I'll start with the complete bunk part. Yes, you are correct, it is unscientific. No argument there. But not really "bunk" as most cryonicists place the odds of working at 1%. Bunk implies a positive claim, that's not very positive.

All modern Cryonics facilities use expensive pressurized dewars. Your statement is so egregiously wrong and foundational I can discard the rest. If you had a test on Cryonics facilities your grade would be an F, not a D-. Sorry. We could not agree on any further point but here's a bit for you to read into.

Modern cryonics facilities are not large enough to need much liquid nitrogen, can you quote specific amounts in gallons per week? No, you can't, because you totally made that sentence up or your company used less than a gallon a year. The liquid nitrogen required is cheap and miniscule and it's covered by a perpetual fund. It's actually small compared to other upfront costs. Perpetual funds are how the Getty Museum and Benjamin Franklin's will operate, they have been around for hundreds of years. It's small enough for a human powered bicycle generator to generate for a single patient (those are onsite but never used before).

It's certainly possible for an outage but modern Cryonics facilities have seen one in decades. Can you cite proof of your statement of such a failure in the last 30 years? Probably not as it's not true.