The Boston waterfront is so hot these days – with insane corporate, residential, restaurant, and everything else growth throughout the harbor area – it’s sometimes hard to remember that this same waterfront was, in recent memory, pretty dumpy.
As, of course, has the entire waterfront.
But even further back in time, the waterfront was even more industrial, and part of that industrial landscape was the Purity Distilling Company’s 50 foot tank on Commercial Street. Commercial is one of the main drags of the waterfront. The street wraps around the North End, then – as now – an Italian neighborhood. (The North End hasn’t changed as radically as has the waterfront during my tenure in Boston. While it has yuppified in recent years, it still has some decent Italian restaurants, some very entertaining nominally religious street festivals each summer, and a handful of excellent cafes where you can get espresso and cannoli, play Dean Martin on the jukebox, and rub shoulders not just with tourists and suburbanites but with authentic Italian immigrants as well.)
The Purity tank, just there on the edge of the North End, was built in 1915, in plenty of time to be used in munitions production for World War I. Molasses was in demand “because it could be converted to industrial alcohol, a critical ingredient in the manufacture of munitions.”
…in [Purity’s] haste to construct the tank — in a precinct populated, not coincidentally, by poor Italian immigrants powerless to prevent such a thing from being shoehorned into their neighborhood — the company’s profit-hungry bosses dispensed with tests that would have revealed the structure’s lethal flaws. (Source: Boston Globe)
From the get go, it was apparent that the tank leaked. The kids of those poor Italian immigrants scraped molasses gunk off the sides of the suppurating tank to make themselves a treat.
Purity knew about the leaks, but rather than inspect and correct the faulty tank, they painted the tank brown so that the leaks would be less apparent.
And then, on January 15, 1919, the:
…towering steel tank containing 2.3 million gallons of molasses suddenly ruptured, releasing a torrent of syrup that strangled and destroyed everything in its path in a matter of minutes
A 15-foot wave of molasses raced — yes, raced — through Boston’s North End. But what sounds like a B movie directed by Roger Corman is no joke: Twenty-one people died and dozens more were badly injured. Unsuspecting men, women, and children were smothered — asphyxiated, really — by a tsunami of viscous brown syrup, and when the bodies were finally recovered, the Suffolk County medical examiner said they looked “as though covered in heavy oil skins . . . eyes and ears, mouths and noses filled.”
The recovery was hindered when the temperature plummeted – this was, after all, January - and:
…the dead became entombed in the hardened sugar, forcing frantic workers to use saws and chisels to clear wreckage and retrieve bodies.
Inevitably, Purity Distilling’s owner, the United States Industrial Alcohol Company, was sued. Predictably, the company attempted:
…to blame Italian anarchists for the disaster, claiming that radicals had bombed the tank. But the judge wasn’t buying it. The accident, he ruled, was the result of shoddy design and construction — the same type of brittle steel had been used on the Titanic, which sank seven years before the flood — and USIA was ordered to pay about $630,000 in settlements.
Pretty paltry, those payouts. $630K in 1919 translates into roughly $9.5M in 2019. Not exactly a lot of money, given the number of victims.
In the aftermath of the flood, Boston enacted new building standards. Thus progress is forged…
But for all the changes in Boston’s waterfront over the last 100 years, the story of the exploding molasses tank has so many elements that are, alas, timeless: companies ignoring safety standards to save money, especially when those impacted by catastrophic failures are nothing but poor immigrants; undervaluing the lives of those poor immigrant; and blaming immigrant radicals for something that was a company’s own doing.
How do you say plus ca change in Italian?
1 comment:
A minor math disagreement. I calculate the current value of $630,000 paid to the victims as being closer to $40MM, not $9.5MM as you say.
It is very hard to translate prices over long periods of time, especially since price indices weren't calculated much 100 years ago, and any index you want to name is chock full of arbitrary assumptions of what people were buying, and how much the quality of those products have changed over the years. For long time periods I use the price of gold, where we know for sure that an ounce of it then is identical to an ounce of it today. Back then it was $20.67/ounce, now it is about $1290, so using that ratio on the $630,000 penalty gets you to $39+MM.
Per person killed (was the company also charged for laundry expense of those who survived?) that was still less than they would probably get today, but when you consider the poverty of the time, and how much an extra dollar would improve their lives, the settlements probably did fairly compensate (to the extent that money can) the families of the victims.
I'll add that it has only been in recent years, not sure when but likely decades after 1919, that the type of steel used in the Titanic has been blamed as a major cause of that disaster. Its flaw was that it got very brittle when cold, as it was in the North Atlantic. But the molasses was hot; the tank was obviously poorly designed and/or constructed, but I doubt its brittleness when cold was a factor, so there was probably nothing wrong with using that steel.
Post a Comment