Talk:Dust Bowl

Dubious: 1. description of static electricity effects, 2. Oxygen depletion

Egan's book is cited for the assertion that static electricity can "short a car," meaning that the engine stalls because of damage to its ignition system. This claim is found on pages 7, 88, 195, 197, and 204. As examples of the automotive ignitions systems of that era, Ford's Model A (1927-1932) and Model B (1932-1934) used Kettering ignition systems. The Kettering system (or breaker point system) was introduced in 1912 and was the industry standard for over 70 years. This is a simple electromechanical system that is not affected by charge accumulation in the overall car. The far more likely cause is the direct effects of dust sucked into the engine intake system. The Model A had no air filter, while the Model B did.

Second, the article avers, "there wasn't enough oxygen within the storm to even keep a lamp going." Again, this doesn't square with science. Other than a minor dilution effect, choking dust doesn't change the composition of air.

Egan's book makes these and other sensational assertions. E.g.
1. "static was so strong it electrocuted a jackrabbit," p. 172. This is hyperbolic and implausible.

2. "The static had singed the foliage of the watermelon plants." p. 180.
3. "Gardens were burned and limp, electrocuted by static." p. 198.
For 2. and 3., a necessary condition for these dust storms was drought. Yet the simple and obvious explanation of lack of water is not considered. Instead, this author has valence for the more hair-raising tale.

4. A dust storm "producing enough static electricity to power New York." p. 221. Again, not possibly plausible.

Furthermore, newspaper accounts by Associated Press and United Press correspondents sent to the region for weeks to report on the dusters including Black Sunday fail to make any mention related to static electricity even though they experienced the dusters' full fury.

Egan's book contains no citations for these suspect statements. The facts of the Dust Bowl are impressive enough without such embellishment. Unless corroborated by a reliable source, this book should not be cited. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Interesting take, I admit I'm not very familiar with electricity and cars, so that's very interesting. I think there's a main thing to note and that his book is based on eyewitness testimony, so I find it hard to brush it aside in how many people reported static electricity. I would say some claims are exaggerated, but there's others like a person saying he hit his knee on an iron stove before Black Friday and that the shock from it hurt more than the impact.

Another example: take Charles Shaw. His wife was giving birth in a town 60 miles away, so he took his Model T and drove out to see her. On his first journey, he had no problems despite driving through a dust storm (the one problem he did have was getting stuck in a drift) (pg. 155-156). When his wife went back because their child was sick and dying, he had to detach his chains from his car and on the second day of his trip he got stuck in a dust storm and his car stopped working. Once it cleared, he was able to make the rest of the trip (pg. 196-197). I think that if it was a air filter issue, he would have had problems the first journey, too.

Speaking of Model-T's, you also mention that by that point Model-A and B's had systems in place to prevent shorts. I think an important point is that many people in that era/region didn't have those cars as most of them bought cars during the boom years of WW1 and the early 20's. By the time the Model-A came out, many farmers were entering a worse situation as wheat prices were falling so didn't have the money to buy a new car, meaning they had non-Kettering Model-T's when the dust arrived.

With all that being said and the history digging being done, I did some more digging into how a Model-T works and I would say that if someone bought one in the later 1920's to early 1920's, a pure short would be unlikely. But the dust being blown was fine, and the results of it could cause some major issues: dust could get in the way of the ignition, causing weak firing; Dust could enter the timer, causing misfiring; dust could clog the carburetor, causing starting to be hard, and the list can go on.

But, to a contemporary, all these symptoms would look like one thing: a short, which to a non-automobile oriented person would make sense with the intense static electricity being generated. So yes, static electricity probably didn't short the car, but it would look like it did, so I think a line like "The dust caused people to believe their car was shorted, though it was likely from ignition issues and not a true short" would better phrase it.

Also, there are local reports of intense static electricity:

"static electricity carried by the dust interfered with telephone and telegraph lines and radio. Intercity telephone conversations in Kansas City came faintly over the wires" (House of Representatives hearing, 1935)

"In addition there are frequently serious difficulties from the stalling of cars during dust storms, the result of shorting by static electricity accumulated by the countless impacts of dust particles in the dry atmosphere..." (Department of Agriculture report, 1937)

"In the storms, sufficient static electricity was generated to render automobile ignition systems useless, and scores of motorists were temporarily stranded; when the storm abated, drivers found their cars again functioned properly. The static electricity, produced by the friction among minute dust particles in the air, was so intense that distinct electrical shocks were received when one came in contact with any metal part of a car. Many resorted to the expedient of dragging chains and wires to ground the static accumulation and prevent short circuits" (Monthly Weather Review, 1934)

"I can remember when Dad had a good wheat crop growing and it blew terribly hard for 2 days. At the end of two days, static electricity, the electricity in the air, had completely killed the wheat crop. All the green wheat had just turned to brown and was dead" (J.R. Davison, Surviving the Dust Bowl). Yes, there is a report of static electricity killing crops. Is it likely? Different question. If it had just been the wind, I doubt the wheat would have changed colors that quickly.

Those are all the reports I could find; I would say it's a bit unfair to throw out the entire book because of some exaggerations, there's a lot that he writes about that's still very useful, mainly related to eyewitness testimonies. I think a better solution might be to say that when it's describing what happened it's ok, but when describing why it happened, more caution should be applied. I don't believe his goal was "Here's the Dust Bowl and oooh look how much worse it was" and instead more "Here's the Dust Bowl...and this is what it's like and what you'd be thinking if you lived through it." You'd be hard pressed to find another source that bundles so many eye-testimonies together (believe me, I've looked). Should we just say you need to verify it's source? Sure, maybe, but I feel like even that greatly restricts the use of the book. So do I know a solution? I do not, but I think it's worth considering the consequences your proposing.

Also, just as a quick aside (according to Google AI, for however much you trust it as I was just curious), a dust storm can generate hundreds or even thousands of volts of electricity per meter (there are studies that have calculated this) while New York City transmission lines carry about 69,000 to 345,000 volts of electricity. Obviously that's just the force the electrical particles have and now the Power each has, but you can see what he (and the people living through it) were getting at. Jamisonsupame (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)