"Wayne.B" wrote in message

The people formulating the study must also be competent. Anyone
postulating
an LNG tanker exploding halfway into the Fort Point Channel in Boston
didn't
do much homework.

Sorry, Wayne, I didn't make my point clearly. The study that Short Wave
cited made reference to an LNG tanker in the Fort Point Channel. The Fort
Point Channel is a small offshoot from Boston Harbor dating from colonial
times. In present day it has no connection whatsoever to any kind of
shipping, and anyone who would put such a reference in an impact study
clearly did not take the time to learn much about Boston Harbor or its
environs.


I think history has proven that tankers can explode just about
anywhere and it doesn't take a terrorist act. Given planning and
malice, just about ANY tanker can be turned into an incredible weapon
of mass destruction.

I'm not sure if there is enough historical data to predict the process for
an LNG tanker, but what history has shown is that liquid fuel tankers rarely
explode -- sometimes, but rarely. Even during the North Atlantic convoys in
WW-II, tankers were a big problem because the usual chain of events was that
the tanker would be hit, and then burn hugely and brilliantly, with towering
flames sometimes hundreds of feet high, for a long time, illuminating the
rest of the convoy as if in daylight. Burning tankers would often be sunk
by their own escorts, if possible, to try to protect the rest of the convoy.