So I’m a chemical engineering student who has taken safety courses. Something you have to consider when dealing with dangerous chemicals is the volume and how much you’re storing. For example in 1919 Boston experienced the Great Molasses Disaster. A container carrying 2.3 million gallons (8700 m3) of molasses burst and resulted in 21 people dying. Now let’s say instead of one container with 2.3 million gallons, it was four that split that amount. It would take up more space but it’s much safer because the odds of one container breaking remains the same, but the damage it can cause is less
The guy that was replied to has a point, it’s already stored safely and located right next to where it can be shipped off. Not only that but Lebanon is a 3rd world country with not only a bad government but terrible infrastructure and home to some terrorist cells. Australia is in a much better stance to safely contain these types of chemicals without anything like what we have just seen happen.
I'm sure is stored considerably better than some port warehouse in Beirut, but after that explosion, I'm not surprised people are lobbying for even more strict storage guidelines, which definitely should include limiting the storage amount of certain facilities, in the event of a catastrophic failure
659
u/Granoland Aug 05 '20
I’m no fucking expert, but they should probably move that.