On Mar 25, 7:03�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote :

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
..

And all the logic in the world won't help if the local building
official insists on using the worst-case scenario or local laws
demand it. Frankly, if I was the local building official, I would use
the worst-case scenario. The primary responsibility of a building
inspector is public safety, and invoking the worst-case scenario
seems appropriate in this case.

No it isn't appropriate. *There are telephone poles near my house that
if they were to fall will destroy my house. *My neighbors TREES could
do the same. *Yet most people do not see these as significant hazards.
*They are used to seeing them so do not think of them as hazards.

It's not just familiarity, though. Buildings and utilitity poles
are usually subject to detailed codes regarding their
installation and maintenance. Those codes are based on
extensive experience about what works and what doesn't.

A radio tower is more of a custom installation and requires
special attention.

I agree that using the worst-case fall-circle rule for a
properly-installed radio tower is usually more restrictive
than is needed.

There are situations where the worst-case scenario
applies, IMHO: Field Day and similar temporary installations.
In those cases, where a tower, mast, pole or antenna may fall should
always be considered. Putting a Field Day station
at the base of a temporary tower may look idyllic but is not
a safe practice.

Of course. People are used to things like Power poles and even think
nothing of hurtling at each other in automobiles carrying liquids that
are almost explosively flammable. In no way does that make either
actually "safe".

There's safety and then there's the *perception* of safety.
Driving/riding in autos is one of the most dangerous things
most people do routinely, based on the death and injury
rates.

They are not quite so used to radio towers however. People have a
fear of the unknown, especially in thies days of safe rooms in houses,
and burglar alarms in gated communities.

There's also the Gladys Kravitz effect.

And in these days of safety taken to stupid extremes, and housing
developments that won't allow you to have a clothesline in your back
yard, I'm not about to go complaining about that one little restriction
on a potential tower.

IMHO, that's how restrictions get a foothold.

First it's some little rule that doesn't really seem to make much
difference, even though it's grounded more in
fear than in good engineering.

For example, as Dee points out, the utility poles could fall over and
cause extensive damage, but they're not restricted the way towers are.

Then there's a little expansion of the rule. Maybe it's the fall
circle plus ten percent. Or twenty five percent.

A little here, a little there, and pretty soon you need a property a
couple of hundred feet in every direction to put up a fifty foot
tower.

This may sound absurd, but I'm old enough to remember a
time when, if someone suggested a no-antennas restriction
on houses, they'd have been laughed at because practically
everyone wanted to watch TV, and to do that required a
decent outdoor antenna. Then cable came along and now
they're SOP.

---

btw, even the professionals mess up at times:



http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=500#more-500

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/.../citicorp.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center

73 de Jim, N2EY