I read with concern Richard Barrett’s recent commentary on the proposed Canaveral liquefied natural gas facility (“What the public should know about liquefied natural gas safety,” March 19). While I respect Barrett’s 28 years of service with the Florida Fire Service and his role as an instructor, his portrayal of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as uniformly “safe” and “healthy” misses important risks — especially when such a facility would be located just 400 feet from my home and other Merritt Island residents.
It is true that LNG in its cryogenic liquid state is not toxic or corrosive, and cannot explode while contained in an airtight tank. However, this is only one piece of the safety picture. Once LNG is released into the environment, it becomes a combustible gas that can form flammable vapor clouds and present serious hazards when mixed with air and an ignition source. Natural gas vapors (mainly methane) can burn or contribute to fires under the right conditions, and flammable concentrations can occur over distances downwind of a release.
Furthermore, LNG’s cryogenic properties are themselves hazardous. Contact with the near minus-260-degree Fahrenheit liquid or its super‑cold vapors can cause severe injuries similar to burns, and materials exposed to such temperatures can become brittle and fail.
Mr. Barrett asserts that LNG “does not produce harmful emissions” during production or storage. In reality, LNG facilities and the infrastructure that serves them do emit air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds during operations, transport and regasification. While emissions may differ from heavier fossil fuels, they still contribute to air quality issues and can affect respiratory health — particularly in areas already burdened by industrial activity.
A recent analysis by environmental groups linked emissions from existing LNG export terminals to approximately 60 premature deaths annually in the U.S. and nearly $1 billion in health costs — figures expected to rise if additional terminals are built.
It’s also worth noting that the environmental benefits of LNG are contested. A peer‑reviewed study published in Energy Science and Engineering concluded that, over a 20‑year timeframe, LNG fuels can generate roughly 33% more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, largely due to methane leakage and the energy‑intensive liquefaction and transport processes.
My quarrel is not with the science of LNG itself. I recognize LNG has practical uses and plays a role in some energy systems; my quarrel is with proposing a major LNG production and storage facility almost at my back door. This is a densely populated residential area with families, schools, and public spaces within a few hundred feet of where the facility is proposed. Standard risk and exclusion zone guidelines for LNG sites generally extend far beyond 400 feet, precisely because in the event of a release, thermal radiation, vapor dispersion or flash fires could affect areas well outside facility boundaries.
I encourage local officials, planners and the public to consider not just general statements about LNG properties, but site‑specific safety, environmental, public health and quality‑of‑life implications before approving a facility so close to where people live. Good public policy should be based on transparent examination of both benefits and risks, not oversimplified assurances.
Joel McPherson lives in Merritt Island.