On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:18:24 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message

I saw an impact study once of an LNG tanker lighting off halfway up
the Fort Point Channel in Boston and the devastation was calculated in
the TRILLIONS and that was a conservative estimate. Not to mention
the explosive pattern that would leave East Boston/Boston pretty much
flat out to a mile radius.

There's no question that an LNG tanker *could* be dangerous. Beyond that
statement, there is wide disagreement. There are lots of studies around,
yielding a wide range of prognoses. The long list of supporting assumptions
renders virtually all studies questionable. Hyper-dramatic claims by many
parties do nothing to help the issue.

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.

I misspoke - that was my fault. I was talking to somebody who lives
in that area and had it on the brain. My bad.

However, I have done some work in this area for a couple of reasons
and I'm not a rabid nut job envitronmentalist by any stretch of
imagination.

Having said that, the problem is not somebody dropping a car full of
explosive off the Mystic River Bridge and tanker goes kablooie. The
potential is if the tanker starts leaking and/or is caused to have a
massive leak of gas - the resulting gas cloud explosion has amazing
explosive potential - almost to the level of low yield tactical nukes.
A lot of TNt.

I don't know if you've ever seen what an FAE Bomb or a grain elevator
dust explosion can do, but I have and we're talking a miniscule amount
atomized fuel as compared to what is contained in a LNG tanker.

I'm also not as sure about the "wide" area of disagreement on this as
you may think.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Do fishermen eat avocados? This is a question
that no one ever thinks to ask."

Russel Chatham, "Dark Waters" (1988)