Larry W4CSC wrote:
otnmbrd wrote in
nk.net:


Question still stands..... noting that in the Case of LNG, there are a
number of LNG terminals which could/should be better located.



A long time ago, PBS showed some Air Force films of an anti-personnel gas
bomb that was just a propane tank, a puncture device to spray liquid
propane into the air, and a timer that fired a little ignition system with
a Champion Spark Plug, which I found amusing.

The timer let the cloud of liquid gas evaporate and expand before buzzing
the spark plug to set it off. They tested it in heavily-forested military
land with a herd of sheep to see how it worked. The sheep simply exploded
at some amazing distance from the blast. You could see the blast's shock
wave expanding as the forest trees near the blast were laid waste while
trees further out were simply waved really hard to and fro as it passed
them. This test only detonated ONE propane bomb....

Most impressive for such a simple device. The canister was about 100# of
propane. Wonder how big the shockwave would be from a whole LNG carrier,
say in a big harbor like Charleston or Norfolk.

How stupid we all are to let it dock.....

Propane is far more dangerous than LNG - its light weight means that
it will stay on the surface before igniting. A propane storage
facility was quietly removed from my area when it was realized that it
was a larger liability than the LNG.