
The tragic physics of the deadly explosion in Beirut - ChuckMcM
https://www.wired.com/story/tragic-physics-deadly-explosion-beirut/
======
qubex
For all the horror, at least this happened at the quayside and half the
explosive force radiated away almost harmlessly over the sea. That basically
halved the actual destruction at the outset. If it had been in the middle of
the city, there would have been twice the damage. This much is fairly obvious.

What isn’t quite so obvious is that roughly half the energy was also wasted
_upwards_ , and that a startlingly worse case would have been if the
explosives had been slightly interred, coupling the blast more closely to the
ground and enhancing amplitude of the p-waves and providing plenty of really
substantial debris raining down after basically ‘earth-quaking’ the buildings.

Roughly combining the two 50% ‘wastages’ leaves you with about only one
quarter of the energy was actually _really_ channeled into destruction, which
I’m going to be charitable and call a third. In ‘ideal’ conditions you
might’ve had three times as much devastation, and that’s a pretty shocking
thing to consider, given the actual carnage.

NOTE: I had appended these considerations in a more inchoate form to the tail-
end of another comment, but I figured I’d make them an item of their own and
tidy them up a bit. Apologies for the duplication.

~~~
FartyMcFarter
The grain store probably shielded a lot of other infrastructure and people
too.

However it seems very irresponsible to keep 85% of the country's grain in a
single spot. It's scary how so many single points of failure exist.

~~~
qubex
Yeah I’ve been thinking about that too... harsh as it may sound, big concrete
cylinders fillded with loose grain is pretty much the best pillow to cushion
the blow you could think of.

EDIT: As for the grain silos being “single points of failure”, that depends on
the scope of the system you’re considering. Nationally, yeah... but
internationally, there’s plenty and it’s being shipped in. So there’s actually
more redundancy than the narrow-scope analysis would suggest. The 85% figure
is just a figment of where one draws the borders, and national borders
probably don’t have much valence in the given context (fortunately). Now, if
we were speaking about 85% of the world’s ability to _ship_ grain... now that
would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.

~~~
secondcoming
I did consider that the dust present in a grain silo could make made a 'flour
bomb' and compounded the explosion. Maybe not

~~~
qubex
To be perfectly honest, that was my very first reaction when I first watched
the video: it looked like the fuming aftermath of Something Really Bad, and
then BOOM! _Something Really Bad_ unfolded on-screen. I figured that it
must’ve been some kind of aerosol/powder combustion triggered by the
fireworks’ conflagration, but then more learned analyses of cloud hue and
knowledge of what was actually stored _in situ_ (correctly) overrode my
initial reaction and the fertilizer was identified as the main culprit.

------
ignoramous
> _Just after 9 am on December 6, 1917, in Halifax, mustachioed 45-year-old
> train dispatcher Vincent Coleman knew the lazy plume of smoke coming from
> the explosive-laden vessel in Halifax harbor was a terrifying portent of
> worse to come. But as the other dispatchers ran for their lives, Coleman
> realized the number of train passengers set to arrive at Halifax any moment,
> and so he stayed long enough to send one final telegram: “Hold up the train.
> Munitions ship on fire and making for Pier 6 ... Goodbye boys.” Coleman died
> in the blast at 9:05, but his final message saved thousands, not just the
> passengers on the trains that were able to stop before entering the zone of
> destruction, but also the citizens already in Halifax: The telegram signal
> reached every operator in the surrounding region, and because of Coleman’s
> quick thinking, every doctor who felt the earth rumble, up to 160 km away,
> had almost immediate access to news about what had happened. They rushed in
> to help._

This particular tit-bit at the end of the article is a gem. Times like these
tend to also bring the best in some of us.

~~~
anonu
I had trouble understanding exactly how this scenario played out.
Interestingly, Wikipedia gave some more color on the timing and distance
involved [1]:

    
    
      The death toll could have been worse had it not been for the self-sacrifice of an Intercolonial Railway dispatcher, Patrick Vincent (Vince) Coleman, operating at the railyard about 750 feet (230 m) from Pier 6, where the explosion occurred. He and his co-worker, William Lovett, learned of the dangerous cargo aboard the burning Mont-Blanc from a sailor and began to flee. Coleman remembered that an incoming passenger train from Saint John, New Brunswick, was due to arrive at the railyard within minutes. He returned to his post alone and continued to send out urgent telegraph messages to stop the train. Several variations of the message have been reported, among them this from the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic: "Hold up the train. Ammunition ship afire in harbor making for Pier 6 and will explode. Guess this will be my last message. Good-bye boys." Coleman's message was responsible for bringing all incoming trains around Halifax to a halt. It was heard by other stations all along the Intercolonial Railway, helping railway officials to respond immediately.
    

Also the Wikipedia about Vince Coleman [2] is missing the details from [1]. I
guess this is part of the Wikipedia Wormhole people go through...

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion)
[2]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_(train_dispatc...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Coleman_\(train_dispatcher\))

------
est31
> Within that radius, the injuries from such a massive blast in a downtown
> location can be as varied as the victims who experience them, but a number
> of them are likely from glass and other flying projectiles. Flat, delicate,
> frangible, and installed in large sheets, glass is the perfect target for a
> blast wave of even minuscule magnitude; it shatters and flies easier than
> any other substance.

The glass damage must be horrible. Your entire home covered in tiny pieces of
glass.

I hate when glass breaks at home because no matter how much you clean, it gets
everywhere and months later you discover small shards in some distant place.

Once I tripped on my way home after grocery shopping, almost at the
destination. It wasn't even a big fall, but some glass bottles broke. They
were next to plastic bags filled with oats. In the "recovery operations" I
conducted afterwards, I threw away the remainders of the bottles and cleaned
the oats bags under flowing water, to get rid of the glass bottle's contains
on the bags. As I did this, I noticed the oats themselves getting wet, below
the transparent plastic. I wondered, how can this happen, it's supposed to be
water-proof. Then I found a tiny, almost invisible cut where a glass shard has
entered the plastic bag. It was a big shard and I don't know what had happened
had someone not noticed it and ate it.

Horrified, I threw away the entire bag of oats, the risk of more, possibly
smaller shards remaining was too big. Other bags which passed the "water test"
I kept and I ended up eating their contents.

I hope the people of Beirut are doing similar checks for their stored food,
for their own safety. I read that many folks already have glass shards in
their bodies due to the explosion but that's past damage that can only be
managed. The future damage is preventable.

~~~
interestica
> The glass damage must be horrible. Your entire home covered in tiny pieces
> of glass.

Watch this video at .25x to really see how glass reacts in the pressure wave.
You can see the look on the bride's face as the initial vibrations/sound
reaches her. Then, you can actually see the window pane bow like a wind sail.

[https://youtu.be/PUQ-QvCqDjA](https://youtu.be/PUQ-QvCqDjA)

~~~
booleandilemma
Why does the camera lens not shatter in this case?

And in the same vein, what happens to peoples’ eyeglasses?

Does anyone know?

~~~
DanTheManPR
The ratio of the thickness of the glass compared to the unsupported span of
material makes them relatively much more rigid than a big, floppy pane of
glass. A glass window is not only much less rigid, but also maximizes the
surface area that pressure from the blast wave can push against.

~~~
pauljurczak
This and the fact that eyeglasses are usually not firmly attached to a huge
chunk of reinforced concrete.

~~~
nxpnsv
usually.

------
x87678r
here is an amazing view of the explosion. [https://youtu.be/hp-n-
ghagok](https://youtu.be/hp-n-ghagok)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I'd imagine this is approximately what Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have
looked like, but the direction of the pressure wave would be different as they
were both air bursts.

~~~
IAmGraydon
This is absolutely nothing like a nuclear detonation. The energy released was
less than 10% of Hiroshima, but besides that, the detonation velocity of
ammonium nitrate can’t even hold a candle to the near instantaneous energy
release of a nuclear weapon. It’s the difference between a pile of gunpowder
and a block of TNT, and even that comparison doesn’t do it justice.

~~~
qubex
Thanks for writing this.

There’s been some strange tendency of late to conflate the weapons effects of
nuclear or thermonuclear explosions with those of “really big amounts of
conventional high explosive”. While that may even hold true at a sufficiently
great radius, the proximate effects due to the near-instantaneous radiated
energy is something that has no comparable analogue in the conventional world.

These effects are not really militarily useful, which is why even in the realm
of small tactical nuclear weapons there has been a tendency towards minimising
or not emphasising them, but...

The _power_ of a nuclear weapon, intended properly as energy released per unit
time, is in a league of it’s own.

Aside: for all the horror, at least this happened at the quayside and half the
explosive force radiated away almost harmlessly over the sea. That basically
halved the actual destruction at the outset. If it had been in the middle of
the city, there would have been twice the damage.

EDIT: A startlingly worse case would have been if the explosives had been
slightly interred, coupling the blast more closely to the ground and enhancing
amplitude of the p-waves and providing plenty of really substantial debris
raining down after basically ‘earth-quaking’ the buildings.

NOTE: Took the last paragraphs and placed them into their own comment, with
logical conclusion. Apologies for the duplication.

~~~
michaelt
_> There’s been some strange tendency of late to conflate the weapons effects
of nuclear or thermonuclear explosions with those of “really big amounts of
conventional high explosive”._

Haven't people been using kilotons and megatons of TNT equivalent as a measure
of nuclear bomb energy since the 1950s?

~~~
KineticLensman
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that X tonnes of a random substance blowing up will
be as destructive as the instantaneous release of equivalent energy that a
nuke delivers

------
jacquesm
This blast was reminiscent of what happened in Halifax long ago:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion)

To this date Halifax has a medical specialty: eye damage. People were looking
at the fire on board the boat and ended up with plate glass shards in their
eyes.

------
hn_throwaway_99
Thanks for posting this - I wasn't previously aware of the delineation between
a shock wave and a pressure wave that the author explained clearly.

I'm curious, is there something specific about "high explosives" vs "low
explosives", beyond just the magnitude of energy released, that explains why
some generate shock waves and others pressure waves?

~~~
erdos4d
In a nutshell, high explosives detonate, low explosives combust. The two
processes are distinctly different in how they operate at the molecular level.
Basically, detonation is when a shock wave goes through the material, causing
it to "blow up" on a molecular level as it passes (the molecules split as the
shock passes through). Combustion happens much slower and is usually a
chemical reaction involving some sort of fuel and oxidizer that is mixed and
burned. I'm not an expert, but you can see the difference in a gasoline
engine. As you crank up the compression ratio the air/fuel mix in the cylinder
will eventually undergo a change from combusting to detonating, producing
engine "knock" and rapidly destroying your engine if you let it continue. On a
gas motor, around 13:1 is a good spot to see this happen. Someone will have
more for you, but I think this is the basic concept seperating the two.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Am I right in my understanding then that diesel engines work entirely on the
principle of detonation, and that's why they're heavier as everything is
designed to cope with what would make a petrol engine _ping_?

Does that make any sense?

Or is diesel injected in to the cylinder in a way that more or less produces a
controlled combustion?

~~~
erdos4d
Diesel engines have a very high compression ratio, like 20:1 or more, but
diesel fuel has a very high octane rating in comparison with gasoline, so it
still combusts, not detonates, at these high ratios. What makes a diesel
different than a gas engine is that the heat generated from the compression of
the air/fuel mix is what actually causes the mix to start burning in the
cylinder. So, for this reason you don't see any ignition system on a diesel
usually, it doesn't need it (though maybe glow plugs or a block heater in cold
areas, but not an actual ignition system). But the mixture still combusts in a
diesel. Detonation is incredibly destructive to any engine, even a big beefy
diesel. It can destroy any engine very quickly.

~~~
kazinator
Diesel has a _low_ octane number. Though octane isn't used for diesel fuel, it
can be determined and is around 15-25.

Diesel engines avoid pre-ignition knocking by compressing only air. There is
no compression of air/fuel mix. The fuel is injected into the hot, compressed
air at the top of the compression stroke (at something like 3000+ PSI, IIRC).

The fuel does not have to be particularly volatile because of the high
compression and the injector's atomization.

In theory, diesel engines can run on "anything". Diesel engines have been run
on crude oil taken directly from the ground (of good purity), and on vegetable
oil.

~~~
icefo
You can do that with old diesel engines but new ones are too sensitive and
destroy themselves if you try to run them on anything but diesel.

It mostly because the high pressure pump use the Diesel for lubrication so if
you use something else the pump destroy itself sending tiny metal shards down
the pipe and into the injectors.

That's why accidentally running a diesel car on gas turn expensive fast. The
contrary is much cheaper as just have to flush the fuel lines and you're good
to go.

------
mirimir
> In an explosion, however, the devilish little instigator that is oxygen
> shoves the process into overdrive.

It's a great article, and I know that I'm being pedantic, but chemical
explosions need not involve oxygen. For example, consider acetylene and silver
acetylide, with a carbon-carbon triple bond. Or lead azide, with a nitrogen-
nitrogen triple bond.

~~~
AmericanChopper
> chemical explosions need not involve oxygen

They do need an oxidiser though. Which may or may not involve oxygen. You’re
right of course, but redox itself has some poorly chosen jargon.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
_In chemistry, an oxidising agent (oxidant, oxidizer) is a substance that has
the ability to oxidize other substances — in other words to accept their
electrons. Common oxidizing agents are oxygen, hydrogen peroxide and the
halogens._

The jargon being that an _oxidiser_ is an substance that can accept electrons,
and doesn't have to by _oxygen_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_agent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_agent)

~~~
qubex
Just take _oxidizer_ to me an “ _something that accepts electrons, like oxygen
would_ ”. Of course, there’s some oxidizers that can accept electrons from
things that oxygen can’t (think of fluorine, for example) but... it’s just a
term.

There’s also an enormous continuum of timescales, all the way from the
detonation of high explosives, to deflagration of low explosives, combustion
of fuels, to... sedate rusting, which is just oxidation of iron or steel.
YMMV.

------
kevin_thibedeau
Isn't the white cloud a _de_ -pressurization front? The actual pressure wave
is ahead of it and his speed estimate is probably low.

~~~
refurb
I'm starting to wondering how accurate this article is...

 _" High explosives produce shock waves; low explosives, like ammonium
nitrate, produce pressure waves, which have a bit of slope to their shape, a
period of time over which the pressure increases more gradually."_

But a shock wave is an area of high pressure, so it's a "pressure wave" too.

And at least according to this Los Alamos article [1], "low explosives" versus
"high explosives" is basically the difference between deflagration (rapid
burning, e.g. black powder) versus detonation (chemical conversion happens
faster than the speed of sound through the material, e.g. TNT).

By that definition, ammonium nitrate, is a high explosive. That's why they use
it as the main blasting agent in mining operations.

[1][https://www.lanl.gov/museum/news/newsletter/2017/2017-04/hig...](https://www.lanl.gov/museum/news/newsletter/2017/2017-04/high-
explosives.php)

~~~
glofish
as the article explains the difference between a pressure wave and shock wave
is in their speed of propagation,

pressure waves travel below speed of sound, shock waves travel faster than the
speed of sound.

~~~
StavrosK
How can a shock wave travel faster than the speed of sound? I thought the
maximum speed a disturbance could travel in a material was exactly the speed
of sound in that material, since that's what sound is.

~~~
Miraste
The shock wave travels faster than the speed of sound in the medium at rest,
but not faster than the speed of sound in the moving medium around the wave.
Longer and better explanation:

[https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/193323](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/193323)

~~~
StavrosK
I see, thank you. Both your explanation and the link were illuminating.

------
ChuckMcM
I found this to be a well researched and very relatable piece of journalism
with respect to the explosion in Beirut.

------
psadri
Seconds before the final explosion, you can see some flashes in the base of
the smoke, like firecrackers going off. Anyone knows what these are?

~~~
crististm
I think it was reported of fireworks explosion in the vicinity that lead to
this event.

~~~
gwd
The whole "let's store fireworks next to several tons of explosives -- oh wait
there's a fire" thing would sound incredibly contrived if it was in a story.
It's almost like something out of a Road Runner cartoon, not real life.

~~~
makomk
Supposedly someone may have been carrying out welding on the building too,
which makes the whole thing even more unbelievable.

~~~
gwd
According to this story, the welding was specifically as a result of the
ammonium nitrate:

> _In January 2020, a judge launched an official investigation after it was
> discovered that Hangar 12 was unguarded, had a hole in its southern wall and
> one of its doors dislodged, meaning the hazardous material was at risk of
> being stolen.

> In his final report following the investigation, Prosecutor General Oweidat
> “gave orders immediately” to ensure hangar doors and holes were repaired and
> security provided, a second high-ranking security official who also
> requested anonymity said.

> ...During the work, sparks from welding took hold and fire started to
> spread, the official said._

It's really mind-boggling.

[https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-lebanon-security-blast-
doc...](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-lebanon-security-blast-documents-
excl/exclusive-lebanons-leaders-warned-in-july-about-explosives-at-port-
documents-idUKKCN2562L3)

------
amai
From a scientific point of view it was unfortunate that no Rapatronic camera
was installed in Beirut:

[https://interestingengineering.com/filming-the-first-
millise...](https://interestingengineering.com/filming-the-first-milliseconds-
of-a-nuclear-explosion-with-the-rapatronic-a-1950-engineering-marvel)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapatronic_camera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapatronic_camera)

------
fraserphysics
Contrary to the article, I think amonium nitrate is a _high_ explosive. That
means it can explode via a supersonic shock or detonation wave.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_explosive_detonation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_explosive_detonation_velocities)
says it's detonation velocity is 2.7 km/sec.

~~~
jaclaz
Actually it is often not even considered an explosive, it is an oxydizer, the
type actually used in mining is called ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil)
and the oil (mormal diesel fuel) is added on-site:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO)

and has a much faster speed, around 4,200 m/s and only used in mining because
it is extremely cheap and relatively more secure when compared to other (more
powerful) explosives.

------
neilv
Separate from contemplating the physics, and hopefully not macabre
rubbernecking of heartbreaking images of human suffering... what is being done
for humanitarian aid for Beirut, and how can HN help?

~~~
Cthulhu_
Loads of countries have sent search & rescue teams (the Dutch one returned
after two days already because there was plenty of help on-site), hundreds of
millions in relief funds have been gathered by countries across the world
([https://www.al-
monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/08/lebanon-a...](https://www.al-
monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/08/lebanon-aid-conference-donors-pledge-
beirut-france-macron.html)), charities all over are collecting, celebrities,
companies and nations are donating tons
([https://www.popsugar.co.uk/celebrity/george-and-amal-
clooney...](https://www.popsugar.co.uk/celebrity/george-and-amal-clooney-
donation-after-beirut-explosion-47674696)), and local charities and donation
numbers are being set up worldwide.

HN can help by getting their super wealthy excessively profitable FAANG & co
employers to donate money. Apple alone has $193 billion in cash on hand, more
than twice as much as Lebanon's total GDP
([https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/apple-q2-2020-cash-hoard-
her...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/apple-q2-2020-cash-hoard-heres-how-
much-apple-has-on-hand.html\);) they could rebuild Beirut three times over and
still have money left. Amazon has in the range of $70 billion cash on hand.

Don't feel like you have to donate when it's corporations that hold (and
hoard) all the wealth. Call them out on it if they offer a pittance.

Apple / Tim Cook has indicated they will be donating, but no mention of how
much:
[https://twitter.com/tim_cook/status/1291746412779069440](https://twitter.com/tim_cook/status/1291746412779069440)
Couldn't find anything from the other big companies.

~~~
avh02
from what i've heard (informally) google is matching donations.

edit: dug up the fb post a friend had about it, it appears to be an internal
programme

~~~
pradn
Google is matching donations as usual, but they sent an extra email out
specifically to ask for donations for helping Beirut.

------
throwaway_pdp09
How hard is it to not put nearly 3,000 tons of explosives in a city?

~~~
doukdouk
Well, not putting explosives in a city is not hard; not putting substances
that have some industry uses and happen to be explosive (eg fertilizer) near
industry is hard.

After all, it needs to be shipped, stored and used.

If there's shipping, there will be some port city not far.

And if there is industrial use, there will be workers, and some city as well
to house the workers.

See:

\- Halifax explosion (how hard is it to not make explosive-carrying ships go
to ports?)

\- AZF explosion (how hard is it to not locate factories far away from
cities?)

\- Texas City Refinery explosion (how hard is it to not let refinery workers
inside the refinery?)

\- Tianjin explosions (how hard is it to not locate a port city near its
port?)

And so forth

------
moneytide1
Why was so much NH4 stored in one place? Did a shipment of that size just
arrive or has it been building up a stockpile? It is end of summer here in
America, not sure what season is approaching outdoor Lebanese fertilizer
schedules. Abundance of summertime high energy (summer solstice increased
photovoltaic potential) could be the reason so much was purchased cheaply
(infinite shelf life?)

~~~
gwd
_The road to last week’s tragedy began seven years ago, when the Rhosus, a
Russian-chartered, Moldovan-flagged vessel carrying ammonium nitrate from
Georgia to Mozambique, docked in Beirut to try to take on extra cargo to cover
the fees for passage through the Suez Canal, according to the ship’s captain.

Port authorities impounded the Rhosus in December 2013 by judicial order
2013/1031 due to outstanding debts owed to two companies that filed claims in
Beirut courts, the state security report showed.

In May 2014, the ship was deemed unseaworthy and its cargo was unloaded in
October 2014 and warehoused in what was known as Hangar 12.

In February 2015, Nadim Zwain, a judge from the Summary Affairs Court, which
deals with urgent issues, appointed an expert to inspect the cargo, according
to the security report.

The report said the expert concluded that the material was hazardous and,
through the port authorities, requested it be transferred to the army. Reuters
could not independently confirm the expert’s account.

Lebanese army command rejected the request and recommended the chemicals be
transferred or sold to the privately owned Lebanese Explosives Company, the
state security report said.

The report did not say why the army had refused to accept the cargo. A
security official told Reuters it was because they didn’t need it. The army
declined to comment.

The explosives company’s management told Reuters it had not been interested in
purchasing confiscated material and the firm had its own suppliers and
government import licences.

From then on, customs and security officials wrote to judges roughly every six
months asking for the removal of the material, according to the requests seen
by Reuters._

[https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-lebanon-security-blast-
doc...](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-lebanon-security-blast-documents-
excl/exclusive-lebanons-leaders-warned-in-july-about-explosives-at-port-
documents-idUKKCN2562L3)

It's not clear to me why, if they knew it was dangerous and had been asking
for it to be removed for years, they decided to store fireworks in the same
building.

~~~
grandinj
Probably because "they" is a group of people/teams and knowledge is not evenly
distributed, nor is responsibility concentrated in the right places.

This is a classic example of "normal failure" and I am sure will join other
similar incidents in the literature.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Storing the ammonium nitrate in a single location was bad enough.

Storing fireworks in the same warehouse complex was - I honestly can't think
of a word that fits.

~~~
grandinj
It's pretty easy - the fireworks were probably a pretty small shipment, and
were loaded along with a bunch of other shipments into an anjoining warehouse.

I realise this seems weird to people living in a country which has all sorts
of extremely restrictive and impressive safety protocols, but in poorer
countries, this kind of mistake happens __all the time__.

It just doesn't normally result in much more than a small fire.

~~~
avh02
The (more local) news I'm reading, it was apparently known to be dangerous
immediately, and regularly reported (~twice a year), just never actioned to
remove it. To me that's where the criminal responsibility lies. The beating-
around-the-bush has begun though.

Port authorities (who were the ones reporting the danger) were arrested.

skimmed, since I'm on the clock, but holds the key info:
[https://www.mtv.com.lb/en/News/Local/1088201/Lebanons-
leader...](https://www.mtv.com.lb/en/News/Local/1088201/Lebanons-leaders-
warned-in-July-about-explosives-at-port---Reuters)

------
bjornsing
I didn’t read all the way through but quickly got the impression that the
author got the physics wrong. Combustion and detonation are very different
processes. It’s actually not easy to make ammonium nitrate detonate on
purpose, and just heating it is certainly not a reliable way of making it do
so.

