"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Dee Flint" wrote ...

[snip]

The structure hight as a radius is the "worst-case" limit of
damage. Insurance underwriters, country commissioners,
et.al. likely don't want to expose themselves to the liability
of setting a more risky limit. Our anecdotal history of typical
tower failures may not seem as compelling to people with
actuarial risk at stake.

Actually shouldn't there be some actuarial data on this? When it comes to
damage, they'd be the most likely to have solid data. I noticed that no one
addressing the council had bothered to get such data either way on this
subject.

At this point, it's just idle curiosity as our ordinance got changed to 75
feet (up from 50) and there was no "fall circle" type of language included.

Dee, N8UZE