David A. Webb wrote:

To say that the tank could have exploded in my face "just because"
isn't good enough for this particular argument.
Sort out the fear from the facts.

I have no opinion at all about what you did. I wouldn't have done it,
but only because I haven't a clue whether it is safe or not. It is a
fuel container, and due diligence would have me deciding it was unsafe
unless I could prove it was safe to myself.

You thought it was safe and removed the valve. Good for you.

If I needed a valveless propane tank for whatever reason, I'd probably
buy a new unfilled one simply because they aren't that expensive, and
spending the time doing the research to prove the risk was very small
compared to the gain wouldn't be worth it to me.

It was to you. That's fine with me.

My only point was that if someone does something (anything - pick a
pony) that is perceived as risky, and doesn't have a bad outcome, that
is not proof that it was a safe thing to do. The definition of "Safe"
being that the risk taken was small compared to the gain.

Whew! I didn't think it was that complicated. But then NASA
management didn't get it either. I don't think they do yet.

Fitch