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."