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

wrote in
ups.com:

On Mar 25, 7:03�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
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.

Very true.


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.

Surely. I can't explain the contradictions, but I suppose that those who
practice those contradictions don't give it a second thought. Another one
along the same lines is that people fear for their health from a 60 Hz HV
line several hundred feet from their house, but doin't have a problem
with sticking their head in the near field of a cell phone and talking
for hours a day like that.


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.

Hehe, very true.


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.

They not only can, but they do! We see that one all the time.


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.

That's a mighty slippery slope there Jim! 8^)

If I go into a zoning meeting trying to get a waiver to the
"restriction" in my neighborhood so that I could put up a tower larger
than allowed, I wouldn't get too far with terms such as "very unlikely"
and typical failure mode" They are going to "worst case" me in a big way.
And I'm not so sure that if I was a zoning officer that I wouldn't do the
same. The question I would ask: Is it physically impossible for the tower
would fall straight over at the base? If you can get expert evidence that
it is impossible, I might consider it, if not, I will advise you to be
glad that you are living in a modern village development that allows
towers, but you will have to be satisfied with a tower within the
prescribed limits.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 26, 9:14�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote roups.com:

On Mar 25, 7:03?pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
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.

Very true.

All too common, as well.

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.

Surely. I can't explain the contradictions, but I suppose that those who
practice those contradictions don't give it a second thought.

People tend to be more afraid of the unknown. Cars are known.

Another one
along the same lines is that people fear for their health from a 60 Hz HV
line several hundred feet from their house, but doin't have a problem
with sticking their head in the near field of a cell phone and talking
for hours a day like that.

I think a better example is to compare apples to apples:

Some people fear the effects of power-line fields, but not the
fields from their house wiring and appliances - even though the
latter may be much stronger because they're so much closer.

Some people fear the effects of being near cellphone towers,
yet not the effects of using a cellphone whose fields are
stronger because they're closer. Opposition to cell towers has
caused the cellphone folks to install lots of small cells rather
than a few big ones, and to use disguise antennas - including
some that look like trees.

Both are cases of ignorance of such basics as the inverse
square law.

This is not to say that RF and power-line fields have no health
effects at all, just that the real risk factors are often
misunderstood.

*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.

Hehe, very true.

ABNER!

*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.

* * * * They not only can, but they do! We see that one all the time.

SO it's familiar....

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.

* * * * That's a mighty slippery slope there Jim! 8^)

If it happens, it must be possible.

* * * * If I go into a zoning meeting trying to get a waiver to the
"restriction" in my neighborhood so that I could put up a tower larger
than allowed, I wouldn't get too far with terms such as "very unlikely"
and typical failure mode" They are going to "worst case" me in a big way.

Tell it to Citicorp.

And I'm not so sure that if I was a zoning officer that I wouldn't do the
same. The question I would ask: Is it physically impossible for the tower
would fall straight over at the base?

Solution: Windmill tower.

If you can get expert evidence that
it is impossible, I might consider it, if not, I will advise you to be
glad that you are living in a modern village development that allows
towers, but you will have to be satisfied with a tower within the
prescribed limits.

What if you had a contractor set a utility pole for use as a tower?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:43:55 EDT, wrote:

People tend to be more afraid of the unknown. Cars are known.

If I put up a 70 foot tower (the maximum level below which local
authorities cannot regulate in Oregon) it and I will certainly become
known to my neighbors!!
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

"Phil Kane" wrote in message

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:43:55 EDT, wrote:

People tend to be more afraid of the unknown. Cars are
known.

If I put up a 70 foot tower (the maximum level below
which local authorities cannot regulate in Oregon) it and
I will certainly become known to my neighbors!!

70ft and they can't regulate..?! Wow, things are certainly different your
side of the water..! Here in the UK it varies depending on where in the
country you are, but where I live we need planning permission from the
local authority for anything that raises its head above roof level..!
Although there is retrospective permission for anything that has been in
place for some time (I believe 5 years but I'm not certain) without
complaints. Certainly I've never had any issues about my small VHF/UHF
colinear at around 25ft..!

73 Ivor G6URP

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:15:40 EDT, "Ivor Jones"
wrote:

If I put up a 70 foot tower (the maximum level below
which local authorities cannot regulate in Oregon) it and
I will certainly become known to my neighbors!!

70ft and they can't regulate..?! Wow, things are certainly different your
side of the water..! Here in the UK it varies depending on where in the
country you are,

As it does here. The Federal requirement is "reasonable accommodation
by the least restrictive means" for heights suitable to conduct the
desired communication. In addition to the Federal standard, the
various states have also enacted nearly-identical statutes (local
authorities and courts are much more comfortable dealing with state or
local requirements as compared to the exact same thing imposed by the
"Great White Father in Washington"! g

Oregon is only one of two (I believe) states whose statutes specify a
height up to which "reasonable accommodation" is presumed by operation
of law.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net