Fire ecology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The Old Fire burning in the San Bernardino Mountains (image taken from the International Space Station) Fire ecology is concerned with the processes linking the natural incidence of fire in an ecosystem and the ecological effects of this fire. Many ecosystems, particulalarly prairie, savanna, chaparral and conifer forests have evolved with fire as a natural and necessary contributor to habitat vitality and renewal. Many plant species in naturally fire-affected environments require fire to germinate, to establish, or to reproduce, or all three. Fire suppression not only eliminates these species, but also the animals that depend upon them. Finally, fire suppression can lead to the build-up of inflammable debris and the creation of less frequent but much larger and destructive wildfires. Campaigns in the United States have historically molded public opinion to believe that wildfires are always harmful to nature. This view is based on the outdated belief that ecosystems progress toward an equilibrium and that any disturbance, such as fire, disrupts the harmony of nature. More recent ecological research has shown, however, that fire is an integral component in the function and biodiversity of many natural habitats, and that the organisms within these communities have adapted to withstand, and even to exploit, natural wildfire. More generally, fire is now regarded as a 'natural disturbance', similar to flooding, wind-storms, and landslides, that has driven the evolution of species and controls the characteristics of ecosystems.[1] The map below right shows how each ecosystem type in the United States has a characteristic frequency of fire, ranging from once every 10 years to once every 500 years. Natural disturbances can be described by key factors such as frequency, intensity and area.[1] The map also shows intensity, since some fires are understory fires (light burns that affect mostly understory plants) while others are stand replacement fires (intense fires that tend to kill the adult trees as well.) Fire suppression, in combination with other human-caused environmental changes, has resulted in unforeseen consequences for natural ecosystems. Some uncharacteristically large wildfires in the United States have been caused as a consequence of years of fire suppression and the continuing expansion of people into fire-adapted ecosystems. Land managers are faced with tough questions regarding where to restore a natural fire regime.

Map of the different regimes of natural burning in natural ecosystems of the United States. Colors denote both the frequency of wildfires and their style of burning. Before European colonization, wildfires occurred most frequently in the tan, yellow, blue, pink, and light green areas.

Contents
[hide]

1 Fire Components 2 Abiotic responses 3 Biotic responses and adaptations o 3.1 Plants 3.1.1 Fire intolerance 3.1.2 Fire tolerance 3.1.3 Fire resistance o 3.2 Animals, birds and microbes 4 Fire and ecological succession 5 Some examples of fire in different ecosystems o 5.1 Forests 5.1.1 Forests in British Columbia o 5.2 Shrublands

5.2.1 California shrublands 5.2.2 South African Fynbos shrublands o 5.3 Grasslands 5.3.1 South African savanna o 5.4 Longleaf pine savannas o 5.5 Fire in wetlands 6 Fire suppression o 6.1 Chaparral communities o 6.2 Fish impacts o 6.3 Ponderosa pine forests 7 Fire as a management tool o 7.1 The Florida everglades o 7.2 The Great Plains shortgrass prairie o 7.3 Mixed conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada 8 Management policies o 8.1 United States 9 See also 10 Footnotes 11 Bibliography

12 External links

Fire Components
A fire regime describes the pattern that fire follows in a particular ecosystem. Its "severity" is a term that ecologists use to refer to the impact that a fire has on an ecosystem. Ecologists can define this in many ways, but one way is through an estimate of plant mortality. Fire can burn at three levels. Ground fires will burn through soil that is rich in organic matter. Surface fires will burn through dead plant material that is lying on the ground. Crown fires will burn in the tops of shrubs and trees. Ecosystems may experience predominantly one of these fire regimes, or a mix of all three.[2] Fires will often break out during a dry season, but in some areas wildfires may also commonly occur during a time of year when lightning is prevalent. The frequency over a span of years at which fire will occur at a particular location is a measure of how common wildfires are in a given ecosystem. It is either defined as the average interval between fires at a given site, or the average interval between fires in an equivalent specified area.[2] Defined as the energy released per unit length of fireline (kW m-1), wildfire intensity can be estimated either as the product of the linear spread rate (m s-1), the low heat of combustion (kJ kg1 ) and the combusted fuel mass per unit area, or it can be estimated from the flame length.[3]

Radiata Pine forest burnt during the 2003 Bogong Bushfires, Australia

Abiotic responses
Fire has important effects on the abiotic (non-living) components of an ecosystem, particularly the soil. Fire can affect the soil by direct contact with it and by its effects on the plant community associated with it.[4] By removing overhead vegetation, fire can lead to increased solar radiation on the soil surface by day, resulting in greater warming, and to greater cooling through the loss of radiative heat at night. Fewer leaves left to intercept rain will allow more moisture to reach the soil surface. In addition, plant transpiration (the process by which water travels through plants and evaporates through pores in the leaves) will be reduced following a fire, allowing the soil to retain more moisture. Exposure to sunlight, wind and evaporation, however, will work in the other way, to dry the soil. The fire may have created an impermeable crust at the soil surface, if organic matter on the ground was heated by the fire into a waxy residue, and if this has happened, it may lead to increased soil erosion through surface run-off. Fire may cause nutrient loss through a variety of mechanisms, including oxidation, volatilization, and increased erosion and leaching by water. Temperatures must be very high, however, to cause a significant loss of nutrients, which are often replaced by organic matter left behind in the fire. Charcoal is able to counteract some nutrient and water loss because of its absorptive properties. Overall, soils become more basic (higher pH) following fires because of acid combustion. By driving novel chemical reactions at high temperatures, fire can even alter the texture and structure of soils by affecting the clay content and the soil's porosity.

Biotic responses and adaptations

Plants

Lodgepole pine cones Plants have evolved many adaptations to cope with fire. Of these adaptations, one of the bestknown is likely pyriscence, whereby maturation and release of seeds is triggered, in whole or in part, by fire or smoke; this behaviour is often erroneously called serotiny, although this term truly denotes the much broader category of seed release activated by any stimulus. All pyriscent plants are serotinous, but not all serotinous plants are pyriscent (some are necriscent, hygriscent, xeriscent, soliscent, or some combination thereof). On the other hand, germination of seed activated by trigger is not to be confused with pyriscence; it is known as physiological dormancy. In chaparral communities in Southern California, for example, some plants have leaves coated in flammable oils that encourage an intense fire. This heat causes their fire-activated seeds to germinate (an example of dormancy) and the young plants can then capitalize on the lack of competition in a burnt landscape. Other plants have smoke-activated seeds, or fire-activated buds. The cones of the Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) are, conversely, pyriscent: they are sealed with a resin that a fire melts away, releasing the seeds.[5] Many plant species, including the shadeintolerant giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), require fire to make gaps in the vegetation canopy that will let in light, allowing their seedlings to compete with the more shade-tolerant seedlings of other species, and so establish themselves.[6] Because their stationary nature precludes any fire avoidance, plant species may only be fire-intolerant, fire-tolerant or fireresistant.[7] Fire intolerance Fire-intolerant plant species tend to be highly flammable and are destroyed completely by fire. Some of these plants and their seeds may simply fade from the community after a fire and not return, others have adapted to ensure that their offspring survives into the next generation. Obligate seeders are plants with large, fire-activated seed banks that germinate, grow, and mature rapidly following a fire, in order to reproduce and renew the seed bank before the next fire.[7][8]

Fire tolerance. Typical regrowth after an Australian bushfire Fire tolerance Fire-tolerant species are able to withstand a degree of burning and continue growing despite damage from fire. These plants are sometimes referred to as resprouters. Ecologists have shown that some species of resprouters store extra energy in their roots to aid recovery and re-growth following a fire.[7][8] For example, after an Australian bushfire, the Mountain Grey Gum tree (Eucalyptus cypellocarpa) starts producing a mass of shoots of leaves from the base of the tree all the way up the trunk towards the top, making it look like a black stick completely covered with young, green leaves. Fire resistance Fire-resistant plants suffer little damage during a characteristic fire regime. These include large trees whose flammable parts are high above surface fires. Mature Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) is an example of a tree species that suffers virtually no crown damage under a naturally mild fire regime, because it sheds its lower, vulnerable branches as it matures.[7][9]

Animals, birds and microbes

A mixed flockof hawks hunting in and around a brushfire Like plants, animals display a range of abilities to cope with fire, but they differ from plants in that they must avoid the actual fire to survive. Although birds are vulnerable when nesting, they are generally able to escape a fire; indeed they often profit from being able to take prey fleeing from a fire and to recolonize burned areas quickly afterwards. Mammals are often capable of

fleeing a fire, or seeking cover if they can burrow. Amphibians and reptiles may avoid flames by burrowing into the ground or using the burrows of other animals. Amphibians in particular are able to take refuge in water or very wet mud.[7] Some arthropods also take shelter during a fire, although the heat and smoke may actually attract some of them, to their peril.[10] Microbial organisms in the soil vary in their heat tolerance but are more likely to be able to survive a fire the deeper they are in the soil. A low fire intensity, a quick passing of the flames and a dry soil will also help. An increase in available nutrients after the fire has passed may result in larger microbial communities than before the fire.[4]

Fire and ecological succession

shrubland / zbunje, grmlje, siblje grassland travnato zbunje Ecological succession ekoloka sukcesija - naslee Fire behavior is different in every ecosystem and the organisms in those ecosystems have adapted accordingly. One sweeping generality is that in all ecosystems, fire creates a mosaic of different habitat patches, with areas ranging from those having just been burned to those that have been untouched by fire for many years. This is a form of ecological succession in which a freshly burned site will progress through continuous and directional phases of colonization following the destruction caused by the fire.[11] Ecologists usually characterize succession through the changes in vegetation that successively arise. After a fire, the first species to re-colonize will be those with seeds are already present in the soil, or those with seeds are able to travel into the burned area quickly. These are generally fast-growing herbaceous plants that require light and are intolerant of shading. As time passes, more slowly growing, shade-tolerant woody species will suppress some of the herbaceous plants. [12] Conifers are often early successional species, while broad leaf trees frequently replace them in the absence of fire. Hence, many conifer forests are themselves dependent upon recurring fire.[1]

Different species of plants, animals, and microbes specialize in exploiting different stages in this process of succession, and by creating these different types of patches, fire allows a greater number of species to exist within a landscape. Soil characteristics will be a factor in determining the specific nature of a fire-adapted ecosystem, as will climate and topography.

Some examples of fire in different ecosystems

Forests
Mild to moderate fires burn in the forest understory, removing small trees and herbaceous groundcover. Only high-intensity fires will burn into the crowns of the tallest trees. Crown fires may require support from ground fuels to maintain the fire in the forest canopy (passive crown fires), or the fire may burn in the canopy independently of any ground fuel support (an active crown fire). Fires used in the management of woodlands will typically aim for low to moderate intensity, whereas wildfires can evolve into crown fires. When a forest burns frequently and thus has less plant litter build-up, below-ground soil temperatures rise only slightly and will not be lethal to roots that lie deep in the soil.[10] Although other characteristics of a forest will influence the impact of fire upon it, factors such as climate and topography play an important role in determining fire severity and fire extent.[13] Fires spread most widely during drought years, are most severe on upper slopes and are influenced by the type of vegetation that is growing. Forests in British Columbia In Canada, forests cover about 10% of the land area and yet harbor 70% of the countrys bird and terrestrial mammal species. Natural fire regimes are important in maintaining a diverse assemblage of vertebrate species in up to twelve different forest types in British Columbia.[14] Different species have adapted to exploit the different stages of succession, regrowth and habitat change that occurs following an episode of burning, such as downed trees and debris. The characteristics of the initial fire, such as its size and intensity, cause the habitat to evolve differentially afterwards and influence how vertebrate species are able to use the burned areas.
[Shrublands

Fynbos
Shrub fires typically concentrate in the canopy and spread continuously if the shrubs are close enough together. Shrublands are typically dry and are prone to accumulations of highly volatile

fuels, especially on hillsides. Fires will follow the path of least moisture and the greatest amount of dead fuel material. Surface and below-ground soil temperatures during a burn are generally higher than those of forest fires because the centers of combustion lie closer to the ground, although this can vary greatly.[10] Common plants in shrubland or chaparral include manzanita, chamise and Coyote Brush. California shrublands California shrubland, commonly known as chaparral, is a widespread plant community of low growing species, typically on arid sloping areas of the California Coast Ranges or western foothills of the Sierra Nevada. There are a number of common shrubs and tree shrub forms in this association, including salal, toyon, coffeeberry and Western poison oak.[15] Regeneration following a fire is usually a major factor in the association of these species. South African Fynbos shrublands
Fynbos shrublands occur in a small belt across South Africa. The plant species in this ecosystem

are highly diverse, yet the majority of these species are obligate seeders, that is, a fire will cause germination of the seeds and the plants will begin a new life-cycle because of it. These plants may have evolved into obligate seeders as a response to fire and nutrient-poor soils.[16] Because fire is common in this ecosystem and the soil has limited nutrients, it is most efficient for plants to produce many seeds and then die in the next fire. Investing a lot of energy in roots to survive the next fire when those roots will be able to extract little extra benefit from the nutrient-poor soil would be less efficient. It is possible that the rapid generation time that these obligate seeders display has led to more rapid evolution and speciation in this ecosystem, resulting in its highly diverse plant community.[16]

Grasslands
Grasslands burn more readily than forest and shrub ecosystems, with the fire moving through the

stems and leaves of herbaceous plants and only lightly heating the underlying soil, even in cases of high intensity. In most grassland ecosystems, fire is the primary mode of decomposition, making it crucial in the recycling of nutrients.[10] South African savanna In the savanna of South Africa, recently burned areas have new growth that provides palatable and nutritious forage compared to older, tougher grasses. This new forage attracts large herbivores from areas of unburned and grazed grassland that has been kept short by constant grazing. On these unburned "lawns", only those plant species adapted to heavy grazing are able to persist; but the distraction provided by the newly burned areas allows grazing-intolerant grasses to grow back into the lawns that have been temporarily abandoned, so allowing these species to persist within that ecosystem.[17]

Longleaf pine savannas

Yellow pitcher plant is dependent upon recurring fire in coastal plain savannas and flatwoods. Much of the southeastern United States was once open longleaf pine forest with a rich understory of grasses, sedges, carnivorous plants and orchids. The above maps shows that these ecosysemts (coded as pale blue) had the highest fire frequency of any habitat, once per decade or less. Without fire, deciduous forest trees invade, and their shade eliminates both the pines and the understory. Some of the typical plants associated with fire include Yellow Pitcher Plant and Rose pogonia. The abundance and diversity of such plants is closely related to fire frequency. Rare animals such as gopher tortoises and indigo snakes also depend upon these open grasslands and flatwoods.[18] Hence, the restoration of fire is a priority to maintain species composition and biolgoical diversity.[19]

Fire in wetlands
Although it may seem strange, many kinds of wetlands are also influenced by fire. This usually occurs during periods of drought. In landscapes with peat soils, such as bogs, the peat substrate itself may burn, leaving holes that refill with water as new ponds. Fires that are less intense will remove accumulated litter and allow other wetland plants to regenerate from buried seeds, or from rhizomes. Wetlands that are influenced by fire include coastal marshes, wet prairies, peat bogs, floodplains, prairie marshes and flatwoods. [20] Since wetlands can store large amounts of carbon in peat, the fire frequency of vast northern peatlands is linked to processes controlling the carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere, and to the phenomenon of global warming.[21]

Fire suppression
Main article: Wildfire suppression Fire serves many important functions within fire-adapted ecosystems. Fire plays an important role in nutrient cycling, diversity maintenance and habitat structure. The suppression of fire can lead to unforeseen changes in ecosystems that often adversely affect the plants, animals and humans that depend upon that habitat. Wildfires that deviate from a historical fire regime because of fire suppression are called uncharacteristic fires.

Chaparral communities
In 2003, southern California witnessed powerful chaparral wildfires. Hundreds of homes and hundreds of thousands of acres of land went up in flames. Extreme fire weather (low humidity,

low fuel moisture and high winds) and the accumulation of dead plant material from 8 years of drought, contributed to a catastrophic outcome. Although some have maintained that fire suppression contributed to an unnatural buildup of fuel loads,[22] a detailed analysis of historical fire data has showed that this may not have been the case.[23] Fire suppression activities had failed to exclude fire from the southern California chaparral. Research showing differences in fire size and frequency between southern California and Baja has been used to imply that the larger fires north of the border are the result of fire suppression, but this opinion has been challenged by numerous investigators and is no longer supported by the majority of fire ecologists. One consequence of the fires in 2003 has been the increased density of invasive and non-native plant species that have quickly colonized burned areas, especially those that had already been burned in the previous 15 years. Because shrubs in these communities are adapted to a particular historical fire regime, altered fire regimes may change the selective pressures on plants and favor invasive and non-native species that are better able to exploit the novel post-fire conditions.[24]

Fish impacts
The Boise National Forest is a US national forest located north and east of the city of Boise, Idaho. Following several uncharacteristically large wildfires, an immediately negative impact on fish populations was observed, posing particular danger to small and isolated fish populations.[25] In the long term, however, fire appears to rejuvenate fish habitats by causing hydraulic changes that increase flooding and lead to silt removal and the deposition of a favorable habitat substrate. This leads to larger post-fire populations of the fish that are able to recolonize these improved areas. [25] But although fire generally appears favorable for fish populations in these ecosystems, the more intense effects of uncharacteristic wildfires, in combination with the fragmentation of populations by human barriers to dispersal such as weirs and dams, will pose a threat to fish populations.

Ponderosa pine forests

Prior to European settlement, a typical Ponderosa pine forest in the southwest United States was mostly savanna, a grassland ecosystem with scattered stands of trees, resulting in less than 25 30% of the ground shaded by an interlocking crown cover of Ponderosa Pine trees. Fires occurred at intervals of perhaps less than ten years or so in any one place, with average burns covering 3,000 acres (12 km2).[26] These forests historically suffered mild to moderate fires that generally did not reach the crown and left most of the trees alive.[27]
Ponderosa pine forests now face severe damage under harsher fire regimes brought on by fire suppression and aggravated by natural drought cycles.[28] Fires in these forests now result in

crown fires that cause extensive tree-mortality. Fire suppression may also lead to increased defoliation of the trees by herbivorous insects, whose populations might otherwise be controlled by more regular outbreaks of wildfire.[27] An important factor in the increased intensity and destructive power of wildfire in the Ponderosa pine forests is the impact of cattle grazing on public land. Prior to the arrival of railroads in the American West in the 1880s and 1890s, cattle and sheep grazing had a relatively low impact in this

sort of terrain because livestock could not be transported to markets on the east and west coasts. Before the railroads, the average Ponderosa Pine stand density was 4060 trees per acre (100150 per hectare), based on evidence from the analysis of old photographs. Historically, throughout the west of the United States, Ponderosa pine forests experienced low-temperature, rapidly moving surface fires every ten years or so, which burned the grasses and herbaceous vegetation on the savanna floor, along with seedling pines, maintaining a low stand density and an open canopy. The introduction of cattle grazing, however, significantly reduced the fuel load on the ground, which effectively halted this natural wildfire regime. Over the next century, photographic evidence reveals that the stand density of the Ponderosa Pine increased from 4060 to 600800 stems per acre (from 100150 to 15002000 per hectare). These trees are crowded together with a closed canopy, competing for both water and light. The lower branches are dead and bare. As a result of this, the present-day fire regime is predominantly characterized by intense, devastating crown fires which volatilize nutrients, create tremendous erosion problems and pose an increased risk to firefighters and communities alike. US Forest Service Ranger Bill Armstrong of Los Alamos, New Mexico, prior to the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire, thinned an area of Pajarito Plateau to 40 stems per acre. The Cerro Grande Fire burned all the forest around the thinned area, but only burned ground cover within the experimental area.[attribution needed] Similar effects of thinning back tree density to that seen before the coming of the railroad show similar results.
[

attribution needed]

Fire as a management tool

Restoration ecology is the name given to an attempt to reverse or mitigate some of the changes that humans have caused to an ecosystem. Controlled burning is one tool that is currently receiving

considerable attention as a means of restoration and management. Applying fire to an ecosystem may create habitats for species that have been negatively impacted by fire suppression, or fire may be used as a way of controlling invasive species without resorting to herbicides or pesticides. But what should managers aim to restore their ecosystems to? Does natural mean pre-human? Pre-European? Native American use of fire, not natural fires, historically maintained the diversity of the savannas of North America.[29][30] When, how, and where managers should use fire as a management tool is a subject of debate.

The Florida everglades

Everglades landscape The Florida Everglades is one example of an ecosystem with a historical regime of frequent fires. Currently, the everglades are undergoing long-term and large-scale restoration.[31][citation needed] A problem that ecologists and managers have is how frequently to prescribe burns. There is a strong relationship between climate and fire in Florida and it may be that climate holds the key to this question.[31] The El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) increases the frequency of lighting strikes, opening up a window for fire before there is too much precipitation. While direct human effects on ecosystems through fire suppression and agriculture are well-established, some researchers of global warming suggest that there is a negative correlation between ENSO and dry conditions in Florida, and additionally that human-induced climate change may result in a perpetual El Nio that never allows conditions to become dry enough for fire in the future.

The Great Plains shortgrass prairie

For more details on this topic, see Shortgrass prairie. A combination of heavy livestock grazing and fire-suppression has drastically altered the structure, composition, and diversity of the shortgrass prairie ecosystem on the Great Plains, allowing woody species to dominate many areas and promoting fire-intolerant invasive species. In semi-arid ecosystems where the decomposition of woody material is slow, fire is crucial for returning nutrients to the soil and allowing the grasslands to maintain their high productivity. Although fire can occur during the growing or the dormant seasons, managed fire during the dormant season is most effective at increasing the grass and forb cover, biodiversity and plant nutrient uptake in shortgrass prairie.[32] Managers must also take into account, however, how invasive and non-native species respond to fire if they want to restore the integrity of a native ecosystem. For example, fire can only control the invasive spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on the Michigan prairie grasslands in the summer, because this is the time in the knapweeds life cycle that is most important to its reproductive growth.[33]

Mixed conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada

Mixed conifer forests in the United States Sierra Nevada used to have fire return intervals that ranged from 5 years up to 300 years, depending on the local climate.[34] Lower elevations had more frequent fire return intervals, whilst higher and wetter elevations saw much longer intervals between fires. Native Americans tended to set fires during fall and winter, and land at a higher elevation was generally occupied by Native Americans only during the summer.[35] In areas that formerly had frequent fire return intervals, fire suppression has modified the previous fire regime, resulting in the heavy accumulation of forest fuels such as downed coarse woody debris and ladder fuels composed of shade tolerant species such as white fir (Abies concolor).[36] Forests whose burning is to be managed, usually have their ground fuels and forest structure modified beforehand, so that wildland fire burning can be more as it used to be. Treatments are done either by hand crews, with mechanical equipment or through a combination of the two. Hand thinning has the advantage of being very "light on the land" but has the disadvantages of high cost and can be ineffective when the ladder fuels are above 14 inches (360 mm) in diameter measured at breast height. While mechanical treatment methods can remove valuable small diameter logs and biomass, they cannot easily treat steep slopes and they can compact soils if great care is not taken. Both hand thinning and mechanical treatments can leave in place the fuel that is important for creating wildlife habitats, such as large fallen trees and snags. The material removed from the woodland by both hand thinning and mechanical treatments must be properly disposed of before managed or natural wildland fires can be reintroduced into the stand.[37] In the case of hand thinning, piles are usually created and burned. Mechanical treatments can remove the slash and then burn or crush it. Regardless of the method used, once the forest has been treated, fire can be reintroduced.[38]

Management policies
United States
Fire policy in the United States involves the federal government, individual state governments, tribal governments, interest groups, and the general public. The new federal outlook on fire policy parallels advances in ecology and is moving towards the view that many ecosystems depend on disturbance for their diversity and for the proper maintenance of their natural processes. Although human safety is still the number one priority in fire management, new US government objectives include a long-term view of ecosystems. The newest policy allows managers to gauge the relative values of private property and resources in particular situations and to set their priorities accordingly.[5] Techniques such as sophisticated risk assessment strategies, that integrate the latest in ecological research with the social and economic consequences of a particular outcome, are one way to make the most informed fire policy decisions based on the interests of many stakeholders.[39] The US government now recognizes that the longer fuel accumulates in fire-suppressed areas, the greater will be the damage when an unexpected fire burns out of control.[5] One of the primary

goals in fire management is to improve public education in order to suppress the Smokey Bear fire-suppression mentality and introduce the public to the benefits of regular natural fires. Fire reintroduction will need to be mindful of regulations set by the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency concerning wildfire emissions, limited fire professionals, potential property damage from escaped fire and complaints about smoke and destruction of scenic views.[5]

[edit] See also

Fire portal Ecology portal Environment portal

Resprouter o Crown sprouting o Lignotuber Wildfire ecology index Evolutionary history of plants o California chaparral and woodlands Peat bog fire

Wildfire modeling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

A simple wildfire propagation model. Jednostavan model prostiranja poara In computational science, wildfire modeling is concerned with numerical simulation of wildland fires in order to understand and predict fire behavior. Wildfire modeling can ultimately aid wildland fire suppression, namely increase safety of firefighters and the public, reduce risk, and minimize damage. Wildfire modeling can also aid in protecting ecosystems, watersheds, and air quality.

Contents
[hide]

1 Objectives of wildfire modeling 2 Environmental factors 3 Approaches to fire modeling o 3.1 Empirical models o 3.2 Physically based models and coupling with the atmosphere 4 Data assimilation 5 Limitations and practical use 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

Objectives of wildfire modeling

Wildfire modeling attempts to reproduce fire behavior, such as how quickly the fire spreads, in which direction, how much heat it generates. The fire behavior modeled can also include whether the fire transitions from the surface (a "surface fire") to the tree crowns (a "crown fire"), as well as extreme fire behavior including rapid rates of spread, fire whirls, and tall well-developed convection columns. Fire modeling also attempts to estimate fire effects, such as the ecological and hydrological effects of the fire, fuel consumption, tree mortality, and amount and rate of smoke produced. Ciljevi modeliranja prostiranja poara

Environmental factors
Wildland fire behavior is affected by weather, fuel characteristics, and topography. Weather influences fire through wind and moisture. Wind increases the fire spread in the wind direction, higher temperature makes the fire burn faster, while higher relative humidity, and precipitation (rain or snow) may slow it down or extinguish it altogether. Weather involving fast wind changes can be particularly dangerous, since they can suddenly change the fire direction and behavior. Such weather includes cold fronts, foehn winds, thunderstorm downdrafts, sea and land breeze, and diurnal slope winds. Wildfire fuel includes grass, wood, and anything else that can burn. Small dry twigs burn faster while large logs burn slower; dry fuel ignites more easily and burns faster than wet fuel. Topography factors that influence wildfires include the orientation toward the sun, which influences the amount of energy received from the sun, and the slope (fire spreads faster uphill). Fire can accelerate in narrow canyons and it can be slowed down or stopped by barriers such as creeks and roads.

These factors act in combination. Rain or snow increases the fuel moisture, high relative humidity slows the drying of the fuel, while winds can make fuel dry faster. Wind can change the fireaccelerating effect of slopes to effects such as downslope windstorms (called Santa Annas, foehn winds, East winds, depending on the geographic location). Fuel properties may vary with topography as plant density varies with elevation or aspect with respect to the sun. It has long been recognized that "fires create their own weather." That is, the heat and moisture created by the fire feed back into the atmosphere, creating intense winds that drive the fire behavior. The heat produced by the wildfire changes the temperature of the atmosphere and creates strong updrafts, which can change the direction of surface winds. The water vapor released by the fire changes the moisture balance of the atmosphere. The water vapor can be carried away, where the latent heat stored in the vapor is released through condensation.

Approaches to fire modeling

Like all models in computational science, fire models need to strike a balance between fidelity, availability of data, and fast execution. Wildland fire models span a vast range of complexity, from simple cause and effect principles to the most physically complex presenting a difficult supercomputing challenge that cannot hope to be solved faster than real time.

Empirical models
Conceptual models from experience and intuition from past fires can be used to anticipate the future. Many semi-empirical fire spread equations as in [1], [2], and [3] and [4] for Australasian fuel complexes have been developed for quick estimation of fundamental parameters of interest such as fire spread rate, flame length, and fireline intensity of surface fires at a point for specific fuel complexes, assuming a representative point-location wind and terrain slope. Based on the work in [5] and [6] the quasi-steady equilibrium spread rate calculated for a surface fire on flat ground in no-wind conditions was calibrated using data of piles of sticks burned in a flame chamber/wind tunnel to represent other wind and slope conditions for the fuel complexes tested. Two-dimensional fire growth models such as FARSITE [7] and Prometheus [8], the Canadian wildland fire growth model designed to work in Canadian fuel complexes, have been developed that apply such semi-empirical relationships and others regarding ground-to-crown transitions to calculate fire spread and other parameters along the surface. Certain assumptions must be made in models such as FARSITE and Prometheus to shape the fire growth for example, Prometheus and FARSITE use the Huygens principle of wave propagation. A set of equations that can be used to propagate (shape and direction) a fire front using an elliptical shape was developed in [9]. Although more sophisticated applications use a three-dimensional numerical weather prediction system to provide inputs such as wind velocity to one of the fire growth models listed above, the input was passive and the feedback of the fire upon the atmospheric wind and humidity are not accounted for.

Physically based models and coupling with the atmosphere

A simplified physically based two-dimensional fire spread models based upon conservation laws that use radiation as the dominant heat transfer mechanism and convection, which represents the effect of wind and slope, lead to reaction-diffusion systems of partial differential equations.[10][11] More complex physical models join computational fluid dynamics models with a wildland fire component and allow the fire to feed back upon the atmosphere. These models include NCAR's Coupled Atmosphere-Wildland Fire-Environment (CAWFE) model developed in [12], WRF-Fire at NCAR and University of Colorado Denver[13] which combines the Weather Research and Forecasting model with a spread model by the level set method, University of Utah's Coupled Atmosphere-Wildland Fire Large Eddy Simulation in [14], Los Alamos National Laboratory's FIRETEC developed in [15], and the WUI (Wildland Urban Interface) Fire Dynamics Simulator (WFDS) [16] and, to some degree, the two-dimensional model FIRESTAR [17][18][19]. These tools have different emphases and have been applied to better understand the fundamental aspects of fire behavior, such as fuel inhomogeneities on fire behavior [15], feedbacks between the fire and the atmospheric environment as the basis for the universal fire shape [20][21], and are beginning to be applied to wildland urban interface house-to-house fire spread at the communityscale. The cost of added physical complexity is a corresponding increase in computational cost, so much so that a full three-dimensional explicit treatment of combustion in wildland fuels by direct numerical simulation (DNS) at scales relevant for atmospheric modeling does not exist, is beyond current supercomputers, and does not currently make sense to do because of the limited skill of weather models at spatial resolution under 1 km. Consequently, even these more complex models parameterize the fire in some way, for example, [22][23] use [1] to calculate local fire spread rates using fire-modified local winds. And, although FIRETEC and WFDS carry prognostic conservation equations for the reacting fuel and oxygen concentrations, the computational grid cannot be fine enough to resolve the reaction rate-limiting mixing of fuel and oxygen, so approximations must be made concerning the subgrid-scale temperature distribution or the combustion reaction rates themselves. These models also are too small-scale to interact with a weather model, so the fluid motions use a computational fluid dynamics model confined in a box much smaller than the typical wildfire.

Data assimilation
Data assimilation periodically adjusts the model state to incorporate new data using statistical

methods. Because fire is highly nonlinear and irreversible, data assimilation for fire models poses special challenges, and standard methods, such as the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF) do not work well. Statistical variability of corrections and especially large corrections may result in nonphysical states, which tend to be preceded or accompanied by large spatial gradients. In order to ease this problem, the regularized EnKF [24] penalizes large changes of spatial gradients in the Bayesian update in EnKF. The regularization technique has a stabilizing effect on the simulations in the ensemble but it does not improve much the ability of the EnKF to track the data: The posterior ensemble is made out of linear combinations of the prior ensemble, and if a reasonably close location and shape of the fire cannot be found between the linear combinations, the data assimilation is simply out of luck, and the ensemble cannot approach the data. From that point on, the ensemble evolves essentially without regard to the data. This is called filter divergence. So,

there is clearly a need to adjust the simulation state by a position change rather than an additive correction only. The morphing EnKF [25] combines the ideas of data assimilation with image registration and morphing to provide both additive and position correction in a natural manner, and can be used to change a model state reliably in response to data [13].

Limitations and practical use

The limitations on fire modeling are not entirely computational. At this level, the models encounter limits in knowledge about the composition of pyrolysis products and reaction pathways, in addition to gaps in basic understanding about some aspects of fire behavior such as fire spread in live fuels and surface-to-crown fire transition. Thus, while more complex models have value in studying fire behavior and testing fire spread in a range of scenarios, from the application point of view, FARSITE and Palm-based applications of BEHAVE have shown great utility as practical in-the-field tools because of their ability to provide estimates of fire behavior in real time. While the coupled fire-atmosphere models have the ability to incorporate the ability of the fire to affect its own local weather, and model many aspects of the explosive, unsteady nature of fires that cannot be incorporated in current tools, it remains a challenge to apply these more complex models in a faster-than-real-time operational environment. Also, although they have reached a certain degree of realism when simulating specific natural fires, they must yet address issues such as identifying what specific, relevant operational information they could provide beyond current tools, how the simulation time could fit the operational time frame for decisions (therefore, the simulation must run substantially faster than real time), what temporal and spatial resolution must be used by the model, and how they estimate the inherent uncertainty in numerical weather prediction in their forecast. These operational constraints must be used to steer model development.

See also

Catastrophe modeling Extreme value theory Fuel model

Fire

Catastrophic fire risk is varied and widespread. Lightning strikes or human carelessness create conflagrations that cross the wildland-urban interface. Electrical fire, arson, and earthquakes threaten cities. In the 20th century, fires following the 1906 San Francisco and 1923 Tokyo earthquakes generated the greatest property loss, second only to war.

Deforestation in Borneo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

A satellite image of the island of Borneo on August 19, 2002, showing the smoke from burning peat swamp forests.
Borneo, the third largest island in the world, divided between Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei, was once covered with dense rainforests, but along with its tropical lowland and highland forests, there has been extensive deforestation in the past sixty years. In the 1980s and 1990s the forests of

Borneo underwent a dramatic transition. They were levelled at a rate unparalleled in human history, burned, logged and cleared, and commonly replaced with agricultural land, or palm oil plantations. Half of the annual global tropical timber acquisition currently comes from Borneo. Furthermore, palm oil plantations are rapidly encroaching on the last remnants of primary rainforest. Much of the forest clearance is illegal. The World Wildlife Fund divides Borneo into a number of distinct ecoregions including the Borneo lowland rain forests which cover most of the island, with an area of 427,500 square kilometres (165,100 sq mi), the Borneo peat swamp forests, the Kerangas or Sundaland heath forests, the Southwest Borneo freshwater swamp forests, and the Sunda Shelf mangroves. The Borneo mountain rainforests lie in the central highlands of the island, above the 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) elevation. These areas represent habitat for many endangered species, such as orangutans and elephants and rare endemics such as the elusive Hose's Civet.

Contents
[hide]

1 Malaysian Borneo 2 Indonesian Borneo 3 Logging 4 Fires 5 Reforestation 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

Malaysian Borneo

Satellite image of rainforest converted to Oil Palm plantations.[1] The Malaysian states of Sarawak and Sabah (East Malaysia), in the north, occupy about 26% of the island. The forested area here shrank rapidly due to heavy logging for the Malaysian plywood industry. Two forestry researchers[2] of Sepilok Research Centre, Sandakan, Sabah in the early '80s identified four fast-growing hardwoods and a breakthrough on seed collection and handling of Acacia mangium and Gmelina arborea, a fast growing tropical trees were planted on huge tract of formerly logged and deforested areas primarily in the northern part of Borneo Island. The rainforest was also greatly destroyed from the forest fires of 1997 to 1998, which were started by the locals to clear the forests for crops and perpetuated by an exceptionally dry El Nio season during that period. During the great fire, hotspots could be seen on satellite images and the haze thus created affected the surrounding countries of Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. In February 2008, the Malaysian government announced the Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy plan[3] to harvest the virgin hinterlands of Northern Borneo. Further deforestation and destruction of the biodiversity are anticipated in the wake of logging commissions, hydroelectric dams and other mining of minerals and resources.

Indonesian Borneo

Logging road and impacts in East Kalimantan: logged forest on the left, primary forest on the right Approximately 73% of the island is Indonesian territory; the Indonesian name for the island, Kalimantan, is used in English to refer to the Indonesian-controlled territory.

In order to combat overpopulation in Java, the Indonesian government started a massive transmigration (transmigrasi) of poor farmers and landless peasants into Borneo in the 70's and 80's, to farm the logged areas, albeit with little success as the fertility of the land has been removed with the trees and what soil remains is washed away in tropical downpours. The Mega Rice Project was initiated in 1996 in the southern sections of Kalimantan. The goal was to turn one million hectares of "unproductive" and sparsely populated peat swamp forest into rice paddies in an effort to alleviate Indonesia's growing food shortage. The government made a large investment in constructing irrigation canals and removing trees. The project did not succeed, and was eventually abandoned after causing considerable damage to the environment. The peat swamp forest in the south of Kalimantan is an unusual ecology that is home to many unique or rare species such as orangutans, as well as to slow-growing but valuable trees. The peat swamp forest is a dual ecosystem, with diverse tropical trees standing on a 10m 12m layer of peat -partly decayed and waterlogged plant material which in turn covers relatively infertile soil. Peat is a major store of carbon. If broken down and burned it contributes to CO2 emissions, considered a source of global warming.[4] The water channels, and the roads and railways built for legal forestry, opened up the region to illegal forestry. In the MRP area, forest cover dropped from 64.8% in 1991 to 45.7% in 2000, and clearance has continued since then. It appears that almost all the marketable trees have now been removed from the areas covered by the MRP. It turned out that the channels drained the peat forests rather than irrigating them. Where the forests had often flooded up to 2m deep in the rainy season, now their surface is dry at all times of the year. The government has therefore abandoned the MRP, but the drying peat is vulnerable to fires which continue to break out on a massive scale.[5] After drainage, fires ravaged the area, destroying remaining forest and wildlife along with new agriculture, filling the air above Borneo and beyond with dense smoke and haze and releasing enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. The destruction had a major negative impact on the livelihoods of people in the area. It caused major smog-related health problems amongst half a million people, who suffered from respiratory problems.[6] Peat forest destruction is causing sulphuric acid pollution of the rivers. In the rainy seasons, the canals are discharging acidic water with a high ratio of pyritic sulphate into rivers up to 150 km upstream from the river mouth. This may be a factor contributing to lower fish catches.[7] A joint UK-Indonesian study of the timber industry in Indonesia as a whole in 1998 suggested that about 40% of the throughput of timber was illegal, with a value in excess of $365 million.[8] More recent estimates, comparing legal harvesting against known domestic consumption plus exports, suggest that 88% of logging in the country is illegal in some way.[9] Malaysia is the key transit country for illegally logged wood products from Indonesia.[10]

Logging

Deforestation in Borneo was historically low due to infertile soils, unfavourable climate, and the presence of disease. Deforestation only began in earnest during the mid-twentieth century. Industrial logging rose in the 1970s as Malaysia depleted its peninsular forests, and former Indonesian strongman President Suharto distributed large tracts of forest to cement political relationships with army generals. Thus, logging expanded significantly in the 1980s, with logging roads providing access to remote lands for settlers and developers.[11] Logging in Borneo in the 1980s and 1990s was some of the most intensive the world has ever seen, with 60240 cubic meters of wood being harvested per hectare versus 23 cubic meters per hectare in the Amazon. In Kalimantan for example, some 80% of lowlands went to timber concessions, including virtually all its mangrove forests. By the late 1980s, it became clear that Indonesia and Malaysia were facing a problem of timber crisis due to over-logging. Demand from timber mills was far-outstripping log production in both Malaysia and Indonesia.[12]

Fires
Most fires in Borneo are set for land-clearing purposes. While the Indonesian government has historically blamed small-scale swidden agriculturalists for fires, World Wildlife Fund notes that satellite mapping has revealed that commercial development for large-scale land conversion in particular oil palm plantations was the largest single cause of the infamous 19971998 fires. Today fires are still set annually for land clearing in agricultural areas and degraded forests. When conditions are dry, these fires can easily spread to adjacent forest land and burn out of control. Increasingly, the frequency and intensity of fires is causing political tensions in the region. Neighbouring countries, in particular Malaysia and Singapore, blame Indonesia for failing to control the fires. In turn, Indonesia accuses Malaysian firms of starting many of the fire for land-clearing process.[13] What we can derive from here is that there is a need for a sustainable management of the forests resources, in particular the aspect of logging. But in order for that to materialise, there is a need to recognise that protection and conservation of the forest do not solely lies in the hands of Indonesia and/or Malaysia. It is unreasonable to assume that the few highly indebted countries that contain the majority of remaining rain forest should be responsible for single-handedly providing this global public good.[14] It is a global effort to protect the rainforest and which in turn, will then help to solve the development problems Indonesia and Malaysia face with regards to the Borneo rainforest.

Reforestation
Recently a reforestation project in East Kalimantan has reported some success. The Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation (BOS), founded by Dr Willie Smits, bought up nearly 2000 ha of deforested degraded land in East Kalimantan that had suffered from mechanical logging, drought and severe fires and was covered in alang-alang grass (Imperata cylindrica). The intention was to restore the rainforest and provide a safe haven for rehabilitated orangutans while at the same time providing a source of income for local people. The project was given the name Samboja Lestari, which roughly translates as the "everlasting conservation of Samboja".

1244S 1165915E / 1.04556S 116.9875E / -1.04556; 116.9875 [15] Reforestation and

rehabilitation is the core of the project, with hundreds of indigenous species planted. By the middle of 2006 more than 740 different tree species had been planted.[16]

List of industrial disasters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Industrial disaster) Jump to: navigation, search

This article lists notable industrial disasters, which are disasters caused by industrial companies, either by accident, negligence or incompetence. They are a form of industrial accident where great damage, injury or loss of life are caused. Other disasters can also be considered industrial disaster, if their causes are rooted in the products or processes of industry. For example, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 was made more severe due to the heavy concentration of lumber industry, wood houses, fuel and other chemicals in a small area. The Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents is designed to protect people and the environment against industrial accidents. The Convention aims to prevent accidents from occurring, and to reduce their frequency and severity and to mitigate their effects if required. The Convention addresses primarily industrial accidents in one country that affect the population or the environment of another country. The Convention was drafted following the Seveso disaster and Sandoz disaster cited below.

Contents
[hide]

1 Defense industry 2 Energy industry 3 Food industry 4 Manufacturing industry 5 Mining industry 6 Other industrial disasters 7 See also 8 References

Defense industry

December 6, 1917: Halifax explosion. A ship loaded with about 9000 tons of high explosives destined for France caught fire as a result of a collision in Halifax harbour, and exploded. The most powerful explosion in world history before the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico. Killed about 2000, injured about 9000. July 17, 1944: Port Chicago Disaster. A munitions explosion that killed 320 people occurred at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in Port Chicago, California. August 9, 1965: Little Rock AFB in Searcy, Arkansas. 53 contract workers were killed during a fire at a Titan missile silo. The cause of the fire was determined to be a welding rod damaging a hydraulic hose allowing hydraulic vapors to leak and spread throughout the silo, which were then ignited by an open flame source. 11 July 2011 Evangelos Florakis Naval Base explosion Cyprus. A munitions dump explosion.

Energy industry

May 1962: The Centralia, Pennsylvania coal mine fire began, forcing the gradual evacuation of the Centralia borough. The fire continues to burn in the abandoned borough in 2012, 50 years later. March 1967: The Torrey Canyon oil supertanker was shipwrecked off the western coast of Cornwall, England, causing an environmental disaster. This was the first major oil spill at sea. August, 1975: The Banqiao Dam flooded in the Henan Province of China due to extraordinarily heavy rains and poor construction quality of the dam, which was built during Great Leap Forward. The flood immediately killed over 100,000 people, and another 150,000 died of subsequent epidemic diseases and famine, bringing the total death toll to around 250,000--making it the worst technical disaster ever. March 16, 1978: The Amoco Cadiz, an oil tanker owned by the company Amoco (now merged with BP) sank near the Northwest coasts of France, resulting in the spilling of 68,684,000 US Gallons of crude oil (1,635,000 barrels). This is the largest oil spill of its kind (spill from an oil tanker) in history. March 28, 1979: Three Mile Island accident. Partial nuclear meltdown. Mechanical failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open pilot-operated relief valve (PORV) in the primary system, allowed large amounts of reactor coolant to escape. Plant operators initially failed to recognize the loss of coolant, resulting in a partial meltdown. The reactor was brought under control but not before up to 481 PBq (13 million curies) of radioactive gases were released into the atmosphere.[1] June 3, 1979: Ixtoc I oil spill. The Ixtoc I exploratory oil well suffered a blowout resulting in the third largest oil spill and the second largest accidental spill in history. November 20, 1980: A Texaco oil rig drilled into a salt mine transforming the Lake Peigneur, a freshwater lake before the accident, into a salt water lake. February 15, 1982: The mobile offshore oil rig Ocean Ranger is struck by a rogue wave off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada and sinks with the loss of all 84 crew. July 23, 1984: Romeoville, Illinois, Union Oil refinery explosion killed 19 people. November 19, 1984: San Juanico Disaster, an explosion at a liquid petroleum gas tank farm killed hundreds and injured thousands in San Juanico, Mexico.

April 26, 1986: Chernobyl disaster. At the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Prypiat, Ukraine a test on reactor number four goes out of control, resulting in a nuclear meltdown. The ensuing steam explosion and fire killed up to 50 people with estimates that there may be between 4,000 and several hundred thousand additional cancer deaths over time. Fallout could be detected as far away as Canada. The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, covering portions of Belarus and Ukraine surrounding Prypiat, remains poisoned and mostly uninhabited. Prypiat itself was totally evacuated and remains as a ghost town. May 5, 1988: Norco, Louisiana, Shell Oil refinery explosion after hydrocarbon gas escaped from a corroded pipe in a catalytic cracker and was ignited. Louisiana state police evacuated 2,800 residents from nearby neighborhoods. Seven workers were killed and 42 injured. The total cost arising from the Norco blast is estimated at US$ 706 million. July 6, 1988: Piper Alpha disaster. An explosion and resulting fire on a North Sea oil production platform kills 167 men. Total insured loss is about US$ 3.4 billion. To date it is rated as the world's worst offshore oil disaster in terms both of lives lost and impact to industry. March 24, 1989: Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, hits Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef dumping an estimated minimum 10.8 million US gallons (40.9 million litres, or 250,000 barrels) of crude oil into the sea. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters ever to occur in history.[2] 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds died as well as at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, and billions of salmon and herring eggs were destroyed.[3] Overall reductions in population have been seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.[4] Sea otters and ducks also showed higher death rates in following years, partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.[5] The effects of the spill continue to be felt 20 years later. March 23, 2005: Texas City Refinery explosion. An explosion occurred at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas. It is the third largest refinery in the United States and one of the largest in the world, processing 433,000 barrels of crude oil per day and accounting for 3% of that nation's gasoline supply. Over 100 were injured, and 15 were confirmed dead, including employees of the Fluor Corporation as well as BP. BP has since accepted that its employees contributed to the accident. Several level indicators failed, leading to overfilling of a knock out drum, and light hydrocarbons concentrated at ground level throughout the area. A nearby running diesel truck set off the explosion. December 11, 2005: Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire. A series of explosions at the Buncefield oil storage depot, described as the largest peacetime explosion in Europe, devastated the terminal and many surrounding properties. There were no fatalities. Total damages have been forecast as 750 million. February 7, 2010: 2010 Connecticut power plant explosion. A large explosion occurred at a Kleen Energy Systems 620-megawatt, Siemens combined cycle gas- and oil- fired power plant in Middletown, Connecticut, United States. Preliminary reports attributed the cause of the explosion to a test of the plant's energy systems.[6] The plant was still under construction and scheduled to start supplying energy in June 2010.[7] The number of injuries was eventually established to be 27.[8] Five people died in the explosion.[9]

April 20, 2010: Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 11 oil platform workers died in an explosion and fire that resulted in a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, considered the largest offshore spill in U.S. history.[10] March 2011: Fukushima I nuclear accidents in Japan. Regarded as the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster, there were no direct deaths but a few of the plant's workers were severely injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake.

Food industry

May 2, 1878: The Washburn "A" Mill in Minneapolis was destroyed by a flour dust explosion, killing 18. The mill was rebuilt with updated technology. The explosion led to new safety standards in the milling industry.[11] January 15, 1919: The Boston Molasses Disaster. A large molasses tank burst and a wave of molasses rushed through the streets at an estimated 35 mph (56 km/h), killing 21 and injuring 150. The event has entered local folklore, and residents claim that on a hot summer day, the area still smells of molasses. February 6, 1979: The Rolandmhle (Roland Mill), located in Bremen, Germany, was destroyed by a flour dust explosion, killing 14 and injuring 17. September 3, 1991: 1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire in Hamlet, North Carolina, where locked doors trapped workers in a burning processing plant, causing 25 deaths. September 3, 1998: 1998 Haysville KN grain elevator explosion(nfpa.org Haysville Report) in Haysville, Kansas, A series of dust explosions in a large grain storage facility resulted in the deaths of seven people. February 7, 2008: The 2008 Georgia sugar refinery explosion in Port Wentworth, Georgia, United States. Thirteen people were killed and 42 injured when a dust explosion occurred at a sugar refinery owned by Imperial Sugar. See Also Grain elevator explosions

Manufacturing industry

January 10, 1860: Pemberton Mill was a large factory in Lawrence, Massachusetts that collapsed without warning. An estimated 145 workers were killed and 166 injured. March 20, 1905: Grover Shoe Factory disaster was a boiler explosion, building collapse and fire that killed 58 people and injured 150 in Brockton, Massachusetts. March 25, 1911: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City. This was a major industrial disaster in the U.S., causing the death of more than 100 garment workers who either died in the fire or jumped to their deaths. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers in that industry. November 23, 1984 MESIT factory collapse. A part of a factory in Uhersk Hradit, Czechoslovakia collapsed, killing 18 workers and injuring 43. The accident was kept secret by the communist regime, however, the news broke the iron curtain and made it to the western media.[12]

May 10, 1993: Kader Toy Factory fire. A fire started in a poorly built factory in Thailand. Exit doors were locked and the stairwell collapsed. 188 workers were killed, mostly young women. May 13, 2000: Enschede fireworks disaster. A fire and explosion at a fireworks depot in Enschede, Netherlands resulted in 22 deaths and another 947 were injured. About 1,500 homes are damaged or destroyed. The damage is estimated to be over US$ 300 million in insured losses. April 18, 2007: Qinghe Special Steel Corporation disaster. A ladle holding molten steel separated from the overhead iron rail, fell, tipped, and killed 32 workers, injuring another 6. February 1 2008: Istanbul fireworks explosion. An unlicensed fireworks factory exploded accidentally, leaving by some reports at least 22 people dead and at least 100 injured. November 24, 2012: Dhaka Tasreen Fashions fire. A seven story factory fire outside of Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, killed at least 112 people, 12 from jumping out of windows to escape the blaze.

Mining industry
See mining accident for more.

March 10, 1906: Courrires mine disaster in Courrires, France. 1,099 workers died, including children, in the worst mine accident in Europe. October 14, 1913: Senghenydd Colliery Disaster, the worst Mining accident in the United Kingdom, 439 workers died. April 26, 1942: Benxihu Colliery disaster in Benxi, Liaoning, China. 1,549 workers died, in the worst coal mine accident ever in the world. May 28, 1965: 1965 Dhanbad coal mine disaster took place in Jharkhand, India, killing over 300 miners. October 21, 1966: Aberfan disaster was a catastrophic collapse of a colliery spoil-tip that occurred in the Welsh village of Aberfan, killing 116 children and 28 adults. May 9, 1993: Nambija mine disaster, Nambija, Ecuador. ~300 people killed in a land slide January 30, 2000: Baia Mare cyanide spill took place in Baia Mare, Romania. The accident, called the worst environmental disaster in Europe since Chernobyl, was a release of 100,000 tons of cyanide contaminated water by an Aurul mining company due to reservoir broke into the rivers Some, Tisza and Danube. Although no human fatalities were reported, the leak killed up to 80% of aquatic life of some of the affected rivers.

Other industrial disasters

January 20, 1909: Chicago Crib Disaster. During the construction of a water intake tunnel for the city of Chicago, a fire broke out on a temporary water crib used to access an intermediate point along the tunnel. The fire began in the dynamite magazine and burned the wooden dormitory that housed the tunnel workers. 46 workers survived the fire by jumping into the lake and climbing onto ice floes or the spoil heap near the crib. 29 men were burned beyond recognition, and approximately 60 men died. Most of the remainder drowned or froze to death in the lake and were not recovered.[13][14][15]

September 21, 1921: Oppau explosion in Germany. Occurred when a tower silo storing 4,500 tonnes of a mixture of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded at a BASF plant in Oppau, now part of Ludwigshafen, Germany, killing 500600 people and injuring about 2,000 more. 1932-1968: The Minamata disaster was caused by the dumping of mercury compounds in Minamata Bay, Japan. The Chisso Corporation, a fertilizer and later petrochemical company, was found responsible for polluting the bay for 37 years. It is estimated that over 3,000 people suffered various deformities, severe mercury poisoning symptoms or death from what became known as Minamata disease. April 16, 1947: Texas City Disaster, Texas. At 9:15 AM an explosion occurred aboard a docked ship named the Grandcamp. The explosion, and subsequent fires and explosions, is referred to as the worst industrial disaster in America. A minimum of 578 people lost their lives and another 3,500 were injured as the blast shattered windows from as far away as 25 mi (40 km). Large steel pieces were thrown more than a mile from the dock. The origin of the explosion was fire in the cargo on board the ship. Detonation of 3,200 tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer aboard the Grandcamp led to further explosions and fires. The fertilizer shipment was to aid the struggling farmers of Europe recovering from World War II. 1948: A chemical tank wagon explosion within the BASF's Ludwigshafen, Germany site caused 207 fatalities. February 3, 1971: The Thiokol-Woodbine Explosion at a Thiokol chemical plant in Georgia killed 29 people and seriously injured 50. June 1, 1974: Flixborough disaster, England. An explosion at a chemical plant near the village of Flixborough killed 28 people and seriously injured another 36. July 10, 1976: Seveso disaster, in Seveso, Italy, in a small chemical manufacturing plant of ICMESA. Due to the release of dioxins into the atmosphere and throughout a large section of the Lombard Plain, 3,000 pets and farm animals died and, later, 70,000 animals were slaughtered to prevent dioxins from entering the food chain. In addition, 193 people in the affected areas suffered from chloracne and other symptoms. The disaster lead to the Seveso Directive, which was issued by the European Community and imposed much harsher industrial regulations. April 27, 1978: Willow Island disaster. A cooling tower for a power plant under construction in Willow Island, West Virginia collapsed, killing 51 construction workers. The cause was attributed to placing loads on recently poured concrete before it had cured sufficiently to withstand the loads. It is thought to be the largest construction accident in United States history.[16] September and October, 1982: The so-called Chicago Tylenol murders occurred when seven people died after taking pain-relief medicine medicine capsules that had been poisoned. The poisonings took place in late 1982 in the Chicago area of the United States and involved Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules, manufactured by McNeil Consumer Healthcare, which had been laced with potassium cyanide.[17] The incidents led to reforms in the packaging of over-the-counter substances and to federal anti-tampering laws. The case remains unsolved and no suspects have been charged. A $100,000 reward, offered by Johnson & Johnson, McNeil's parent company, for the capture and conviction of the "Tylenol Killer", has never been claimed. December 3, 1984: The Bhopal disaster in India is one of the largest industrial disasters on record. A runaway reaction in a tank containing poisonous methyl isocyanate caused the

pressure relief system to vent large amounts to the atmosphere at a Union Carbide plant. Estimates of its death toll range from 4,000 to 20,000. The disaster caused the region's human and animal populations severe health problems to the present. November 1, 1986: The Sandoz disaster in Schweizerhalle, Switzerland, releasing tons of toxic agrochemicals into the Rhine. May 4, 1988: PEPCON disaster in Henderson, Nevada. Massive explosion at a chemical plant killed 2 people. June 28, 1988: Auburn, Indiana, improper mixing of chemicals killed four workers at a local metal-plating plant in the worst confined-space industrial accident in U.S. history; a fifth victim died two days later.[18] October 23, 1989: Phillips Disaster. Explosion and fire killed 23 and injured 314 in Pasadena, Texas. Registered 3.5 on the Richter scale. May 1, 1991: Sterlington, Louisiana. An explosion at the IMC operated Angus Chemical Nitro-paraffin Plant Sterlington, Louisiana killed 8 workers and injured 120 other people. There was severe damage to the surrounding community. The blasts were heard more than 8 miles away. September 21, 2001: Toulouse, France. An explosion at the AZF fertilizer factory killed 29 and injured 2,500. Extensive structural damage to nearby neighbourhoods. October 4, 2010: Alumina plant accident. Ajka, Kolontr, Devecser and several other settlements, Hungary. The dam of Magyar Aluminium Zrt.'s red mud reservoir broke and the escaping highly toxic and alkaline (~pH 13) sludge flooded several settlements. There were nine victims including a young girl and hundreds of injuries (mostly chemical burns). September 11, 2012: Karachi, Pakistan, 289 people died in a fire at the Ali Enterprises garment factory, which made ready-to-wear clothing for Western export. November 08, 2012: Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada, 2 people died and 17 injured in a industrial processing plant belonging to Neptune Technologies & Bioressources, a manufacturer of health care products.

See also

List of civilian nuclear accidents List of disasters in Great Britain and Ireland

References
1. ^ Walker, J. Samuel (2004). Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23940-7. 2. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions About the Spill". Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/history/faq.cfm. Retrieved September 21, 2008. 3. ^ "Exxon Valdez: Ten years on". BBC News. 1999-03-18. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/298608.stm. Retrieved 2010-05-24. 4. ^ Williamson, David (December 18, 2003). "Exxon Valdez oil spill effects lasting far longer than expected, scientists say". UNC/News (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/dec03/peters121803.html. Retrieved March 9, 2008. 5. ^ "Exxon Valdez oil spill still a threat: study". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. May 17, 2006. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/05/17/1640469.htm. Retrieved March 9, 2008.

6. ^ "Witness To Middletown Explosion: 'There Are Bodies Everywhere'". The Hartford Courant. 7 February 2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/hc-middletownexplosion-0207,0,4493539.story. Retrieved 2010-02-07.[dead link] 7. ^ Allen, Nick (7 February 2010). "Connecticut gas explosion at power plant 'leaves up to 50 dead'". London: Telegraph Media Group Limited. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7183316/Connecticut-gasexplosion-at-power-plant-leaves-up-to-50-dead.html. Retrieved 2010-02-07. 8. ^ "Mourners Grieve At Funerals For Connecticut Workers Who Died In Power Plant Explosion". Hartford Courant. 13 February 2010. http://www.courant.com/community/middletown/power-plant-explosion/hc-middletownexplosion-worker-funerals-0213,0,6708924.story. Retrieved 13 February 2010. 9. ^ "Gas blast at Conn. power plant kills at least 5". Associated Press. 7 February 2010. Archived from the original on 2010-02-10. http://web.archive.org/web/20100210210503/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/685 6371.html. Retrieved 2011-01-04. 10. ^ "Gulf oil spill now largest offshore spill in U.S. history as BP continues plug effort". USA Today. 2010-05-27. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-27-oil-spillnews_N.htm?csp=34news. Retrieved 2010-05-27. 11. ^ "Washburn 'A' Mill Explosion". Library: History Topics. Minnesota Historical Society. http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/73washburn.html. Retrieved 2010-03-16. 12. ^ News in Brief: Factory Deaths In The Times of London, 27 November 1984 13. ^ Chicago's Horrible Crib Disaster, Popular Mechanics, Vol. XI, No. 3 (March 1909); page 193. 14. ^ Peter M. Hoffman, Safety First, The Chicago Medical Recorder, Vol. 35, No. 12 (Dec 1913); the corroner's first-person account. 15. ^ George F. Samuel, Southwest Land and Lake Tunnel, Annual Report, Thirty-Fourth Annual Report of the Department of Public Works to the City Council of the City of Chicago for the Year Ending December 31, 1909, Amberg, 1910. 16. ^ "Willow Island Cooling Tower". Matdl.org. http://matdl.org/failurecases/Other %20failures/Willow.htm. Retrieved 2012-10-10. 17. ^ Douglas, John E.; Olshaker, Mark (1999). The Anatomy of Motive he FBI's Legendary Mindhunter Explores the Key to Understanding and Catching Violent Criminals. New York City: Scribner. pp. 103104. ISBN 0-684-84598-9. 18. ^ Joseph A. Kinney and William G. Mosley, "Death on the Job," The Multinational Monitor, April 1990, v. 11, no. 4, citing a report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Great Chicago Fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Artist's rendering of the fire, by John R. Chapin, originally printed in Harper's Weekly; the view faces northeast across the Randolph Street Bridge. The Great Chicago Fire was a conflagration that burned from Sunday, October 8, to early Tuesday, October 10, 1871, killing hundreds and destroying about 3.3 square miles (9 km2) in Chicago, Illinois.[1] Though the fire was one of the largest U.S. disasters of the 19th century, the rebuilding that began helped develop Chicago as one of the most populous and economically important American cities. On the flag of Chicago, the second star commemorates the fire.[2] The exact cause was never determined. The popular account dreamed up by a reporter, attributing it to Mrs. Catherine O'Leary and her cow, survived his confession of fiction in 1893.

Contents
[hide]

1 Origin 2 Spread of the blaze 3 After the fire 4 Questions about the fire

Halifax Explosion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Halifax explosion) Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the disaster. For other uses, see Halifax Explosion (disambiguation).

Halifax Explosion

A view of the Halifax Explosion pyrocumulus cloud, most likely from Bedford Basin looking toward the Narrows 15-20 seconds after the explosion.[1] Location

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

December 6, 1917 9:04:35 (AST) 2,000 (approximate) (1,950 known) 9,000 (approximate)

Date

Deaths Injured

The Halifax Explosion occurred on Thursday, December 6, 1917, when the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, was devastated by the detonation of the SS Mont-Blanc, a French cargo ship that was fully loaded with wartime explosives. The Mont-Blanc detonated after colliding with the Norwegian SS Imo in a part of Halifax Harbour called "The Narrows". About 2,000 people were killed by debris, fires, and collapsed buildings, and it is estimated that around 9,000 were injured. [2] Until the Trinity test explosions of atomic bombs, it was the largest man-made explosion in recorded history.[3]

Commission for Relief in Belgium to carry relief supplies. Mont-Blanc caught fire ten minutes after the collision and exploded about twenty-five minutes later (at 9:04:35 AM).[4] All buildings and

structures covering nearly 2 square kilometres (500 acres) along the adjacent shore were obliterated, including those in the neighbouring communities of Richmond and Dartmouth.[2] The explosion caused a tsunami in the harbour and a pressure wave of air that snapped trees, bent iron rails, demolished buildings, grounded vessels, and carried fragments of the Mont-Blanc for kilometres.

Contents
[hide]

1 Wartime Halifax 2 Disaster o 2.1 Collision and fire o 2.2 Explosion 3 Rescue efforts

Disaster
The Norwegian ship SS Imo had sailed from Holland en route to New York to take on relief supplies for Belgium. She arrived in Halifax on December 3 for neutral inspection and spent two days in Bedford Basin awaiting refuelling supplies. Though ready to depart late on the 5th, the Imo was held up one additional night as her refuelling was not completed until after the antisubmarine nets had been raised for the night.[17] The French cargo ship SS Mont-Blanc arrived from New York that same evening. Fully loaded with munitions including TNT, picric acid, benzol and guncotton,[18] she intended to join a convoy gathering in Bedford Basin readying to depart for Europe, but was likewise too late to cross into the harbour before the nets were raised. [17] Ships carrying dangerous cargo were not allowed into the harbour before the war, but the risks posed by German submarines had resulted in a relaxing of regulations.[19]

Seveso disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Contents
[hide]

1 Location 2 Chemical events 3 Immediate effects 4 Studies on immediate and long-term health effects

5 Cleanup operations o 5.1 Waste from the cleanup o 5.2 Criminal court case 6 Conclusions 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links

The Seveso disaster was an industrial accident that occurred around 12:37 pm July 10, 1976, in a small chemical manufacturing plant approximately 15 km (9.3 mi) north of Milan in the Lombardy region in Italy. It resulted in the highest known exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in residential populations[1] which gave rise to numerous scientific studies and standardized industrial safety regulations. The EU industrial safety regulations are known as the Seveso II Directive.

Studies on immediate and long-term health effects

A 1991 study[9] 14 years after the accident sought to assess the effects to the thousands of persons that had been exposed to dioxin. The most evident adverse health effect ascertained was chloracne (193 cases). Other reversible early effects noted were peripheral neuropathy and liver enzyme induction. The ascertainment of other, possibly severe sequelae of dioxin exposure (e.g., birth defects) was hampered by inadequate information; however, generally, no increased risks were evident. A study published in 1998[10] concluded that chloracne (nearly 200 cases with a definite exposure dependence) was the only effect established with certainty. Early health investigations including liver function, immune function, neurologic impairment, and reproductive effects yielded inconclusive results. An excess mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases was uncovered, possibly related to the psychosocial consequences of the accident in addition to the chemical contamination. An excess of diabetes cases was also found. Results of cancer incidence and mortality follow-up showed an increased occurrence of cancer of the gastrointestinal sites and of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue. Results cannot be viewed as conclusive, however, because of various limitations: the lack of individual exposure data, short latency period, and small population size for certain cancer types. A 2001 study[11] observed no increase in all-cause and all-cancer mortality. However, results support that dioxin is carcinogenic to humans and corroborate the hypotheses of its association with cardiovascular- and endocrine-related effects. In 2009, an update including 5 more years (up to 1996) found the expected increase in "lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue neoplasms" and increased breast cancer.[12] Industrial safety regulations were passed in the European Community in 1982 called the Seveso Directive[14] which imposed much harsher industrial regulations. The Seveso Directive was

updated in 1996, amended lastly in 2008 and is currently referred to as the Seveso II Directive (or COMAH Regulations in the United Kingdom). Treatment of the soil in the affected areas was so complete that it now has a dioxin level below what would normally be found. The whole site has been turned into a public park, Seveso Oak Forest park. Some say that Seveso is now the least polluted place in Italy.[citation needed] It could be argued that Seveso is a disaster that has not yet produced identifiable disastrous consequences. Several studies have been completed on the health of the population of surrounding communities. It has been established that people from Seveso exposed to TCDD are more susceptible to rare cancers but when all types of cancers are grouped into one category, no statistically significant excess has yet been observed. Epidemiological monitoring programmes established as follows (with termination dates): abortions (1982); malformations (1982); tumours (1997); deaths (1997). Health monitoring of workers at ICMESA and on decontamination projects, and chloracne sufferers (1985). The Seveso disaster gives valuable comparative insight into the effects of Agent Orange on flora and fauna in Vietnam, not to mention the Vietnamese people, as TCDD was a significant contaminant in Agent Orange.[15] The documentary Gambit is about Joerg Sambeth, the technical director of ICMESA, who was sentenced to five years in the first trial, and had his sentence was reduced to two years and was paroled on appeal.[16]

Sandoz chemical spill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The Sandoz chemical spill was a major environmental disaster caused by a fire and its subsequent extinguishing at Sandoz agrochemical storehouse in Schweizerhalle, Basel-Landschaft, Switzerland, on November 1, 1986, which released toxic agrochemicals into the air and resulted in tons of pollutants entering the Rhine river, turning it red.[1] The chemicals caused a massive mortality of wildlife downstream, killing among other things a large proportion of the European eel population in the Rhine[2], although the situation subsequently recovered within a couple of years.[3] The stored chemicals included, beside urea and fluorescent dye, organophosphate insecticides, mercury compounds and organochlorines.[4] Among the major resulting water pollutants were dinitro-orthocresol, the organophosphate chemicals propetamphos, parathion, disulfoton, thiometon, etrimphos and fenitrothion, as well as the organochlorine metoxuron.[5] The cause of the blaze was never established.[6] In 2000 Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior U.S. intelligence official, stated that the Soviet KGB had ordered the East German Stasi to sabotage the chemical factory. According to him, the

operation's objective was to distract attention from the Chernobyl disaster six months earlier in Ukraine.[7][8][9] The Swiss authorities were considering to open investigations again.[10][8] As a consequence Sandoz extended its Health, Safety & Environment activities and introduced new procedures for risk & emergency management including auditing. Eventually Sandoz created a Sustainability Performance Management System today known as doCOUNT 2.0 Sustainability Performance Management Suite[11].

Ixtoc I explosion and oil spill

Main articles: Ixtoc I and Ixtoc I oil spill In June 1979, the Ixtoc I oil platform in the Bay of Campeche suffered a blowout leading to a catastrophic explosion, which resulted in a massive oil spill that continued for nine months before the well was finally capped. This was ranked as the largest oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico until the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.

Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill

Main articles: Deepwater Horizon explosion and Deepwater Horizon oil spill On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil platform, located in the Mississippi Canyon about 40 miles (64 km) off the Louisiana coast, suffered a catastrophic explosion; it sank a day-and-a-half later.[31] It was in the process of being sealed with cement for temporary abandonment, to avoid environmental problems.[30] Although initial reports indicated that relatively little oil had leaked, by April 24, it was claimed by BP that approximately 1,000 barrels (160 m3) of oil per day were issuing from the wellhead, about 1-mile (1.6 km) below the surface on the ocean floor.[32] On April 29, the U.S. government revealed that approximately 5,000 barrels (790 m3) per day, five times the original estimate, were pouring into the Gulf from the wellhead.[33] The resulting oil slick quickly expanded to cover hundreds of square miles of ocean surface, posing a serious threat to marine life and adjacent coastal wetlands, and to the livelihoods of Gulf Coast shrimpers and fishermen.[34] Coast Guard Rear Adm. Sally Brice OHare stated that the U.S. government will be employing booms, skimmers, chemical dispersants and controlled burns to combat the oil spill. As of May 1, 2010, the oil spill cleanup efforts are underway, but hampered by rough seas and the "tea like" consistency of the oil. As of May 27, 2010, USGS had revised the estimate of the leak from 5,000 barrels per day (790 m3/d) to 12,00019,000 barrels per day (3,000 m3/d)[35] an increase from earlier estimates. On July 15, 2010, BP announced that the leak stopped for the first time in 88 days.

Explosion
Main article: Deepwater Horizon explosion

Vessels combat the fire on the Deepwater Horizon while the United States Coast Guard searches for missing crew At approximately 9:45 pm CDT, on 20 April 2010, high-pressure methane gas from the well expanded into the drilling riser and was released onto the drilling rig, where it ignited and exploded, engulfing the drilling rig.[50][51] Most of the workers escaped the rig by lifeboat and were subsequently evacuated by boat or airlifted by helicopter for medical treatment;[52] however, eleven workers were never found despite a three-day Coast Guard search operation, and are believed to have died in the explosion.[53] Efforts by multiple ships to douse the flames were unsuccessful. After burning for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on the morning of 22 April 2010.[54]

Volume and extent of oil spill

Main article: Timeline of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill An oil leak was discovered on the afternoon of 22 April when a large oil slick began to spread at the

Containment

An oil containment boom deployed by the U.S. Navy surrounds New Harbor Island, Louisiana. The response included deploying many miles of containment boom, whose purpose is to either corral the oil, or to block it from a marsh, mangrove, shrimp/crab/oyster ranch or other ecologically sensitive areas. Booms extend 1848 inches (0.461.2 m) above and below the water surface and are effective only in relatively calm and slow-moving waters. More than 100,000 feet (30 km) of containment booms were initially deployed to protect the coast and the Mississippi

River Delta.[177] By the next day, that nearly doubled to 180,000 feet (55 km), with an additional 300,000 feet (91 km) staged or being deployed.[178][179]

Some US lawmakers and local officials claimed that the booms didn't work as intended, saying there is more shoreline to protect than lengths of boom to protect it and that inexperienced operators didn't lay the boom correctly. Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, said the boom "washes up on the shore with the oil, and then we have oil in the marsh, and we have an oily boom. So we have two problems.[180]

Texas City Refinery explosion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Texas City Refinery (BP)) Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about an industrial accident in 2005. For the 1947 accident, see Texas City Disaster.

Fire-extinguishing operations after the Texas City refinery explosion

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Fukushima I nuclear accidents) Jump to: navigation, search

"Fukushima nuclear disaster" redirects here. For the incidents at Fukushima Daini (Fukushima II), see Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant. This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and/or condensing it. (November 2012)
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Satellite image on 16 March 2012 of the four damaged reactor buildings

Date Location

11 March 2011

kuma, Fukushima, Japan 372517N 141157E / 37.42139N 141.0325E / 37.42139; 141.0325 INES Level 7 (ratings by Japanese authorities
as of 11 April)[1][2] 37 with physical injuries,[3]

Coordinates

Outcome

Injuries

2 workers taken to hospital with radiation

burns[4]

External videos
24 hours live camera for Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster on YouTube,
certified by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster ( Fukushima Dai-ichi ( pronunciation) genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko?) was a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, following the Thoku earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011.[5][6] It is the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.[7] The plant comprises six separate boiling water reactors originally designed by General Electric (GE), and maintained by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). At the time of the quake, Reactor 4 had been de-fueled while 5 and 6 were in cold shutdown for planned maintenance.[8] Immediately after the earthquake, the remaining reactors 1-3 shut down automatically, and emergency generators came online to control electronics and coolant systems. However the tsunami following the earthquake quickly flooded the low-lying rooms in which the emergency generators were housed. The flooded generators failed, cutting power to the critical pumps that must continuously circulate coolant water through a nuclear reactor for several days in order to keep it from melting down after being shut down. As the pumps stopped, the reactors overheated due to the normal high radioactive decay heat produced in the first few days after nuclear reactor shutdown (smaller amounts of this heat normally continue to be released for years, but are not enough to cause fuel melting).

At this point, only prompt flooding of the reactors with seawater could have cooled the reactors quickly enough to prevent meltdown. Salt water flooding was delayed because it would ruin the costly reactors permanently. Flooding with seawater was finally commenced only after the government ordered that seawater be used, and at this point it was already too late to prevent meltdown.[9] As the water boiled away and levels in the fuel rod pools dropped, they began to overheat severely, and to melt down. In the hours and days that followed, Reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced full meltdown.[10][11] In the intense heat and pressure of the melting reactors, a reaction between the nuclear fuel metal cladding and the remaining water surrounding them produced explosive hydrogen gas. As workers struggled to cool and shut down the reactors, several hydrogen-air chemical explosions occurred.[12][13] Concerns about the repeated small explosions, the atmospheric venting of radioactive gasses, and the possibility of larger explosions led to a 20 km (12 mi)-radius evacuation around the plant. During the early days of the accident workers were temporarily evacuated at various times for radiation safety reasons. At the same time, sea water that had been exposed to the melting rods was returned to the sea heated and radioactive in large volumes for several months until recirculating units could be put in place to repeatedly cool and re-use a limited quantity of water
Date Time Location Injuries Death(s) February 7, 2008 7:00 pm (local time)

Port Wentworth, Georgia, United States

40 injured 14 killed

The 2008 Georgia sugar refinery explosion was an industrial disaster that occurred on February 7, 2008 in Port Wentworth, Georgia, United States. Thirteen people were killed and 42 injured when a dust explosion occurred at a sugar refinery owned by Imperial Sugar. Dust explosions had been an issue of concern amongst United States authorities since three fatal accidents in 2003, with efforts made to improve safety and reduce the risk of recurrence. However, a safety board had criticized this as inadequate. The refinery was large and old, featuring outdated construction methods. This is thought to have contributed to the fire's severity. The origin of the explosion has been narrowed down to the center of 14 killed

2008 Istanbul fireworks explosion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

2008 Istanbul Fireworks Explosion occurred on 1 February 2008. An unlicensed fireworks factory exploded accidentally, leaving by some reports at least 22 people dead and at least 100 injured,[1] others sources reported the death toll was 17 and 40 injured.[2] The building that housed the unlicensed factory was in Davutpaa, an industrial neighborhood. It was a multistory workshop complex it shared with other manufacturers of paint, socks and textiles. Two separate explosions[3] were reported some five minutes apart from each other, the first possibly happening in the top floor Fireworks factory, and the second larger explosion, reportedly emanating from the basement boilers where the paint manufacturing was located.[2] After the incident the building was partially collapsed and this had caused many of the victims to be crushed to death when floors collapsed.[1] The factory had reportedly been shut down by authorities twice prior to this incident, but continued to operate illegally.[3]

2011 Nairobi pipeline fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search 11850S 365246E / 1.313979S 36.879564E / -1.313979; 36.879564 The 2011 Nairobi pipeline fire was caused by an explosion secondary to a fuel spill in the Kenyan capital Nairobi on 12 September 2011.[1] Approximately 100 people were killed in the fire and at least 116 others were hospitalized with varying degrees of burns.[2] The incident was not the first such pipeline accident in Kenya,[1] with the Molo fire of 2009 resulting in at least 133 fatalities and Coordinates:

hundreds more injured.

25 November 2012 Last updated at 15:54 GMT

Dhaka Bangladesh clothes factory fire kills more than 100

Advertisement
Firefighters took several hours to bring Saturday's fire under control

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

In pictures: Deadly factory fire Deadly slum fire in Bangladesh Dhaka factory fire kills workers

More than 100 people are now known to have died in a fire that swept through a clothes factory in Bangladesh, local officials say. The blaze broke out late on Saturday in the multi-floor Tazreen Fashion factory in the Ashulia district on the outskirts of the capital Dhaka. Some people died after jumping from the building to escape the flames. It is unclear what caused the fire, which started on the ground floor trapping many victims in the factory. Officials suspect an electrical short circuit might have caused the disaster.

2012 Paraguan Refinery Complex explosion

Incidents
Since president Chvez fired 18,000 PDVSA employees and replaced them with party loyalists, PDVSA has suffered from a series of safety and productivity problems.[6][7] In 2003, two workers were injured in an explosion at an electrical substation at the Amuay refinery. In 2005, six accidents happened, including an explosion in November 2005, which killed five workers and injured 20. In 2006, five accidents happened which killed three and injured five workers.[8] In the same year, the 54,000-barrel-per-day (8,600 m3/d) catalytic reformer unit was temporarily shut down due to a fire in a furnace 'blew out'.[5] In March 2011, a fire that broke out at the hydrodesulphurization unit 4 (HD4) of Amuay refinery; however, the fire was out shortly and the refinery continued operating.[9] In 2012, a distillation unit of the Amuay refinery was briefly stopped due to fire.[8] In March 2012, the Cardn refinery was shut for 8 hours due to air supply fault.[10]

[edit] 2012 explosion

Oil holder in fire after the 2012 Amuay refinery explosion. On 25 August 2012 at 01:11 (05:41 GMT), an explosion caused by the ignition of a leaking gas at the Amuay refinery killed 48 people, primarily National Guard troops stationed at the plant, and injured 151 others.[11] A 10-year-old boy was among the dead.[12][13] Three days of national mourning was declared by President Hugo Chvez.[14] He also ordered a probe into the cause of the fire and told his cabinet by telephone that "[this] affects us all, the great Venezuelan family, civilian and military. It's very sad, very painful."[15] According to PDVSA Vice-President Eulogio Del Pino a leak of propane and butane gas was detected an hour before the blast. However, the contingency plan was not implemented.[16] No operating units were reported damaged by the blast but three storage tanks were burning.[3] All three burning storage tanks were extinguished by 28 August 2012.[17]

Bhopal disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Coordinates: 231651N 772438E / 23.28083N 77.41056E / 23.28083; 77.41056

Bhopal memorial for those killed and disabled by the 1984 toxic gas release. The Bhopal disaster, also referred to as the Bhopal gas tragedy, was a gas leak incident in India, considered one of the world's worst industrial disasters.[1] It occurred on the night of 23 December 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Over 500,000 people were exposed to methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals. The toxic substance made its way in and around the shantytowns located near the plant.[2] Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.[3] Others estimate 8,000 died within two weeks and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases.[4][5] A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[6]

Related Experience in the Grain Handling Industry In the late 1970s a series of devastating grain dust explosions in grain elevators left 59 people dead and 49 injured. In response to these catastrophic events, OSHA issued a "Grain Elevator Industry Hazard Alert" to provide employers, employees, and other officials with information on the safety and health hazards associated with the storage and distribution of grain. In 1987, OSHA promulgated the Grain Handling Facilities standard (29 CFR 1910.272), which remains in effect. This standard, other OSHA standards such as Emergency Action Plans (29 CFR 1910.38), and updated industry

consensus standards all played an important role in reducing the occurrence of explosions in this industry, as well as mitigating their effects. The lessons learned in the grain industry can be applied to other industries producing, generating, or using combustible dust.

Elements of a Dust Explosion Elements Needed for a Fire (the familiar "Fire Triangle"): 1. Combustible dust (fuel); 2. Ignition source (heat); and, 3. Oxygen in air (oxidizer).