The Lebanese government wants to demolish the gigantic containers in the port, damaged by the disaster that caused 220 deaths. But the relatives of the victims consider that they should be preserved as a memory. However, now there has been a fire due to the fermentation of the cereals that it was not possible to extract and in the northern part they are in danger of collapsing. Meanwhile, the investigation into responsibility for the catastrophe remains paralyzed.
Beirut () – On August 4, Lebanon will celebrate with a “Day of National Mourning” the second anniversary of the explosion of a warehouse in the port of Beirut containing hundreds of tons of ammonium nitrate stored without precautions. The disaster caused more than 220 deaths and 6,500 injuries, devastating entire neighborhoods of the Lebanese capital.
The gigantic grain silos of the port, located in front of the warehouse, were hit by the explosion and partially collapsed. These silos, which have become a symbol of the tragedy, have also become the center of a controversy: should they be demolished or not, while the investigation into the causes of the tragedy has been paralyzed for months due to political obstructionism?
In recent months the fate of the silos seems to oscillate continuously. On March 16, the Nagib Mikati government approved the demolition, but the decision was questioned just two days later by the Minister of Culture, Mohammad Mortada, who decided to catalog the silos and preserve them as a place of memory, according to the wishes of the relatives of the victims of the explosion. On April 14, however, the government resumed its efforts and commissioned the Development and Reconstruction Council to demolish the structure.
The controversy seemed to have calmed down but recently intensified due to a fire in the northern part of the silos. The prime minister, in favor of their destruction, seized the opportunity and issued a formal warning: “The silos in the northern part are in danger of collapsing,” he said, quoting the environment minister.
According to experts, the fire was caused by methane vapors from the fermentation of the accumulated cereal, combined with high temperatures. According to the authorities, some silos still contain between 3,000 and 6,000 tons of wheat and other grains that could not be extracted due to the risk of collapse.
The fire rekindled the trauma of the families of the victims. Contrary to the opinion of the general director of the port’s silos, Assaad Haddad, who considers that the fire will not damage the structure of the silos, the deputy of Beirut Paula Yacoubian accused the government that – under the pretext of “letting the fire it goes out by itself” – wants the metal structures of the silos to melt and collapse on their own, so that they can proceed with the complete demolition.
“We know that trying to put out the fire with water could speed up the grain fermentation process and feed methane fumes,” Yacoubian said, “but if the government acted in good faith, they could put out the fire with dry ice.” , Mrs. Yacoubian’s intervention seems to come too late The northern part of the silos, hopelessly weakened, has already begun to tilt at a rate of 2-2.5 millimeters per hour, although the collapse of this part of the structure it does not necessarily imply the collapse of all the silos.
Waiting for this collapse to occur, -in times that it is impossible to calculate- the government is seriously working on a controlled demolition of the silos. According to experts, two methods can be used: implosion by installing explosives inside the giant columns, or using a steel destruction ball. But some voices consider that this procedure could have consequences in the human environment due to the formation of dust clouds, with the risk of dispersing potentially toxic asbestos particles in the surroundings. Those who oppose the demolition, however, deny the presence of this fiber.
On the judicial front, on the other hand, the investigation of the explosion by Judge Tarek Bitar has been paralyzed for months. Several ministers summoned by the magistrate raised formal objections and blocked the investigation, insisting that it is “criminal negligence”.
Add Comment