NotYourDad75 t1_jdmb64k wrote on March 25, 2023 at 1:36 PM

Reply to comment by DragoonDart in Palmer’s in Reading exploded and was ablaze, most articles still not saying much :( by vintageideals

It is though. Areas that process sugar are typically classified areas because of the explosion hazard. You’re right in saying that there are usually two explosions or events. The first event is usually small, but it may cause more sugar to become airborne, thus setting up the right conditions for an even bigger second explosion.

I just don’t think it’s correct to say it’s not explosive. It’s a fuel, and when mixed with oxygen in the right proportions and ignited, it will explode.

DragoonDart t1_jdmj1ut wrote on March 25, 2023 at 2:39 PM

So is flour. So is grain. Saying “Sugar is an explosive” is a shock/clickbait statement because it ignores the very specific context needed to make it explode.

You’re not wrong; but if you light a match next to your household sugar in a Tupperware container it’s not going to go up like the Hindenburg or at all really. That’s why it’s disingenuous and that’s my issue with the statement

-js23 t1_jdmqjjs wrote on March 25, 2023 at 3:33 PM

No, but if it is in a factory and enough fine particles are kicked up and mixed with the oxygen in the air, it can easily become an explosive. But it also could have easily have been a gas leak as much of that infrastructure is aging.

DavidLieberMintz t1_jdmtv1p wrote on March 25, 2023 at 3:57 PM

>It’s a fuel, and when mixed with oxygen in the right proportions and ignited, it will explode.

That means it's combustible, doesn't necessarily mean it's explosive. If any combustible material mixes with air and fills a room with an ignition source it will flashover and cause an explosion. But to say sugar is an explosive implies you could put a match to a bag of sugar and it'll go boom. So no, sugar is not "explosive."