This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
ChessEric, United States Man, TornadoLGS: An Internet Archived source from NOAA says the tornado is an F5 and the entire Aftermath section is unsourced and says "Official observations classified this tornado as F4, but damage was consistent with an F5 tornado in five of the affected towns (Rutland, Holden, Worcester, Shrewsbury and Westborough)." Some things don't seem to add up entirely since we have a source from 2003 officially saying it is an F5 tornado, and unsourced information (supposedly from 2005) saying F4 tornado that caused a debate between F4-F5 rating. Any thoughts on what to do about that? Elijahandskip (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article states the following....1953 was the first year that tornado and severe thunderstorm warnings were used, so forecasters compromised and issued the first severe thunderstorm watch in the history of Massachusetts. The article does not give a primary source for that claim. I would like to point out this memo that came directly from the head of the Weather Bureau in 1950 which refutes the claim about 1953. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/memo1950.pdf. Jsc01835 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's tragic that they decided to issue a severe thunderstorm watch instead of a tornado watch/warning. So many lives could have been saved if they weren't so worried about making people panic. They would have been better off panicking and alive instead of relaxed/unaware, followed by seriously injured or dead. Dym75 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Al Flahive of the Boston Weather bureau had a daily 5 minute radio program on WHDH radio at the time. He should have used the program that day to let the people know that tornadoes like the ones that ocurred the day before in MI could not be ruled out. People should be on guard and if the storm seems rough or worse than what they are used to, it may very well be a tornado and it's time to take cover. As far as panicking goes. That is complete baloney. Remember WW2 ended 8 years prior with the use of two fission bombs. We were exploding fission, fusion, fission, aka hydrogen bombs in Nevada and the Pacific, we had the cold war, and the Korean war was coming to a close. The majority of people up this way do have basements. The idea that anyone would panic due to a warning is utterly absurd. Besides, if people did decide to stay down cellar for the afternoon and until after any storms went through, so what? How is that going to hurt anyone? It's worth noting that there were two significant tornadoes in MA that afternoon as well as a significant tornado in Exeter NH. There were several non significant tornadoes in the areas of Fremont NH and Rollinsford NH and into S. Berwick ME. Probably others that were not reported. Significant implies F3 or higher. If you look at my other post, you'll see that I provided a link to a document put out by the head of the weather bureau in DC at the time. Mr. Reichelderfer, the document was dated mid 1950 and told the individual forecast offices that they are expected to issue tornado warnings when they are warranted. If you look into a study done on the Worcester tornado and available online you'll find that the power and telephone companies were warned but not the general public. If you look at the article on this tornado written in the New Yorker magazine a year or so later you'll see that the people at the Boston weather bureau freely admit that they knew about the tornado potential and decided not to warn the public. In my opinion they should have faced criminal charges for withholding the information. It's also interesting to note that if you look at the MIT radar, you'll see the hook echo of the tornado before it hit Worcester. A little more research and you will find that the hook echo was known before the Worcester tornado to indicate rain being wrapped around a mesocyclone and is a good indicator of a tornado. I'm sure that the MIT people knew. They were in contact with the Boston Weather Bureau. They really had a chance to shine that day, to be heroes, yet because of their cowardice they blew it. All they do was tell the people that there was a chance of tornadoes. By keeping that a secret, people just thought it was a bad thunderstorm and 94 of them were killed because the Boston Weather Bureau refused to do it's job and tell them that what they experience may be far beyond a strong summer thunderstorm. They were afraid to do their job. Again, they didn't have to say when and where the tornado or tornadoes would be, just tell the people that the storms coming through that afternoon may produce tornadoes. That's all. With that information people could have chosen to take cover ahead of time or even during the storm if it seemed necessary. 68.163.109.97 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
