Should I take comfort in the fact

that I will probably just be incinerated instantly? As I previously stated in this previous post, I live within view (from my bedroom window) of oil and gas tankers arriving in Boston daily. Thus, I take great interest in any new studies that can tell me how likely it is that it could all end for me in a blaze of glory. According to the Boston Globe, a new Congressional study has been published about the possible effects of a terrorist attack on an LNG (that's Liquified Natural Gas for the uninitiated) tanker in a populated area. The Globe tells us this cheery fact:

Fire from a terrorism attack against a tanker ship carrying liquefied natural gas could ignite so fiercely it would burn people one mile away. . .

Great! So what the hell does that mean for me when I am only this far away from an LNG tanker:

Yes, this is an actual LNG tanker--I know because of the police boats and helicopters following it out and surrounding it.

The article goes on to say:

The GAO report examined six unclassified studies about the effects of a major spill and fire aboard a double-hulled tanker carrying liquefied natural gas. Congressional investigators said most experts believe fierce heat from the intense fire -- not explosions -- are likely the biggest threat to citizens.

Most experts interviewed by investigators agreed such a fire could burn people's skin roughly one mile away, depending on variables that include the amount of gas released, size of the tanker breach and winds, the GAO report said.

Although, I couldn't back Mayor Menino in his handling of the recent Mooninite invasion, I support his paranoia when it comes to LNG. I know that we need LNG and the terminals have to go somewhere, but to have one in such a populated area is just such a huge risk, especially considering the Homeland Security Department has basically done didly squat to protect our ports from the possibility of terrorist attacks. It's been 5 years since 9/11 and Congress has only just gotten around to passing a Homeland Security bill that implements the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which include more screening for cargo containers entering U.S. ports. And guess what folks, the bill may get vetoed by the White House. Is that because the President doesn't think the bill is doing enough to increase the nation's security? Nope. The President may veto the bill because it allows airport screeners to have a union. I'm sure when a one mile radius of Boston and Charlestown has been incinerated, we'll all be thinking, "Well thank goodness, at least those airport security people didn't get to unionize."

Thank you Congressman Markey

for giving it the old college try in attempting to get the Castle amendment passed. According to the April 22nd Boston Globe:

Before the final vote on the [energy] bill, the House also voted to reject an amendment challenging a provision that would keep localities from exercising control over LNG facility construction. Representatives Michael Castle, a Delaware Republican, and Edward Markey, a Malden Democrat, cosponsored the measure. Markey and Castle wanted to take out a provision in which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have final say over whether an LNG facility could be built or expanded. Under the measure as passed, the federal government would consult with state and local governments, but could ignore their objections.

Moreover, if local governments failed to meet a federal deadline for reviewing a proposal, they would be ''conclusively presumed" to have approved it. Local authorities could conduct safety inspections of LNG facilities, but would have no power to enforce citations.

Soaring natural gas prices have spurred 55 proposals to build new facilities to handle the super-cooled gas around North America, including stations in Fall River and off the coast near Gloucester. But local opponents believe the plants could be targets of terrorist attacks that would cause catastrophic damage.

The vote to reject the amendment followed a 20-minute debate, played out against a backdrop of a large Boston Globe photograph of an orange LNG tanker in Boston Harbor. Markey brought the poster-size photo into the chamber to bolster his argument that communities should have some control over whether LNG facilities should be built in their midst.

''Right behind the ship you can see East Boston High School," said Markey. ''If there was a terrorist attack, if there was an accident, you would not call the federal government. It would be the local police, the local fire department, the local emergency medical technicians that would respond."

What was the Republican response to this?

. . .House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, said, ''When I look at this [photograph], what I see is energy for America. I see security for America, and I also see safety. Admittedly it's a big boat, it looks threatening. . . . But we already have existing provisions in law to make sure these terminals that are already in existence are as safe as is possible to be."

Proving once again that some Republicans are incapable of existing in the reality-based communtiy and write their speaches using the "George Orwell, 1984 Manual of Style." War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Love is Hate, and enough LNG to "produce a thermal blast that would set buildings on fire, melt steel out to 1,281 feet, and give people second-degree burns up to 4,282 feet away" is "security for America." I remember once upon a time, the Republican party actually thought that it was important to protect the rights of states and individuals and had some kind of integrity. Some still do:

[Representative] Castle argued that the provision ''tramples on the rights of states and individual communities," and a few of his fellow Republicans echoed that theme, including Representative Christopher Shays, a Republican of Connecticut. Markey also argued that there ''was no crisis" in energy supplies because the number of LNG facilities has gone from two in 2001 to five today, with six more licensed to be built.

But opponents of the amendment argued that the country needs more natural gas. Afterward, a congressional aide said the vote was lost after industry lobbyists convinced members from agricultural states that the measure would help ease the price of fertilizer.

Basically the moral of the story is that with the current batch of Republicans controlling Congress if you have any kind of legislation that protects children, old people, veterans, animals, the environment, or basically anybody other than the millionaires and corporations, you can just kiss it goodbye.

Related story: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the LNG.

Some pics of LNG tankers here.

Are you kidding me?

How does a container of nuclear material go missing for 4 months? As if the LNG is not enough:

Boston.com / News / Local / Shipment of radioactive equipment brings rebuke for nuclear agency

There is no indication the public was ever in danger, but Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat and member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the incident underscores a weakness in NRC rules for tracking radioactive material.

''The NRC still hasn't beefed up its rules to the point where we can be sure these materials can be kept out of terrorists' hands," Markey said in a statement. ''Instead, we have a nuclear 'lost and found' system where materials may go missing for months."

An NRC spokeswoman said about 300 radioactive industrial items go missing each year and only about half are recovered. [Wha haa????!!!!!]

NRC records indicate that the 185-pound container was registered as having arrived in Newark on Oct. 9. On Tuesday, Halliburton told the NRC it was missing. The FBI helped locate the container the next day at a Chelsea facility of Tennessee-based freight company Forward Air.

''After Halliburton notified the NRC that it believed the package was missing, federal and state authorities were notified, and the FBI helped locate the source," NRC regional spokeswoman Diane Screnci said. ''NRC rules require immediate notification once a source is determined to be missing, and we're in contact with Halliburton to determine why the notification was made when it was."

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company was conducting an investigation into the matter, but blamed the shipping company, identified by a federal official as Diversified Freight Logistics Inc. based in Texas. Halliburton contacted the shipper several times during those four months, and each time was told the container -- labeled as containing radioactive material -- was in transit to Houston, she said.

Tuesday ''is when the shipping company confirmed to the company the mistake," Hall said. ''We reported it immediately."

A subsequent review of surveillance tapes showed the container had been mislabeled by the shipping company Dec. 30 and sent to Chelsea, she said. A woman who answered the phone at Diversified Freight Logistics yesterday said no one was available to comment.

Matt Jewell, general counsel for Forward Air, said yesterday that the company had possession of the shipment since Dec. 30 but did not know it was missing until Wednesday. ''At all times that Forward Air has had possession of this cargo, it has been stored in a safe and secure location," he said.

Gail Marcinkiewicz, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Boston, said the FBI is not investigating the matter further.

--Boston Globe

How I learned to stop worrying and love the LNG

mohawk
Originally uploaded by marilora.

Thank you to the Boston Globe for being sure to remind me that I am living at ground zero for a liquified natural gas (LNG) tanker attack. According to this story:

A report released by the US Department of Energy says a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker would cause "major injuries and significant damage to structures" a third of a mile away and could cause second-degree burns on people more than a mile away.

and

The study said that if an LNG ship were attacked it would create a puncture of between 6 and 39 feet. A 16-foot puncture, the study said, would produce a thermal blast that would set buildings on fire, melt steel out to 1,281 feet, and give people second-degree burns up to 4,282 feet away.
A 39-foot rupture would burn buildings out to 1,975 feet and burn people up to 6,299 feet away, well over a mile. The worst-case scenario measured by the report was three 16-foot holes. That would set structures aflame out to 2,067 feet and burn people as far as 6,949 feet away.

fireboat
Originally uploaded by marilora.

My apologies to the chick with the dog in Charlestown, but I think if there was a contest, I would definitely win most likely to be incinerated. A little exercise to prove my point. Note the pic of the Tobin Bridge at the top of my blog taken from my bedroom window. Ok. Now note the picture to the right of the same view from the Chelsea side of the Chelsea Creek. Now guess where the tankers pass. Bingo! No wonder my rent is so reasonable. I'm really glad that the Department of Energy released this report. Do you think that they published a how too manual for the terrorists and some accompanying schematics for the attack? Geez, why don't they just provide the explosives, too?