Delta Queen opponents: What are your arguments?

Not even one single argument has been given by Rep. Oberstar or any other opponent of the exemption for the Delta Queen. Not one single precise and detailed argument that explains why they think the Delta Queen is a fire hazard. They just repeat the same lies and stupid comparisons with pre-Civil War boiler explosions, 747 aircrafts and other stuff that is far away from truth and reality.

I'd really like to encourage everyone, especially journalist working on a Delta Queen story, to ask this one question: "Why exactly do you think the Delta Queen is a fire hazard for her passengers?" And when they're starting their 747-aircraft-sermon, just ask the same question again: "What exactly is it that is dangerous on the Delta Queen?" When they start arguing that she has a wooden superstructure, ask the same question again: "Why do you think a wooden superstructure per se is a fire hazard?"

The Safety at Sea Act was made in 1966. Since then we much better understand that wood per se is not necessarily a bigger fire hazard compared to steel. It depends on the circumstances. And if you ask a fire fighter, they heavily prefer to go into a burning wooden structure than risking to walk into a steel framed building that is much more likely to collapse early than a wooden structure is.

Let's ask this one, single, important question again and again, until we get an answer: "What exactly is it, in detail, that makes you sure the Delta Queen is a fire hazard?" Technical details, please! If there is something, I'd like to know! So far, I'm not aware of anything that could raise such concerns.