX_zpsd7218441.jpg ">[reply]

Quote of "Just like Iraq, just like the Murrah Building"

Okay this is going nowhere so I'm going to boldly close it (even though I contributed to the discussion and it's an NAC - sue me). We have that quote for now because it's really the only quote available from an official source on the ground. More will become available as various press conferences are held throughout the morning. We can assess those as they become available. For now, lets all have our morning coffees and relax a little. Stalwart111 12:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that quote is meaningful and important in the context of an informed eyewitness account from a public official - comparing the devastation seen in a section of the city to the devastation that occurs from war or an act of terrorism. polarscribe (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how it's meaningful. The burden is on you. Iraq is a country, not a crater. The Murrah building makes sense, as that was an actual explosion. "Iraq" is not a meaningful measurement for our readers. Just because some redneck said it at a news conference doesn't mean we have to include every word here. We can use editorial discretion. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're attacking a member of the Texas Department of Public Safety as a "redneck." That's not much of an argument. polarscribe (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not part of the argument. I wrote a lot more than just that. If I hurt his feelings, he can come talk to me. The fact remains that the burden is on you to describe how "Iraq" is a unit of measurement. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you sound like a real winner of a human being. Redneck indeed. Jesus. 05:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The word "Iraq" absolutely has meaning, just as the word "Vietnam" has meaning to an earlier generation of Americans. Perhaps we need to expand or explain that meaning - heck, with, y'know, a Wikilink... but the implication is clear - he is referencing a country that is primarily known to Americans as a devastated war zone famous for bombings, deaths and destruction. polarscribe (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Vietnam" would have no meaning here, either. If he said "Hue" or something, maybe.
We are by absolutely no means required to put the whole absurd quote in (or any of the quote, for that matter). I don't dispute what he's getting at, I just believe in using the meaningful part of his statement. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Vietnam" absolutely would have meaning. You don't have to know what the "Battle of Hue" is to know that Vietnam was a colossal disaster. In the context of the sentence, it is clear that "Iraq" is being used to describe a scene of devastation, and it is a meaningful word to a generation of Americans who grew up watching bombs fall on Baghdad and IEDs blowing up American troops. The fact that he didn't cite a specific battle is of no consequence. Nobody (and by "nobody" I mean the vast majority of Americans) remembers specific battles of the Iraq War. polarscribe (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: In the context of the sentence, it's more understandable. That context didn't exist when I edited the article. You added it later. No point in whining at me about stuff you did after the fact. When I removed it (both times) it had no such context. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what is with the dubious tag? Ryan Vesey 05:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well some people don't understand how analogies work. --86.183.90.112 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And some people don't understand what dubious tags are for. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking and power-tripping? --86.183.90.112 (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't say. I'm not the one who tagged it. I'm the one who untagged it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay folks, lets just take a deep breath for a second. Obviously there are going to be things about the scene of a massive explosion that remind certain people (especially veterans, etc) of a warzone. That's perfectly valid, but that doesn't mean we need to include such quotes/responses. In time, there will be official statements from official representatives in formal press conferences and those are probably the ones we should be quoting. You should feel free to start collating those here for future use, but just editing each one into the article is probably just going to cause edit-warring. Other than that; breath. Stalwart111 05:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was an official statement by an official representative in a formal press conference. polarscribe (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So? WP:UNDUE. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to this line: "In time, there will be official statements from official representatives in formal press conferences and those are probably the ones we should be quoting."
At any rate, I've said my piece, made the argument and will leave it at that. polarscribe (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A person so obviously prejudiced as to call a Texas public safety official a "redneck" should be immediately relieved of any editing ability on this article. Language of that degree of contempt goes beyond a lack of civility. It is obviously an example of ethnic prejudice and bias, and as such, it should not appear in discussion pages. By the way, i believe that what the official was referring to was not a battle-zone in Iraq but to the oilfields on fire in Iraq, as in the WIkipedia article Rumaila oil field and this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAbm01LmpzY 70.36.137.19 (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks "redneck" is an ethnic slur is obviously a Yankee. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yankee American or Yankee Northerner? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say strip the quote for now under UNDUE. And no personal attacks, implied or otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can keep the quote. I'm not seeing it as an UNDUE issue. It's not a reaction quote, it's used as a description of the event, and until we have pictures to use, it's the best thing we've got. Ryan Vesey 06:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I restored the uncontroversial part of the quote referencing the OKC bombing, and it is sourced in the WFAA article. polarscribe (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think it's okay, for now but I think we need to be conscious of the fact that eventually there are going to be statements that are fact-based (as opposed to adjective/emotion based) and we can use the full gamut of official statements to provide an accurate picture of the scene and the response and the long-term impact. There are going to be lots of "first impression" type comments made in the few couple of hours while few facts are available. Just keep WP:NOTNEWS in mind and think about what the different statements add to our encyclopaedic account of the event. Stalwart111 06:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As 70.36.137.19 points out above, (probably inadvertently) proving my point, saying it's "like Iraq" has no meaning. Like an explosion in Iraq? Like the oil field fires? Like a desert? It has no inherent meaning. That was my point. I agree with keeping some of the statement until we have something better (which shouldn't take long), but only the part that our readers can objectively understand. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is confusing that the statement "like Iraq" means "like a warzone", under your logic, saying like the Murrah Building could also be misunderstood since it could mean the scene looks like a low-rise modernist building. Ryan Vesey 06:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree that the whole statement sucked, and if you want to remove the rest of the sentence, I don't have a problem with that. I apologize if I've been unclear about that at any point. On the other hand, if you're just being deliberately obtuse, then let's just move on. Because we could extend these clever little analogies into oblivion, and start getting all metaphysical about how no man can ever step twice into the same river, and therefore nothing could ever be compared to anything else, and maybe all reality is just a construct of our own perceptions, and yadda yadda yadda. But I think we could all find better ways to spend our time right now. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the quote is more than likely not a reliable source for the comparison for the content of said quote. Just because a RS reports 'Someone said X' doesn't mean that it is valid. In this case it is a comparison, an emotional one, I doubt that the individual has personal experience for meaningful comparison that a picture wouldn't suffice. The quote is essentially inputting drama into the article because an RS reported said drama. Sorry if it sounds rough, but the comparison is not fitting, encyclopedic or reliable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who reads the words "ethnic prejudice and bias" and replays the term back as "ethnic slur" is insufficiently literate to be editing Wikipedia. To conflate the two concepts is ridiculous, and demonstrates a poorly organized mind that is merely jumping from one pre-filed term with "ethnic" in it to another, without a hint of reasoned thought. 70.36.137.19 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. That's a Yankee all right. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 07:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kafziel, it seems to me that you might better spend time on building the article, versus denigrating someone else's attempt to do so - you've gone well beyond the point where anyone should feel required to assume good faith Irish Melkite (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? You're right, after eight years and tens of thousands of edits, I am past the point where anyone has to "assume" that I'm editing in good faith. I've contributed more than my share to this article already. Unlike the troll I was responding to. So I suggest you move on, instead of showing up five hours after the fact to put your two cents in. Some of us were up at 3 in the morning, actually working on this. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similar events?

Without making any statement about this quote, I wonder if there's room for a section for similar events, so that the reader can place this explosion in context. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing page references that explosion as measured as a M3.0 earthquake, so this as an M2.1 earthquake was smaller but similar. You could also easily make comparisons of fact to IEDs which use similar chemicals but that are much smaller in general. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. Unless a reliable source uses that data to make the comparison, that's original research. WP:SYNTH. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this wasn't a bomb. A Richter scale number would be okay but synthing that with comparisons to bombings would be iffy. Stalwart111 06:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I split this into a new section for easy reading. Stalwart111 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]
USGS related, according to Fox it did not register on the seismograph. "Rafael Abreu, a geophysicist with National Earthquake Information Center of the U.S. Geological Survey, said the explosion did not register on a seismograph because most of the blast's energy dissipated in the atmosphere."[1] This is wrong, but there is truth that the energy would not be focused in a meaningful way to approximate the force of the blast. Should we note the error, but note the science behind the statement? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wondered: this article includes a tweeted picture which is supposed to be a seismograph reading from Amarillo. Stalwart111 06:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, seems like just another unnecessary quote to me. If it's inaccurate, then it's unencyclopedic, and (at best) using it at all gives it undue weight. So we would have to balance it with tons of info to the contrary, and to what end? We don't have to include every bit of incorrect analysis, and then ten sources saying why it's wrong, just for lack of better content to fill the page. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the seismograph thing is hinky because, yes it showed up on seismographs, but it's not really a meaningful number for anything because of the fact that most of the force vented upward. polarscribe (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying use the quote, but pointing out that the quote from someone within the USGS is wrong and is being touted in a RS, and not in a weak way either. Granted the twitter pic is bad, but the data mark contradicts the quote from the individual. If it sticks, a note will be needed as this is a clear contradiction. WP:V is not WP:TRUTH. But this seems obvious to me who's right, the machines (many reported) versus the individual. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of ignoring the quote and the alleged magnitude - given that it appears everyone agrees magnitude as measured by distant seismometers isn't necessarily going to create comparable results. Note that it showed up on a USGS seismometer in Amarillo and leave it at that. Kafziel has a point about not needing to include this bit of incorrect analysis. polarscribe (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
USGS has posted it: https://twitter.com/USGS/status/324888973686231041 tlws 15:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3ni9m4tic (talk • contribs)

Notability

Should there be an article on this event? It is not unusual for fires to break out in chemical or fertilizer factories, and these often lead to explosions and deaths. What is so special about this one?203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us an example of an event like this that doesn't have an article? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 07:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until then, I can give you an example of a recent one that does: 2012 Sivakasi factory explosion. Stalwart111 07:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The widespread media coverage is a good sign (and requirement) of notability. --beefyt (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP should read WP:GNG and come back when they've grasped this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of factory explosions causing death are not given their own Wikipedia articles - it is self evident that only a very exceptional minority have articles. The 2012 Sivakasi factory explosion probably should not have an article either. Widespread media coverage is only one criteria of notability. However even then, looking at my Google news screen, this explosion does not have a huge number of reports, certainly not the exceptional number required to elevate this beyond day-to-day news into historical notability, which is what this question is really about.203.184.41.226 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, beyond any long-term impact, the story monopolized news coverage in countries other than the US (like in my native Australia). The lack of detailed reports is likely due to a number of factors: it was later at night, details won't be available until morning and the area is relatively remote (20 miles to the nearest major town). Be assured most of the morning news programs will be broadcasting from West tomorrow, Waco at least. Long term impacts are likely - town rebuilding, regulatory action, investigation, etc. The Sivakasi article was nominated for deletion and information was very hard to source, even months later. I commented there that an equivalent event in the US would have no trouble being considered notable. I stand by that and really can't see how this would ever be considered non-notable. Stalwart111 11:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the short answer is, no, he can't point to a case like this that doesn't have an article. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 12:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'm one of those more sympathetic to 'notnews' type arguments, but they're just ridiculous here. Any peacetime explosion which causes multiple casualties ought to be automatically considered notable. Robofish (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is U.S. centric for many articles of otherwise questionable notability, but it is because of the editor pool. Other countries and other events are notable and if they meet GNG or have a claim then it should count. While not ideal, explosions like this are unusual enough to warrant a page provided they have sources for GNG even if people think they may not meet notability requirements. GNG is a way to prove NOTE as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GOOD POINT. Notability, not news. Eventually, there will be an encyclopedia story on this event. So it should be covered. However, care should be exercised to not become the 'leading edge' of news on this story. Pikachudad (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Let's wait a little while per WP:RECENT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a little while for what? To have an article? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Leave the article in place for now before adjudicating deletion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Yeah, it's not going anywhere. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title moved

I see that Dmarquard has moved the article from West Fertilizer Plant explosion to West Fertilizer plant explosion. However, I feel the capitalization just looks unnatural. When parsing the four words "west fertilizer plant explosion" in a row, to me it is more natural to think of it as "an explosion which happened at a fertilizer plant in West" than "an explosion which happened at a plant of West Fertilizer (Company)," especially given that the word "Company" is omitted. (Though if we try to include that, "West Fertilizer Company plant explosion" is just plain wordy.) So I've moved it to West fertilizer plant explosion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible to me. Stalwart111 09:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was the only one confused by the naming on this article, your current change seems to work best. J.Rly (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Police Sergeant Patrick Swanton stated that they received the first emergency call about the fire at 7:29pm local time and the explosion occurred at 7:53. This is quite different to what was initially reported as the fire was thought to be around 6:00pm. Has anyone got RS to verify what was stated by the police sergeant so that the time can be altered from 7:50 to 7:53. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look up BLEVE

Initial large fire - what was the cause of that. There was reportedly 54,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia at the cite. That would be in a large pressurized storage tank. Under fire conditions, such a tank could undergo a BLEVE - Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion.

Also any Ammonia is explosive under a tight range of conditions in air (between 13-15wt%). So an ammonia vapor release (from the vessel release) into that fire could form a vapor cloud that could have been ignited.

For a large scale Ammonia release, see the governments "Desert Tortoise" experiments.

Pikachudad (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

| Someone on another site said: ‘West Fertilizer Co. reported having as much as 54,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia on hand in an emergency planning report required of facilities that use toxic or hazardous chemicals.

But the report, reviewed Wednesday night by The Dallas Morning News, stated “no” under fire or explosive risks. The worst possible scenario, the report said, would be a 10-minute release of ammonia gas that would kill or injure no one. “

Don't have a link to the official source. Pikachudad (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20130417-west-fertilizer-plant-said-in-report-that-it-presented-no-risk.ece[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachudad (talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Permit Information

Search of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for "West Fertilizer" returns one result. So the sites permit was granted in 2006 about 7 years ago.

WEST FERTILIZER CO New Permit 79803 MCLENNAN 12/12/2006

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/air/NewSourceReview/Agendas/dec2006.htm[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachudad (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source discusses that the site had TWO 12,000-gallon tanks of anhydrous ammonia. One or both of these is likely the source of the explosion.

Report states that a sister company 'Adair Grain Inc.,' is located at the same site as West Fertilizer. That means we have some grain storage at the site. What was the source of the huge initial fire?

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/texas-officials-knew-in-2006-that-west-fertilizers-tanks-of-anhydrous-ammonia-were-near-school-homes.html/[3]

Pikachudad (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

54,000 lbs of Ammonia divided by Density 37 lb/ft3 at typical temperature gives 1,460 cubic foot of liquid. Convert to U.S. Gallons (*7.48) gives 10,921 U.S. Gallons of Ammonia. Or approximately one full (85% ish) tank worth of Ammonia on site. Pikachudad (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anhydrous Nh3 or Nitrate?

Ignorance of journalists has caused a lot of confusion between anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate. Le Figraro (wherever they get their information) report that this is anhydrous ammonia and and not the nitrate, and that this was a distribution facitlity rather than a chemical plant, in which case the statement in the article, "which, along with nitric acid, is used to produce ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer, pesticide, and rodenticide" would be not only irrelevant but misleading. The reference on that statement to the Texas permit says nothing about nitrate.

However even on this talk page people are recommending adding this to the ammonium nitrate disasters list.

Somebody with the authority to clean this up needs to clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.134.148 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I follow you in that it seems to generally be agreed among reliable sources that it was anhydrous ammonia.
You lose me, though, in saying that "anhydrous ammonia along with nitric acid is used to produce ammonium nitrate" is misleading. Anhydrous ammonia plus nitric acide is ammonium nitrate, is it not? So I'm not clear what you mean by that.
People are allowed to suggest whatever they want on talk pages, but at this point the article doesn't seem to have any inaccurate categories or false statements. Am I missing something? I'm happy to help, but I don't see what needs to be cleaned up. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what quotes I caught from people on the scene, it was supposed to be due to water accidentally hitting the ammonium nitrate while the firefighters were working on the fire, thus causing the explosion. (Stated by a possible witness? http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20130417-explosion-injuries-reported-at-fertilizer-plant-near-waco-in-west-texas.ece) Isn't that sort of what happened at Texas City? I do know they were concerned with an anhydrous ammonia tank after the explosion, because there was fire under it and they were afraid it would either explode too or start to expand and escape, causing a toxic cloud. From that, I can only assume they had both on site. tlws 16:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3ni9m4tic (talk • contribs)
We can't do anything based on assumptions or speculations from witnesses or the media. Seeing a fire doesn't qualify someone to determine its cause. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Source quotes a Hotel Clerk Pikachudad (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20130417-west-fertilizer-plant-said-in-report-that-it-presented-no-risk.ece
  2. ^ http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/air/NewSourceReview/Agendas/dec2006.htm
  3. ^ http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/04/texas-officials-knew-in-2006-that-west-fertilizers-tanks-of-anhydrous-ammonia-were-near-school-homes.html/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion&oldid=550997615"