Beirut explosion

[GGT]

I don't really understand the comment about chemical engineering not being a global science. Sure it is. So is aerospace engineering, and yet we still have plane crashes, so I don't see the point.

As for having to know better, they should have, yes. As a matter of fact, from what I read about the incident, requests to do something about the hazardous cargo were made repeatedly over the years, but they seem to have fallen on deaf ears, or tangled up in the bureaucracy. Overall, this seems to be a management (both low and high level) issue, not a chemical engineering one.

Right. I just don't see how 'tangled bureaucracy' or 'mismanagement' means anything more than being anti-science. I just figured you knew that, intuitively, as a scientist who's seen your profession treated like a political football in the arena of "facts". Or maybe that's my own disappointment in politicians who don't listen to scientists?

After all, we have a president who denies science and lies about science every day....yet somehow has panels of scientific "experts" who do the same damn thing. It's sad (but not surprising) that Lebanese chemists were sounding the alarm, but were ignored.


<If BalticSailor was tasked with storing these ammonium nitrate tanks safely, he would have done things differently. But who listens to scientific professionals and chemical engineers in the anti-science *political* era?>

[BalticSailor]

Right. I just don't see how 'tangled bureaucracy' or 'mismanagement' means anything more than being anti-science. I just figured you knew that, intuitively, as a scientist who's seen your profession treated like a political football in the arena of "facts". Or maybe that's my own disappointment in politicians who don't listen to scientists?

After all, we have a president who denies science and lies about science every day....yet somehow has panels of scientific "experts" who do the same damn thing. It's sad (but not surprising) that Lebanese chemists were sounding the alarm, but were ignored.

It does seem to do more with your own disappointment in politicians - which, from what I've seen, at least in USA tend to be aggressively anti-science. Worldwide, often the case is not that someone in charge of things is "anti-science", it's that they never bother to ask an expert, or, being outside of the field in question, don't ask the most qualified experts. They'd have no problem with following recommendations, it's just that they don't get particularly good ones, if any. There's also the problem with having to handle many issues at the same time, and therefore prioritizing them - which sometimes leads to important ones being pushed too far back one the to-do list. I suspect some combination of the two were at play in Lebanon; I'm not an expert on economics or politics, but Lebanon appears to have had many pressing issues. Amidst severe economic crisis and political problems it's not that hard to overlook logistics of some confiscated fertilizer. And most times that would not lead to any dire consequences. This simply happened to be one of the "other times".

<If BalticSailor was tasked with storing these ammonium nitrate tanks safely, he would have done things differently. But who listens to scientific professionals and chemical engineers in the anti-science *political* era?>

In all honesty, I'm not sure that I would have. Not with the information they had at the time, anyway. If I was asked whether it's ok to store 2750 tons of confiscated ammonium nitrate in a warehouse at the port, I'd probably figure the storage in question was to be temporary, and say "provided that the associated safety precautions are taken, sure". It is, after all, a very common substance to be shipped around and stored for periods of time. At that point, I'd have no knowledge of how long they intend to store it, and whether any other dangerous cargo would eventually arrive at the port at any point in the future. So, as far as the decision regarding its temporary storage is concerned, I see nothing that I could have done better.

Sure, I would request moving of the ammonium nitrate eventually, though I don't have any reason to believe I could write a more persuasive letter to judges or government officials than the customs officials at the Beirut had done over the years. I could write a lengthy risk assessment report concerning storage of potentially explosive material in vicinity of the city, and near the storage area for country's strategic reserve of wheat - but after that, it's out of my hands; I'd have no control over whether anyone might even read it, much less decide to act on it. I could request it being moved to a more appropriate storage area, but I cannot conjure one out of thin air, and if there are no such areas, and no funds to build one (and would they even consider building a dedicated storage for goods they typically don't even have), my request would, in all likelihood, be turned down. If I were asked whether this issue is more pressing than, say, shortage of hospital capacity due to COVID or the extreme and growing poverty rate in the country - I would not feel qualified to answer.

Of course, I would strongly object to a cargo of fireworks being placed in vicinity of the nitrate. The question is - would they even bother to ask me? Just as I'd prohibit any maintenance works that might generate heat and sparks in the warehouse, yet would I personally patrol the area to ensure these rules are being followed? Probably not. I've other work to do, and at some point I'd just have to rely on trust that my suggestions would be kept in mind and followed. And even then, would any of my precautions be enough in case of unrelated fire somewhere in the port? I don't know. Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time, I cannot certainly say that something could have been done to prevent this.

[wiggin]

It does seem to do more with your own disappointment in politicians - which, from what I've seen, at least in USA tend to be aggressively anti-science. Worldwide, often the case is not that someone in charge of things is "anti-science", it's that they never bother to ask an expert, or, being outside of the field in question, don't ask the most qualified experts. They'd have no problem with following recommendations, it's just that they don't get particularly good ones, if any. There's also the problem with having to handle many issues at the same time, and therefore prioritizing them - which sometimes leads to important ones being pushed too far back one the to-do list. I suspect some combination of the two were at play in Lebanon; I'm not an expert on economics or politics, but Lebanon appears to have had many pressing issues. Amidst severe economic crisis and political problems it's not that hard to overlook logistics of some confiscated fertilizer. And most times that would not lead to any dire consequences. This simply happened to be one of the "other times".



In all honesty, I'm not sure that I would have. Not with the information they had at the time, anyway. If I was asked whether it's ok to store 2750 tons of confiscated ammonium nitrate in a warehouse at the port, I'd probably figure the storage in question was to be temporary, and say "provided that the associated safety precautions are taken, sure". It is, after all, a very common substance to be shipped around and stored for periods of time. At that point, I'd have no knowledge of how long they intend to store it, and whether any other dangerous cargo would eventually arrive at the port at any point in the future. So, as far as the decision regarding its temporary storage is concerned, I see nothing that I could have done better.

Sure, I would request moving of the ammonium nitrate eventually, though I don't have any reason to believe I could write a more persuasive letter to judges or government officials than the customs officials at the Beirut had done over the years. I could write a lengthy risk assessment report concerning storage of potentially explosive material in vicinity of the city, and near the storage area for country's strategic reserve of wheat - but after that, it's out of my hands; I'd have no control over whether anyone might even read it, much less decide to act on it. I could request it being moved to a more appropriate storage area, but I cannot conjure one out of thin air, and if there are no such areas, and no funds to build one (and would they even consider building a dedicated storage for goods they typically don't even have), my request would, in all likelihood, be turned down. If I were asked whether this issue is more pressing than, say, shortage of hospital capacity due to COVID or the extreme and growing poverty rate in the country - I would not feel qualified to answer.

Of course, I would strongly object to a cargo of fireworks being placed in vicinity of the nitrate. The question is - would they even bother to ask me? Just as I'd prohibit any maintenance works that might generate heat and sparks in the warehouse, yet would I personally patrol the area to ensure these rules are being followed? Probably not. I've other work to do, and at some point I'd just have to rely on trust that my suggestions would be kept in mind and followed. And even then, would any of my precautions be enough in case of unrelated fire somewhere in the port? I don't know. Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time, I cannot certainly say that something could have been done to prevent this.

Baltic, this was very refreshing to read. Eminently reasonable.

[GGT]

It does seem to do more with your own disappointment in politicians - which, from what I've seen, at least in USA tend to be aggressively anti-science. Worldwide, often the case is not that someone in charge of things is "anti-science", it's that they never bother to ask an expert, or, being outside of the field in question, don't ask the most qualified experts. They'd have no problem with following recommendations, it's just that they don't get particularly good ones, if any. There's also the problem with having to handle many issues at the same time, and therefore prioritizing them - which sometimes leads to important ones being pushed too far back one the to-do list. I suspect some combination of the two were at play in Lebanon; I'm not an expert on economics or politics, but Lebanon appears to have had many pressing issues. Amidst severe economic crisis and political problems it's not that hard to overlook logistics of some confiscated fertilizer. And most times that would not lead to any dire consequences. This simply happened to be one of the "other times".

We don't have to be 'experts' in economics or politics to expect better from our governments. That includes multi-tasking, and getting advice from scientific 'experts', too. It's not just a logistics problem of some confiscated fertilizer, or how to store dangerous compounds safely and properly....

I've other work to do, and at some point I'd just have to rely on trust that my suggestions would be kept in mind and followed. And even then, would any of my precautions be enough in case of unrelated fire somewhere in the port? I don't know. Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time, I cannot certainly say that something could have been done to prevent this.

They had warnings for 6 years. That's makes it a predictable and preventable event. When governments fail to take a comprehensive, long term view, and enact policies that keep the public safe (whether it's from corruption, or cronyism, or complacency)....it erodes public trust. Even trust in science and scientists.

Your post was thoughtful and reasonable (as wiggin said) but what bothers me is the *shrug shoulder* part. As if scientists, in general, are just helplessly watching from the sidelines, or too absorbed in their own work, to realize that politicians and governments are actively ignoring their expertise. Seems to me that scientists worldwide should be *more* disappointed in politicking than the Average Joe.

[BalticSailor]

We don't have to be 'experts' in economics or politics to expect better from our governments. That includes multi-tasking, and getting advice from scientific 'experts', too. It's not just a logistics problem of some confiscated fertilizer, or how to store dangerous compounds safely and properly....

I can agree that broadly construed "expecting better" from government doesn't require any expertise - however, knowing what "better" would actually entail does. So does deciding whether the fertilizer issue is an urgent matter, or other problems take priority over it.

They had warnings for 6 years. That's makes it a predictable and preventable event. When governments fail to take a comprehensive, long term view, and enact policies that keep the public safe (whether it's from corruption, or cronyism, or complacency)....it erodes public trust. Even trust in science and scientists.

While it might have been preventable, I cannot agree that it was 100% predictable event. Every single risk assessment out there generally consists of two parts - 1) what the actual risks are, and their potential consequences (including absolute worst case scenarios imaginable), and 2) how likely each of the respective scenarios are. That is why I made the comparison with air travel - many of the risks listed in table 1 would be dire indeed, technical malfunctions, pilot errors or deliberate actions, terrorism, the list goes on, each one potentially resulting in deaths of everyone on board. However, the respective likelihoods of each of these events are minuscule. Therefore, overall, air travel is considered safe.

The same would probably be the risk assessment of storage of the fertilizer in question. The consequences of the explosion would be, well, what we saw in this case. The likelihood, though, would be extremely tiny. Contrast the number of accidents with the fact that the stuff is being produced on the order of 20-odd million tons per year. A stockpile of it blowing up is not a "predictable event", it is a very unlikely possibility.

Ask yourself this: if you were given a list of all the problems in Lebanon, say, a week before the accident, can you honestly say that from that list you would look at the entry "2750 tons of ammonium nitrate are being stored in the port for 6 years" and immediately see that this is something that should be solved ASAP, compared to the rest of the issues?

Your post was thoughtful and reasonable (as wiggin said) but what bothers me is the *shrug shoulder* part. As if scientists, in general, are just helplessly watching from the sidelines, or too absorbed in their own work, to realize that politicians and governments are actively ignoring their expertise. Seems to me that scientists worldwide should be *more* disappointed in politicking than the Average Joe.

I can't speak for all scientists, but I'm disappointed about plenty things, sure - in fact, enough so that occasional (mis)handling amounts of fertilizer doesn't really make the list. Management of healthcare issues, both COVID-related and general ones (think antivaccination movements, anti-abortion sentiments, "medicinal nationalism", etc) would probably be the main source of my disappointment overall, followed by irrational fears from nuclear power, and so on.

Again, you see this particular accident as an example of government taking "anti-science" stance. I don't, since I can't sincerely say that I could have taken measures to prevent this from happening, and I don't have enough information to blame the government. There are plenty of examples where government officials or industry owners did drop the ball with terrible consequences - Bhopal disaster being a prominent example - but this, in my opinion, was not one of them.

[Aimless]

Ask yourself this: if you were given a list of all the problems in Lebanon, say, a week before the accident, can you honestly say that from that list you would look at the entry "2750 tons of ammonium nitrate are being stored in the port for 6 years" and immediately see that this is something that should be solved ASAP, compared to the rest of the issues?

Perhaps, if you were to stratify the list according to both potential impact and solvability.

[Being]

Lebanon has a lot of farmland, why didn't they spread it around?

[BalticSailor]

Perhaps, if you were to stratify the list according to both potential impact and solvability.

Was this issue that easy to solve, though? Logistics notwithstanding, there's the problem with legal ownership of the cargo. IANAL, but I doubt that whoever arrests a ship due to it not being seaworthy, is at liberty to take its cargo and do as they see fit with it.

[RandBlade]

Was this issue that easy to solve, though? Logistics notwithstanding, there's the problem with legal ownership of the cargo. IANAL, but I doubt that whoever arrests a ship due to it not being seaworthy, is at liberty to take its cargo and do as they see fit with it.

It was being stored, even if you're concerned about legal ownership it should be stored in a safe and secure environment.

[Aimless]

Was this issue that easy to solve, though? Logistics notwithstanding, there's the problem with legal ownership of the cargo. IANAL, but I doubt that whoever arrests a ship due to it not being seaworthy, is at liberty to take its cargo and do as they see fit with it.

I don't know about easy, but it was a reasonably well-defined problem that would've at least been solvable not only in theory but also in practice—if there had been an interest in solving it on the part of the people who had the competence, authority and responsibility to do so. That might've been the case if the risks were communicated more clearly, and if there'd been an established process for assessing and addressing risks such as these. I hope they learn that lesson at least, the same way airlines had to many years ago.