# Talk:Tornado myths

Urban Heat islands would seem to help dispel a tornado —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.81.82 (talk • contribs) 

This may be, but several tornadoes have hit major urban centers in recent history; that is probably untrue. -Runningonbrains 23:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, but "heat islands" occur over water...etc., etc., etc. --HRS IAM 07:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There has never been an F5 in Canada, according to Environment Canada, Atlas of Canada, and the University of Nebraska.  I was unable to find any sources supporting the claim, so I have removed the section. -RunningOnBrains 03:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, McGill University seems to think otherwise. They've classified this tornado as an F5. Powerpoint presentation, on Slide/Page 55.  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it looks like there are conflicting sources on this topic, however, I am inclined to stick with the majority, not to mention the official agency (Environment Canada). -RunningOnBrains 00:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course. I just thought that McGill was a relevant and reputable source, and that i'd offer it for you (and others) to see. That's also why the Edmonton Tornado is listed in the Disputed category for the List of F5 tornadoes. I do think that Environment Canada is continuing to list it as an F4 to try to keep people from being afraid that Canada may be vulnerable to such powerful tornadoes (F5s)... besides, even a "Very Strong F4/Marginal F5" occurring so far north is very unusual, right? I think that may be a sign of Global warming (tornadoes happening further and further north than typically seen...  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
McGill University may be competing for "funds", be aware! HRS IAM 07:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There has now been an F5 in Canada. It occurred in the town of Elie, Manitoba, on June 22, 2007. Dndnerd (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard this myth before.  Can anyone point me to a source? -RunningOnBrains 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; some of these myths are just dumb and I feel require some sort of source to prove people actually believe them to be true. Also some of the responses need to be edited... they look like they were written by someone with the educational level of a junior high student. 75.66.172.38 05:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, who cares, its just an IP not a wikipedia contributor.  2nd, it was a real myth, albeit old, that comes from NWS archives... -- HRS IAM 07:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

... May need to be removed. Underneath the first myth, the words 'special footage' are linked to the Andover Outbreak, but there's another link to that same article on that same line. Should that link be removed? Technical Wiz 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Have there been any confirmed tornadoes ever in Antarctica to add to the extreme latitude myth? What about in Siberia or Scandinavia? 
Also the Sudbury tornado shouldn't be there; it is at about 46°30' latitude, which is about the same as southern North Dakota or central Minnesota, and certainly not far enough north to be out of tornado country (there could easily have been many strong tornadoes in the boreal forest that went unnoticed). CrazyC83 02:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No tornadoes in Antartica, according to sources I used for the tornado article (too lazy to look up which one, i think it was Science News). -RunningOnBrains 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Technically, you should throw out the "extreme latitude" idea due to geography...anywhere on the planet!  -- HRS IAM 07:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone find a link to Ted Fujita's vortex-chamber studies that indicated that if the surface is studded with tall, thin, rectangular boxes, it impeded vortex formation, but adding an insert with such boxes wouldn't disrupt an established vortex?  (That was the basis of my earlier statement in the myths section that an urbanized area would be less likely to see a new tornado form within it, but wouldn't disrupt one that entered it from outside the area--but I've never been able to find that paper online anywhere.)  Rdfox 76 15:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I regret that I have just needed to revert a large portion of the existing article back to a much earlier version. All work since that time contained large amounts of text copied directly from [1]. That page is expressly "Copyright © 1999-2007 Alamance County Government. All rights reserved." I hope the non-copyright bits and pieces that were incidentally deleted in that process con be re-inserted if appropriate. Please do not recreate any of the copyright text. Tim Ross·talk 13:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The page you cited says that it took its info from the Wikipedia page.  You have it backwards.-RunningOnBrains 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Thanks very much for catching and correcting my mistake. Tim Ross·talk 21:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article currently claims that:

In even the most violent tornadoes, there is only a pressure drop of about 10%, which is about 1.4 pounds per square inch (9.7 kPa).[10] Not only can this difference be equalized in most structures in approximately three seconds, but this pressure differential is insufficient to cause damage[citation needed]
This claim that a pressure differential of 1.4 psi is insufficient to cause damage is utterly false. As you can see from this handbook on gas explosions, this level of overpressure is similar to that caused by a small domestic gas explosion, and is sufficient to totally demolish light structures in considerably less than 3 seconds (typically in less than 200 milliseconds, in fact.) In the test data from "Harris 1983", it is greater than the failure pressure of almost all the tested building structures, including lighter brick walls but excluding heavier brick walls. In the table of typical effects on industrial structures, it may be sufficient to cause the roof to collapse even on all-ferroconcrete industrial structures.
And observe the impulse chart: a slower-building pressure wave (e.g. tornado?) is actually slightly more destructive than a brief pulse (e.g. gas explosion) with the same peak pressure -- although it's the peak pressure that really matters.
This should not be too surprising. 1.4 psi might not sound like much but bear in mind that that is 1,800 pounds per square yard. An exterior wall 8 feet high by 20 feet long would feel a total force of over 32,000 pounds.
In short, if it is actually true that tornadoes generate pressure differentials of 1/10 atmosphere between building interiors and exteriors, then quite apart from damage by dynamic wind forces and object impact, such a pressure differential alone could be expected to totally destroy most dwellings. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I certainly goofed on the wording. However, the point that pressure differential does not cause damage is completely true: even the fastest-moving, most violent tornado will have a pressure drop of ~100mbar over the course of several seconds, which can easily be equalized except in a quite sealed house. Even if enough pressure differential does form (unlikely) and flying debris and wind load in the outer regions of the tornado do not break windows before the low-pressure center of the tornado is reached (HIGHLY unlikely), the structure will fail at the weak points (windows) and the pressure differential will be equalized almost instantly. There is literally no benefit to opening windows before a tornado.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested to know in our area, leaving windows open has nothing to do with pressure equalization. In our area it is advised to open windows to prevent breakage. Modern windows are quite strong but older single pane windows are susceptible to breakage in high winds and the debris that creates. I understand that this section relates to "explosion" of homes due to pressure differences, but it also suggests that the reason to open windows during a strong storm/tornado is only for pressure regulation, which isn't the case.
RCB: 24, October 2016  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.39.74 (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC) 

The "A Recommendation for an Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale)" dead PDF link could be restored through http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-ttu.pdf, as revealed by a such-titled Google search. Twipley (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While I understand that some people may equate myth with mythology, this is not the only usage of the word. While misconception may be a more desirable word for the title of this page, I am inclined to return to the title Tornado myths, if only for the fact that the VAST majority of sources use the terminology "myth". I'm not entirely stuck in this position though, if others disagree. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It may not be the only usage, but it is certainly the primary scholarly and encyclopedic usage of the term. We should not use terms in article titles that have alternate and conflicting definitions. If the sources use poor phrasing that does not mean an encyclopedia should follow suit. It's not like "tornado myths" is an official name or anything. Other articles of this basic type are named List of misconceptions of about illegal drugs or List of common misconceptions or Common misunderstandings of genetics. Wikipedia article naming conventions should stay at least somewhat standard with each other. List of misconceptions about tornadoes or Common misconceptions about tornadoes or Common misunderstandings about tornadoes would also work. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I just re-discovered the new page title, and I am reverting to Tornado myths. Almost every reference uses the word "Myth", so we should use it as well per WP:COMMON. Also note the name of this page was debated in the past and others supported the "Myth" terminology. If you still strongly disagree I'm open to more discussion/additional opinions. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems to overlap with Tornado preparedness, which covers safety generally.  Maybe this article should be merged into that and Tornado? -- Beland (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

New Research from Purdue disputes the "tornadoes don't hit trailer parks" myth and it turns out there might actually be a link. This is based on transition zones as being the likely location of trailer parks.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/04/23/study-might-explain-why-trailer-parks-seem-to-be-tornado-magnets/
I included a preliminary link, it might need to be considered for a main page edit at some point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.252.51 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC) 

Why do we say "skip" and not skip? Wouldn't it be easier to explain the reason, then just carry on normally, without making "readers" feel like they're "missing out" on a "little joke"? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, got it. Like jumping, not ignoring. The tornado doesn't move up over the house. Explained, then changed to plain skip. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tornado myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://emergencymanagement.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=16477&locid=18
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090507002300/http://www.wind.ttu.edu/EFScale.pdf to http://www.wind.ttu.edu/EFScale.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tornado myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.butlercountyohio.org/ema/pdf/tornado%20info%20for%20schools.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tornado myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823090940/http://www.weather.gov/os/brochures/adv_spotters.pdf to http://www.weather.gov/os/brochures/adv_spotters.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tornado myths. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417023728/http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/spotter_reference/spotter_slideshow/slide71.php to http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/spotter_reference/spotter_slideshow/slide71.php
Added archive https://archive.is/20130101183902/http://www.11alive.com/rss/article/188727/3/LIVE-VIDEO-At-least-11-killed-in-GA-deadly-storms to http://www.11alive.com/rss/article/188727/3/LIVE-VIDEO-At-least-11-killed-in-GA-deadly-storms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

first of all the elie F5 tornado should be added to the movement direction part , it moved slowly and looped 2 to 3 times and sometimes stood still was mostly moving south east as well.
and a other thing is the visible part of the funnel isn't the edge of the tornado's wind field.
and about myths of where a tornado can form under the storm , the common area is under the wall cloud that is under the updraft of a supercell , but what about the anticyclonic tornadoes and landspout/waterspout tornadoes? and the strange anticyclonic tornado that formed in the forward flank downdraft of a supercell on may 9 2016 for more then 35 minutes when the main updraft was having a EF3+ wedge tornado. https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/an-oklahoma-tornado-rewrites-the-rule-book.html
lets not forget storms like the pilger event having multiple wedge tornadoes at the same time.Joshoctober16 (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)