Talk:Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions

message: The title List of the largest non-nuclear explosions is already a mouthful but nonetheless, it needs amending to include the words man made. None of the explosions in the article were as powerful or as devastating at the eruption/s of Krakatoa. Anyone agree? Moriori 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. - Alureiter 01:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It's already unwieldy, but...

message: The 1887 Nanaimo mine explosion might be a candidate for the list, if information supports it. Prior to the Halifax Explosion, it was the largest manmade explosion.--Westendgirl 08:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nanaimo mine explosion

message: Frankly I think this is a silly entry, although the information is interesting. Shouldn't this simply be under "Famous Explosions" in Explosion? I mean, if anyone would look for the largest man-made non-nuclear explosions, that's were he would look. Feel free to disagree of course. Piet 13:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: rfd

message: Again, we need data on what appears to be a classified subject... Rich   Farmbrough 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel bombs 

message: about a year or so back, a giant explosion was picked up on seismometers which was speculated to be a nuclear test, but north korea claimed that it was just a lot of conventional explosives being used to demolish a mountain.
Wouldn't that count? or did it turn out to be nuclear?
[]
[]
or was it just not-that-big?
81.102.41.34 22:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there was an explosion in Ryongchon, when a load of ammonium nitrate exploded at a train station.  See this for more info. --71.227.190.111 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wasn't there somethingh in north korea? 

message: Should the 1917 TNT explosion at Silvertown be listed?  Warofdreams talk 10:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Silvertown explosion

message: I've removed the following entries from the article:
* 15 July 1949 an explosion of 500 ton of ammunition in a underground storage made a crater in the Calvariemountain in the German town of Prüm. Stones blown away destroyed much of the houses that had just been restored from war damage.  Twelve people were killed in the blast, but presumably more deaths were prevented due to an early evacuation.
* Braamfontein explosion. On February 16 1896, 56 tons of dynamite exploded on a train in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, South Africa and 78 people were killed.
Compared to equivalent incidents in the same time frame, these aren't desperately large, and the page is documenting "largest". I've left in the absolute smallest, as it's also the oldest one.... Feel free to reinstate them, though. Shimgray | talk | 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed entries 

message: "Black Tom explosion. On July 30, 1916 1,000 tons of explosives bound for Europe, along with another 50 tons on the Johnson Barge No.17, exploded in Jersey City, New Jersey, a major dock serving New York. There were few deaths, but about 100 injuries; also, the buildings on Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty were damaged, along with much of Jersey City. "
How can an explosion in 1916 harm the Statue of Liberty?
Yes that is very weird, the lady was only about thirty years old, so why didn't she duck and cover, she was still young enough!?
Please read Statue_of_liberty
:Yup. The statue was given by France to the US in 1885, and was inaugurated in 1886. Hugo Dufort 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: Might it not make sense to seperate this list into those which were accidental vs. intentional explosions (e.g. Ripple Rock)?  Maybe even both on the same page, but in seperate lists.  I think they're different enough subjects that they shouldn't all be lumped together like that. -- Lurlock 03:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate list? 

message: In 2000, a fireworks storage exploded.  
see Enschede_fireworks_disaster
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuurwerkramp_Enschede
This Dutch article has some pics.
Should it be included?
Evilbu 15:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enschede disaster 

message: All of this article is a bit academic and misleading really, when you consider that most of the largest man made conventional explosions have occured in mining operations as part of daily operations.  For example, a 1kt (TNT equivalent) explosion of ANFO in a coal mine is considered "average" in some circles. Apauza 08:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No mining explosions???

message: According to most sources, the NK nuclear test was indeed a nuclear test. Its yield was most probably between 0.5 kt - 2 kt. Whether the test was a dud, a fizzle, a partial success or a full-fledged nuclear explosion is not clear right now. However, even if the blast had been created using chemical explosives (which is very unlikely), it would still be too weak to figure in this list. So what's the point? A Wikipedia article like this one should be reliable and not rely on unverified theories, rumors and ongoing investigations. By the way, this list is about high explosives and not nukes. Hugo Dufort 20:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I am going to remove it until it is determined to be non-nuclear. From the two citations I get The working assumption remains that it was a nuclear test from one and the other says they don't know. Speculation does not belong here. HighInBC 15:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the North Korean nuke test doing in this list?

message: It would be nice, when data is available, to give an assessment of the explosion's force (in kilotons). I've added the data for the Halifax Explosion because it is among the most documented (the exact amount and nature of the explosive was known and the explosion's effects were extensively studied) -- its yield was around 2.9-3.0 kt. Now it would be nice to add similar data to other entries in this list. Hugo Dufort 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's hard to compare these things without TNT equivalent figures. Any demolitions experts or chemists out there who can contribute these? I can do estimates based on what I read but I'm sure I wouldn't be taking into account certain things making my figures inaccurate. -- MiG 09:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yield: kiloton assessment

message: This article needs to cite its references for it to be valid. Langara College 06:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. As long as the linked articles on the explosions have references, we don't need to repeat them here. Hrimfaxi 12:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an old comment, but the error needs to be corrected anyway.  The burden of verification is the same for lists as for regular articles, and it's not good enough to claim that a reference exists in a linked article, just as it would be insufficient in a regular article.  See Wikipedia:LIST#Listed_items, which reaffirms WP:V's assertions that "if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material" and that "any material lacking a reliable source may be removed".  If there are references in the linked article, it should be easy enough for the editor adding to this list to reference his/her claims, and the burden is on him/her to do so.  Unreferenced and inadequately referenced lists do not satisfy Wikipedia policy.  Baileypalblue (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: According to , a recent launch on a Sea Launch ship resulted in a rocket with 500 tons of rocket fuel exploded.  As such, it seems like that would qualify the Sea Launch incident for inclusion in this article. TerraFrost 02:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Launch explosion 

message: Official accounts say 4.8 kts on AFNO.  At a relative strength of 0.8, this gives 4kt, an often quoted strength
of the test.   So it definitely looks bigger than Halifax, though not as dramatic and destructive. LouScheffer 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Scale looks bigger than Halifax 

message: * Candidate explosion (uncertain whether it qualifies yet): 2006 Falk Corporation explosion
This was in the article, and while it sounds like a big explosion it doesn't really discuss how big on an explosive scale. Anynobody 05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidates should be discussed here 

message: I don’t know the size of the Smederevo fortress explosion in Serbia, 5 June 1941, an (accidental?) explosion of German ammunition, but with c2500 dead it must have been large.
*PS: I don’t think the list should include bombing from aircraft, although the total dropped in some WWII raids on particular targets/cities must have been in the hundreds of tons? Hugo999 00:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smederovo fortress

message: I'd like to see the December 28, 1944 explosion of the SS John Burke included in the list of major non-nulcear explosions. It must have been several thousand tons of ammunition. Check out these pics and I think you would agree it's quite impressive. http://www.ussbush.com/slotow.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SS John Burke Explosion should be high on the list

message: I've tried to clarify the use of the word 'tons'. In doing so have made some assumptions:
 - when tons are referred to in a US context short tons (2000lbs or 907 kg) are intended
 - when tons are referred to in a British or Commonwealth context prior to metrication long 
   tons (2240lbs or 1016 kg) are intended
 - when tons are referred in the context of a country that traditionally used the metric system
   tonnes (1000 kg) are intended.
I have provided metric equivalents (tonnes) for the long and short tons where they occur. 
Blaise (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tons

message: I added a see also section, because after looking at this article, it made me wonder about the list of the largest nuclear explosions.  I hope this strikes everyone as an OK idea.  Perhaps if we have a list somewhere of the largest natural explosions, that would fit well, too?  Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: What's with the math here?  At point point I see this:
|The most powerful non-nuclear weapons ever designed are the United States' MOAB (standing for Massive Ordnance Air Blast, also nicknamed Mother Of All Bombs, tested in 2003) and the Russian Father of All Bombs  (tested in 2007), about 4 times more powerful than the MOAB). The MOAB packs 18,700 lb (8.5 tonnes) of the H6 explosive, which is 1.35 times as powerful as TNT. This gives the bomb an approximate yield of 0.025 kt. As a matter of comparison, it would require 118 MOABs to equate the Halifax Explosion.
Now, 18.7 * 1.35 / 2.2 (rough conversion to kilotons) equals 11.5kt.  Where does this "0.025" figure come from?  Also, the MOAB article seems to agree with the 11.5 number (though it only says 11).--Mylon (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your conversion to kilotons is off by a factor of 1000.  A MOAB could not have a yield of 11.5 kt because that's close to the yield of the Hiroshima fission bomb.  Taking into account that correction, the MOAB should have a yield of about 11 t (which is what the MOAB article says).  I think the original author must have multiplied 18.7 kilopounds by the 1.35 efficiency factor without converting to metric units.  I corrected the article so that the yield of the MOAB is listed as 0.011 t (to two significant figures), making the 2.9 kt Halifax explosion equivalent to about 250 MOAB blasts. Ketone16 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a point - you have a typo in that last sentence; it should be 0.011 kT, not t.  SkoreKeep (talk) 06:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Math

message: I would like to add this in the "Before 1900" section.
 Siege of Multan . On December 30, 1848, in  Multan  during the  Second Anglo-Sikh War ,
"A shell from a mortar struck a mosque in the city which had been turned
into a magazine and stored with 400,000 lbs. of gunpowder.
It blew up with a tremendous explosion which shook the earth for
many miles round, and darkened the air with smoke and fragments."
-- from [http://books.google.ca/books?id=xLwIAAAAQAAJ The History
The History of India by John Clark Marshman, Volume III] page 340.
The citation is necessary because Siege_of_Multan doesn't mention the
size = 400,000 lbs = 200 short tons. This is comparable to the Mobile
explosion.
Any objections?
Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Multan Explosion 

message: More than 5 tonnes of tnt...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeannassar5 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Beirut Baracks Explosion

message: The energy release seems plausible, but as a fire and not an explosion.  3 kilotons = 1.2x1013 joules.   Natural gas burned gives off 3.9x107 joules per standard cubic meter.  Big pipelines run at about 100 atm pressure, and have roughly 1 m2 cross section, so it takes about 3 km of pipeline to have enough gas to release this much energy.   This would take at least 10 seconds to leak out of even a large failure (speed of sound is 340 m/sec).  But to explode, rather than burn, it would all need to be mixed with air at the correct proportion, between 5 and 15 percent - see What is Natural Gas? Natural Gas Properties.   If it leaks fast, the area around the leak could not have nearly enough oxygen.  If it leaks slowly, the natural gas would rise since it's mostly methane which is lighter than air.   So even if there was some ignition source, you'd likely get a big fireball, but not an explosion.  
Incidentally, and perhaps not relevant to this article, this type is accident is fairly common, just by accident and not sabotage.  See, for example, Industrial Control Systems Killed Once and Will Again, Experts Warn .  by Ryan Singel.  So even if it did happen, an accident could explain it as well. 
The original source says explosion and fire, without specifying how much of each, and this article is specifically about explosion (and surely there have been much larger fires).  So I think it's best to remove it, at least until someone can find a reference to the size of the explosion.  (I looked and could not find much on the web, and from Talk:Farewell Dossier  no-one else has yet found other sources to back this up.)  LouScheffer (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Siberian pipeline sabotage - in 1982 the CIA allegedly had the company insert a logic bomb in the advanced automated control software (SCADA) software of the Siberian pipeline for sabotage purposes.  "The pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines and valves was programmed to go haywire, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to the pipeline joints and welds. The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space." Thomas Reed, At the Abyss : An Insider's History of the Cold War 
 I apologize for responding nearly seven years later. I agree with removal of this content. I have found a few sources (e.g. Thomas Rid  and Jeffrey Carr ) that view this with extreme skepticism. The only evidence of this comes from the person making the claim, Thomas C. Reed. - Location (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipeline sabotage 

message: Another candidate to consider was the Oklahoma City Bombing which involved 3.5 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the reference.  I agree that it needs to be here given the damage done, the size (the bomb itself was three times larger than the Manchester bomb which is included on this list), and the fact that it was the largest pre-9/11 terrorist attack in the U.S.65.43.212.163 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both entries (and also some others) should not be part of the list. Those explosions were rather small--more than three orders of magnitude smaller than the largest entries! That hardly counts as contender for "largest artifical non-nuclear exposion". BTW: A single Tallboy or Grand Slam bomb and many blockbuster bombs created a bigger explosion then 3.2t of fertilzer-anfo. Should we list every usage of those here? Must be thousands. IMHO we should set some threshold, like says, an incident must have the strength of 500kt TNT equivalent or more to be listed here. The old sorting by strength was also much more useful BTW than the current one. 80.219.41.22 (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed both. They might be included if this becomes a list of largest explosions per decade. --gribeco (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oklahoma City Bombing 

message: I know of one other large explosion, not listed, which happened near Francistown in Bechuanaland (now Botswana)in 1940 or 1941 when I was at school near Bulawayo. A train load of dynamite bound for the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) exploded on a bridge. The blast rattled windows in Bulawayo over 150 km away. Perhaps someone can find details of this.David H Eccles (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: African explosion

message: I notice that a number of explosions of warships are included in the World War II era. Why not the explosion of USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor? --Yaush (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed this too. In terms of lives lost, it ranks right up there with the worst warship magazine explosions, though I don't know enough to comment on the strength of the blast. I'm in favor of adding it though for its historical significance. Dcs002 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Arizona 

message: Has anyone selecting items for this list considered the US Civil War Battle of the Crater?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater
The TNT amounted to "8,000 pounds (3,600 kg)" according to that article, which might not be a large enough explosion for this list, but in terms of damage done, seems to be well worth considering.  You can see a recreation of it at the start of the movie Cold Montain, which struck me as being actually less devastating than the blast actually was.  IvyGold (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the Crater? 

message: A lot of discussion has gone back and forth on this page concerning individual entries as compared to other entries (i.e., this one was bigger than that one, so it should be included or that one should be removed). Among all the talk about tons of TNT and lives lost, I think we should also be considering historical significance. I've commented above that I think the explosion of the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor should be included for its historical significance. I think similar arguments could be made for the Oklahoma City bombing and the Kobe Towers bombing. (I'm American, and my sense of historical significance is therefore biased in favor of including these events, but as an American, I perceive a European bias in what's currently included in this list.)
So, I'd like to humbly propose that we include explosions in which a certain minimum number of people were killed OR which released a certain amount of energy OR are determined (by consensus) to have been historically significant.
Any comments on standardizing inclusion criteria?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcs002 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to standardize inclusion criteria 

message: If we opt strictly for munitions, the whole halifax event should be discarded, as it was a mixed munitions and raw explosive materials involved. Such is considered wrong, so the proposed definition for inclusion is below. Please help by adding-expanding it.
>Maximum Yield occured by a conventional (ie. non nuclear) explosion, whether it was a test, a scheduled surplus munitions destruction or an accidental explosion, of either munitions or other explosive materials involved.
Lists of things, people or events can be grown enormous in Wikipedia, due to inherent problems such as inclusion criteria.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makrisj (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree and suggest: 

message: Why do all the sections run backwards?? Why is this illogical?
WP MoS clearly says earliest first with newer last.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.31.110 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology?? 

message: I think the destruction of the Parthenon should be included here.  Loss of life is unknown, and explosive force hard to estimate and likely not that high, but the cultural impact is disproportionately high. 72.240.64.25 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parthenon 

message: What about the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, I have heard the size of the explosion being compared to that of a small atomic bomb and there were certainly hundreds of tonnes of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in the external tank. Björn Knutson (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no "explosion" in the typical sense. When the main fuel tank disintegrated it released a cloud of hydrogen which burned. There was a fireball, much like the Hindenburg disaster, but it was not explosive. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenger 

message: There was a battle in and for Rhodes (as in the island in the Mediterranean, now part of Greece) in (????) medieval times. The battle was at a stalemate until someone stole all of the gunpowder and hid it somewhere. It was never discovered. Until a couple of hundred years later, when lightning struck the tower of the church, resulting in a massive explosion that destroyed many of the buildings. 
Whilst nowhere near the size or power of modern explosions, I submit that this is a worthwhile inclusion because of its age.
121.218.179.121 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another candidate for a waaaaay before 1900? 

message: This article (with no citation) states that the amount of ammonium nitrate on the SS Grandcamp was 8,500 short tons (7,700 t), while the Texas City Disaster article (with a citation) lists it as 2,300 tons (2,086,100 kg). So which is it? Should this page be changed? 72.76.5.65 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to know which is correct. I suspect the Texas City Disaster article is correct, but I don't have the expertise to say for certain. Could someone who does chime in? Dstar3k (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reference from the Texas City article http://www.local1259iaff.org/report.htm which is from the “FIRE PREVENTION AND ENGINEERING BUREAU OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS” and “THE NATIONAL BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS” says, “He descended into the hold, which contained part of the 2300-ton cargo of ammonium nitrate previously loaded at this port; to receive cargo when to odor of smoke was noticed.” So, it looks like the 2300 short tons is more reliable. I have literally no idea where this 8.5 thousand short tons estimate comes from. Note, this 2100 metric tons of Ammonium Nitrate is less than the 2750 tons involved in the Beirut explosion. --Puellanivis (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1947 Texas City explosion 

message: The list is overwhelmed by wartime incidents of ship magazines exploding after being shelled or torpedoed. While sinkings thus usually resulted in ghastly loss of life, the explosions themselves were not particularly large compared to accidents in fertilizer or ordnance factories or transport.--Froglich (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many ships 

message: The article claims "modern high explosives are far more energetic than gunpowder".  I think this is not true.  High explosives produce a stronger shockwave, because they detonate rather than deflagrate, but in general they have comparable total energy release per unit mass.  Maybe the statement just needs to be rephrased?  If the claim is that it's literally true, then I definitely want to see a reference. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Some of the text in this section appears to be garbled. Was a phrase or two left out or unintentionally deleted?  Fred4570 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Imperial Army ammunition dump exploded in Hirakata 

message: This, during the mexican-french war, could be one of the top ten before 1900. Below the article in spanish
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosi%C3%B3n_de_la_colectur%C3%ADa_de_San_Andr%C3%A9s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.193.249.124 (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colecturía de San Andrés 

message: Can someone add the April 6, 1968 Richmond, IN natural gas explosion?  41 died.  Or, should that go somewhere else?
L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Richmond, IN ?  

message: The article on the 1816 Battle of Negro Fort documents the destruction caused by the explosion of a powder magazine and the loss of 270 lives (see the Reference site at ExploreSouthernHistory.com, http://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/fortgadsden3.html).  Not only was the loss of life tremendous, but the result was also historically significant to the United States.
I am not sure how to go about estimating the energy release of the explosion, however.
I will include this entry myself if no one objects within a month (e.g., end of January 2014) -- if I remember.
Nicole Tedesco 19:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Negro Fort 

message: Another Before 1900 candidate
During Sir John Moore's retreat from Spain in the Peninsular War, on Friday 13 January 1809, the British fired a magazine of 4,000 barrels of blackpowder (200 short tons) near Corruna to deny it to the advancing French.  Although planned, the blast killed three men in an exposed position over a mile away, it also shattered all the windows in Corunna and raised a wave that swept the harbor and its 140 ships at anchor.
Citations:
p. 321 THE YEARS OF VICTORY - 1802-1812 By Arthur Bryant, London 1944
"... a huge magazine of four thousand barrels of powder, sent out in haste from England at the beginning of the war and since left undistributed and unused. This was fired on the 13th, causing an explosion  which  broke  every window in the  town, swept the harbour with a tidal wave and killed a sergeant and two men on piquet more than a mile away."
p 721 LEX MERCATORIA REDIVIVA By Wyndham Beawes, Dublin 1754
"A Barrel of Gunpowder is 100 Pound, and 24 Barrels make a Last."
(A 'last' is about 120 cubic feet, representing a load in terms of cargo space)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Corunna#Arrival_of_the_armies_before_Corunna
Farelf (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corunna 1809 

message: OK, this hasn't happened, and hopefully never will, but what if the 1700 tons of high explosive on the SS Richard Montgomery were to detonate, as some fear that it might? The article says the ship has 1700 tons of it. Given that the explosion would occur underwater, would that make it more powerful or less powerful than if it were to happen on land?
124.179.103.244 (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incipient possible explosion with numbers right up there with the biggies. 

message: Re this, where do you see those source figures confirmed in the N1 (rocket) article? Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I see "Total estimated force of the explosion was about 4-5 tons of TNT", as opposed to this article which surmises the explosion at 6.93 kilotons, over 1000 times larger. Brycehughes (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference cited with the N1 (reference 36) says it had 680 tons of kerosene.   Since a given mass of kerosene has about 10x the energy of TNT (assuming it gets oxidizer externally, as here) then that's the energy of 6,800 tons of TNT.  So the order of magnitude is certainly right, and a lot more than several tons.  The quote you mentioned was from the N-1 article, which itself seems wrong and self-contradictory.  4-5 tons of explosive will not send debris 10 km, nor loft enough so that 1/2 hour later it is still raining down.  In addition there was much more energy available than the 400 tons of TNT mentioned in the article.  See also , which says "Upon impact of the base of the N1 with the pad, the vehicle exploded with the force of a small nuclear bomb, destroying launch complex 110R", and similar sources.   LouScheffer (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll take your word for it. Brycehughes (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  N1 launch explosion 

message: When rockets fail, they don't explode in the same way as an explosive such as nitrogylcerine - they just burn a large amount of fuel and oxidizer very quickly, resulting in a massive unplanned release of energy in a short time.  But in normal English usage, any large, unplanned, rapid, destructive release of energy is called an explosion.  This is true in official safety documentation, (National Fire Protection Association. User's Manual for NFPA 921. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2005. p 408.) where an explosion is defined as "The sudden conversion of potential energy (chemical or mechanical) into kinetic energy".  See also this dictionary definition of explosion :"A violent and destructive shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb." This dictionary explicitly gives the technical definition (involving a shock wave) as secondary.
The view that rockets explode is backed by reliable, verifiable, and serious commentators (such as the NY times Launch Pad Where Rocket Exploded Back Next Year.
NASA too states that rockets explode, even though what they are referring to is clearly just fast, unplanned combustion.  See Taming Liquid Hydrogen: The Centaur Upper Stage Rocket, 1958-2002:
:"During its maiden voyage in May 1962, a Centaur upper stage rocket, mated to an Atlas booster, exploded 54 seconds after launch, engulfing the rocket in a huge fireball. Investigation revealed that Centaur's light, stainless-steel tank had split open, spilling its liquid-hydrogen fuel down its sides, where the flame of the rocket exhaust immediately ignited it. "
Likewise scholarly journal articles:  From History of the Space Telescope "Unfortunately, about 100 feet up the entire rocket exploded".
So from the point of view of almost all Wikipedia readers, rockets most definitely explode.  Furthermore, the total energy released is well documented - there are no reports (to my knowledge anyway) of significant amounts of unburned fuel remaining after the explosion.
So explosions of rockets should stay on this list, as should other explosions (such as gas leaks) that may not be detonations.   LouScheffer (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Rockets Explode? 

message: NYT lists the magnitude as magnitude-2.9  “the equivalent of 21 tons of TNT.” / corret?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/world/asia/chinese-port-city-tianjin-rocked-by-enormous-explosion.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oluies (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port of Tianjin 

message: It would be nice to have a source which puts a more accurate number on the Tianjin explosive yield. Reasonable estimates seem to vary from 3 to 8 kilotons, making it easily one of the largest explosions on this list, if not THEE largest. My own calculations and using Nukemap tend to point to a 5-8 kiloton surface explosion, with crater size and damage extent showing 8 kilotons, but alas, they are far from scientifically thorough and can't really be cited for accuracy.207.62.170.215 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tianjin explosion yield estimation? 

message: We need some kind of standard for what should go on this list. My opinion:
#1. All explosions mentioned should be bigger than all conventional bombs. Any conventional bombing shouldn't be recorded unless in a munitions accident involving multiple bombs. This suggests that we might want to put 50 tonnes TNT equivalent as our absolute minimum yield for anything recent.
#2. No pure fires. The destruction should be due to heat AND pressure. An explosion should generate significant shockwaves that deal damage. It need not be a detonation, but it should be causing damage due to overpressure.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.170.215 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested inclusion criteria 

message: This was the accidental explosion of a Russian rocket on the launch pad in 1960 that killed a large number of engineers and technicians.  Are there any estimates of the magnitude of the explosion, and does it belong in this list?
138.229.246.44 (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called Nedelin catastrophe 

message: At the moment this article has a mixture of British English and American English spellings, which is not ideal. This early version seems to be written in British English. Per WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR, does anybody mind if we standardsise the spelling on Br Eng? --John (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me.  I hope no one thinks this subject has "strong national ties" :-) --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Actually, doing simple-minded searches in the version you linked, I find one distinctive BrE spelling (harbour) and one distinctive AmE spelling (fertilizer).  So it's not clear to me that the guideline per se resolves the issue.  But I'm fine with giving the deciding vote to the person who volunteers to clean it up, so from my POV, please go ahead. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There were "litre" and "metre" as well, and "fertilizer" exists in British English as well. It's done now, in any case. --John (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ENGVAR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions. 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/20160601150702/http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1_5l.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/n1_5l.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130421085815/http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Central-Texas-fertilizer-blast-measures-21-magnitude-quake-203536241.html to http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Central-Texas-fertilizer-blast-measures-21-magnitude-quake-203536241.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions. 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  tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq80-4b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100514093319/http://www.stop-fireworks.org/accidents_enschede.htm to http://www.stop-fireworks.org/accidents_enschede.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone might want to add the Arsenal Hill, Utah Explosion of 1876. 80,000 pounds of gunpowder went off accidentally and rained 500 tons of debris on Salt Lake City. Killed at least four people, one of whom was over a mile away. Wounded and injured hundreds. Flattened buildings for a half-mile.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.192.46 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsenal Hill, Utah 

message: Why not written 2007 New York City steam explosion here? --RJANKA (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 New York City steam explosion 

message: https://factsheets.inl.gov/FactSheets/PtP-chapter02.pdf
Pages 7 and 8 are relevant
"On August 29, 1945, at 9:36 a.m. Mountain Time, the Navy exploded 250,000 pounds of TNT.
...
The blast produced a purple-gray cloud a mile wide and more than a mile high. It left a crater fifteen feet deep." An additional source: Igloo Tests, Naval Proving Ground, Arco, Tdaho, 1945 By United States. Army-Navy Explosives Safety Board; It can be found on Google Books(only Naval was OCR'd as Navel), the section "Test Program and Procedure" details 8 different test blasts between 29 August and 31 October 1945 ranging between 125,000 pounds and 250,000 poundsIdahoIdentity (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval Proving Ground(now Idaho National Laboratories), Idaho, USA   

message: it was serious enough to affect the work of one of the largest pacific ports of soviet russia and killed dozens
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion_of_the_Steamship_%22Dalstroy%22
176.59.146.177 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't include dalstroy explosion 

message: An edit from 5 August removed the details about the S.S. Grand Champ that included calculations based on a presumed 8500 short tons of Ammonium Nitrate, but the change did not also remove those calculations from the table “Largest accidental conventional explosions/detonations by magnitude”. The S.S. Grand Champ was estimated by two separate reports to have had 2282 short tons (882 in Hold #4, 1400 in Hold #2), 2341 short tons https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/INV/docs/boards/grandcamp.pdf and 2300 short tons http://www.local1259iaff.org/report.htm
Linear recalculation from the erroneous 8500 that came up with 2.7–3.2 kton of TNT, to 2300, we get 0.73–0.86 kton.
It’s possible the person calculated the full gross weight of the ship and the Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate. One this that is for certain, 2300 short tons of FGAN is not going to have the same yield as 2750 metric tons of explosive-intended Nitroprill HD in the Beirut explosion. I will be shortly correcting the table. ––Puellanivis (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas City correction in Largest accidental conventional explosions/detonations by magnitude 

message: There is a very wide range of cited estimations for yield in this article, ranging from as low as 0.2kt TNT to as high as 3.7 kilotonnes. Given the reported 2750 tonnes of technical grade ammonium nitrate and a TNT equivalency of 0.32 (url=https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/business/mining/safety-and-health/alerts-and-bulletins/explosives/storage-req-security-sensitive-ammonium-nitrate-ssan) would only give a maximum yield of 0.88kt, it seems likely that the Lawrence Livermore National laboratory report is a significant overestimation (perhaps not taking into account the hollow nature of piers). I am of the opinion that the LLNS report should not be used as the primary figure for comparisons to other explosions, and that the yield figures should at least reflect the multiple 1-1.5kt estimates from a range of sources.
Wyattr55123 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020 Beirut Explosion 

message: If there's desire to trim this list a bit, you have the 1945 Trinity Calibration test listed twice: once by itself under the WWII section and it's also listed in the section about conventional explosions for nuclear tests (first one on the list). Does it need to be listed twice? 70.73.90.119 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Trinity test calibration duplication

message: Should  be included?  She was not lost due to mines or enemy action, but by the accidental detonation of her magazines in a way similar to .  The explosion was slightly smaller, but the loss of life was greater.  Thoughts? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS ''Bulwark'' 

message: Not sure the cause of the explosion is accurate. My understanding is that the explosion was caused by an armourer using a brass hammer to remove a damaged exploder from a 1,000lb bomb that had been returned to Fauld for repair. Ref The Fauld Disaster, Nick McCamley, published by Folly Books under ISBN 9780992855437.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.136.122 (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It might additionally be helpful to have separate thresholds for the list overall vs specifically Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Largest_accidental_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions_by_magnitude? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauld